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.
Obviously not aWP:RS; they don't seem to have any editorial policies, but beyond that they clearly lack areputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They're a personal website usable only forWP:ABOUTSELF description of their own activities. The only in-depth coverage I could find ishere andhere. The Atlantic piece describes them as eg. participating in something withthe trappings of a classic pump and dump. Also note the description (there and elsewhere, includingon its own site) as a "media company", which is very vague in a way that seems to specifically avoid anything that might claim an actual responsibility towards fact-checking.Business Insider describes their outlook (in a quote) as"information warfare of one tribe versus another." Trae Stephens, a partner at Founders Fund (where Pirate Wires' founder works at his day job), described Pirate Wires asa kind of daily affirmation for Silicon Valley. None of this suggests that they are actually doing any fact-checking or that they care about accuracy, and certainly not that they have areputation for either of these things. --Aquillion (talk)22:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate Wires' reporting on this story has corroborated other reporting, has been corroborated by other reporting, and has been widely cited by reliable sources. Editors should consider itWP:RS both on this topic and in general.
I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting.
Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages forJack Dorsey 536 days ago andBluesky 342 days ago without apparent contention. The page onWikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 326 days ago, also without apparent contention.
Consequently:
To the criticism that they "don't seem to have any editorial policies" and related,absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The notion that neither does any other news outlet listed above would be absurd.
Pirate Wires in factdoes "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as evidenced by the citation and corroboration above.
"Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors for commentary and reporting.
The Atlantic article cited above as criticism suggests that Pirate Wires may have become unwittingly involved in a crypto pump-and-dump. Even reliable sources sometimes act on a bad scoop. The Atlantic's characterization, assuming that it's correct, it is not disqualifying given the realities of journalism.
Wikipedia describesThe New York Times as "a mass media corporation." "Media company" means that the company works in a range of media. It is not a suspicious label.
The Business Insider quote cited above as criticism indicates only editorial slant, which does not contradict a positive assessment of Pirate Wires' reliability.
The suggestion that the site is "publishing Soros conspiracy theories" is unfounded. Pirate Wires published another report by Rindsberg,How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Wikipedia, on 6 Jan 2025. I am unable to find a RS characterization of this report as a "conspiracy theory"; judgment to that effect constitutesWP:OR.
The 'evidence' the give is that there was connections between Soros and people at the WMF, but absolutely nothing to show that Soros actually backed them to get into those positions or that those people acted in Soros' interest. The typical connect the dots even if there is no prove of anything that comes from conspiratorial thinking. So again that they published such an article should disqualify them as a reliable source. That they might be right at times is beside the point, even a stopped clock. Sources are meant to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Publishing what amounts to lots of connected pins in a notice board is hardly a good sign of that. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with the policy which says that if a media outlet publishes an article about Soros that you believe unsound, then none of their reporting on any topic should be regarded as reliable.Tioaeu8943 (talk)12:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy would beWP:V reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I described the issue with there reporting and showed why it shod be considered conspiritorial. If you agree with it you should show how the source has the reputation that policy asks for. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this discussion should have been linked on the T4P talk page so the people discussing there could have had the opportunity to comment here. Anyway, as far as I can tell there has been a lot ofopinion expressed about PW not being viewed as reliable by some editors, and even some opinion saying essentially, "Look! They said a thing I disagree with about Soros" or some similar expression, but no real evidence ofother reliable sources discussing Pirate Wires in such a way as to deem them unreliable. The extremely detailed review above on the reliability of PW I believe would serve to place PW in an RfC as GREL or at the very most they might need attribution. PW is doing some excellent reporting in the truest journalistic sense, and it seems as if that makes some uncomfortable, but until it is demonstrated that PW is actually unreliable,with specific evidencefrom a reliable source, then PW is reliable and can be used and cited without attribution. Lastly, bias in a source, if there is even such bias here, does not constitute unreliability.Iljhgtn (talk)12:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I disagree with what they posted about Soros, I said it was conspiratorial rubbish and then gave specific reasons why it was. Reliable sources have areputation for fact checking and accuracy, posting conspiracies whether that's about Soros or Trump (and whether we personally agree with it) isn't an indicator of a generally reliable source. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking other sources disparaging such a reputation, we cannot come to our own assumed opinion that such a reputation is unreliable, especially not based on one story.Iljhgtn (talk)12:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first and most important check of a sources reliability is an editors own good judgement. Blindly restating everything you find online is the thing that would be against policy. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thedefault is no reputation; as RS says, anyone can create a website and claim to be a reliable source - that doesn't make them one. None of the sources provided above really establish that Pirate Wires has a strongreputation for fact-checking and accuracy; most of them areWP:BIASED and aren'tWP:RSes themselves, and some of them don't even mention Pirate Wires. A single brief story in a hot-button cultural dispute that was picked up by a handful of friendly outlets and blogs is obviously not enough to establish that a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk)13:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The default is not GUNREL. As I've said, I think I could be persuaded that attribution should be required for PW, but other than that, there is no evidence of unreliability beyond some WP editor'sopinions expressed in this thread. What PW has said might hold bias as well, but there is no reporting on their having been factually inaccurate or failing in terms of proper fact-checking.Iljhgtn (talk)14:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The default for websites with no reputation is indeed GUNREL;anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. Do you genuinely believe that a random website with no reputation could be cited for anything? We don't usually take the time to formally categorize every non-WP:RS, of course, but most webpages are non-RSes, and certainly Pirate Wires is unusable. The fact that you feel that you might bepersuaded that a low-quality website with no reputation, no indication that they have any sort of editorial controls, and a single story to their name that most mainstream press dismissed as more back-and-forth allegations between partisans mightrequire attribution falls underWP:SATISFY. They're a low-quality partisan blog who has done nothing but flood the zone with unverified allegations, a single one of which was picked up only by similarly biased sources. That's not enough to satisfyWP:RS. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and every discussion has clearly indicated that they're not an RS; I will, obviously, remove them instantly on sight any place I see them cited directly. If you disagree and somehow think they passWP:RS, start an RFC, but you'd be wasting your time - you would be better off looking for actually usable sources instead. --Aquillion (talk)16:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I havealready addressed all of these criticisms, having mapped out the corroboration and citations between Pirate Wires and several other news outlets, including two greenWP:RSPS and others deemed acceptable. I repeat that no one has challenged Pirate Wires' reporting on this story, which should be part of the context required byWP:RS considerations.Tioaeu8943 (talk)17:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth byWP:BIASED sources isn't really an indicator ofWP:RS. And one of the sourcesyou listed there does in fact challenge it; Bloomberg covers it as follows:Conversely, an initiative named Tech for Palestine allegedly began in the spring of 2024 coordinating editing of Wikipedia pages on its Discord server. The allegations were first reported by the Jewish Insider. Note two extremely important points. First, they frame it as unproven allegations (and they put it in the context of back-and-forth allegations between two sides accusing each other of misdeeds on Wikipedia); that is, in fact, a challenge. The wild disconnect between the way it's framed there and the way it's framed by Pirate Wires itself is what a challenge looks like. And second, note that they studiously attributed it to Jewish Insider, which implies that they do not consider Pirate Wires itself to be a legitimate source.WP:USEBYOTHERS isn't just about whether other sources are discussing a source, but who is using it, and how they frame it. And finally, of course, the lack of a published editorial policy is still fatal; we do, in fact, have to assume that it lacks one, especially given the lack of any real indication that they have a reputation otherwise. Lots of topic areas have these low-quality partisan blogs that flood the zone with sweeping unproven allegations; I think that we should take the perspective that Bloomberg has, as the most high-quality unbiased / independent source that has covered this, and only touch things from them via secondary sources. Even then, it is important to contextualize any allegations they make according to the bias of the sources reporting them - again, actuallyread the Bloomberg piece. Try reading it from the perspective of someone who is seeing it as theonly source on this topic. It doesn't say or support what you're implying at all - it covers it as one of a list of unproven allegations pumped out by squabbling partisans. --Aquillion (talk)20:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was cited by Aish, Jewish News Syndicate, The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, and Jewish Journal. Unpacked cited The Algemeiner. Describing PW reporting on this as "a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources" hinges on all of those outlets beingWP:BIASED and indifferent to PW's supposed lack of substantiation. This is not a responsible description of either the initial or subsequent journalism.
Several others picked up on the Jewish Insider material, one of them being Bloomberg, and a couple more drew from both. This establishes that the account of T4P's abuse isWP:DUE. Between the confirmed reliability of Pirate Wires' reporting and the DUE nature of the story, it should be included in the T4P article at substantive length and Pirate Wires given deserved credit.
Regarding the "lack of a published editorial policy," again,absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not only is it not "fatal," it's not even relevant to determining reliability.WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies."
Repeatedly calling PW a blog will not turn it into one. Rindsberg is obviously not self-publishing. The sitelists Harris Sockel as "Lead Editor," which implies the existence of subordinate editors. The site describes itself as "an American media companyreporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture," emphasis mine. They have made a strong case for accepting that description at face value.Tioaeu8943 (talk)21:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pirate Wires is a blog, and not a very good one at that. It should only be considered for use in line with the restrictions ofWP:SPS and frankly its writing staff has no great expertise in anything soWP:EXPERTSPS is unlikely to come up.Simonm223 (talk)12:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USESPS: "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." Pirate Wires employs multiple reporters, and the author of the reporting in question is not the editor. Pirate Wiresdescribes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." Even The Atlantic article cited overhead as criticism of PW concedes that the editor aspires to hard-hitting journalism. The citations and corroboration documented overhead indicates that they have succeeded.Tioaeu8943 (talk)16:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this logic all I need to do is get a friend of mine to write some guest posts for my blog to make it a reliable source. Pirate Wires isn't hard-hitting anything. It's ideologically motivated twitter-churn.Simonm223 (talk)16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would only establish that your friend wasn't self-publishing. How much of the reporting in the Rindsberg article under discussion was sourced to Twitter? Also, how are you privy to his motivations?Tioaeu8943 (talk)17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, since this has dragged on off-and-on for a while now, perhaps we should just have an RFC. --Aquillion (talk)
I'm usually the one telling people not to open RFCs, but I can't see the two sides of this coming to any consensus through normal discussion. The perspectives are just too dissimilar. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You neither established that the reporting on Soros sunk to the level of "conspiracy theory," nor explained why, if it did, that would disqualify unrelated reporting that was cited by multipleWP:RSs and a couple of solidly reliableWP:RSPS. If there was a RS describing Pirate Wires reporting on Soros as a conspiracy theory to put up against its solid and cited work on T4P, that would be something. But your opinion versus that work is not persuasive.Tioaeu8943 (talk)20:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerButterscotch Beluga should be fine forWP:ABOUTSELF and via reliable secondary coverage (e.g. their interview with Jack Dorsey which was rereported elsewhere) but probably not reliable for much else. I used to listen to their podcast, though haven't for probably a year or thereabouts. They clearly have some form of editorial controls and a gatekeeping process, though I'm unclear if there are conventional firewalls between the owner and the reporters or the reporters merely function as scribes for the owner's ideas. I see no evidence they have been specifically identified for uncorrected errors in reporting, which is to their credit. That said, their approach seems to be a style of quasi-gonzo journalism which is probably not appropriate for use as referencing for the limited purposes of our encyclopedia. That fact is not a slight on them, just a point of observation. Most importantly, however, searching Google News for the unique phrases "according to Pirate Wires" and "Pirate Wires reported" I don't find solid examples ofWP:USEBYOTHERS outside of a very small handful of instances.(For full disclosure, their "senior editor" has cited me by name to make unflattering and, in my opinion, erroneous representations of my actions on WP in his writing in other publications so this should be taken into context in weighing my comment.)Chetsford (talk)19:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i suspect consensus for piratewires would find it somewhat reliable, but have concerns about establishing dueness. at best, they probably should just be attributed if they need to be used.Bluethricecreamman (talk)20:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: making this per aquillon. editorial controls for PirateWires is mostly the wealthy benefactor/Silicon Valley investor Michael Solana, and the Soros story seems concerning. I think this is an SPS source regardless, and usage should be by attribution only. In general, PirateWires by itself cannot establish dueness, and relevant policyWP:BLPSPS should apply if they do any gonzo-style hit piece on a person. When it is cited by other mainstream sourcing, that could indicate dueness, like in the TechForPalestine canvassing coverage, but only as much as the mainstream sourcing is mentioning it.Bluethricecreamman (talk)01:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2.5 if there is a 2.5 option, i'll vote same as chetsford and bob. At the end of the day, it seems hyperpartisan opinion, and its framing is hard for use in a neutral way on an encyclopedia article by itself.Bluethricecreamman (talk)15:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: @Tioaeu8943 made a compelling argument for its reliabilityhere, and I endorse it. The arguments against its reliability lack substance or actual claims of factual inaccuracies, and seem motivated by ideological differences (which shouldn't guide reliability discussions).Jcgaylor (talk)03:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read that above discussion (and the archived one discussed in it). You did not articulate specifics about what made the article conspiratorial. You asserted a similarly conclusory statement. Even the bare bones you do provide isn't accurate, though. The article lays out, in-depth, how leading figures of the WMF and Wikipedia have received funding from Soros and his many ventures throughout their careers. That substantiates its headline. The article also argues, using direct quotations from Soros and WMF/Wikipedia executives, and fact-based research on events, that the governing philosophy of these executives aligns with the policies openly-championed by Soros.
Whether one agrees with the comparison between WMF/Wikipedia ventures and the governing/political philosophy of Soros is a matter of personal opinion. It simply isn't true, however, that the article is "conspiratorial" or fails to explain how key WMF/Wikipedia leaders have received financial support from Soros.
If the basis for labeling PW as unreliable hinged on this one article being "conspiratorial", it lacks a strong or objective foundation.Jcgaylor (talk)06:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My goal isn't to change your mind. As part of this RFC, I'm making the case for finding that PW is reliable, and explaining why arguments against a finding of reliability lack credibility or foundation.Jcgaylor (talk)06:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the before discussion I think opinions on this source are so dissimilar that we basically talking at odds with each other. Your argument showing how all the little lines add to to something is the exact issue I have with the article, but for you it's why it's reliable. If you wish to add anything more to your own comment please do, but I don't see anything useful coming from further discussion happening under mine. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°06:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the above discussion, you claimed the PW article failed to demonstrate how WMF/Wikipedia executives received funding from Soros. A simply read-through of the article demonstrates that isn't true. Therefore, your argument that PW isn't reliable because this specific article is "conspiratorial", doesn't hold water.
This discussion, while not aimed at persuading you or I to change our positions, does contribute and is germane to the larger purpose of this RFC.Jcgaylor (talk)06:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does hold water because it is quite self evidently true, any simple reading of the article shows that to be the case. This is my point - are opinions are so wildly different and to make discussion pointless, we both look at the same thing and see something quite different. Nothing I say will ever be satisfactory for you, and nothing you put forward will change my opinion. No, in your opinion my description doesn't hold water but you arguments only serve to firm up mine. So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show. That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow, or that they have been corrupted by the bad money man maybe? Absolutely nothing in the article shows that they are "Soris operatives" or operatives of any kind. Nor does it show that Soros backing is the cause of any of the initiatives at the WMF that the source is so ideologically opposed too. What it does do is hold up connection between those individuals and Soros and than say that other things are e because they are his operatives. That's conspiratorial thinking, the exact issue I have with the source. You see this very different, and will dismiss and diminish my comment but I will find your points as unconvincing as you find mine. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°07:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show[?]"
"That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow . . .?"
As I stated earlier, one's viewpoints on the value of the similarity between these executives and their ideological/philosophical alignment with Soros' views is a matter of personal judgment that you are improperly attempting to elevate to a matter of Wikimedia policy. Your personal views on the matter do not negate the fact that the article substantiates the factual allegations of its thesis: that people who have received financing from George Soros now work in leading roles at WMF/Wikipedia. That is indisputable, and, based on your reply, a point you concede.
As defined by Merriam-Webster, an "operative" is "a person who works toward achieving the objectives of a larger interest". The article, using the own words and actions of these executives, demonstrates what these individuals are working to achieve: various DEI initiatives, the Knowledge Equity principle, etc. Again, one's views on the author's condemnation of these efforts does not diminish the reality that these executives are working toward their own stated goals.
All of this to say, your and other's opposition to a finding of reliability for PW is not rooted in the lack of fact-based reporting, but in your opposition to the judgments of this one author of this one article the outlet published. In other words, it does not hold water under the policies and guidelines that are supposed to guide these reliability determinations.Jcgaylor (talk)08:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not my opinion, just an observation of the nature of the article they published and how it doesn't substantiates anything unless you consider guilt by association prove of wrong doing. But this is going nowhere we're just repeating arguments, and adding nothing to the RFC. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read thearticle about Soros, could you address the following points?
And the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency by falsely labelling it the product of Russian disinformation. Is it really appropriate to outright call it false? Surely, the overall effect was very small, but it still could be large enough to flip a few battleground states.
Maher’s emphasis of ... word — “open” ... was about making “the world” an open place. ... Soros built a global political machine ... on the concept of openness I guess, Rindsberg tried to tie Maher to Soros via the word "open", but this is a post-WWII concept whose prominence is hardly related to Soros.Ngram
Another attempt at the same connection is done via Maher → Minassian → Clinton → Soros. This is standard conspiracy thinking.
Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid, giving nearly $10 million — has played a leading role in her ability to pursue this ideological platform. Per Open Secrets, Clintonreceived $770M in total,including $22M from Paloma Partners and $17M fromPritzker Group.
Democracy Alliance, a mega-donor fund co-founded — and primarily funded — by George Soros. I failed to fact-check, but I suppose it is very dubious that at least half ("primarily") of the contributions came from Soros. For instance, in thisPolitico article, it says,"The donor clique, which counts George Soros and Tom Steyer among its members."
Zack Exley is framed as a Soros operative, but the article failed to mention that he was the Director of Online Communication for the 2004 Kerry campaign.
The article claims that the WMF endowment is connected to theTides Foundation, stating,Since Tides is a donor-advised fund, Soros could have used it to funnel money to the Wikimedia Endowment without any trace. The context is that the organization is a mainstream progressive one thatspent $620M in 2020, which is far more than the $10M yearly from Soros.
We get to the direct link,Soros doubled down on his commitment to the Wikimedia Endowment with a direct $2 million donation. But Wikimediareceived $120M that year.
But Soros’ statementspoke loudest. “My gift represents a commitment to the ideals of open knowledge — and to the long-term importance of free knowledge sources that benefit people around the world,” he said. Looks like an empty platitude to me.
While her repeated echoing of Soros’ language of openness may seem coincidental, in truth Maher has nurtured deep ties to Soros’ views Buried at the end of the article.
More on Maher,Her first real professional experience in NGOs began around 2008. TheWikipedia page about her said she worked atUNICEF from 2007 to 2010, at theNational Democratic Institute (which got 97% (p.9) of its funding from the government in 2024, so she was akin to a civil servant) from 2010 to 2011, and at theWorld Bank from 2011 to 2013. Hardly a career of a professional NGO activist.
Ethan Zuckerman is also framed as a Sorosite, but the article failed to mention that he headed theMITCenter for Civic Media. The MIT isn't a Soros organization. Among other people mentioned, there were Melissa Hagemann, Eileen Hershenov,Rebecca MacKinnon, and Cameran Ashraf. Maybe some of them are professional Soros types; I don't know.
WMF recently noted that Wikipedia is among the most important content sources being ingested by LLMs, with one analysis showing that the site is one of the three most important sources for training data and among the highest for reliability. Doesn't explain that content ingested into the LLM is written by the editors, while the Foundation has relatively little control.Kelob2678 (talk)09:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence to support Clinton's assertion that Russian disinformation determined (in a fashion required for the presidency to "be a product of" such interference) the outcome of the 2016 (or 2024) presidential election. The DOJ, Mueller's report, and the Senate report on the subject all agree that Russia did make efforts to influence the election, but did not find evidence of such success, and did not make that conclusion (1.). Some experts have said that it would be impossible to make such a determination, due to the countless variables that drive voter behavior and election results. We do know, per an NYU study, that despite the complexity of Russia's online disinformation efforts, its impact was very limited to highly-partisan right-wing citizens (2.).
As I stated in earlier responses on this thread, one's views on the nature of the parallel or similarities between the rhetoric of WMF/Wikimedia executives and Soros is mainly a matter of personal opinion. However, No one here is disputing the facts of what they said or the quotes the article uses. That is all sourced and verifiable.
Or, it is context to substantiate the professional proximity of the article's subjects. Again, you're discussing the bias or merits to the reporting, not the factual accuracy of the connection.
I'd note you cited organizational donors, not individual donors. Other sources cite Soros as the highest, or the near-highest individual donors to Clinton's 2016 election efforts, depending on how they associate donations between hedge-funds and other groups. (3. (corroborating the "nearly $10 million" claim and that this makes Soros a leading donor) ;4. (this source places Soros' contributions at $25 million);5. (noting that Soros and Sussman, founder and Chairman of Paloma Partners, donated roughly the same amount)) In any case, the amount claimed is corroborated, while the claim that Soros was the "biggest donor" is used by some other sources, depending on how they count and organize donations.
I, too, was unable to source the "primarily" portion of this claim, mainly because the clique is so opaque about its funding and donation history. The rest of the quoted portion is verifiable and widely corroborated.
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
An irrelevant observation as to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. This fact does provide context to the association between WMF/Wikipedia and Soros (the premise of the article).
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
Started working at UNICEF in 2007 --> "experience in NGOs began around 2008". Seems like a fair claim. If I was being nitpicky, I'd want to know what month in 2007 she started working at UNICEF. She has worked in the NGO sphere for 17 years at the time of the article's publishing. Calling her a "professional NGO activist" has a sensible foundation (though the article doesn't call her that). I'd dispute calling her a civil servant, though, but (like most of your points) that is a matter of personal opinion.
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. That he worked for that center has no bearing on the factual claims the article does make about him, nor would the addition of that piece of information substantially alter the information that is included.
Missing context. The article is discussing the implementation of Wikimedia's "Movement Strategy", which aims to alter Wikipedia's (among other WikiProjects) policies, guidelines, and practices. The author asserts that the Strategy is a manifestation of Maher's (and Soros') focus on concepts like "equity" (like altering notability guidelines to remove "barriers of access to content related to underrepresented communities" (6.)). The author then highlights the impact the Strategy would have by referencing the increased importance of Wikipedia itself. The author uses the WMF quote you cited to demonstrate the importance of Wikipedia in the modern world, not to say that WMF makes editorial decisions over Wikipedia articles. But your comment misses the crux of the article's (and the Strategy's) point. The MS, sponsored by the WMF, openly aims to alter the policies and guidelines that determine what makes it into articles (and all Wikimedia work product) in the first place. You may feel the Strategy and its goals are positive developments. But, the article doesn't make any factual errors on the subject.
In sum, none of your comments undermine the factual accuracy of the article's claim, which is what we're hear to discuss. Again, if the only argument against a finding of reliability is the canned line of "peddled Soros conspiracy theories", then that position lacks any credibility or foundation.
I think your dismissal of several points with "An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims", misunderstands what constitutes a conspiracy theory.
A collection of technically correct, but misleading statements are the connective tissue of conspiracy theories. The article's content is mostly stringing together a web of guilt by association - Someone worked for someone that Soros has given money to, therefore"[S]oros-linked operatives have spent the past eight years embedding themselves in top roles at wikimedia foundation and transforming the site into a tool for radical social engineering".
It recreates several hallmarks of otherSoros Conspiracies, such as being behind a migrant crisis,globalism, attacking various NGOs as part of his"global political machine", & general fearmongering about progressivism & DEI.
I do not believe the "points" raised above show the article to be misleading. Take number 6, for example. The fact that the article "failed to mention" that this individual was a comms director for the 2004 Kerry campaign has no bearing on the information presented, and would not substantially alter the context or meaning of the information that was included. It is an irrelevant aside that was, correctly, left out. If anything, its inclusion would have aided the author's point, considering that Soros spent roughly $27 million on Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush spending that election cycle (1.). Likewise with 7 and 8. Those claims were included to demonstrate that Soros has spent significant capital on WMF/Wikipedia. The amount of money Tides or the WMF raised/spent is irrelevant to that claim. Points like 9, 10, and 13 are personal gripes the commenter has with the article, not examples of misleading statements.
I think your dislike for the factual claims the article makes doesn't elevate the article to a conspiracy theory. If the article didn't mention specific quotes and initiatives from these individuals that are aligned with the governing philosophy of Soros, then, yes, it would be merely a string of guilt-by-association arguments. But, lays out specifics for the association, from the subjects themselves. This isn't a claim of a secret plot by powerful individuals. It is an article detailing the public statements and efforts of WMF/Wikipedia executives.
Likewise, citing Soros' open and proud support for wide-scale migration, global connectivity and interdependence, and his well-documented and significant funding of NGOs from across the globe does not make someone a conspiracy theorist. It merely means they did research to find his position on those topics.
One may not agree with the author's views on progressivism or DEI. One may not like that they cited Soros' support for migration and globalism. Neither of those positions haveany bearing on the factual reliability of this article, let alone PW writ large.Jcgaylor (talk)16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article claimed "falsely", while your links support only a "no evidence" claim, adding that it "would be impossible to make such a determination". Hence using the word "falsely" is factually inaccurate.
4.Soros — Clinton’sbiggest donor for her presidential bid. None of your sources corroborated the claim of Soros being the biggest donor.Twoout of three named S. Donald Sussman as such. Calling Soros thebiggest donor is factually inaccurate.
13.With the concept of Knowledge Equity shaping not just Wikipedia but the LLMs that shape our future, there’s little doubt that the Movement Strategy has been a success. Based on the context of that paragraph, I interpret this "success" as an ability to significantly influence the content of Wikipedia articles. I don't believe this is factually accurate in the sense that the content would have been significantly different if the strategy had never been adopted.
In terms of people and funding, the issue is a framing which highlights the connection to Soros and downplays the connection to other people or organizations. For instance, misleadingly implying that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies by donating less than 2% of its total revenue. However, the claim is never made outright so the author maintains plausible deniability. While not outright inaccurate, I don't consider such reporting appropriate forWP:RS.Kelob2678 (talk)16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That is why it is false to for Clinton to claim that Trump is president due to Russian interference. We typically call claims that have no factual support "false".
That isn't right. The second source you cited clearly states that Soros gave me to Clinton and her election efforts than Sussman. $25 million > $13 million.
As I laid out above, the Movement Strategy does and has impact the content included in Wikipedia articles, just not in the way you ascribe only to try to dismantle.
No, the author does not misleadingly imply that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies. The author does state that executives with a financial connection to Soros are driving Wikimedia policies in a direction that mirrors Soros' political ethos, and cites specific quotes, initiatives, and histories to substantiate this claim.
As seen by thelinked article, Hillary Clinton never"claim[ed] that Trump is president due to Russian interference", she said that there is an"epidemic" of fake news(PirateWires' exact quote of "fake news epidemic" is not found in the article they're citing), referring to an incident involving thePizzagate conspiracy theory. The way the article presents the matter though misleadingly implies she was referring to election interference, as seen by your assumption that she was.
You are misreading the number from theCNBC article, it says $2.5million, not $25 million .i.e. $2.5 million < $13 million.
That is incorrect. I did not "assume" she said that; I know she said that. Clinton has repeatedly claimed that Russian interference, like the server hack, cost her the election.Here is one instance of her making that claim.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article. Here is the exact quote, "Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle." Again, $25 million > $13 million.
In the context ofrape;There is a difference between a false report and an unfounded report. A false report refers to someone intentionally making up and reporting an experience of sexual violence ... An unfounded report means that a victim makes a report to a criminal punishment system, yet the system does not find enough evidence to support the claim So the article should have used the word "unfoundedly", not "falsely".
The top five donors together contributed one out of every $17 for her 2016 run: hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman ($20.6 million)[2] andAmong Clinton’s most devoted backers, Sussman, who has given $13 million to Clinton’s Priorities USA PAC, according to data from the FEC and tallies from the Center for Responsive Politics, has emerged as perhaps the biggest.[3] Context for the 25M:Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle.[4] So this includes causes other than Clinton's presidential bid.Kelob2678 (talk)17:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to keep to discussing the source and not each other. Unless editors have prove they want to submit to the appropriate venue let's drop the "all these arguments are ideologically motivated" comments. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jcgaylor, this was a reply to my original comment about the general conduct of the RFC. I didn't mean to direct it towards you personally. But I stand by what is said either evidence should be posted at an appropriate forum or such personal comments should dropped, otherwise they could be seen asWP:ASPERSIONS. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: As I said above, I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day(Thank youKelob2678 for the in-depth analysis). -Butterscotch Beluga (talk)12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that the site promotes Soros conspiracy theories or critiques Soros's influence is not an uncontested fact. Please substantiate your claims with an example of the latter if possible from an RS.Iljhgtn (talk)19:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having issues finding anyone discussing Pirate Wiresat all, besides themselves & a single interview with their founder & editor-in-chief Mike Solana from The Atlantic.
As most reliable sources haven't even acknowledged their existence, let alone analyzed their output, the best we can do is argue over their quality. Arguments for if their coverage of Soros reaches the point of conspiracy theories have already been laid out in detail in this RFC & above, so if you are unconvinced by those, I don't believe further discussion of the matter will be very productive in determining Pirate Wires' reliability.Butterscotch Beluga (talk)20:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 There is very little daylight between ownership and editorial and it functions effectively as a personal blog with a small clique of guest authors rather than a news site. It also tends to blend news and opinion freely. In addition to this it's sensationalist trash. I don't think deprecation is necessary but this is a generally unreliable source for anything other thanWP:ABOUTSELF statements.Simonm223 (talk)12:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to anything to substantiate the claim, "there is very little daylight between ownership and editorial"? Does the fact that it has two staff editors alter that? If not, why not?
The site has staff writers, and a long list of regular contributors. These are the trappings of a news outlet, not a personal blog, as other commenters noted in the above discussion when you brought up this point.Jcgaylor (talk)12:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 I've no qualms about an organisation being called a 'media company' and there isn't a problem on WIkipedia with news services being owned by billionaires (or we'd have very slim pickings). However, there's no mention I can see of an editor or editorial board, or standards. There's no explanation I can see about how content of Pirate Wires is generated. More so, their terms and conditions scream in capital letters "WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SERVICES' CONTENT" - clearly 'read/use this content at your own risk', Pirate Wires is dodging the responsibility of fact checking. All that being said, their content is clearly followed and reported by undoubtedly reliable news outlets, in which case it's fair enough to use it. Certainly in theTech for Palestine article there was a tendency towards over-reliance on one Pirate Wires article, which I wouldn't see as balanced coverage.Sionk (talk)12:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Pirate Wires the "We make no warranties..." text is standard boiler plate legal text, it just means "You can't see us for being wrong". Most websites have something similar posted somewhere, for instance thedisclaimer at the bottom bofnthis page. It doesn't make a source reliable or unreliable. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Most websites", like Wikipedia, aren't fact checked. Wikipedia is written by any Johnny/Janey-come-lately that fancies editing it. One would expect a journalistic news site to have fact checking and stand by the content ofits articles.Sionk (talk)15:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least an Editor-in-Chief and a Lead Editor. The existence of a "Lead Editor" implies that it is highly likely that there are more editors under the "Lead". What, according to you, is necessary for you to understand 'how content ofPirate Wires is generated'?
Option 1.5/2 The source appears to have the correct parts to be a RS. However, it is also a rather new source so I would be careful how it's used. As a relatively new source we should be cautious about it's use and evaluate things on a case by case basis. In particular we should see if the evidence the source provides supports the claims being made. We should be cautious about conclusions, especially in cases where the presented facts could reasonably support a conclusion that is different than the one claimed in the article. Of course such caution should be used with many sources that include a lot of information interpretation/processing in their reporting vs just the facts news. Also, as a new source we shouldn't declare the site to be "unreliable" simply because we feel there isn't enough evidence or we dislike one of the relatively few articles they have published thus far. It appears it has a small amount of used by others thus is moving in the correct direction to become a RS. But, let's not kid ourselves, it's still a small, new source so it's probably best used as a supporting source or as an acknowledged dissenting view without that view being given Wiki voice.Springee (talk)01:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 (preferred) - I'm apprehensive to actually place a label on the site for how new it is, but if we must have a decision, as others have highlighted there are questions around the editorial standard employed, which seem to support what I opened with in that there seems not to have been enough time to see the editorial team it says it has enact any sort of editorial action on its articles. The bias expressed through many of its articles, including what seems to stray way too close to the conspiratorial line, would indicate that any usage with need explicit attribution to the article author.
Now, I originally intended to go with option two, but after a perusal of some of their recent articles, spouting pseudoscientific nonsense such as advocacy for regular non-necessary bloodletting as it's what "men evolved to do in combat", should encourage nothing but derision of the site. --Cdjp1 (talk)20:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3- Pirate Wires does not appear to meet the criteria outlined inWP:RS for a reliable source. It operates more like a personal commentary or opinion platform than a traditional journalistic outlet, with limited evidence of editorial oversight, a published corrections policy, or a consistent record of fact-checking. The tone and content sometimes leans toward sensationalism or coverage of fringe topics (including conspiracy theories), which may raise concerns about neutrality and reliability. Additionally, its coverage is primarily amplified by sources that themselves have questionable reliability. Overall, it falls within the scope ofWP:GUNREL.Lf8u2 (talk)03:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. Ultimately, the site's tendency to publish pseudo-scientific articles like the bloodletting piece Cdjp1 mentioned demonstrates that this is not a RS. When judging sources, we need to know that the sources rise to editorial standards, and Pirate Wires does not seem to meet any. As Aquillion noted, their one semi-notable story was not treated as credible by any high-quality independent RS. Bloomberg technically did so but even then they did not credit them directly. Which in turn says a lot about how Pirate Wires is seen.Genabab (talk)23:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - but noted with it's bias/editorial concerns. I think this is a good example of how the RS policy is broken. Is this genuinely a source that is constantly being brought up and used inappropriately by editors on various articles? I would use it the way PinkNews is, it's not a primary News Source, not really giving us notability, but it presents a point of view that may be appropriate to include occasionally in articles, or to flesh out the details of an article. Most the examples I've seen listed above seemed decently appropriate uses of this as a source.Denaar (talk)14:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2-3, context dependent. I wanted to take a look at the on-Wiki uses of PW to assess the impact of its content on the reliability of our articles. I found that in general, it is not used to support material in the main article space. Most of its uses are in back-of-the-house discussions about Wikipedia's policies and procedures. This is because a PW contributor,Ashley Rindsberg, frequently writes opinion/analysis decrying what in his view amounts to a left-wing conspiracy to influence Wikipedia. Others have already analyzed Rindsberg's flirtation with Soros conspiracy theories, and in general I agree that this is cause for a reliability concern. I want to do a bit more analysis to illustrate why. Take a look at this recent Rindsberg article titled "Wikipedia Declares Trump an Authoritarian", a version of which was cross-published byFox News. Rindsberg's contention is that theGuardian article cited in support of this designation is unreliable because it was written in partnership with anOpen Society Foundation-backed nonprofit. This funding, in Rindsberg's view, makes the Guardian articlea priori unreliable, regardless of its factuality and crossover with other reliable sources (See1234). This is not how Wikipedia evaluates sources, and I think we are right to use criteria that takes factors like editorial standards and independence and alignment with other sources into consideration. Rindsberg's criteria for (un)reliability seems to be guilt by association with liberal media and lobbying circles or, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the mere unsubstantiated assertion that groupings of Wikipedia editors are "pro-Hamas".
He makes no effort to evaluate the arguments put forward by Wikipedia editors or the sources they cite, because his argument would be much weaker if he substantively engaged with the opposing argument instead of point-scoring with an audience primed to distrust liberal media inherently. The reality is that the acceptance of the Guardian article as a valid source for the claim that Trump's administration has beendescribed as authoritarian was based on editors' assessment of the article's contents and an analysis of the general media environment, not because of the covert and malign influence of Soros. I think this is a strong illustration of the reliability concern with conspiracy theories which some in this thread have struggled to grasp: Conspiracy theories make a logical leap from an assortment of true but inconsequential information to a conclusion unsupported by the information they present. They fool people by glossing over their logical leaps to present a case that is on its face factual and appears to support a conclusion which does not follow logically from the facts. This is a clear reliability concern, and I don't think Rindsberg's articles should be used to support the claims contained within them in article space related to Wikipedia and its governance. That being said, these articles seem to mostly be used in talk page discussions and the like. I also find it concerning that Rindsberg targets editors he disagrees with, while seemingly refusing to participate in the on-site process of deliberation. This isn't really a reliability concern, but there is clearly a mounting effort by the political right in the United States to circumvent Wikipedia's governance in order to change its policies or the material that appears on the site.
Moving on to other article space uses, I found very few. In one instance, PW content was used in an article called "Transmaxxing" which editors overwhelmingly voted to delete. I think there is reason to be cautious around the use of PW to promote fringe or novel theories and analysis. On the other hand, its use in covering interviews withJack Dorsey andSam Altman seems appropriate. That being said, it's not clear to me that this is the best source out there for this content, or that there would be any great loss to Wikipedia if the source were determined to be generally unreliable.Monk of Monk Hall (talk)23:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 as just about every argument against reliability does appear to be "motivated by ideological differences" as user:Jcgaylor pointed out in an earlier comment. The factual accuracy and reporting integrity of Pirate Wires appears to be top notch, and has not been questioned by other reliable sources. No evidence has been presented to question this, just aspersions and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. The "Soros conspiracy" claim for instance could not point to any actual evidence of wrongdoing or reported factual inaccuracies on the part of PW, such weak arguments simply attempted (sloppily) to state that this was part of some broader false argument (again with specific evidence against anything specifically claimed by PW). I'd consider possibly requiring attribution, as I don't think there is much harm there, but otherwise as a source generally speaking, PW appears to be exactly in line with any other "Generally reliable" source as listed in the RS/P list.Iljhgtn (talk)12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 for reasons I cited at thenoticeboard discussion, which I recapitulate here with adjustments to account for the topic turning to the reliability of Pirate Wiresper se rather than theWP:DUE character of its reporting.
Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was extensively cited by reliable sources
I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting. Not even editors seeking to deem Pirate Wires unreliable seem willing to point to any fault in their reporting on this topic.
Pirate Wires has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past without argument
Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages forJack Dorsey 536 days ago andBluesky 342 days ago without apparent contention. The page onWikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 326 days ago, also without apparent contention.
Addressing criticisms
The above citations constitute a reputation for accuracy as expected byWP:SOURCE,pace editors insisting that it has not established one.
To the criticism that editors cannot find stated editorial policies,absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any case,WP:RSEDITORIAL notes that "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies." The aforementioned citations constitute adequate editorial judgment on their own parts and of Pirate Wires.
The criticisms that Pirate Wires is a personal web page or blog do not comport with WP understanding of what those designations mean. "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors engaged in a wide variety of reporting. Blogs, with respect to WP, are associated with policy regardingWP:SPS. Rindsberg obviously is not publishing himself. Moreover, one of the staff at Pirate Wires islisted as Lead Editor, implying the existence of subordinate editors and an editorial review structure. WP editors can confidently regard Pirate Wires as a news organization.
Several challengers to the reliability of Pirate Wires have invoked its reporting on George Soros, characterizing it as "conspiracy theories." I have three objections to this.
1. The characterization is not convincing.Rind'sberg's reporting on this topic is sourced, credible, and moderate in tone. I might ask for examples of long-form, sourced criticism of Soros's influence that they regard as non-conspiratorial upon which we might base a comparison, except that...
2. The criticism is not salient. One can find examples even among solidly reliableWP:RSPS where editors acted on bad scoops and pushed untenable editorial angles as opinion journalism. Even if the reporting by Pirate Wires on Soros was unsound, and as far as I can tell it's not, I don't see the rationale for dismissing all reporting by any reporter on the site as unreliable as a consequence. I concur with the remark overhead byJcgaylor that some editors are improperly trying to elevate their opinions about this subject to the level of policy.
3. They are, after all, opinions. It would be another matter if aWP:RS had analyzed Pirate Wires journalism regarding Soros and deemed it conspiratorial. But none exists, so there's nothing to put up against the track record described above except the disputed judgments of these WP editors.
I maintain that Pirate Wires has demonstrated reliability and editors should regard it asWP:RS. It may be a relatively recent project and the editor may not be to everyone's taste, but it exemplifies everything that one would want an independent media company to accomplish.Tioaeu8943 (talk)14:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not include any bolded text other than your stated !vote, and would generally follow the format of other editors, who have been much more concise. If you need to make extended arguments, consider summarizing them in your !vote statement, and then either start a Discussion section for more detailed back-and-forth, or utilize{{hat}} templates to collapse details on the page so that the flow of discussion is easier to follow. As a lot of this appears to be re-stating the arguments you presented in the pre-RfC discussion, you could also just point to that section, or link to the diffs where you first presented the arguments.signed,Rosguilltalk15:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These references all seem to be opinion pieces complaining about Wikipedia's documenting of the genocide in Gaza. None of these speak to Pirate Wires as reliable - merely as ideologically convenient.Simonm223 (talk)15:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went and double checked. No. It is not incorrect in the slightest. Some of the editorials are also in contextually non-reliable perennial sources such as the Jerusalem Post.Simonm223 (talk)18:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. When I said that the Jerusalem Post was contextually unreliable what I meant was that it was unreliable in this context as this context is closely related to IP conflicts.Simonm223 (talk)11:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance onWP:JERUSALEMPOST says it "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia is not an extraordinary claim. Just look at what's happening in this RFC to responsible reporting that found it.Tioaeu8943 (talk)14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2.5 Appropriate to directly cite forWP:ABOUTSELF, to cite with attribution for non-extraordinary claims about uncontentious matters that are not BLPs, and to indirectly cite via secondary coverage (for instance, coverage of their interview with Jack Dorsey could be used to the extent that it's covered in a conventional RS). A Google News search of the phrases "according to Pirate Wires", "Pirate Wires reported" and a few other variations finds limitedWP:USEBYOTHERS. A search ofSnopes and all the other usual places finds no instances of what it publishes being cited for errors or omissions. It has a one-year or greater publication history, a gatekeeping process, and a physical presence by which it can be held responsible for what it reports. Those three factors would generally put me at about a 2. However, I can't ignore the fact that I've heard (in listening to their podcast) some statements that cause me to question whether their reporters are pursuing unfettered reportage or merely acting as scribes for the site's owner's ideas. Moreover, it practices a novel style of digital gonzo-like journalism that, while fine, may not mesh its output well with the different needs of encyclopedia writing.Chetsford (talk)16:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per my arguments above. They don't have a published editorial policy, they've published conspiracy-theories and other clearly fringe material, and most importantly, they simply don't have areputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They've published only one story that attracted any attention at all, and based on the links above it was only really given credence inWP:BIASED sources, which is not a good way to establish a strong reputation; while biased sources can be used, we have to take their biases into account when considering how much weight to give them. Partisan blogs like this pump out poorly-vetted stories that are then picked up in slightly more reputable press that agrees with their biases; but if all they've managed isone story, and it isn't treated seriously outside of that bubble, that doesn't really speak to enough of a reputation to outweigh their clear limitations. Note that in eg.Bloomberg, the story is given only a brief mention, which clearly treats it as an unsubstantiated allegation that forms part of a back-and-forth partisan allegations from both sides - and crucially, Bloomberg doesn't even credit Pirate Wires as the source, suggesting that Bloomberg doesn't consider it reputable enough to even mention; the story there is that the biasedsecondary sources picked up on it (and it isstill treated as an unsubstantiated allegation.) This isn't how high-quality sources handle a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, even before we get to the fact that source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would presumably have more than one unsubstantiated story to its name. --Aquillion (talk)17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/2.5 per Bluethricecreamman and Chetsford. Some reports might be due if enough decent secondary coverage and we don’t have enough RS criticism or failed fact checks to consider it generally unreliable, but it’s a hyperpartisan source that has not established a reputation for fact checking or editorial rigour. I have read the Soros article carefully as someone with some familiarity with the issues discussed there and I see several factual errors and a conspiratorial frame.BobFromBrockley (talk)03:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been spending a bit more time looking at the PW site. I'm struggling to find much content that might be called news. It's overwhelmingly opinion. On today's front page, looking for some actual piece of information, I see the (false) claim by someone identified as an "editor" that Charlie Kirk's shooter "was a deranged leftist". But everything I can see on the front page is an opinion item, including many reposted from other blogs (e.g. from Matt Orfalea' Substack - Orfalea is a YouTuber who hasbylines inZero Hedge,GlobalResearch and theLew Rockwell site, and in no legit news sources).
Option 3. After examining USEBYOTHERS, both the links here and in-depth searches online, it's clear to me that PirateWires isn't widely cited by reliable sources, and it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, it's quite the opposite, as the publication is prone to pushing conspiracy theories and is mostly cited by other unreliable sites. I suppose we could use it for ABOUTSELF claims, but we have to seriously consider whether they are DUE.Woodroar (talk)04:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate which of the sources mentioned includingThe Algemeiner,The Jerusalem Post,Aish,Jewish Journal, andUnpacked are notWP:RS's? Please also indicate where they are "pushing conspiracy theories"?Iljhgtn (talk)19:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bludgeon. Other editors have indicated at least one article many editors classify as conspiracy theory. Aish is not an RS for news; it’s a Jewish culture site. Re Unpacked: “The organization says its mission is to increase support for Israel and Zionism among the Jewish diaspora and "explore [Zionism's] complex history and achievements so that young people will recognize that Zionism is a story that every Jewish person can proudly embrace and cherish."” So at best a highly partisan source. RSP urges caution re the JP.BobFromBrockley (talk)05:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was only aware of Pirate Wires via their articleHow Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. I don't see the article marked as opinion and yet it seems to be purely conspiratorial/fantastical, alleging without evidence that "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors has worked to delegitimize Israel, present radical Islamist groups in a favorable light, and position fringe academic views on the Israel-Palestine conflict as mainstream". So I'm surprised people are here suggesting it is a reliable source.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)04:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, Pirate Wires is a reliable source perWP:RS and particularly underWP:CONTEXTMATTERS which requires an editorial team "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing," which Pirate Wires has.[1] There are objections on the RFC that say it should not be reliable due to the publication's biased viewpoint and framing (like the Soros piece), however, underWP:BIASED a certain political slant is allowed as long as the publication asserts, "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering," which applies to PW. Therefore, I would say that PW should be generally reliable for non-extraordinary claims and I think it would be reasonable to attribute when their bias comes into play perWP:BIASED but the default assumption should be that they are reliable.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)03:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/2.5 per above, in particular Bob and Bluethricecreamman. Far too partisan/opinion-based and not enough editorial oversight to be GREL, but seemingly enough USEBYOTHERS/attention to their reports and interviews to not quite be GUNREL.TheKip(contribs)15:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1/1.5 I am seeing a lot of IDONTLIKEIT here. Its important to be cautious and a little lenient in sources evaluating or criticizing Wikipedia. The Soros article, from what I skimmed, does not strike me as factually incorrect, altho I did not look into each claim. It is somewhat insinuating, but is it wrong to point out that A worked for B and B also contributes money to As new employer? Soros like many wealthy people does do shady stuff, even if it is ostensibly well-intentioned. There are legitimate criticisms of Soros, and there are bat guano insane conspiracy theories of Soros. I find it a bit ironic that there are complaints about a website backed by a billionaire(?) influencing it, which is itself complaining about a website which has received money from another billionaire.
From what I can see, Pirate Wires is not perfect, but they seem to be trying to be an independent outlet for investigative journalism that they feel mainstream media is not covering. This cannot be tucked into SPS, but isnt fully out there yet, which is unfortunate. They have work to do, but I cant entirely dismiss them as unreliable. And given the profile, it seems no RS has contested their work, albeit few have cited it either. But as a comparison, a newspaper in some random country would not be dismissed out of hand unless they have showed a continuous case of being unreliable. RS being evaluated by RS is somewhat circular. Much of their reporting should be attributed, however.
And its worth noting that much of the work in question to be used is that ofAshley Rindsberg, who previously worked for Internet Archive, and seems to be for open information access. He has contributed elsewhere with more clear editorial review, and been more widely cited than Pirate Wires. So he has been subject to editorial boards. He has been taken seriously by a number of sources, altho mostly yellow classed ones. So in that case, I would say his work is 1. Solana and others may be different: looking at the last discussion, the site is all over the place, but impossible to GUNREL.Metallurgist (talk)23:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mentioned it, I was interested in what he'd done with Internet Archive, but, besides helping build a bookmobile in Egypt(which was great) I'm having issues finding much else.(I'm not saying he hasn't, I'm just curious if you know of a way to see what else he's done for the Archive & when/if he stopped working with them)
Option 1 orOption 1.5; it is extremely juvenile to punish sources with derankings for saying we suck. It's obvious that they have an editorial bias, and that they think we suck, and on this basis I would contest them being used to source in-depth analysis in the voice of the encyclopedia. Pirate Wires should not be taken as gospel for everything it says, and its claims (especially if they sound strange) should be verified. But this is a pretty basic part of competent editing;you should be doing this anyway.jp×g🗯️00:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per Aquillion. Like Woodroar I also looked at the sources cited for the use by others claim, and they all fail RS or are very questionable. For example: the Jewish News Syndicate was cited multiple times to argue PW is option 1 or 2, yet JNS isprimarily funded by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. Adam Milstein, who is tied toCanary Mission, also funds it, resulting in positive coverage of him in the outlet in an apparent quid pro quo, as noted in that Intercept piece.It also has an exclusive publishing deal w/the Adelson-funded Israel Hayom, which is set up to advance Netanyahu's political interestsper RS reporting. Aaron Bandler runs the"Campus Watch" updates at JewishNews Journal which is routinely reposted by the CAMERA Israeli censorship operation, and worked for the far right Tucker Carlson foundedDaily Caller and Ben Shapiro foundedDaily Wire before he took up this gig. Others that have been for some reason cited to make the use by others claim are all in the same orbit of hawkishly pro-Israeli billionaire funded outlets of dubious reliability. I don't know why other editors are listing these names under the pretence that they are legitimate RS citing and using PW's reporting when that's not the case, and this is not a good basis for a use-by-others case. For that we would require RS reporting from credible RS outlets, and only Bloomberg fits this description, but they only made a vague general reference to Pirate Wires w/o validating its claims. This is clearly aWP:BLOG funded and run by Silicon Valley tech billionaires, and should be deemed GUNREL.Smallangryplanet (talk)15:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ReAaron Bandler runs the "Campus Watch" updates at Jewish News, that’s incorrect. It’s atJewish Journal.Jewish News is UK-based and very reliable. I also note that the Forward describes JNS as biased but not unreliable. It’s true that much of the use by others mentioned in this thread is week, but don’t need to overegg the pudding.BobFromBrockley (talk)05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, inadvertently mixed that up – fixed now. Bandler/Jewish Journal was cited for USEBYOTHERS, and imo it's not overcooking the egg to point out that a person who worked for Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and runs "Campus Watch" is not RS for these purposes. The same for JNS, which again is funded primarily by Trump donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson and has an exclusive deal with Netanyahu's house paper Israel Hayom.Smallangryplanet (talk)09:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a background in Daily Caller/Daily Wire is an indicator of unreliability. But right-wing, pro-Israel or hawkish funders isn’t necessarily an indicator of unreliability, just of bias, so unless there’s other grounds for dismissing JNS I’m not sure we can. I’m on the same page in that use by others is very thin here, just that we need to not overstate the case.BobFromBrockley (talk)21:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe JNS is reliable source. They state as a fact thatAnas Al-Sharif was a "Hamas terror cell leader posing as ‘Al Jazeera’ journalist", based only on the claims of Israeli military. Anas was indisuptably a journalist working for Al Jazeera and there is no evidence he was any sort of "Hamas commander [...] directing rocket attacks on Israel."[5]IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opt 1 - quick question - was this forum and/or process for determining what is or isn't a credible/reliable source ever formally adopted by the community? It's possible that I missed out on that discussion, but I think it's important to know, especially now that there are word limits. Link please?Atsme💬📧 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)Apologies, I forgot to iVote before asking my question.Atsme💬📧17:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Important add-on to my iVote: SeeThe Atlantic endorsement of Pirate Wires:"Mike Solana, a Peter Thiel protégé, has made his Pirate Wires newsletter a must-read among the anti-woke investor class—and a window into what the most powerful people in tech really think. By Christopher BeamAtsme💬📧19:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ This user's comment is out of order. Of course my vote is an iVote. We don't have to keep repeating the same convincing argument. I made my choice.Atsme💬📧00:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question about the criteria laid out in our PAGs, which were properly adopted and accepted by the community. Historically, we had WP:RSN created and maintained per our PAGs for this very purpose. This forum, however, significantly diverges from those policies and, to my knowledge, was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN. The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum effectively empowers a shifting consensus of whoever happens to participate at the time, resulting in the wholesale deprecation of sources at will. The arguments here are based on he said/she said and not rooted in factual, corroborated facts, but on individual opinions, an approach that stands in contrast to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the long-standing principle that reliability must be evaluated with respect to specific content, not by dismissing an entire publication outright. Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility, which inevitably rest on subjective epistemological assumptions, political leanings, and personal beliefs. Thank you.Atsme💬📧15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the page that you are on is, in fact, RSN, the three letters of which stand for "reliable", "sources" and "noticeboard", and has done so since 2007, I fail to see how the community could adopt its replacement with itself.Alpha3031 (t •c)01:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The header makes clearWhile the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. So if there is disagreement between editors over whether a source hasa reputation for fact checking and accuracy (per policyWP:V) this is one venue that can be used forconsensus building.WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of thereliable sources guideline, that helps explain theWP:SOURCE part of theverifiability policy. Context matters is an important point, but it doesn't mean any source can be used just because one part of it is doesn't appear to be junk. The point of sources is that we can trust them without double checking their content. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the clarification, but WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS require source reliability to be judged in relation to how it is used, not by deprecating entire publications. Consensus discussions are valid, but per WP:CONSENSUS they must remain consistent with policy and cannot substitute for it. Using this forum to eliminate sources wholesale shifts us away from case-by-case evaluation toward blanket bans, which neither policy nor past community practice supports.Atsme💬📧19:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme thinks fascism is left wing and has edited her obscure Wikipedia mirror Justapedia to reflect this belief. There's no point arguing her, it's a complete waste of time debating somone so far divorced from reality, including Wikipedia policy and consensus.Hemiauchenia (talk)22:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme may i ask, did you make this reply with an LLM? I know we are not supposed to test texts with gptzero due to the high false positive rate, but this text is unintelligible enough i checked, and its triggering a hit.
per alpha3031, WP:RSN always pointed to here.
this complaint about RSP process being made by shifting community consensus is literally applicable to every process here on wikipedia
" Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility" - what? that sounds like AI.
I won't dignify your question with a response, adding that your talk page and editing patterns ironically resemble the work of earlier stub creating bots and early phases of AI, which speaks volumes to your question.Atsme💬📧13:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop sniping about this. Neither of you appear to be contributing machine generated glurge. Atsme's arguments are incorrect with regard to past practice and deprecation but in a very human way. As far as credibility we have multiple instances of PirateWires engaging in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories (the article originally in question and the Soros dogwhistles). It doesn't take an expert to make a determination that conspiracy theories are not credible.Simonm223 (talk)13:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Simonm223. Let's consider the facts: legacy outlets like the NYTimes & WaPo are known to publish contested narratives, and my comment is supported bythis CJR review of Russiagate. If we’re going to downgrade PW for the arguments we're seeing here, that would mean downgrading quite a few legacy outlets as well. Also keep in mind, asWP:Systemic bias points out, narrowing the pool of sources only reinforces bias instead of addressing it. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS call for evaluating reliability in context, not blanket bans. Deprecating an entire source because some editors dislike its coverage goes beyond what our policy allows, yet here we are trying to eliminate yet another source, instead of focusing on content. It speaks volumes.Atsme💬📧19:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also sources should be assessed with total disregard to their political positions, to do otherwise would definitely be against policy. And again deprecation has community backing, if you personally dislike it you should try restarting that discussion separately. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really the wrong person to suggest that we should use a conspiracy theory rag because sometimes NYT AND WaPo publish "contested narrative" since I'm generally among the harshest critics of use of news media on this platform. All this argument does for me is suggest we should be slower to use news media sources and more careful to ensure factual accuracy before treating them as reliable. It certainly does nothing to suggest we should use this conspiracy blog.Simonm223 (talk)17:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opt 2-3 Where is their editorial oversight?Mike Solana, seems to consistently allow "blogish and sub-stackian" opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments. Are their news reports from accredited journalists, or venture capitalists? There was also some controversy over their reporting on the launch of Trump-Token DJT. Not a great look. Cheers.DN (talk)18:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the piece you just shared fromThe Atlantic and it says, "[Mike] Solana stresses that the site is separate from the investment firm—[and that, Peter] Thiel has no editorial control". I think if anything, we should consider that Solana pieces might need far more scrutiny. However, other writers forPirate Wires would appear to be perfectly reliable and we have not seen reliable sources countering that claim.The Atlantic does admittedly question the degree to which editorial independence is entirely happening in the case of Solana, "Whether [Solana's editorial independence is possible] while conducting friendly interviews with allies and taking orders from Thiel by day is an open question." Though again, even then they say "...is an open question", not simply "is not possible" or something more affirmative.
Solana's background in helping Peter Thiel to get his bookZero to One published may show some conflict of interest directly when covering Peter Thiel or Thiel owned companies or ventures (SeePalantir at the very least). So I would likely restrictPirate Wires (Solana or otherwise) from being able to cover those directly, most especially when supporting sources do not exist. Solana does express resistance to the more typical right-wing Trump adulation though, "Solana was never exactly a Trump fan", so I think Pirate Wires just appears to offer a more "Libertarian" flavor of reporting here which, while biased, ought to be welcome and does again seem to be generally reliable when not reporting on Peter Thiel owned businesses or investments.
As for bias in other ways, one factor that might be beneficial is thatPirate Wires does not take advertising dollars. We do not talk about this enough, but what if a source takes a lot of money from a big fossil fuel company for example, might they then go a bit softer when covering some climate change related reporting perhaps? I think it is certainly possible, and worthy of consideration at the very least. In the case ofPirate Wires though, again according toThe Atlantic, Solana explained that, "news organizations went from comfortable businesses subsidized by classifieds to click-hungry digital-content machines reliant on display advertising" to far less relevant and even began going out of business or becoming consolidated into central behemoths because, "[social] media companies turned down the traffic spigot". In other words, their distribution channel was cut.Pirate Wires on the other hand has, "Paid subscriptions [which] are $20 a month or $120 annually—fairly steep".
Lastly, "What makes Pirate Wires distinctive, [Solana] says, is its point of view, which leads it to report stories that liberal-leaning outlets might not." I hope we would not label a source less than "Generally Reliable" due simply to bias. That would not be right, nor aligned with thePolicies and Guidelines of Wikipedia "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective", and I hope that the above demonstrates why at least when not coming directly from Mike Solana, or covering Peter Thiel for the COI reasons already stated, thatPirate Wires is generally reliable as a source.Iljhgtn (talk)22:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reliability comes from the editorial structure. there are dozens of NYTimes scandals and misinfo printed, same for any traditional paper with a long enough history. But we say its reliable because it has a well-established editorial structure. When we point out Solana is the editorial structure, we mean there is no real editorial structure, author=editor, suggestingWP:SPS
if PirateWires is biased, its biased. that would probably go into option 2, where we note that they can be biased and piratewires coverage won't determine if it isWP:DUE. If they cover a story/slant nobody else covers, then its probably not due for inclusion in a wikipedia article.
Option 4 FYI;Ashley Rindsberg has called me a "pro-Hamas" editor(!) in a Pirate wires article[8]. I have never supported Hamas in my life. I am a non-believer and firm feminist, I find the claim that I am "pro-Hamas" highly libellous,Huldra (talk)22:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are personal attacks against Wikipedians a factor for deprecation? Im legit asking, i think i recall someone saying breitbart did similar stuff and i know its deprecated.Bluethricecreamman (talk)23:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Huldra is not one of those editors, then no harm done. But she denies that she is pro-Hamas, not that she was involved in the activities described in the link she provided. If that reporting is accurate, then she's not a disinterested commenter in this RFC.Tioaeu8943 (talk)14:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI doesn't forbid participating in RfCs or other behind-the-scenes activities on Wikipedia. In fact, it encourages them: adding suggestions and sources to Talk pages, or using their COI to get quality photos and media. There's nothing wrong with Huldra adding her perspective here, especially since she's mentioned her connection.Woodroar (talk)15:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we designated this situation as COI it would be a licence for sources to attack personally editors in order to neutralise their voices in discussions like these. While it is proper to inform the community that they’ve been personally attacked by the source (as Huldra did), we must give them the right to defend themselves.BobFromBrockley (talk)04:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly has not taken part in off-wiki canvassing/TfP, but that article I linked to claim that I do. They have simply looked at how many articles I have edited in common with certain other wiki-editors. But that only shows we are interested in the same field! You could easily contruct similar charts with other groups of editors, say people interested in railways, mushrooms or castles. Or overlap with pro-Israeli editors. In fact, I have a huge overlap with....Icewhiz. Funnily enough, Rindsberg doesn't mention that. Rindsberg makes a lot of serious allegations, but shows absolutelyzero proof.Huldra (talk)20:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's remarkable that @Tioaeu8943 is able to look at Pirate Wires literally manufacturing a conspiracy theory about our colleagues on Wikipedia and instead of saying "that's pretty clear evidence that Pirate Wires is unreliable" instead tells those people who were subject to this conspiracizing that they should keep their mouths shut. This is clear proof of Pirate Wires' unreliability. This is all that we see here.Simonm223 (talk)11:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved. I am not surprised that some editors are now retaliating against being exposed in this way and appear to be trying to silence Pirate Wires reporting through deprecation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)15:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved." This isn't true at all. You should probably strike/retract this comment and I'll remind you thatcompetence is required to be editing in this topic area.IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there was a lot of bad reporting (as with so much of the reporting about Wikipedia) and hyperbole about the Arbcom case, so there is a lot of misunderstanding about the outcomes. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally not advisable to respond to criticism of a conspiracy theory targeting people with whom you might later be collaborating by saying "but it's true!"Simonm223 (talk)16:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article barely mentions you, only in passing related to Nableezy and Onceinawhile, plus the table. It doesnt accuse you of being pro-Hamas, or even really insinuate it. Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not. If you think Rindsberg libelled you, have you pursued action against him? The article only uses "pro-Hamas" in the headline, while using "pro-Palestin(e/ian)" 13 times, so saying he libelled you as pro-Hamas is quite a stretch.Metallurgist (talk)21:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says so in the head-line "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"; and I am not going to violateWP:LEGAL (and earn myself an instant ban). As for "Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not" that is exactly my point! (hence my example that I have a lot of articles in common with Icewhiz). Btw, he calls us the "gang of 40" ..google it (+ wikipedia, pro-Hamas). He writes things like "To evade detection, the group works in pairs or trios, an approach that veils them from detection. They also appear to rotate their groupings for the same reason" Huh?? I think most wikipedia-editors will see it for what it is: people interested in the same field happens to have a lot of overlapping articles.Huldra (talk)22:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudonyms are used to protect one's identity. I'm not aware of any libel cases filed by a pseudonym; please enlighten me. This venue is used from time to time to eliminate sources that go against WP's systemic bias, specifically conservative sources, be they on the left or right. All it takes is one article or two to start what I observe to be a logical fallacy downgrade in a forum that was never approved by the community - the proof is in the pudding. All the misinformation published by liberal mainstream media or legacy media is overlooked, like the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. What happened toWP:CONTEXTMATTERS?Atsme💬📧15:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. ReadWP:LEGAL, it is forany legal threat. And it is clear from the article, that it labelsall 40 of us "pro-Hamas editors", and the "gang of 40" has become a fixture among pro-Israeli "twitterati", like Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Lir[9],Huldra (talk)23:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my comments are relevant to the discussion on source legitimacy. The core issue is whether this forum’s process for deprecating or downgrading credible sources risks unfairly dismissing them due to a dominant consensus, potentially sidelining valid perspectives. This raises concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and conflicts with our PAGs. I'm focused on how we address this to ensure objectivity in our selection of sources.Atsme💬📧14:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this forum has community consensus, and in particular deprecation has had at least one major RFC if not more. If you have questions about any particular source you can raise them here, but if you have questions about the validity of the noticeboard I would suggest the village pump. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. Let's go back tothis discussion. Provide the supporting diffs that clearly state WP:RSN is the venue for deprecating and downgraded sources in their entirety when there is no evidence that the use of a particular source that was cited to support material in an article is what is being challenged here now. Show me the article wherein PW was used to cite a particular claim or comment or material? If you cannot provide that information, then this discussion needs to be closed so that we can move on. I'm aware that WP:RSN is the venue for removing content per the consensus model, but unless you have a valid misuse of PW as a source in one of WP's articles, this discussion needs to be closed. I will state that separately rather than make it part of this thread.Atsme💬📧21:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to provide diff context is one aspect of RS not it's one absolute defining characteristic, and it doesn't overule what is found in V. That you have a personal distaste for how the community works is obvious, go read the documentation for depreciation it has all the links you require. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... but you do need to provide the diff, otherwise you're just a talking text message that carries no weight. I have the policies and guidelines backing my comments. You have your opinion. Refresh your memory about the purpose of WP:RSN, and the purpose of citations used to support material; i.e. CONTEXTMATTERS, which is not about deprecating or downgraded entire sources just because the prevailing consensus at the time doesn't agree with a particular position, or what that source has published that was cited in an article – and that is exactly what this RSN is supposed to be about - not whether or not the majority likes it as a reliable source. There's no article in question here - this discussion is personal - and it has to stop.Atsme💬📧22:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it off topic to ask for evidence of a claim made by a !voter? I dont see how one can read that article and conclude that Huldra is labelled as a pro-Hamas editor, rather than mentioned in passing, as any editor could have, which Huldra even reiterates (eg Icewhiz, etc).
@Huldra WP:LEGAL says "that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself". How does this apply to pursuing action against a non-editor who you believe has defamed you? And again, who is all "40 of us"? You seem to be collectivizing 40 editors while denying that they should be collectivized? Which is it?Metallurgist (talk)05:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Metallurgist: I am just quoting what off-wiki sources say, "Pirate Wires' article, How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative, named 40 pro-Hamas editors."[10]. OrWiki Wars" I identified a network of more than three dozen editors—whom I dubbed the “Gang of 40”".
Rindsberg named us "pro-Hamas" and "Gang of 40", on the basis of having edited the same articles. To repeat: I have equally large overlap with some pro-Israeli editors, but Pirate Wires just doesn't mention that.Huldra (talk)22:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to tag Shlomit Lir if you're bringing her up, as she as an en Wikipedia account, and actively edits in this area. --Cdjp1 (talk)11:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metallurgist: It may border on canvassing but I don't know. My reasoning is that if you are going to bring up someone who edits in the community, it would be courteous to allow them to argue their actions.@Bluethricecreamman: no Shlomit Lir isn't involved with PirateWires. --Cdjp1 (talk)10:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger Of course not: And the "sneaky" thing Rindsberg does, is that he
A: list the most active "non-Israel-friendly" editors he can find, and how's that we edit lots of the same articles (so does a lot of "Israel-friendly" editors, but he doesn't list those), And since most of us have edited for years -we have lots of edits.
B: list the off-site collusion by "Tech For Palestine" (TfP)
C: combines A +B to make it appear as if there is a massive off-site collusion. But, as their own "investigation" showed, on p. 3 (out of 244): "The current conservative edit impact estimate for the group (based on available evidence) is260 edits on114 articles.(link) (bolding in the original)
The simple, boring truth is that there is no major "off-site collusion" to edit wikipedia in an "anti Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" way. The one exception is TfP, and they managed a whopping 260 edits, before they were all banned,Huldra (talk)21:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors must assume good faith from others."IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)01:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 (2nd choiceOption 2, 3rd choiceOption 4); with no evident editorial policy, a lack of sources discussing the reliability of its output as a whole, and an apparent willingness to publish conspiracy theories and inflammatory accusations with little evidence,Pirate Wires falls squarely into the generally unreliable category.Hatman31(he/him ·talk ·contribs)02:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2.5 - they're clearly biased but at the same time seem to be doing relatively serious journalism on some topics. But they're mostly a magazine of opinion articles, the closest example on the Left I can think of would be something likeCurrent Affairs, so I'm not really sure how much they could be used in an actual article. Ideally Wikipedia would have some sort of proper policy on these sorts of things, because it feels like the real question about them is "are their views notable", and their reliability isn't really relevant.--Eldomtom2 (talk)13:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am disinclined to consider valid an RFC the preceeding discussion(s) of which fail to provide thecontext required by the editnotice, more specifically, the part where it saysand the claim it supports. That said, in general, we require positive evidence of both structural elements (non-SPS) and reputational elements, rather than the lack of evidence to the contrary, and in quick overview said evidence seems singularly unimpressive. For example, one article referenced above says the following:The existence of the TFP channel has previously been reported by Jewish Insider (JI), "The Wikipedia Flood" blog and a Pirate Wires piece that went viral. The publication is placed in the same sentence as a news organisation. It is also placed in the same sentence as a blog. Unfortunately not being psychic, I cannot say for certain why theJournal chooses to mention PW, the simplest reading in my opinion would indicate the 4 words following that mention give a clue. There are plenty of news organisations that mention subreddits with posts that go viral, I hope those proposing a GENREL RSP entry do not suggestthat is the standard for "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" we adopt.Alpha3031 (t •c)14:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 PW functions more as a pro-tech, anti-establishment opinion platform than a neutral news source. Its coverage often targets high-profile figures and institutions, often in inflammatory terms, framing its mission as a rebuke to "modern publishing giants" and what it portrays as ideological conformity in legacy journalism.[11] The outlet began as a Substack newsletter before becoming a venture-backed site with a small staff. Editorially, it remains centered on Mike Solana, who has no background in journalism or editing yet retains near-total control. AFounders Fund partner has said the site largely mirrors Solana's personal views, with its content described as like "being inside [his] brain". Editorial independence seems minimal.[12] Instead of following conventional reporting standards, PW tends to push narratives opposing regulation, progressive movements, and liberal institutions. The Guardian has referred to it as a "conservative newsletter".[13] Media Bias / Fact Check rates its factual reporting as "mixed", citing reliance on opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments instead of consistently well-sourced journalism.[14] PW drew scrutiny last year when it published an unverified claim that the Trump campaign was launching a cryptocurrency. This was posted directly to social media, included a contract address and was presented as a scoop but lacked corroboration. No RS confirmed the story, and PW offered no sourcing transparency. Solana later admitted that he had not spoken to anyone in the Trump campaign and characterized the post as merely sharing information "via sources". This kind of reporting falls well short of basic journalistic standards.[15] As for Ashley Rindsberg, the author of several cited pieces, he also fails to meet RS standards. His claims about a supposed "Hamas network" running Reddit and Wikipedia are demonstrably false, as are many others across his blogging output. He has repeatedly pushed fringe narratives, including far-right talking points on COVID-19 and its origins, and has amplified anti-vaccine rhetoric.[16][17][18] He is also closely tied toPragerU and other fringe right-wing outlets. Combined with his frequent use of culture-war terms like "woke", his work clearly lacks journalistic objectivity. Neither PW nor Rindsberg should be treated as reliable, with the exception ofWP:ABOUTSELF.Paprikaiser (talk)22:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to Mediabias report you quoted the PW have had no failed fact checks in the last 5 years[19], their criticism has to do with bias which should beirrelevant.
As to Rindberg's supposed anti-vaccine rhetoric, I didn't see vaccines mentioned in the 3 pieces you linked. The lab leak hypothesis is hardly fringe, considering that even the head of WHO called for further investigations into it[20]. Being right-wing is again a matter of bias and nor reliability.Alaexis¿question?20:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mediabias Fact-check assessed Pirate Wires as the following:
"Pirate Wires often prioritizes editorializing over facts, reinforcing its ideological perspective. The site does not heavily rely on investigative journalism, often concluding opinionated commentary and industry perspectives rather than objective reporting.
"We rate its factual reporting as Mixed, as it relies on opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments rather than consistently well-sourced journalism."
Whether you consider PW a reliable source given this assessment probably hinges on how much weight you put on the value of speculative arguments vs consistently well-sourced journalism. My position is that a source with a strong right wing bias can certainly be reliable, provided that the stories they choose to cover are factually reported on, with good sourcing, and with formal editorial oversight.TROPtastic (talk)00:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Primarily due toWP:USEBYOTHERS (Berliner Zeitung,TechCrunch,NDTV,Gizmodo). A lot of !votes above do not mention any inaccuracies and imo should simply be dismissed. I've carefully reviewed the list of issues u:Kelob2678 posted above but I find u:Jcgaylor's arguments convincing. Note that the (rather unsympathetic to the Pirate Wires)Atlantic article does not accuse them of publishing falsehoods. It's definitely biased but I found no reasons to doubt its reliability.Alaexis¿question?11:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracizing about a "gang of 40" is obviously false reporting on its face. Not only would the inclusion of this as a source be repeating such falsehoods, it would be enshrining, in our articles,WP:ABF statements about other Wikipedia editors in good standing.Simonm223 (talk)12:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration process exonerated many editors on that list of the collaboration and collusion that PirateWires accuses them of.WP:ABF is relevant because we would have to both assume that Arbcom got it wrong and we would have to be assuming bad faith in our colleaguesin order to treat the assertions made by piratewires as factually correct. We have competing sets of facts. It ultimately comes down to a matter of trust. I trust my peers on Wikipedia more than I trust Ashley Rindberg.Simonm223 (talk)12:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbcom, as a subset of Wikipedia, is not a reliable source perWP:UGC. Even if it were, itdidn't (and couldn't) "exonerate" anyone. The lack of evidence and the evidence of absence are different things.Alaexis¿question?13:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's no evidence of"A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" other then editors existing that the author ideologically opposes. While sources don't have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, you certainly do. So regardless of your personal opinions, I hope you can at leastWP:AGF & give fellow editors the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence exists.Butterscotch Beluga (talk)14:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I give my fellow editors the benefit of the doubt and follow WP:AGF. However this is WP:RSN and not AN and the idea that our assessment of sources should depend on what they wrote about Wikipedia strikes me as unserious.Alaexis¿question?20:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that we should dismiss sources because they're critical of Wikipedia/its editors, but their coverage should be accurate & well supported.
The claim of"A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" is simply not true, their assertions are built entirely of the fallacious idea of "correlation = causation". An investigation without proper evidence to support their conclusion is nothing but an accusation, something unbecoming of supposedly reliable sources.
So we return to @Simonm223's point above, PirateWires accused these editors of conspiracy without actual evidence, but you are defending the article's accuracy. I'm having issues parsing the idea that you can give editors the benefit of the doubt, while also defending an article that attacks those same editors authenticity with unsubstantiated claims.Butterscotch Beluga (talk)21:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"is simply not true" is your personal opinion. The evidence is certainly not strong enough for Arbcom sanctions but it's not zero either.
By way of analogy, if an editor adds promotional material to a company article I assume good faith in my interaction with them, explain the policy, etc. However I do keep in mind the possibility that they have a CoI based only on correlation.
Well, thank you. But the "evidence" that I colluded with all of them, is as "strong" as the "evidence" that I colluded with any of the other members of the "gang of 40". So why do you say the evidence there "isn't zero"?Huldra (talk)21:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I also don't find their correlation analysis particularly convincing (which is the same thing as saying that the evidence is not strong). However, this is irrelevant. I disagree with and can find flaws in many articles published by RS but it doesn't mean they are not reliable.Alaexis¿question?09:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1.5: Reporting is cited by multipleWP:RSPS perWP:USEBYOTHERS. It is a newer source and should be diligently monitored, and Solana's eidtorials treated with caution, but its other writers are notWP:SPS. A public statement of editorial policy is not required perWP:RSEDITORIAL. Remarks about Soros do not rise to the level ofWP:FRINGE. We should of course do our due diligence with individual cases of proposed use of this source, but I see nothing here to convince me that any kind of blanket warning is warranted.Marquardtika (talk)20:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: This is a blog thatasothershavenoted has only been cited by other fringe outlets in the heavily partisan pro-Israel camp misrepresented by those going for option 1 as being legitimate to argueWP:USEBYOTHERS. What makes it all the more egregious is that they have published supposed "reporting" by an authorwho made videos for Prager U accusing editors in good standing here of being associated with Hamas and spreading their agenda, and that is the content editors want to cite it for on various pages here.--Raskolnikov.Rev (talk)21:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:WP:USEBYOTHERS is a pretty relevant piece of policy here. The reporting conducted by Pirate Wires has been covered byThe Atlantic[2] (multiple times),[3]The Jerusalem Post,[4][5][6]The Times of Israel,[7]JNS,[8][9][10]The Jewish Press,[11]The Free Press,[12]The Times of India,[13] and more. If anyone says that the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, or any other Israeli based reliable publication that is covering this should not be included because it pertains to an "Israel Palestine topic," this is not a standard that would be upheld in any other context. Even if the only reliable coverage of Pirate Wires came from a single nation, which is not the case, it would be unreasonable to dismiss that reporting merely because the outlets are based in a country involved in conflict. Reliable Ukrainian sources are not rejected for covering a war zone, and the same principle applies here: the fact that much of the coverage is from Israeli publications does not undercut the applicability of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Some editors have suggested that WP:USEBYOTHERS carries less weight here because much of the secondary coverage is ideologically aligned or quotes Pirate Wires only to note its claims. Those points don't negate the policy. What matters is if the other reliable sources reporting on PW's work express doubt of PW's reliability or bolster it's reliability. In all of the reporting I found, even the ones not ideologically aligned with Pirate Wires, the reliability of PWs is not put into serious doubt. Reliability is what is at the heart of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Absent clear evidence of fabrication or systemic inaccuracy, these objections do not override the policy.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)22:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, the two Atlantic articles presented aren't "using" or relying on the reporting of PW, but are mentioning/commenting on PW's reporting. For example "Pirate Wires, a publication popular among the tech right, has published at least eight stories blasting Wikipedia [...]"IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)22:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few of the use by others examples in this thread are more just examples of PW being mentioned rather than used. Musk responded to their “report” making it noteworthy, so RSs summarised its contents, but that doesn’t mean they back its reliability, hence they use words like “the report alleged” (Times of India)BobFromBrockley (talk)08:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: It's a blog. Nothing has been presented to show how it's any more reliable than any other blog. That its reporting panders to what some people want to believe is true does not miraculously make it less unreliable. And there is considerable irony inherent in calling out perceived anti-semitism in criticism of the IDF or Likud while simaltaneously indulging in George Soros conspiracy theories.Daveosaurus (talk)23:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic how? Soros is known to havemixed to critical views on Israel and has funded numerous outfits critical of Israel and promoting BDS. It does not surprise me that a source would be investigating both alleged anti-Israel activists, and Soros. This faff about conspiracy theories is ridiculous as everything presented in those articles appears to be true. At what point is an investigation not a conspiracy theory? Wealthy people fund things they like and against things they dont like. Others may disagree with that. Doesnt make it a conspiracy theory. Soros, Gates, Koch brothers, Musk, etc. They all do it.Metallurgist (talk)05:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony being that constructing elaborate theories about how an extremely elderly European Jew is behind everything the conspiracists see as wrong in the world today is much, much more antisemitic than is calling out deliberate targeting and bombings of schools, hospitals, homes etc. of Indigenous people in Palestine.Daveosaurus (talk)23:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the issue with accepting "do your own research" as an argument in projectspace is not because it violates COPO, but because it can be attached to literally any proposition regardless of truth value, in either direction, and thus has no epistemic use. Did space aliens build the pyramids? Do your own research. Is two plus two equal to four? Do your own research. Is ΛCDM the correct representation of the structure of the universe? Do your own research. It's not science unless you write it down and share it with the class, folks.Alpha3031 (t •c)13:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: Pirate Wires is more of a well funded blog than a proper newspaper. Although it has an 'editor-in-chief' and also an 'editor', PW is very informal, click-baity and pushes its ideology with no pretence at balance or fact-checking. While it is fun to read, in no way is it a reliable source in the way that a proper newspaper with proper journalists would be.Dualpendel (talk)17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - Per WP:BLOGS the following are identified as forms of blogs: personal webpage, self published book, claims of being an expert, patents and newsletters. One can see that Pirate Wires is discernibly none of the above. It is ludicrous to call it a blog when it so obviously shares no characteristic features of one.
Besides their writers have a hierarchical structure, they are divided into 'editor in chief', 'editor at large' and 'writers'. What blog has a full-on editorial team as described above? Does WordPress? Medium? Any number of individually-written blogs?
No source has labeled them a "blog nor have they referred to themselves as such. Insisting on the descriptor "blog" seems to be a misguided effort aimed to discredit Pirate Wires and/or undermine the legitimacy of their content without reason.Kvinnen (talk)23:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1/Option 2 Per the Atlantic article on Pirate Wires, The Atlantic mentions that journalists read the publication saying in the piece:"It has become a must-read among Silicon Valley’s anti-woke crowd, including some of tech’s most influential figures, and a grudging should-read for journalists and some on the left." The fact that journalists read Pirate Wires regularly makes the website more prestigious than that of a blog. In addition Solana has said his explicit goal is to report the news, once again per the Atlantic article:"Pirate Wires itself is a mix of opinion essays by Solana and others, interviews with major tech figures such as Jack Dorsey and Palmer Luckey, and reporting on tech and San Francisco politics largely from a left-critical perspective." While I do think anything Solana writes about Peter Thiel should be treated skeptically, I do not think every article Pirate Wires produces should be tarred with the same brush.Agnieszka653 (talk)00:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - I haven't seen widespread examples of WP:RS using Pirate Wires as a source itself, with most other mentioned sources using it as an example of polarized debates, not ascribing reliability to particular stories. It can still be situationally reliable for specific topics or investigative works, but I take a dim view of considering anything Media Bias Fact Check assesses as "mixed factuality" as a "generally reliable" source (for example, Daily Kos orElectronic Intifada).TROPtastic (talk)00:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - This is certainly a very biased source and we need to be careful attributing the many articles that are obviously opinion and not reporting, we're more concerned with reliablility than bias, and the latter is a care we always have to take. I certainly don't think the journalistic bonafides to say Option 1, but as long as we're careful, thereare niche things that can be taken from their reporting.CoffeeCrumbs (talk)14:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely.WP:NPOV states "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, withouteditorial bias (re: WP editors being biased),all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Bias in a source doesn't make it unreliable. Editorial bias comes from not choosing sourcesobjectively.Atsme💬📧15:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is not a discussion about NEUTRALITY, though. It is a discussion on RELIABILITY. How does that reconcile your earlier statement of "This one leans opposite our systemic bias which is why we need to keep it"?
In the context of this discussion, it seems to imply that you would label questionable sources as "reliable" under the auspices of neutrality, which is obviously not the intended purpose of NPOV.DN (talk)16:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Atsme was just saying that they might be biased, but that they are definitely reliable. She is free to correct me if I misinterpret her comment, but that is what I think she was saying. That also is true here.Iljhgtn (talk)22:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if PW is "hyper partisan", however, any statements which might convey a tilt can always be attributed. That is not a sufficient reason to question the reliability of a source.Kvinnen (talk)02:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, and a good reason for "Option 2" requiring attribution, but their actual reliability has yet to be proven to be anything but perfectly reliable.Iljhgtn (talk)04:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever closes this discussion should take notice of how many Opt 3–4 iVotes are rooted in partisan bias and self interest–not a valid reason to downgrade or deprecate.Atsme💬📧18:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jokes on you because if it were up to me the vast majority of news sources would be rated option 2 or worse, since they are only reliable for current affairs and statements from organizations/people (i.e. not generally reliable for historical or scientific/technical subjects), and even then with significant caveats. This source engages in conspiracy theories clearly make it less reliable than the typical news outlet. (t ·c)buidhe12:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2-3...maybe - I've stepped away from my busy schedule as a pro-Hamas Wikipedia narrative hijacker and powerful "Gang of 40" member as "documented" by PW.
I'm not sure which option is best suited to PW, whether case-by-case works best for this kind of source in practice rather than trying to categorize it, but it surely can't be 'Option 1', 'generally reliable'. That is very far-fetched, inconsistent with the evidence, the kind of claim PW might write in one of their stories. If I'm to believe that PW is reliable, I also need to believe things that I know to be false about myself, editors I know, how Wikipedia works etc. and I need to unironically forget the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
Now, to be fair, getting things wrong about Wikipedia isn't very unusual, we've all seen it, and it's possible that only one of the PW writers struggles with things like fact checking, inference, casual defamation etc. But I don't think it makes sense for content generated by human writers prone to hallucinations, inference errors etc. to be labeled by Wikipedia as generally reliable given that we don't make that mistake for generative AIs prone to hallucinations, but perhaps less prone to the kind of inference errors and hysterical conspiracy-minded foolishness present in PW's stories.
I'm also not impressed by use by others arguments in this case. As USEBYOTHERS says, "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." PW appears to resemble a disinformation vector, at least in part. Or perhaps an enshittification vector might be a more fun label. As a potential enshittification vector, perhaps it can help identify other vectors that credulously or maliciously spread disinformation as part of the outrage economy (or the booming Gaza war related distraction economy) or whatever for those interested in such processes. But for Wikipedia, perhaps its utility is limited to opinion.Sean.hoyland (talk)17:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 (or Option 1) - perUser:Gjb0zWxOb. Clearly biased, and given the proportion of editorials it should be used with care (as with any source) and attributed for published opinions. I'm not convinced by arguments that a more extreme assessment of this source is appropriate. Cheers,Suriname0 (talk)19:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: This discussion is covered by the 1000 word limit on formal discussion in theWP:ARBPIA topic area. If you're at or near that limit then you're done.
@Jcgaylor, you may want to trim your comments then down to 1,000 words or less in order to be in compliance with this, also I'm assuming this comment in its entirety is not counting for me towards my own 1k word limit? And any questions that are purely seeking clarification etc?Iljhgtn (talk)21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, somewhat bizarre question, but I think that Jcgaylor made some great points. Given that I made only 157 words of argument, in essence I have 843 words "left", could I "gift" him some of my "words" to be able to use towards the limit so that he does not need to cut back as much or anything depending? Otherwise, in theory, I could copy and past his replies in some cases, and just give him credit for the point, and effectively get to a similar result anyway, but I just wanted to see what the best course of action is in that case.Iljhgtn (talk)22:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of Jcgaylor's comments have already been responded to and that they are significantly past the word limit, I would suggest that trying to cut them down at this point would do more harm than good and Jcgaylor should just step back from this discussion. The closer may choose to address this discrepancy of one editor having been afforded the opportunity to speak more than the rest however they see fit.
The question of gifting word count to another editor should probably be addressed to ARBCOM as an amendment/clarification of the word limit restriction. My gut inclination is that we probably don't want to go down this road as a community: having participated in formal debates outside Wikipedia where this was allowed, it introduces a lot more bureaucratic overhead, drama and gamesmanship, which I think would be counterproductive to the original intent of the word limit, which is to keep discussions focused and to the point.signed,Rosguilltalk22:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, realizing I hadn't answered your other question: As for word count methodology, I've been excluding signatures and procedural questions. That having been said, I'm not aware of any ARBCOM- or community-mandated methodology, so I can't make promises about how other admins (or ARBCOM) will review counts when asked, although I expect that most of us will look to the spirit of the sanction rather than bean-counting words over the line (and this has essentially been the existing practice for AE word limits: no one gets sanctioned for going a bit over the line, but repeatedly and/or excessively going over the line does become evidence of a pattern of disruption if together with other problematic behavior).signed,Rosguilltalk22:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ignoring the procedural responses, Tioaeu8943 is at ~1002 words. Iljhgtn is at ~796 words.using the "~" because the word counter is slightly off and might be slightly overestimating based on formattingadmins likely won't care about going slightly over, but will get pissed off if there is a 500 word response that goes way overboard.Bluethricecreamman (talk)19:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deduct 186 words from what you calculated as my word count. I was falsely accused of using AI & had to respond, & someone tried to cancel my iVote and I had to respond. These BS kid games are making me weary.Atsme💬📧23:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Im copying and pasting from the word count tool, im not enforcing anything or trying any count correction like that.
Here's a novel idea, keep a word count for the initial statement in the iVote section, but create a talk page for editors to actually collegially debate the issues for a set time frame rather than silencing productive discussion. Imagine that!Atsme💬📧13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note for those who failed to read the header, "While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy." This is a noticeboard for third opinion and advice, but it might also be used as a place to form a consensus andWP:CONSENSUS is policy. That could be done here, on the village pump, or as a subpage ofWP:RFC the location is unimportant. As to the perennial source list it also isn't a policy or guideline, theWP:RSP is an information page - a log of prior discussions and any consensus that came from them (and again where a consensus is formed is irrelevant becauseWP:CONSENSUS is policy). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's important for editors who wish to "teach" others about our PAGs to actually become well acquainted with them. For example, there are levels of consensus, and the locationis important, so please readWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels_of_consensus. The seriousness of RSP and RSN making local consensus determination to deprecate or downgrade entire sources requires a much higher level of consensus.Atsme💬📧13:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! yes the many places that CONLEVEL mentions the village pump. If you think that this community practice that thousands of editors, if not the majority of active editors, have taken part in over the last decade doesn't have community support you can raise it at the village pump, you should have no difficulty convincing other with your arguments. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NotJamestack, for any discussion broadly construed as israel palestine you needWP:XC (gave the prereq ctop alert just now but also this seems like a good faith enough comment)
personally did not care to start this rfc but the discussions beforehand kept alluding to needing an rfc.
Sorry NotJamestack I've removed you comment from the survey, as Bluethricecreamman said discussions relating to certain topics areas require extended confirmed rights (automatically obtained by an account being over 30 days old and having 500 edits). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thx Rosguill – this is a question, not a comment: how did you tabulate the word count? Does it include iVote comments & the Discussions below?Atsme💬📧22:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My methodology was to look only at the RfC section (not including this discussion section), to exclude signatures/timestamps, and ignore anything collapsed. By this metric you're at 1,115 words as of my prior post.signed,Rosguilltalk22:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That count isn't fair because I was accused of using AI & had to defend against it, and was taken to ANI anyway. Do what you've gotta do, matters not to me.Atsme💬📧22:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I highlighted my user name, & copied my comments less my sig and the AI claim, but not the claim that my iVote was not a vote, which I responded to, so including the latter my total is 1010 words perword counter. Subtract my response to the claim that my iVote wasn't a vote, I actually did not go over the limit. Policy-based comments and facts that dispute misinformation should not be silenced.Atsme💬📧02:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I have been subscribed to this discussion for weeks now and have been glancing at it as it progresses. While I am interested in this, I have been trying to refrain from participating as I don't feel like I would be a good fit for this discussion. Despite that, I have taken note of your comments prior to this weekend along with the word counts. Regarding your word counts, you are correct that it is around ten words over, but are incorrect with regards to your last sentence.
The Arbitration Committee has imposed the word counts restriction for a reason. It has nothing to do with facts and policy being silenced, but a remedy to attempt to resolve bludgeoning. To quote twice fromWP:ARBPIA5:"The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity." ＋ "When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Arbitration Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community." The word limits are a remedy to try to resolve the bludgeoning that has occurred in the topic area. To add, violations would not be taken to ANI, but AE.
(Speaking of your comments, why is one of them outside of chronological order? You have your second comment from the 21st under your comment from the 14th and it looks likeIOHANNVSVERVS replied to it seven days before it existed. Would you fix the order?) --Super Goku V (talk)07:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Super Goku V, first thank you for your polite reply, for sharing your thoughts, and for helping confirm the word count. Honest opinions are much appreciated. The reason my comment's chronology doesn't align w/the dated iVote is why I stated "Important add-on to my iVote:" I wanted to ensure the closer sees it right alongside the original, rather than risk it getting buried in the thread. Chronological order is secondary.Atsme💬📧14:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to avoid participating in this discussion despite my interest in it, (due to being a poor fit in my opinion), but here we are. While I don't have a positive opinion on the user here, Atsme is pretty much correct on her word count. I did my own count and got 1,012 words total. (56+12+28+166+69+36+122+106+66+142+129+7+19+24+30=1012)
My best guess at the moment for the counts being different is that her quotations were counted against her and that some of the symbols used were counted as words. (The quotes were decent sized, but I think it is 50-ish words off the top of my head, so quotes alone can not account for this discrepancy.) --Super Goku V (talk)07:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a source that we're using ona thousand articles; it came to my attention when someone tried to use it toargue that Antifa was responsible for thekilling of Charlie Kirk. Looking at their Wikipedia article, they mostly seem known for misinformation regarding COVID-19 and for briefly being blocked by YouTube over misinformation related to the Russia / Ukraine war. I wouldn't usually go to RSN so quickly but at a glance this looks like a source that actively promotes misinformation, which we're citing on an alarming number of articles. --Aquillion (talk)22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its been discussed before... Probably does need to be discussed again... For a minute there they looked to be getting better but the last year or so theres definitely been some backsliding.Horse Eye's Back (talk)23:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It gets complicated because journalists at other sources have on occasion issues both with WION's factuality and with WION's leadership on issues which are not strictly related to factuality[22][23] are definitely within the overall perception of peers.Horse Eye's Back (talk)00:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More than likely a 3 at least. Wouldn't be entirely shocked if common use is due to being mistaken for an American local news station, given the 4-letter abbreviation beginning with W (ex.WTOP).TheKip(contribs)03:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with classifying it as unreliable based on the evidence provided so far. I think we are often too quick at classifying non-Western media as unreliable.
The reason they were blocked by Youtube was that they broadcasted a speech by Sergey Lavrov. This in no way indicates their unreliability, especially considering that they were unblocked in 4 days.
As to the antifa being responsible for Charlie Kirk's death, theirarticle simply doesn't say it (While no evidence has yet linked Robinson to any formal Antifa group, the symbolism he adopted underscores the movement’s cultural resonance, particularly among younger activists who borrow from its history, slogans, and aesthetics. The problem was with the editor who used the source improperly.Alaexis¿question?05:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After looking closer at the source, it's possible it may be closer to a 2 in as far as non-Western sources, I will keep tabs on this thread to see if I feel the need to change my previous rating. Cheers.DN (talk)20:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but this very quote is incredibly weasel-y, and definitely goes straight into misinformation territory. They create a completely artificial link throughout this article, very clearly trying to demonstrate an already chosen outcome to verify an editorial stance. The most charitable interpretation of such an article would be considering that this outlet dropped the ball on this article specifically, but since we have more than this I do not see how we could classify it as better than a 3; I do not argue for 4 outright though.Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅💬⋅📋16:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you're setting a very high bar here. A lot of other media outlets, including the greenest of the green, have their editorial stance which determine what they report and how.Alaexis¿question?12:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While it's hard to ascertain what's going on with WION editorially, the site has been indispensable for English-language reporting on non-US topics; see, for instance,current events in Nepal. Might be a site that ranges from 1 to 3 depending on topic.Tioaeu8943 (talk)17:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. Considering the amount misinformation given by WION during the COVID-19 Pandemic, it's safe to say that I wouldn't be surprised if this was immediately deprecated.NotJamestack (talk)02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally unreliable. I don't think the COVID coverage issue is severe enough to make the source wholly unreliable. One fact-checked article was revised to repeat the statement from Portuguese health ministry that “no evidence of a causal relationship between her death and the vaccine she received.”, and clarified that the COVID vaccine was not linked to the death. (compareold version andnew version) A news outlet responding to fact-checkers is sign of reliability. Some of its wordings like the antifa example above should be less wishy-washy, but that is not sufficient sign of general unreliability.Catalk to me!05:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. As I noted above, I've relied on WION for English-language news about Asia, which is often superior to Western reporting on the same topics. It's a new discovery for me and I can't speak to past misdeeds, but everything I've read has been solid and corroborated.Tioaeu8943 (talk)16:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: I am not super familiar with this source, so wouldn't want my !vote to be too heavily weighted but it seems to me to be primarily a clickbait/churnalism site, that scrapes "news" from agencies and the web to generate as much content as possible and therefore engagement and ad revenue. I don't think it is an active disinformation site (which would merit option 4) but occasionally indulges in misinformation due to sloppiness and engagement farming. It was listed as one of the "Modi-aligned" media platformsaccused of amplifying biased narratives in Canadian domestic politics in 2024, but with no details and no specific evidence of actual disinformation as opposed to partisanship. There are the various COVID sensationalist stories it has published discussed above: the Hantavirus sensationalismfactchecked by AFP, thePortuguese vaccine story andanother dodgy vaccine story. This is enough for us to consider it not generally reliable, and probably enough to consider it generally unreliable, but not enough for deprecation. On non-Indian topics, I see absolultely no reason to use it when anything it reports will have a better source. Why I'm hesitant to make a stronger case for a stringent 3 is that I don't know enough about Indian matters to know whether it might be usable for domestic Indian stories. I notice that many of our uses of it are for topics that aren't Indian-specific, and shockingly even include theCOVID-19 pandemic article, where it is used to make a claim about an Indian contact tracing app, so I think it would be good to systematically flag its uses with better source tags.BobFromBrockley (talk)17:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobfrombrockley thanks for providing specific examples. I read the AFP report but I'm not sure I agree with it. Their debunk the claim that Hantavirus is a new virus, but in the WION video they refer to the host said that the virus is new but then in the next sentence said that the virus itself is old but the scare is new (it's in the first 15 seconds of thevideo). Or have I missed something in the video?Alaexis¿question?18:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 or 2. I'm judging based on the evidence provided in this thread and the Wikipedia article. There are indeed some sensationalist pieces but no evidence of deliberate lying. Adding corrections/clarifications is a positive sign. I'm open to changing my !vote if more evidence is presented.Alaexis¿question?18:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 —Bobfrombrockley said it well: low quality, high volume churnalism that is not concerned with quality as much as with engagement, leading to all the obvious consequences. While I have been familiar with WION for some time, I had not considered that it might help fill a vacuum for some South Asia specific news; however better source tags would indeed be welcome in this context. I would support getting rid of the source for everything else (option 4 being a step too far, but still preferable to option 2 in my opinion).Choucas0 🐦⬛⋅💬⋅📋19:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it, I don't see the pattern, and some of this stuff is really good. It would be a shame to see it 3ed or 4ed out of usability because they blew some other reporting. Unless it was obvious that they were on a campaign of malfeasance, I'm inclined to weigh the above more heavily than their mistakes, particularly if they corrected them.Tioaeu8943 (talk)01:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 as there were corrections issued and this is usually one of the single strongest signs of reliability on Wikipedia. No one says that a source must always get all the facts right, but what we do say is that you must correct for them when you get them wrong. This is the core tenet of reliability.Iljhgtn (talk)19:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, echoing the points made byBobfrombrockley andChoucas0. While I oppose the deprecation of this source, as some of the reporting presented does appear to be of good quality, I find option 1 unacceptable given the medical misinformation and high output/seemingly lax editorial standards. While I am seeing some good reporting on their website, I am also seeing no small amount ofchurnalism. It's not that everything coming out of WION is bad or unreliable, but rather, that I don't feel we can rely on their editorial team to ensure the reliability of everything they're putting out. It seems to me that they employ some very skilled and hard-working journalists, but are also perfectly content to churn out low-quality clickbait, and that's my concern.
Something I personally check for when looking at the reliability of Indian sources is how they report onHindu nationalism, conflicts between Indian Hindus and Muslims, etc - WION does not appear to be overtly partisan in this regard, but some of the reporting I would consider somewhat lacking in merely parroting the statements of nationalist officials without any critical analysis. Notethis article on Modi's praise ofMohan Bhagwat, the current leader ofRashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a paramilitary organisation that Modi himself was once a part of that is credibly accused of anti-Muslim terror attacks. While the article is short and fairly straightforward in discussing Modi's statements, it does not mention Modi's affiliation with the group or anything about the RSS's long and ugly history. This may be due to a presumption of knowledge on the part of the reader, or intentional omission.This article, by comparison, is longer and lists some criticism of Hindu nationalism. I also foundtwoarticles discussing demographic change in India, with the first simply reporting on statements by an official with no discussion or analysis, while the second fact-checks a statement by politicianYogi Adityanath. From the research I've done over the past half hour or so I don't believe that the editorial team at WION is necessarily particularly biased or attempting to control the narrative, but their standards aren't high enough for me to consider WION generally reliable at this stage.Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk |contribs)07:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. The coverage above simply does not support the idea that they have areputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And the arguments made in its defense aren't really policy-based; "well I rely on it" or "looks fine to me" or "I think these article are really cool" aren't how we assess the reliability of sources. We assess reliability based onreputation, and those arguments don't touch on its clearly poor reputation. Likewise, the argument that they're not deliberately publishing falsifications isn't an argument for their reliability - deliberately publishing falsifications would of course require full deprecation; but if the best that one can say in their defense is that they're not doing that, then that's damning them with faint praise, because their reputation is still not what we'd expect for aWP:RS. And while it's good for a source to issue corrections, that can't cure the fact that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk)15:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2.5 - use with extreme caution, if that makes sense - after reviewing some of the above evidence, I'm not quite comfortable with GUNREL, as they seem to sometimes have solid articles and issue corrections. However, their prior COVID misinformation and churnalism makes it quite blatantly obvious that this is a typically low-quality source that shouldn't be anywhere close to GREL.TheKip(contribs)03:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1> 2. The evidence for unreliability provided so far is simply way too lacking for 4 or 3, marginaleven for 2. Unless we have coverage in other secondary sources of wide-ranging deliberate misinformation, i.e. a documented pattern (documented by an RS of similar repute), I do not see how the source could be 4 or 3 at all.UnpetitproleX (talk)03:13, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 - The outlet is mainly known for either publishing something that has been already published by another source, or for publishing fake news. There is no need for this source on Wikipedia.Wisher08 (talk)11:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 It works as a propaganda outlet for India (in geopolitical affairs, especially with regards to Pakistan) and at home, works as a propaganda outlet for the current government of India (BJP). The concerns about misinformation are also noteworthy (one example). If blacklisting is not possible I would preferOption 3 as next best alternative.Zalaraz (talk)11:21, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Whatever I wanted to say has been in the detailed and excellent analysis by Ethmostigmus. The source appears to be slightly pro-government (for domestic matters) and mostly neutral otherwise. Failing some fact checks some years ago does not really reflect on the source as a whole. Disregarding unsubstantiated claims of propoaganda et. al. Not outright 1 due to clear usage of churnalism here and there.Gotitbro (talk)17:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that it is mostly neutral on non domestic matters is demonstrably false , their reporting on Pakistan, especially with regards to the recent conflict, it is undoubtedly pro india website. Some examples;[24][25], the tone , title of their articles and everything in general, reeks of state-sponsored mouthpiece.Zalaraz (talk)03:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course involved sources would dither when coming to intractable (and present) conflicts such as ARBIPA here. This is true even of veritable sources likeDawn orThe Indian Express. That doesn't impeach the validity/integrity of a source in toto. And that is domestic stuff as well (directly involving the home market), what was meant was uninvolved coverage which from what I can see appears to be mostly fine. All of the objections regardless can be sustained under considerations with Option 2. And it should be noted that bias as such has no bearing on reliability (case in point WSJ) but factual reporting, unless a source has a sustained track record of fake/fabricated news (this shouldn't be conflated withPolitico style failed fact checks). PS: We've had a discussion about completely barring domestic/involved sources for all current armed conflicts here at RSN and at Village Pump but that made no headway/was clearly opposed. And as I said then, editorial judgment is enough to stem the tide of problematic reporting from such sources.Gotitbro (talk)03:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that a source that cannot report neutrally in geopolitics affairs (significant pro India and pro Russia bias), cannot report neutrally in domestic affairs (pro-incumbency reporting), their articles concerning other topics cannot be used because of significant churnalism along with having a long term history of COVID-19 misinformation should be not be declared unreliable? It is defacto unusable.Zalaraz (talk)04:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV applies to article content and editing not sources. What we expect from the latter is factual reporting. Pro-Russia (itself questionable per the discussion below) or pro-India et. al. doesn't really have a bearing on whether a source is RS.
The reason we barred Fox News for instance wasn't for its conservative bias rather a poor and regular record of mis/disinfo, and recordes as such by major academic sources. Certainly RS from theWestern media aren't also barred from ABPIA for the regular recriminations of pro-Israel bias either. Take also the case of WSJ, it isn't without its regular pro-Israel/conservative bias but is a solid RS nonetheless.
What I would be expecting here, or for any labelling of unreliable, is either support by academic sources/other RS stating as much or solid evidence to show regular fake news. What raised my eyebrows here wasn't bias as such but COVID misinfo but as Ca notes above that was a minor infraction mostly rectified since (what we would expect an RS to do).Churnalism can also effect our RS rating, the reason I degraded to Option 2, but while that is slightly the case here it is not really a major case of non-factual content.Gotitbro (talk)05:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2.5, perThe Kip. A read of votes here shows handwavvy, unsupported allegations of deliberate misinformation peddling, arguments that beingWP:BIASED is enough for deprecation, or labeling as a propaganda outlet, which I don't see supported by the sources presented here, by a review of its coverage, or from similar arguments on this noticeboard. Happy to reconsider if actual sourcing is presented. One example of sloppiness in 5 years is jus tnot enough to label as GUNREL.Longhornsg (talk)22:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Based on what I read and looked at on the website it seems to be best to use this source with discretion. If there would be another more reliable source contradicting a claim from WION then it would make sense not to use it in an article. But I don't think we need to completely discard all use of it.Swirlymarigold (talk)02:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - There are far too many problems with this outlet to allow it on Wikipedia. Not only does it function as a mouthpiece of the Indian government (Godi media), it has also spread misinformation on many instances.Koshuri(あ!)13:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: A source's editorial stance is not a legitimate reason to deprecate a source on Wikipedia, but that is what has been driving many !votes here. I evidence against the source is flimsy at best.TryKid[dubious –discuss]07:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - For churnalism, a record of spreading misinformation and extremely biased coverage (to the point of being considered a state affiliated media)[26] on various issues, such sources should not be used on Wikipedia.THEZDRX(User) |(Contact)03:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - as usual,WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d tend to evaluate depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, ona thousand articles editors found it good to use. While criticism pointed to some wild ones (I'm inclined to say where is there a source that doesn't have some of those...), this seems to have a value of covering some topics best. I think for major topics there will be more prominent/larger and less churnalism sources that will naturally be used so feel no need to even give this an evaluation unless some TALK cites are shown that show it is a perpetual issue and otherwise it just does not belong inWP:RSP or to have an evaluation. CheersMarkbassett (talk)22:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - It may be not good to consider it as one of the mainstream reliable source for any exceptional claim. But can be used as a source for general information or for any attributed primary claim.King Ayan Das (talk)07:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This news source has been discussed multiple times. If you take a look at the noticeboard archive, you can see a lot of discussions talking about WION, so I don't think this will be considered a bad RfC.NotJamestack (talk)02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather quick to open an rfc right when someone brings this up.
I get that its used 1k+, but is there a repeated pattern of it having been brought to discussion and editors disagreeing ? At the very least would have made sense to see where this discussion was heading and if rfc was necessaryUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been repeated discussions in the archives, including a prior RFC that wasn't closed, and editors had already started to make numbered comments. So I just made sure it was formated correctly and past participants were aware, no person opinion on the RFC itself. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still leaning close to 3 at the moment. I'm keeping an eye out for more details and or links to the alleged corrections this source has made in relation to Russia / Ukraine, COVID-19, vaccines etc...Cheers.DN (talk)20:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see any particular slant on Russia/ukraine. They got kicked off YouTube for platforming Lavrov, so I assumed they’d be pro-Russian, but their current reporting seems neutral.BobFromBrockley (talk)20:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acording to recent reports ([27][28][29]),Paramount Sydance is planning to appointBari Weiss, right-leaning journalist and founder of conservative outletThe Free Press, as editor-in-chief ofCBS News. Do you think that it may affect CBS's reliability?
I think it certainly will affect CBS's reliability, but we will need to collect evidence in order to justify a modification to how the source is treated on-wiki.Monk of Monk Hall (talk)14:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, I have read several CBS News articles recently, reporting on ICE raids in the Chicago area. I have concerns separate from the influence of Bari Weiss about how these incidents have been treated by the outlet; in particular, CBS tends to report the official story even when it seems to be verifiably contradicted by other evidence and makes no effort to investigate the truth of government claims about consequential and controversial incidents. Media deference to the official story is a well documented issue in media studies, and it would be difficult to propose a change in our general assessment of sources on this criteria that would leave us with any left to use, but it might be worth a separate discussion about how to deal with this as unsupported government claims about ICE activities that could constitute BLP or simple reliability concerns become increasingly common.
They have also described theIsraeli invasion of Syria (2024–present) as such:Israel occupied strategic parts of itsshared border with Syria and conducted air raids and land incursions, citing potential security threats.(emphasis mine) Further, they frame the demand for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territory as anegotiating position and not what is required under international law.[32]EvansHallBear (talk)00:25, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deference to Trump regime narratives, inaccurate statements regarding Israel's warmaking against its neighbours... If we see CBS start saying wildly transphobic things then I think we've got pretty strong evidence that Weiss' leadership has negatively impacted CBS's reliability.Simonm223 (talk)13:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know how it will affect CBS' reliability, if it all. A news organization can change emphasis in coverage (for example) without undermining the reliability of what it publishes.Mackensen(talk)15:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn’t much credence to the labeling of the FP as a conservative outlet. But, as others have said, there’s no reason to believe the reliability of the outlet (to the extent it is actually a reliable, fair source currently) will change.Jcgaylor (talk)15:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, a conservative voice might have slightly more power. Bluesky in shambles. Clearly the end of the world is nigh. For my part I'm quitting the internet to raise goats in Montana.--Animalparty! (talk)06:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is ahuge difference between actual conservative journalists who value integrity vs. an anti-woke opinion writer and pro-Israel hack who has leaned too far into the MAGAverse in order to gain power and influence. Meh.172.56.13.52 (talk)23:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be correct. Weiss is a self-described "Zionist fanatic". Her "anti-woke" stance and support for theIntellectual Dark Web were one of the main reasons for her departure from NYT. FP whatever be its reliability on political topics barely chalks upto mark on trans issues with frequent unscientific assertions.Gotitbro (talk)08:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anything now would beWP:CRYSTAL and regardless of bias the question of reliability would only stem if fake news crops up regularly. I can speculate about the effect of this on Palestine-Israel coverage specifically, but that is again entirely crystal.Gotitbro (talk)04:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability is about a source'sreputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A drastic change in leadership is a reason topotentially re-examine that reputation once we have more coverage to see if things have shifted, and possibly to divide it into a separate era if the reputation seems different, but we'd have to wait for that coverage to actually appear. --Aquillion (talk)20:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine Chronicle is a pro-Palestinian news website and non-profit company created byRamzy Baroud. Its cited in about 400 Wikipedia articles. Would you consider it a reliable source?
There was a lawsuit about this in the US. From our article on thePalestine Chronicle, which I now see that you wrote yourself(12:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)):
In January 2025, the lawsuit was dismissed by judge Cartwright, who ruled the lawsuit provided insufficient evidence that thePalestine Chronicle was aware of AlJamal being a member of Hamas.[1] Cartwright ruled that AlJamal's articles critiizing Israel were protected underfirst amendment and that the lawsuit provided no evidence of him inciting or planning violence. She also ruled that the lawsuit showed no evidence ofPalestine Chronicle intentionally paying AlJamal money to carry outterrorism or participate in Hamas operations.[2]
I have to say, a single instance of this just isn't enough to consider a source unreliable. It's just a way to dismiss a source withguilt by association. That said, I have no opinion on whether Palestine Chronicle is actually reliable or not.Hemiauchenia (talk)12:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being subject to lawsuits does not mean that a publication is unreliable. Donald Trump has filed numerous lawsuits against US news organisations, and the weight this should have on their reliability is zilch. The Israel-Palestine topic area is so partisan that accusations getting thrown around in lawsuits like this need to be taken with a massive grain of salt. This noticeboard has repeatedly rejected similar claims against Al Jazeera of being unreliable because of allegations of a reputed pro-Hamas bias/affiliation.Hemiauchenia (talk)14:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Abdullah Aljamal also wrote an op-ed forAl Jazeera too, which we consider that a reliable source. Most of the sensationalist coverage over him actually specifically invokes Al Jazeera.Katzrockso (talk)18:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should downgrade Al Jazeera as well. The fact that they're greenWP:RSPS and National Review is yellow is insane. Say what you will about NR, the number of Hamas-affiliated hostage-takers they've employed is zero.Tioaeu8943 (talk)11:38, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be a recently created article. Regardless the actions of employees do not reflect on orgs as a whole, so that is really of no concern to us unless there is a pattern that their reporting has also been affected as such. You should also look at whether Baroud is himself reliable (from what I can see there are no real issues there).
Re-reading that thread it seems we reached a consensus that it’s not GUNREL but that it’s a weak source and a better one will always be available for anything due.BobFromBrockley (talk)12:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this source remains the same as in the past discussion, and if I remember correctly the issue of an alleged hostage taking journalist (perhaps the very same) was a part of the discussion. We're judging overall source reliability on this board, and I am generally unconvinced by attempts to disqualify sources on the basis of anything other than demonstrated inaccuracies that affect Wikipedia's reliability.Monk of Monk Hall (talk)23:59, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Bob somewhat, at best it's partisan enough to be a generally poor choice of source and at worst it creeps into GUNREL territory a laElectronic Intifada. Don't see a reason to change our treatment of it.TheKip(contribs)21:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ThePalestine Chronicle seems to be a highly unreliable source of information given the discussion above. A source having terrorist connections (as is the case here with the PC having connections withAbdallah Aljamal) should be disqualifying on its own as there are sources that are considered deprecated for a lot less. Also, this failsWP:RS, specificallyWP:NEWSORG which reads, "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." Most of the pieces on the Palestine Chronicle are opinion commentary or activist reprints, not independent journalism. PC is an advocacy organization and it lacks a clear editorial policy or corrections policy.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)18:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy over Aljamal was discussed at length a year ago. In the end, it produced no tangible evidence of Palestine Chronicle being used in an unreliable or misleading way on Wikipedia. Unless there is new evidence that Palestine Chronicle articles have been used in a way that demonstrates their unreliability, this is just rehashing an old, divisive discussion that didn't go anywhere.Monk of Monk Hall (talk)01:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheirAbout page says:The Palestine Chronicle is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating the public by providing a forum that highlights issues related to human rights, national struggles, freedom, and democracy. I read that as their main purpose being advocacy. I couldn't find any evidence that they publish corrections, or have a reputation for fact-checking, or enjoy significant use by others. TheirDisclaimer saysThe Palestine Chronicle makes no representation concerning and does not guarantee the source, originality, accuracy, completeness or reliability of any of the material herein including statements, news, commentary, features, photos, video, audio, art, political cartoons, and other materials containing information, data, findings, interpretation, advice, opinion, or views. which is not encouraging. It seems unlikely that any due content could not be sourced from a more reputable outlet, but if we did want to use something, I suggest attribution would be necessary.Barnards.tar.gz (talk)15:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous discussion, some fringe cases were identified where the source might be useful. For example, a paywalled Boston Globe piece is reproduced more accessibly in Palestine Chronicle. But generally I agree with your assessment that this should not be a preferred source in most if not all contexts.Monk of Monk Hall (talk)21:43, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously aWP:BIASED source, but for incidents like these, the question is always whether it affected the source'sreputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (And for something like this, I think it'd be obvious that sources "on the other side" are bad sources for establishing whether something's reputation has changed.) In particular, I would point out that the CNN source you presented only mentions the Palestine Chronicle in passing, and not in a way that really suggests that this has actually affected their reputation. Was it previously reliable in the first place, though? All that I can find about it is[3], which doesn't really touch much on its reliability and is more about bias, but which vaguely implies it is equivilant to Haaretz. --Aquillion (talk)20:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at articles dating to 2009 and found all of two corrections12; one of them amended a botched citation of Haaretz, and the other was about soccer. The publication hasreferred to October 7 hostages as "prisoners." DiscussingRuth Wisse, it haswritten, "The prominent Montrealer’s racism was instilled by one of the city’s many Jewish supremacist schools." It has cited theridiculous art project Forensic Architecture inostensibly serious reporting. Bias is a separate consideration from reliability, but this publication is a clown car of unprofessionalism and should be regarded as completely unreliable.Tioaeu8943 (talk)20:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no not a reliable source at all. Here is the archive of articles written by Abdallah Aljamal for the Palestine Chronicle:https://www.palestinechronicle.com/writers/abdallah-aljamal/ the Chronicle is now trying to say he was never employed by them or affiliated. To me this is extremely disingenuous as they clearly had a relationship and relied on him for work. He has written for them more than 180 times--that's how many pieces his name alone has shown up in bylines. He was part of their team.Agnieszka653 (talk)21:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Alhossary, Abeer ZA, et al. "Framing the Great March of Return: A Pilot Corpus-Assisted Critical Discourse Analysis of the Palestine Chronicle and Haaretz."
I came upon an article about a famous person who died recently. On the person's Talk page, one editor claimed the article erred regarding the person's age. The editor recommended other editors consultclassmates.com as proof that the age the editor believed the person to be is different from what is reflected in the article. I see no reference herein regarding the validity of classmates.com, so I reach out to all of you. Does Wikipedia consider classmates.com to be proper, reliable source?
I say it is not, because the information is user provided. Also, I must admit that many decades ago, I created a phony profile in a different class so I could research information about a former friend with whom I want to reconnect.MarydaleEd (talk)23:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the momentDiane Keaton graduation date is referenced to her highschool yearbook, rather than through classmate. The only other reference to the graduation date I can find in even semireliable sources are the LA Times[37], who state she graduated in 1963. It doesn't appear that Keaton thought it important enough to include in her own autobiography. Keaton still counts as a BLP, so I would suggest not using the classbook as it's a primary source. I suggest either using the LA Times reference or removing the detail altogether as secondary sources don't show it's an important detail of her life (WP:BALASP/WP:HTRIV). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with birthday stuff that even newspapers got wrong. If no good sources can be found, it is probably best to leave the information out. Ramos1990 (talk)06:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
seeTalk:Saleh_al-Jafarawi#Propagandist, but have some questions, many of these seem to discuss the conflict in a very biased way? @LennBr is bringing up some german language sourcing to push this on that article andPallywood
someNeue Zürcher Zeitung source,[38] found a free version of article on web archive, give it a sec to load and drop the banner and then used the translate button.
suggestion that hamas makes money off of dead childrenWith every bloodied child, terrorist organizations make money. Suffering as a source of income, better than drug trafficking and arms smuggling.,
suggestion that press isn't press. These are always surrounded by the "press." These are people wearing blue press vests and holding cell phones. "Press" often just means being in the right place at the right time and then selling the videos or photos to news agencies for a lot of money
thisWhile Jewish and Israeli news outlets have been intentionally avoiding publishing such images for months to protect the body and the person's relationship to the body, Palestinian video creators know no moral boundaries.
i cannot easily understand german, i guessed it was, but the translation had no clear part where it stated it was an opinion piece.from my understanding, NZZ is a premier newspaper in switzerland, someNewspaper of record, and the piece was called a feature. how do you tell if the piece is an oped?User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)17:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite some prior attempts, I also don't read German and was relying on the translation provided. I don't see anything indicating this is an oped piece but it contains clear editorializing that wouldn't be acceptable in regular news reporting.EvansHallBear (talk)17:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find anything indicating it's an op-ed, thoughthis article seems to indicate NZZ has something of a right-wing bias, and our own article notes that the paper's undergone a right-wing shift in the last decade, so a lot of the article's content wouldn't be surprising in that respect.
Ultimately, as a newspaper of record, Imight consider the article's criticismDUE,but, considering the inflammatory wording (I think - I also just machine-translated it, I don't speak a word of German), and as with most sources in the area, I'd only use with explicit attribution to NZZ.TheKip(contribs)18:44, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip "Feuilleton" in the context of German-language magazines means that this is a culture rather than politics. This also explains the tone - readers won't expect reports on a new artist or exhibition to have the same tone and style than articles on regular politics (even if there's plenty of political art). That said, we are looking at a topics here that is inseparable from politics, which makes the whole thing read like an op-ed.Cortador (talk)21:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thatNZZ piece is op-ed. The clue (besides the clear polemic) is the word "Feuilleton" in the upper-left corner. This could mean "feature" or "guest-writer" or some supplemental article from outside the publication (like a letter to the editor).
The source seems less than reliable, but ideally editors should avoid insufficiently supported or merely asserted claims coming from even typically reliable sources, which seems to be the nature of the claims in question here.Monk of Monk Hall (talk)21:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides NZZ, Lenn was also suggesting for inclusion these sourcing. the current wording for these articles in the current page is:Multiple news outlets from europe accused him of spreading propaganda in favor of Hamas.
While he claims to be an artist from Gaza, many accuse him of spreading propaganda for Hamas. Despite, or perhaps because of, these accusations, Aljafarawi's accounts have reached around 2.5 million followers.
Al-Jafarawi is considered a Hamas crisis actor. Clips of him circulating online show him holding a machine gun, sometimes with what appears to be a bleeding baby in his arms.
Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, a daily in germany, calling LennGaza Joe as well.[40] I cannot find a free version of this on wayback machine.
This is all in response to buidhe's offhanded summary of coverage in German media and thus it's a bit moot (and dependent on which studies buidhe is actually thinking of and referring to), but in my experience studies of "German media" often include German-speaking media in other countries. There isn't a firewall between Switzerland and German literary cultures. Obviously we should be careful about how to phrase such claims when writing article text, but I don't think it's accurate to a priori assume that characterizations of "German media" necessarily refer to German-national as opposed to German-language (or vice-versa).signed,Rosguilltalk20:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the above hypothetical though, a member of the German media writing in an American paper would be reflective of acceptable discourse in both German and American media.EvansHallBear (talk)20:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to highlight how NZZ is a German language source, but the paper, and it's owning company are Swiss (and as a newspaper of record, I would argue should be considered GREL), so the social and political environment is different to that of Germany, and Austria. But people have already highlighted this.
Now, what ismore important in assessing this specific article, is two fold. Firstly as others have highlighted, it is roughly equivalent to an opinion piece by a guest writer. Secondly, while people have pointed to the writer being German and not Swiss, the more pertinent piece on the writer's identity, is that she is a self-declared liberal Zionist, and has a plethora of work writing in support of Zionism. For examples, searching for "Mirna Funk zionismus" will bring up results both in German and English language media, spanning Germany, Israel, and the US. --Cdjp1 (talk)12:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is german language media, and apparently german is one of the official languages of switzerland
leaving that aside, wikipedia cannot correct for bias for what is supposed to be a newspaper of record (see that rfc discussion a bit ago about how we cant do that for western medias coverage of the conflict) , but there appears to be a ridiculous bias here to the point where most editors seem to believe this is an oped.
The German Wikipedia articlede:Feuilleton does a better job explaining what that section is for. I will also note that on Swissdox, the article has two bylines: first one for "Auswärtige Autoren" ('external authors'), then the one for Mirna Funk.Toadspike[Talk]12:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, in fact the biography section of their article is a word for word copy of the one on Rotten Tomatoes. As they are just mirroring these profiles across they should be considered as reliable/unreliable as Rotten Tomatoes. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can check here for what sources that Wikipedia considers reliable or unreliable.[[42]] And I'd like to point out if there's a source that's not on this list, it doesn't mean it's reliable or unreliable. It just means it hasn't been talked about much here. So be careful with this sort of stuff because many places leech off of sites like IMDB as well as Wikipedia for DOB information.Kcj5062 (talk)04:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. While we have often usedVoice123 as reliable sources for biographical information and roles for voice actors, I wonder if an individual actor's profile as a whole should be used where necessary (i.e.Emily Neves,Wendee Lee,Julie Ann Taylor, orMichele Knotz)?
This is being discussed atTalk:Emily Neves specifically in regard to birthdate. If we look at theentry for her, we see such carefully presented information asEmily Neves is well known as the voice of . -- that's not me editing something out, it really is just a blank form result. This is clearly not a carefully edited presentation of data. I find no notes on how the information was gathered, but the site is a commerce site, and Neves does not appear to be one of their clients (contrast that page withthis example.) So, it is hard to see reliability for non-clients. --Nat Gertler (talk)04:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usingthe search bar,this link for Neves will automatically redirect to her page, which lists the full details:Emily Neves (born in Jul 28, 1982) is an American voice actor. She has been actively working as a voice actor since 2007. Emily Neves is well known as the voice of Elise in Sakura Wars the Animation, Nozomi Nakamura in Tamayomi, Undine in Black Clover, Lilith in The Demon Girl Next Door and Momoka Momozono in Super HxEros. She is also recognized for working with several relevant brands in the industry. Among her more important clients are companies like Sanzigen, Studio A-Cat, Pierrot, J.C.Staff and Project No.9. Emily's voice over range covers these voice styles: female child, female teenager, female young adult, female adult and female senior, her preferred voice language is english - usa and canada. That way, the blanks NatGertier mentioned have been filled in. However, if one insertsthis link directedly into a web browser, it will cause the blank forms, leading to confusion amongst other editors wanting to use this as a source for certain roles, which are listed below her profile(s).Lord Sjones23 (talk -contributions)05:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So that version of the page is more detailed, but :
still does not appear to be a client's page; and
when I got to that page, click the link for finding voice actors like her, then click on the link for one of those actors, i then find low on their page a listing of pages I'd recently visited... and that page is listed as "[TEST] Emily Neves".
Thank you for the ping, @sjones23. I had not heard of Voice123 until I read the posts above, but now that I have looked at it a bit I agree with @NatGertler that it seems to be a dubious source. I didn't see any indication of efforts to verify the biographical information on the site.Eddie Blick (talk)14:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here from Lord Sjones23's neutral ping: Voice123 is an agency for contracting with voice actors, but they do not appear to have a contract with Neves, and they programmatically generate these pages with no indication of human oversight (each I've checked has the samewell known as ... recognized for ... important clients, etc. format). As such I find Voice123 to be a dubious source at best, and considering that as a source it entirely concernsWP:BLP, I'd say it's unusable.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)15:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I can say I have no argument that Voice123 can be considered a dubious source for aWP:BLP. If so, we can replace them with other reliable sources per the relevant policy atWP:BLPRS (such as the timing of a show's official ending credits, BTVA, official Twitter/Instagram feeds, news reports, press releases, and so on) and possibly use the Voice123 link itself as an article's external link where necessary (like, uh, IMDb?).sjones23 (talk -contributions)23:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have no argument that it's a dubious sourcefor non-clients, which is what is being addressed in the Neves matter. That does not mean that they could not be a reliable source for clients, who presumably have some control over their listing. --Nat Gertler (talk)00:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't (and didn't mean to) argue that Voice123's a dubious source forWP:BLPs of non-clients (especially Neves), but I do agree that it certainly wouldn't suggest using it as a reliable source for their clients. A potential B-class, GA-class or even an FA-class article on a BLP for any voice actor who's a non-client of Voice123 shouldn't include their profile as a source. We can try looking into this site further; if there are any non-client profiles used as sources, we can simply replace them with other reliable sources as I previously mentioned.sjones23 (talk -contributions)00:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Voice123 looks dubious. We do not know who, as an individual, wrote the information about the actors, and Voice123 does not appear to have a transparent editorial process.Z. Patterson (talk)02:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnTalk:Yves_Engler, we have had robust discussion about The Toronto Sun with no consensus (there are two in favor of it's usage, and two against, although the offending section of the article was removed for other reasons).
I have contributed to other articles on Canadian politics (including biographies of living persons) and never run up against claims that The Toronto Sun is disallowed. As far as I know, so long asWP:NEWSORG is followed there's no issue with this source. But as this has appeared now three times on this noticeboard, it appears to be aWikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.Andwats (talk)02:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specificaly Andwats is seeking to use the Toronto Sun to include attributed statements calling a BLP a genocide denier. The Sun has massive reliability issues. Here's a few links about it:
[43] This is a good starting point. Basically leaked memos indicated that, beyond reporting or even spinning news, Toronto Sun aimed to manufacture it.
There's also extensive records of accuracy complaints at the National Newsmedia Council[44].
Here's another example of reporting on their accuracy issues.[46]
I've said, recently, that I would like to do away withWP:RS/P because of people assuming anything absent from it was good enough for all use-cases. In the case of the Toronto Sun I'd be willing to treat it as reliable for sports scores and the weather in Toronto. That's about it. It should never be used for any BLP information and certainly not to call a BLP a genocide denier. I would also argue that, if the notoriously awful Sun is the only source to pick up on an issue, then it's most likelyWP:UNDUE. Canada's most notorious mainstream tabloid is not a good benchmark for encyclopedic relevance, especially on its own.Simonm223 (talk)13:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about Canadaland is actually more respected, by far, as a journalistic outlet than the Sun in Canada and while CPJME is an advocacy group there's no reason to doubt their reporting on the Sun here.Simonm223 (talk)15:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Canadaland is a blog. I don't think it even pretends to be anything other thanmuckracking. You have ignored the core point which is that the Sun is not only a member of NNC but that the NNC has in fact ruled in many of the decisions that the Sun upheld journalistic standards.Andwats (talk)15:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed all of the National Newsmedia Council complaints against the Sun.
You should notice that as many complaints were upheld for news articles specifically as were dismissed. A 50% ratio of upheld complaints is pretty lousy. And you're still trying hard to discount anything any of the other sources had to say. Your characterization of Canadaland, for instance, is just wrong. Your assertion about PressProgress is also just a blanket dismissal without evidence. Why do you believe PressProgress is unreliable for leaked memos from the Sun? Are you suggesting they fabricated them?Simonm223 (talk)12:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 dismissed complaints is pretty much nothing considering the Sun publishes thousands, maybe ten's of thousands of articles a year. The majority of the complaints are on opinion pieces, the Sun for sure has bias in it's columns and editorial sections. I bet if you compared the complaints to the National Post one, you'd see the same thing. So I don't think the presence of complaints is a point either way. I think it's sort ofWikipedia:Source counting. Yeah, Canadaland may break stories like they did with Ghomeshi but I wouldn't use it in BLP even in that case until the story is picked up by conventional media. Canadaland is explicitly a podcast and media company, it is not aWP:NWSRC. And, as such it lack verifiability, it's literally one guy. However, there's examples where Canadaland is appropriate since it has a large audience, it's opinion reflects a certain view. PressProgress (even though I happen to personally agree with it) is even worse, it was literally started to sway voters (and that's according to CanadalandBroadbent_Institute#PressProgress). In respect to BLP, I would remove PressProgress. Generally, speaking I would never use it on Wikipedia just like I would never use North99 or Ontario Proud. If you are suggesting that PressProgress is fine "because how could they lie about a fact" then I think you must also agree that the Sun is fine so long as it is reporting accurately on facts.Andwats (talk)13:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I spent a good deal of effort not long ago removing North 99 from an article and replacing it with better (though not perfect) sources, and I would do the same had the source been PressProgress.Andwats (talk)13:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I'm saying that PressProgress has a much better reputation than the Toronto Sun. I'm also saying that the standards forWP:DUE inclusion are more stringent for BLPs than for publications. As such, even if you could demonstrate PressProgress was unreliable for BLPs it might still be reliable for its exposee on the Sun. Frankly this sort of sums up part of the locus of our dispute. You seem to think reliability discussions stop at GREL/GUNREL where I think GREL/GUNREL is an impediment to actually reviewing sources in context.Simonm223 (talk)14:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's close. I certainly think that in this case GREL/GUNREL is useful because I think many editors (see previous noticeboard discussions) and most people see the Sun as WP:NWSRC and we need a general instruction to exclude it or allow it (even if that results inAdditional considerations apply) because it is clearly a point of confusion. In respect to PressProgress I actually thinkWP:NWSRC andWP:NEWSORG is sufficient. The difference is the Sun isWP:NWSRC, it is part of the NNC (which in it's many decisions describes it as news), unlike PressProgress, andThe Toronto Sun article describes it as news. I also think the view that PressProgress (which again Canadaland compares to Ontario Proud) is more reliable and less biased than the Sun is simply wrong, it has a quantifiable bias for the NDP which Canadaland demonstrated (which is why I don't oppose the use of Canadaland inBroadbent_Institute#PressProgress). In general, news writing is a collaborative professional process and answerable to organizations like NNC, while blogs are not answerable to any professional organization. Particularly in Canada, where we tend to be less litigious than in the US, for example, and avoid defamation cases. For stuff like Ontario Proud, North99, and PressProgress these are factuallyWP:SPONSOR as well asWP:PARTISAN (again PressProgress was started and is owned by a partisan organization). A better source should always be sought out instead of using them and this is inline withWP:NEWSORG which also suggest for even news sources scholarly sources are better when available. ForWP:PARTISAN, we do not need GREL/GUNREL because the guidelines are clear, they should be treated asWP:RSSELF and so it should not be used when it makes claims about third parties as perWP:SELFSOURCE.Andwats (talk)14:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As sketchy as Englers stance on Rwanda (amongmany other issues he takes up) is, we should not be usingToronto Sun to make those claims, or indeed any contentious claims about a BLP. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)15:11, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely where I am on this. I don't have any great fondness (or honestly any great feelings of any type) for Engler. But the Sun is absolutely inappropriate as a source for BLPs. We needother secondary sources to show Engler's views on Rwanda are encyclopedically due.Simonm223 (talk)15:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I'd prefer to highlight his stance on Russia/Ukraine (which is very pro-Russia), but I don't think anyone's reported on his latest Twitter ramblings.
Well then please draft one; I guess it won't waste too much time to say, one more time, "look at all this evidence that thistabloid is unreliable." As much as I hate contributing further to the GREL/GUNREL mistake.Simonm223 (talk)15:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are asserting there was unanimity, but as asserted repeatedly in that discussion (which is also true here): "No policy-based evidence that these two newspapers are unreliable has been presented here."
Secondly, again you have mischaracterized the talk page discussion. There are two editors for using the Sun there, and two against.
For the record, Engler's position is objectively consistent with claims made inRwandan genocide. I believe in his blogs, which were quoted in the section that we rightly decided to remove, he is basically in line with "most scholarly estimates suggest between 500,000 and 662,000 Tutsi died, mostly men." from the Wikipedia article.Andwats (talk)15:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having actually read the discussion on the talk page, this is clearlyWP:FORUMSHOPPING on the part of Andwatts, as the talk page discussion did not end in their favour. Feel free to start an RfC, if would make me very happy to seeToronto Sun finally be for ally recognized as generally unreliable, or better yet, deprecated, but I don't see any other outcome happening.―"Ghost of Dan Gurney"(hihi)16:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the outcome, I am fine with it.
My perspective is that the other user who proposed using the Sun on that article was told it was not allowed as though there were some general ruling, which I do not think is the way to resolve disputes. As with @Simonm223 you have ignored that there are 2 users who were for and 2 users were against.Andwats (talk)17:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I have cited the previous discussions on The Sun in this noticeboard, so to me it's pretty clear it's a perennial source.Andwats (talk)17:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no opinion on the reliability of the Toronto Sun (in general or in this specific situation), however… I will say that having two discussions about it - over 10 years apart - hardly counts as “Perennial”. I support holding an RFC to resolve the immediate question, but oppose adding the result (whatever it might be) to RSP.Blueboar (talk)14:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IFLScience is a legitimate popular science website and should be generally reliable. Of course, higher quality sources are to be preferred, but those may not be available for a topic like the Dead Internet theory.John M Baker (talk)15:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IFLScience historically when it was primarily a Facebook page had an extremely low reputation among connoisseurs of science journalism as a low quality site that was the source of misleading, clickbait science stories (see for example[47] and[48]) . However, the company was purchased by a professional media organisation in 2020 that now owns Discover Magazine, so I'm not sure how much the criticsm that IFLScience received a decade ago is really applicable to the site as it exists today (with the story you wanted to cite being from 2024).Hemiauchenia (talk)16:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback @John M Baker, @Cortador, and @Hemiauchenia! I'm dating myself, but I remember them as that clickbait Facebook page, and needed a sanity check that today it is something we can make reference to today. Cortador, that article is already included in the article, but thanks for the recommendation!GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔)03:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is EBSCO Knowledge Advantage a reliable source forWoccon language
I wouldn't say so, as EBSCO is a library repository not a source itself, and IIRC, the "Knowledge Advantage" suite is LLM generated overviews of topics, something that a lot of companies related to academic publishing and access are now doing. The source list provided at the bottom of the "Knowledge Advantage" page for "Cape Fear" should be looked into as potential sources to use. --Cdjp1 (talk)19:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IsTimes Now RS for subjects other than Indian politics and nationalism? My perception, from past discussions, is that we should treat Times Now with the same caution applied to Fox News underWP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, though it's generally fine for topics that don't touch Indian politics or foreign affairs.Chetsford (talk)02:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking atthis article. IRS SIGCOV for BFDI or not? To expand on what the issues are here, I want to hear from editors at RSN as to whether this is 1)WP:SPS (and, if yes, it can't still be used to sustain notability as it comes from a subject-matter expert), and 2) independent (particularly, is it an interview-type-source or not).FOARP (talk)08:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interview mixed with original prose, but most of the original prose just repackages things said the interviewee has said with little added. As one example:
the genre has exploded in popularity, with not just Battle for Dream Island but its unofficial sister show Inanimate Insanity ... Two Inanimate Insanity writers — Sam Thornbury and Joseph Pak — have taken on a showrunner-like role for BFDI looks like good original analysis, but this is tempered by the fact that the interviewee says above that the object show community iskind of unrecognizable from what it was like five years ago or ten years ago ... It really started to fragment and grow. It’s a whole umbrella of umbrellas, and below thatit was Cary writing for himself ... But as the lore like keeps getting more and more complex, both of us look to our directors, Sam Thornbury and Joseph Pak.
For me, per "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.", this counts. Maybe not for a full GNG-point, of which I prefer to see at least 3, but it adds to the argument for WP:N.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)13:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this isn't an unreasonable position to hold, and if I did count it towardsWP:N it would certainly be as a partial point as you've said. Given the interview content, do you find the coverage present to be fully, partially, or not independent?fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)13:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first three paragraphs appear to me to be completely original coverage, with the first paragraph giving a general overview of BFDI and mentioning object shows as a concept, the second paragraph talking about the AMC/Marcus theatre screenings of TPOT 20 and a brief concept description of that episode, and a third paragraph talking about it selling out and the video release getting 1 million views in 9 hours.
There's also the later paragraph ("Indie animation based on characters with names like Taco and Book might sound like the kind of low-effort slop that gets YouTube parents angry, but Battle for Dream Island uses the minimalist character designs like XKCD uses stick figures. Not only do they not fall back on lazy jokes about what the object does in the real world, but they actively develop away from the predictable traits.") which seems like original coverage to me as well.ZestySourBoy (talk)13:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't contest that the first 2.5 paragraphs are fine, half of it is about the screening of a single episode, but it's original.
From my view the substantive content of the latter paragraph starts atBattle for Dream Island uses the minimalist ..., but the part that statesNot only do they ... they actively develop away from the predictable traits is somewhat restating what the interviewee says later thatthe design of a character, or what object they are, doesn’t play any role in their personality.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)14:17, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair appraisal I can agree with that. There is also the brief mention in the second to last paragraph of BFDIA being the second season, TPOT being the fifth season, and the two shows running at the same time which also appears to be original coverage.ZestySourBoy (talk)14:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The interviewee themselves states right after that they are running two concurrent seasons... to have a website that explains why two seasons are going on at the same time. The context the author gives on what seasons and in what order is good, but it still looks like the article content is being led by the interviewee's statements.fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk)14:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I didn't spot that good catch. Well I guess that's all the completely original coverage from this article.
What I'm getting from the above is that this is a peripheral source. It's still not quite all the way there as IRS SIGCOV. Or does someone else have a different point of view here?FOARP (talk)12:58, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my eyes there is still enough original stuff in this article for it to be considered significant coverage.
From what I know the main point of needing significant coverage is two-way, and correct this if this isn't the case: First to verify that BFDI is notable enough to warrant making a Wikipedia page, which is quite obvious. Second, and the one BFDI always struggled with, is to actually have enough information from sources to write a standard proper page about the subject.
Itcould squeak through in it's current shape, but I'm far from confident, andno consensus would mean "stays as a draft at this time" in this case. Anyone who wants can start aWP:DRV (because of the previousWP:SALT-ings, see discussion at[50]) and see what happens. It's annoyingly bureaucratic, but the subject has a lot of baggage.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)16:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. No harm on sending it through a deletion review, if it fails and it stays a draft then that's fine, we just wait for another news article and that should do it. Starting a deletion review might be better to leave to someone who knows Wikipedia better and can do it well, I'm not confident enough on the inner workings of Wikipedia and especially specifically how to submit a deletion review to do it myself.ZestySourBoy (talk)17:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think the better move here is just to wait a week to see if any other source comes up. No need for pushing on this.FOARP (talk)20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting this discussion because this widely-used source hasn't been discussed yet and a consensus on its reliability would allow it to be added to NPPSG, which would simplify the work of NPP reviewers. Cheers!YuniToumei (talk)11:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the purpose of this noticeboard, which is to discuss sources that are contested. If you want to add a source to NPPSG you should discuss it onWT:NPPSG. Pre-approval of sources is back to front, as anyone who may want to object to the source can't know to object to it before it's used. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Disclosure: I discussed this issue with YuniToumei before they brought it here.) I don't think you are correct about WT:NPPSG.WP:NPPSG#Adding entries saysAll information in this page should be written to reflect existing consensus elsewhere on Wikipedia (usuallyWP:RSN, but Wikiprojects and other places are also acceptable). It makes no mention of WT:NPPSG. I also don't see the problem with raising this issue here now. The banner on this page doesn't require an active dispute over a specific use of a source. Further, YuniToumei has provided an example of an article where it is used and this source is already used in over 400 articles[52].Toadspike[Talk]14:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever NPP write this noticeboard isn't for getting entries added to a list, I would suggest taking it to the second part of that sentence "Wikiprojects and other places are also acceptable" if that's what you want to do. This is the same as if you were opening a new section just to get something added to RSP, something else that will get shutdown. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you for explaining. I can try to find a more suitable venue to post this at. I'll see ifWP:CH will have enough participation.
As someone who is new to RSN, I find it surprising that there seem to be these hidden criteria for what and what should not be posted here, specifically regarding the requirement of contestation. The banner at the top of this page saying "Ask about sources in context" isn't much to go by, and I think I followed the requirements thatare written of linking the source and providing an example where the source is used. If these unspoken rules are as evident to everyone else here as they are to you, I suggest writing them down on this page, so that confusions like this can be avoided.
Also, I don't think this is comparable to opening a topic here to get it posted at RSPP. There, the instructions are very clear about the requirement of repeated discussion which doesn't apply here. Cheers!YuniToumei (talk)06:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, there's a discussion going atTalk:Chloe Cole that I wanted to bring here about whether to attribute in text things for which our only source is Cole herself.
For those unaware, Cole is a detransitioner who has used her detransition story to build an extensive career of political advocacy for restrictions on transgender healthcare. But most of the details of that story, which are at her page, are only attributed by sources to Cole herself. Thus, until yesterday there was in text attribution of these statements as coming from Cole. Now that's been removed because itImplies Cole is Not Credible. Hence why I'm starting this discussion, because imo there is a very clear conflict of interest here regarding her being the only source of the story on which she has built a massive right-wing advocacy career.Snokalok (talk)20:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the specific statements in our article, and the specific sources we're using for them? Basically, we should say what our reliable sources are saying. If reliable sources generally say "Cole did X", and there aren't similarly reliable sources saying "Cole did not do X", we should say "Cole did X". If reliable sources generally say "Cole claims X", then we shouldn't make a stronger statement than that. --GRuban (talk)20:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and now saysCole began transitioning at 12… This is cited toThe Economist, whichsays:
Ms Cole decided at the age of 12 that she was a boy, was put on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and underwent a double mastectomy at 15, before changing her mind and detransitioning at 16.
Given this, I think the main problem with the original revision is not implications about her credibility butfactual inaccuracy – not everyone considers transition to start when you "decide you are a boy", and even if we choose to define transition that way, we shouldn't attribute the results of that definition to her.jlwoodwa (talk)21:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The original version ("Cole says...") is a bit problematic too as it's unclear whether "Cole says" applies only to the first part of the sentence or to the second part too ("having undergone..."). The Economist article says that Cole got puberty blockers and underwent mastectomy in its own voice.Alaexis¿question?14:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any suspicion that is the only source? It took me 20 seconds to find the Spectator[53] and the LA Times[54] saying much the same thing in their own voice. I rather suspect there will be many more. The Economist is probably the better source here, but we don't need to start multiplying citations when there is simply no doubt about the truth of the claim.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)07:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we had just one source, I think we would need some clear reason why we should cast doubt on the claims before we would be justified using attribution as if the claims are disputed or questioned. If Cole is the sole source for her date of birth we wouldn't say, "Cole says her birthday is July 1" unless we had reasons to think it was false. If an editor found tweets where she claimed her birthday was April 20th then we could use OR to argue for attribution. In this case sources are accepting her claims as true facts and we don't have information suggesting her claims should be viewed with suspicion. Given that some of the claims are based on her lawsuit filings it's likely they were supported by medical records. Additionally, if there was evidence that the facts were false this almost certainly would have been an issue in court. That "she is an activist" is a good reason to view her statements about "correct treatments/policies" as her opinions. It is not a good reason to doubt the claims in this discussion.Springee (talk)12:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Cole's very high profile advocacy for laws outlawing pre-adult transitioning, Cole is suing her medical care provider. Whatexactly for I'm not sure, failure to follow best practice or on the principle itself of prescribing puberty-blockers and undertaking surgery to remove her breasts when she was a teenager? At present only Cole has spoken about the details of her transition, how she presented to her practitioner, what advice was given to her or her parents etc.(her parents presumably gave permission for the surgery). Both her parents and her practitioner and the care provider have all been notably silent AFAIK. The core facts of when medical and surgical intervention took place are relatively indisputable and verifiable, but the details are both the subject of legal action and the information available is wholly reliant on Cole's memories, which given her regret, would not be at all surprising to find were coloured by her subsequent regret. I am very sympathetic to what happened to Cole, certainly the outcome for her, I don't doubt her sincerity in the least, nonetheless feel we should unobtrusively attribute her story as we previously were doing as the sole ultimate source for it.Pincrete (talk)04:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like Springee's statement, that unless we have specific reasons not to accept her statements about facts, we should. If the core facts are not in dispute, we should state them as facts. --GRuban (talk)20:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While searching for sources onThe Taverna, I discovered an article from Greek City Times. There are a few sources in this article from publications targeting the Greek-Australian diaspora -- theSpecial Broadcasting Service is state-funded by the Australian government and to my knowledge an undisputed reliable source,Neos Kosmos andThe Greek Herald are both Australian publications targeting the Greek diaspora that I was already familiar with, and the Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria run the Greek Film Festival, being used solely as a source for the location of a theatre. However, I was not familiar with Greek City Times. A search on Google suggested they were "a leading media platform dedicated to promoting Hellenism and serving the global Greek diaspora and Philhellenes" (see: theirFacebook page), they appeared to be based in Sydney so I just assumed they were a Sydney diaspora newspaper.
However, at theDYK nomination for The Taverna, an editor raised concerns over the reliability of Greek City Times. There have previously been three prior discussions (#1,#2,#3) on this page about the reliability of it, mainly in the context of nationalist editing. Many editors seem to think the site is openly nationalist and biased, which I would not disagree with -- in specific, one of the site's contributors, Paul Antonopoulos, recieved some coverage on ABC'sMedia Watch for, uh,denying chemical attacks and posting on notorious Nazi blog Stormfront. Antonopoulos still writes articles for the Greek City Times, all of which seem to bequite nationalistic.
In this case if you look at the Neos Kosmos and FilmInk articles and compare quotes from those to the Greek City Times article, it looks to me like the Greek City Times may have just re-written the quotes enough to appear original. Compare for instance: “It was a hot summer in Melbourne when we took over my friend’s Greek restaurant White Village Tavern to shoot this movie" from the Greek City Times to “It was stinking hot. It was a Melbourne heat wave. We took over White Village Tavern and turned it into a movie set." from FilmInk. And the comment about his earliest recollections is the same in Neos Kosmos and the Greek City Times. I think the problem is Neos Kosmos attributes the quotes to a director's statement and FilmInk conducted an interview, but the Greek City Times doesn't actually indicate where the quotes are from and it was published after the other two. At the same time, I understand how difficult it is to find diaspora news sources, especially for Cypriot topics. I agree with your assessment that their other coverage is unreliable after looking at their articles on the Turkish-Cypriot election and comparing them to the Cyprus Mail.Andwats (talk)01:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claim in specific that the Greek City Times was verifying was that the White Village Tavern was used as a wrap party for Tsilimidos' prior productions, which I believe no other source says. I am almost certain that this is true (because I heard him say it at a Q&A two days ago, although obviously my recollections are not a reliable source), and it's not mentioned in the Neos Kosmos source, but I agree that the seeming rewording of statements is concerning -- my thoughts were that they might have been working off some sort of press statement, as a bunch of the coverage does read quite similarly.LivelyRatification (talk)01:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“It was a hot summer in Melbourne when we took over my friend’s Greek restaurant to shoot this movie,” said writer/director Alkinos Tsilimidos. “White Village Tavern, the location, has always been a favorite wrap party destination for my productions.”
By the way I don't think you need "(as per the Australian Arts Review)," the inline citation and bringing it to the attention of the reviewer on the Talk page is good enough in my opinion.Andwats (talk)16:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking input on whether the following is a suitable RS for a numeric territorial figure.
Claim to source: A total land area (~10.4 million km²) for the Portuguese Empire when Brazil was a co-kingdom (United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves, 1815–1822).
Proposed source: Geoffrey Parker, *Compact History of the World* (Barnes & Noble, 2001), p. 119. ISBN 978-0-7607-2575-7. (Atlas-style reference by a reputable historian.)
Context: The article currently cites Taagepera (1997) for ~5.5 million km² (c. 1820) based on “effective colonial administration.” I’m not proposing to replace Taagepera, but to include an alternative figure from a respected historical atlas that counts the pluricontinental realm including Brazil (1815–1822), with a short scope note.
Question: Is Parker (2001) acceptable as a reliable source for stating a Brazil-inclusive total area in km²? If acceptable, any advice on wording to present both figures with scope definitions?
OnTalk:Circumcision there is an ongoing discussion about whether peer-reviewed psychology and human-rights research (e.g., Hammond & Carmack 2017; Hammond et al. 2023) can be used to document psychological regret or loss of autonomy among some circumcised men.
User:Bon courage has argued that these sources are "unreliable" underWP:MEDRS, while I’ve noted that such studies are not biomedical in nature; they address psychological and identity outcomes, which MEDRS itself describes as outside its biomedical scope:
> “Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not.”
The question I’d like clarified is:
Does WP:MEDRS govern the sourcing of psychological and autonomy-related outcomes, or are those appropriately covered byWP:RS since they are non-biomedical?
Any clarification or precedent from past discussions would be appreciated, so that the sourcing standard can be applied consistently across medical and psychosocial topics.Editor25319531 (talk)03:19, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to use non-MEDRS sources but we shouldn't use them to "smuggle in" medical claims. To take Hammond & Carmack 2017 as an example, Hammond is a human rights activist, the article is published in The International Journal of Human Rights. They ran a survey and found various adverse outcomes (pp. 11-12). It would be inappropriate to add them to the article. The same article could be a reliable source for other, non-medical claims.Alaexis¿question?06:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question the editor is posing is whether claims about well-being, regret or identity are covered byWP:MEDRS, which indeed an interesting question. However, I think the answer is inWP:BMI, which broadly covers attributes of treatments (their advantages/disadvantages) under "information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health". I think psychological well-being is definitely broad understood as a part of human health.Katzrockso (talk)00:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is a permathread as drive-by activists are unhappy with what MEDRS currently say, but the guideline is clear here:
Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field.
The specific issue concerns studies on psychological and identity-related outcomes of circumcision, such as self-reported regret or loss of autonomy. Examples both for and against such outcomes include:
Hammond & Carmack (2017),International Journal of Human Rights, DOI [10.1080/13642987.2016.1260007](https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2016.1260007) – a survey of 1,008 men describing long-term psychological harms and regret.
Hammond et al. (2023),International Journal of Impotence Research, DOI [10.1038/s41443-023-00686-5](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00686-5) – reports on men pursuing foreskin restoration for emotional or identity reasons.
Maloney et al. (2022),Sexuality Research and Social Policy, DOI [10.1007/s13178-022-00727-6](https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-022-00727-6) – a population-level study finding no significant differences in satisfaction or regret between circumcised and uncircumcised men.
User:Bon courage has argued that these are unreliable because they do not meetWP:MEDRS standards, whereas my view is that MEDRS applies to biomedical efficacy and safety claims, while psychosocial and autonomy-related outcomes fall underWP:RS instead.
The relevant MEDRS language states: > “Biomedical information requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not.”
I’m requesting input from experienced editors on whether peer-reviewed psychological, social-science, and human-rights studies of this type may be cited under WP:RS to document psychosocial perspectives in a medical article, or whether they must meet WP:MEDRS standards even though they are non-biomedical in nature.
Hey @Newslinger, I really appreciate your note. I did use an assistant to help me refine the phrasing, though the ideas, arguments and sources are mien. I'm still new to wikipedia, so thank you for the clarification. This rule makes plenty of sense. To comply with WP:AITALK, I'll rewrite and repost a version fully in my own words.Editor25319531 (talk)03:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this up again after the earlier conversation was collapsed per my procedural error. Phrasing now in my own words.
The question is whether WP:MEDRS applies to long-term issues of identity, autonomy, and subjective sense of well-being following an involuntary medical procedure.
OnTalk:Circumcision, there is a discussion on the fact that the article currently only addresses strictly biomedical outcomes, e.g. bleeding, complications, etc. I would expect those kinds of outcomes to fall under WP:MEDRS. But whether a population of men has expressed a subjective sense of loss of identity and autonomy as a result of involuntary circumcision is not a MEDRS topic--it is not a claim about biomedical efficacy or safety.
As an analogy, sources on biomedical outcomes of sexual assault, such as pregnancy, physical injury, or elevated biomarkers of stress, are generally subject to MEDRS, while subjective psychosocial outcomes and human rights issues are generally not.
There are numerous, well-cited, peer-reviewed, non-MEDRS sources that find no population-level difference in satisfaction among circumcised and uncircumcised men (see links in the talk page). There are also numerous well-cited, non-MEDRS sources that document a sub-population of involuntarily circumcised men who express deep subjective anguish.
Neither of these findings support or refute claims about biomedical complications from the procedure. However, editors of that page prevent identity-based and psychosocial outcomes from being presented since these are not represented in MEDRS sources.
Should the psychological and identity-based outcomes of circumcision be discussed on that page given that there are no MEDRS sources on that topic?
Not seeing much in theWP:RSN archives aboutJewish Insider, so wanted to bring a question here fromTalk:Graham Platner#Former acquaintance Totenkopf tattoo claim. IsJewish Insider a useablesource to include that an (anonymous) acquaintance ofGraham Platner said that he had previously called his skull-and-bones tattoo aTotenkopf and knew of its connotations? There are other sources mentioning this claim, but all are just re-reporting theJI story and I don't see any that have independently verified.
My gut feeling is no, given thatJI seems to be heavily slanted when it comes to Israel–Palestine, and Platner has been vocally critical of Israel's actions in Palestine (including describing them as a "genocide").JI has previously described Platner as "anti-Israel" ([55]). I also notice the Totenkopf article describes Platner as "far-left", which is not how he is typically described by other RS. My feeling is that it is probably not reliable for an extraordinary claim about a BLP's alleged antisemitism, which the subject has denied.
If no, should the statement be a) removed entirely or b) retained, but attributed? I see another editor recentlyedited the article to clarify that this was an anonymous source, and seems to be suggesting the quote/identity of the source itself could be in question ("an anonymous former acquaintance allegedly told Jewish Insider"), though my feeling is that if we're that skeptical about the source it should probably be removed entirely.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)13:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Platner far-left seems a bit of an indication, at the very least, that this piece is wading intoWP:RSOPINION territory here. My understanding is that he did have a brief Reddit Communism phase a few years ago but has calibrated toward a pro-small-business centrist-with-a-few-progressive-policy-plank position with his campaign run. I don't know... my gut tells me that Jewish Insider is probably correct that Platner knew what that image meant since he is a military history buff but "probably correct" isn't necessarily sufficient forWP:V. I guess what I'm saying is that I can see why you're conflicted because, looking at the situation and what I know of it, I'd be conflicted too. I guess the question would be whether there's any supporting refs here. If it's justJI alone then maybeWP:UNDUE is the best approach.Simonm223 (talk)14:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the only source for this information: Platner knowingly having an SS tattoo
@Absadah: To be clear, the question here is specifically about the sentence: "However, an anonymous former acquaintance allegedly told Jewish Insider that Platner had called the tattoo a Totenkopf and knew what it represented back in 2012."GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)15:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why include the anonymous quote, when there is a named associate (Genevieve McDonald) who says the same thing in more reputable sources?Andwats (talk)15:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that McDonald is essentially saying she doesn't believe it's possible Platner couldn't have known the symbol's meaning earlier than he says he did, whereas the anonymous source is claiming he definitively knew its meaning in 2012. Fine with me if the choice is to use what McDonald has said, but just wanted to clarify they are fairly different claims.GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk)15:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see what you're saying. I think what it comes down to is that pretty much everyone who is aware of the circumstances agrees it strains credibility that he didn't know. The problem is that we cannot useWP:SKYBLUE for something like this no matter how obvious the connection is. I would suggest that we stick with the better-sourced McDonald comments for now. If someone else substantiates JI maybe we add that later.Simonm223 (talk)15:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JI is a reliable source for statements published inJI. I would not citeJI for a definitive statement like "Graham Platner is a far-left, anti-Israel political candidate" but it's OK for the current wording in the article. The line in our article is carefully worded as an attributed statement. I may comment other thoughts on how the content is presented atTalk:Graham Platner#Former acquaintance Totenkopf tattoo claim. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)19:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the general practice is on this: logically,some sitting governments wouldseem to be patently failures on most anyWP:RS scrutiny. The name of the country, I'd imagine, is irrelevant, versus the folks currently at the helm.
I'll get to the point. Are statements from thecurrent iteration of the USA'sUnited States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) a reliable source for anything, including statements about it's own activities? There are weekly expanding stories of constant false statements from the White House admin to US courts.
We are still in a "wait and see" period. We clearly should have doubts if reported info differs significantly from known reliable sources. In that instance we are using a quoted attributed statement correctly, that is, known RSes are reiterating what the spokesperson said, with our in line attribution., so that they made that statement meets verify ability. Whether it was true or not, we shouldn't be the ones to determine that.Masem (t)21:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that example, we are not using ICE as a source. We are using a reliable source to say that ICE said something... and importantly, we are not putting what ICE said in our voice. It's a perfectly fine usage. We could even use an ICE source as a source for that something was said in that specific source (with the major caveat regarding BLPs; even if ICE said "that non-notable person rapes poodles",WP:BLPCRIME would discourage us from quoting.) But yes, it would be problematic to take what ICE or the DHS as a whole says as a statement of fact. --Nat Gertler (talk)Nat Gertler (talk)21:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Goverments and governmental institutions are reliable for their own opinions and statements, they should not normally be used for statements of fact. If ICE say that Pluto is a planet they're reliable for the fact they said that, but not for the status of Pluto in wikivoice. So they're reliable for claiming they weren't at the park, but independent sources should be used to say whether or not they actually were there or not. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For any high level executive department stuff, I feel it should be limited to attributed statements. One thing I'm curious about is how far down the unreliability goes; the Forest Service and National Parks Service for instance put out a lot of quality reports that I've used for articles about geographical subjects in the past. But it seems like these might become less reliable if the agencies become mismanaged to a low level.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)22:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about US agencies, a better example might be a government agency likeStatsCan which is probably one of the most reliable sources for statistics in general in Canada.Andwats (talk)22:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time, governments are notWP:RSes anyway; they're, at best,WP:PRIMARY sources for their own attributed opinions, nothing else. ICE is obviously not usable for unattributed statements of fact under any circumstances, but that isn't because they're unusually unreliable (though I'd say they are), it's because that's thedefault. Your typical government org has no editorial controls, no fact-checking process, nothing that would make them aWP:RS - it's no different than citing a statement by a random business in that regard. A few government organizations do have those things and manage to achieve both areputation for fact-checking and accuracy andWP:INDEPENDENT status such that they're not just government mouthpieces, but it's rare and even then the status could be quickly lost after a change in governments if their independence seems to have been lost, in the same way a news channel could lose its reliability quickly after changing owners. Now,secondary sources that cite those government bodies can be used if they'reWP:RSes, but it's important to be cautious and only report what the secondary source says, including reflecting any attribution or skepticism in the sources. AndWP:DUE weight applies; especially if they're makingWP:BLP-sensitive accusations against a named individual, it might be best to wait until multiple high-quality sources cover it. Likewise, if a quote from them isn't given much weight in a source, it might be a sign that we shouldn't give it much weight, either. (This is also an unusual situation where BLP is actually on theside ofWP:MANDY, ie. it's a given that ICE is going to defend their actions; not everything they say in that regard is automatically due, especially if it's BLP-sensitive and is accorded limited weight in sources.) --Aquillion (talk)15:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that may actually be worth considering is that any reporting coming from the Pentagon press corps should probably be considered primary from now on, as any journalists remaining have agreed to only published reports that have been pre-authorised by the Pentagon. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources known to have signed the agreement weren't reliable in the first place (e.g., Lindell TV, Gateway Pundit, Just the News, Tim Pool’s podcast). Here's anincomplete list, perhaps there's a more complete one somewhere.FactOrOpinion (talk)16:46, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion hasended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Nick Pope ...
Option 1: Generallyreliable for factual reporting.
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: Generallyunreliable for factual reporting.
Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)
Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged atWP:RSP?
Option 1: An independent entry for Nick Pope.
Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
OnQ1 Option 3. Nick Pope is best known for dozens of appearances in UFO documentary-style entertainment films,[61] as emcee of "Ancient Aliens: LIVE on Tour!" (part of theAncient Aliens entertainment franchise which posits that Martians used ray beams to build the pyramids),[62] his numerous quotes in tabloids commenting on UFOs, and his non-critical, popular texts on UFOs (see Amazon author page:[63]). Across numerous past discussions (see below) it's been made generally clear that he presents the20th Century UFO Shared Fiction storytelling versus factual reporting or scholarship.
OnQ3 Option 2. For ease of presentation and economization of space, they should be aggregated under a common heading with a concise, holistic description using an introductory, independent clause (i.e. "Editors have found the following UFO content creators are generally unreliable ...") that can be separately workshopped later. If additional UFO writers are classified according to whatever the case ends up being for Pope, they can be added, as appropriate, rather than cluttering RSP with voluminous and numerous entries for individual writers.Chetsford (talk)00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few thoughts. First, this seems a little narrow in scope. I agree that we should consider UFO content creators more broadly. Secondly, it seems like these people could reasonably be used as a source for information about thedisclosure movement itself (e.g. this UFO conference happened, there were these speakers, and these topics were covered), but obviously not reliable for claims about secret government programs, extraterrestrial contact, etc. Lastly, I'm not sure these discussions are perennial enough to be added to the table.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)17:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On question 2, Ioppose option 2. For the reasons I said in the last discussion, I oppose creating a specific classification for such a varied assemblage of sources; even if we were to include the names manually the implication would obviously be that anyone who writes on similar topics is also unreliable when such people vary greatly. I don't think we've had cause to discuss this enough to insert him or Pope in the table, which is supposed to beperennially discussed sources, this was really only brought up a single time in reference to one AfD and the resulting discussions, and we barely cite him onwiki and for nothing of real importance. It's not a problem if we do add him to the table, so I wouldn't oppose it the same way I do option 2, it just seems unnecessary. You can always just link to this RFC it ever becomes a problem again. As for Q1, while I don't think appearing on a stupid TV show is itself evidence of unreliability, his books push fringe theories and so I would not cite him on this.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1 Option 2 - case by case - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d try to evaluate the RSness of the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I would suspect that he is being used as a cite for what is in his many books so that should be fine and helpful, and even necessary. (Where else to find writings on UFO reports other than books like this author's ?) Come back with an actual entry and cite in question and -- likely it is fine. Cheers part 1
Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP - it seems not a "Perennial" topic so fails the criteria to be listed there.WP:RSP is not supposed to be a list of every single author, just a list meant for sources frequently discussed. In this case, discuss at any article or coming to RSN with any individual issue is the way this should proceed. CheersMarkbassett (talk)01:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that if a "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" row is created, people will start proposing other categories of content creators (e.g., legal content creators). Do you envision that over time, we'd just have a bunch of rows for different categories of individual content creators?FactOrOpinion (talk)00:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. In the case of law, I'm assuming we're talking aboutpseudolaw content creators, like sovereign citizens. For the most part, we haven't had, in practice, a lot of disagreement about excluding the legal theories of Freemen on the Land or Sovereign Citizens to the point that there would be much benefit in indexing them in a single place to avoid endless argumentative repetition. If that started to be a constant and unending point-of-contention, however, I could imagine the dynamic might then justify a single and concise entry to index the most prolific and frequently discussed SCs and Freemen. But as of now, I don't see any extant record at RSN of these types of discussions.Chetsford (talk)01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking much more generally (e.g., any legal content creator, or at least those who self-publish, not just those who create pseudolaw content). The reason I asked is because I don't see how to bound the scope of Q2 if consensus is for option 1 or 2. That is, you're asking specifically about Nick Pope, but editors raise questions about lots of individual content creators here: "Is Paula Person, author of Work 1 and Work 2, a reliable source?" What would distinguish the content creators who merit some characterization at RSP from those who don't?FactOrOpinion (talk)02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Pope, an RfC is realistically justified as his name comes up repeatedly and he produces huge tracts of information in books by different publishing houses, appearances in different programs and documentaries, etc., and there are demands to relitigate each excision of his content which RfCs were designed to prevent (in the interest of time economization). I think that's qualitatively different from someone who asks "is John Smith's 1982 book about the Third Zulu War RS" ... that said, if there were an entire subculture of authors who create huge volumes of fictional content about the Third Zulu War, sure, I think that'd be fine. I just don't know it's something that would happen, in practice.Chetsford (talk)14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any other listing on RSP for an individual person? Not that that impacts my answer (which I am thinking about), but I can't think of another.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find any entries on RSP that otherwise refer to a creator rather than the publication, with the exception ofWP:JACOBIN which says "the reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable." I don't see an easy way to mark a person as being more reliable or not with the current system (list) in place? --Reconrabbit15:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some precedent withJeff Sneider atWP:JEFFSNEIDER. The facts are a bit different but the entry notes that Sneider's reliability rating does not extend to his podcast co-host; thus the reliability is based on the speaker/"author" and not the show. If Sneider writes a piece in a different publication or is interviewed on a different podcast, I think it would be reasonable for an editor to apply his personal reliability rating to such sources, absent other reasons to doubt the suitability of the source and with all the usual caveats. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)19:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since UEFA is an involved party here, whatever editors want included here needs coverage from independent sources, otherwise it is not due for inclusion, independently from ist factuality.Cortador (talk)05:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I don't know about it being aself-published source. The way I read that mission statement, itstarted out as a self published source, but "it's a big project, and one that I peobably(sic) cannot do alone" so now they have recruited and are recruiting "researcher"s with "special knowledge of animation or any specific studio" to contribute. Even if it is still a self published source, SPSs "may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I have absolutely no idea if the owner of that site is an established subject matter expert though. @Sjones23 I think we need a deeper analysis before concluding that it should or should not be removed. ~ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving13:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's also "Once logged in, any user may submit comments or ratings to any of the cartoons listed. If you have special knowledge of animation or any specific studio, we can register you as a "researcher" which will allow you to edit the "meat and potatoes" of the site. Contact us and let us know what you're all about if you're interested. The final tier is the"adminstrator" and is basically used to administer the site as a whole." SPS andWP:USERG. Also, no named staff etc.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)13:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks like it's using a Wiki type model. From theirhow to help page it seems like they do some minimal vetting of their researchers, but it does not seem too in depth. They say "We’re always looking for people who are either knowledgeable about animation or have access to studio records" but then follow it up with " Right now, I’m also interested in fans who can submit synopsis for individual works."
This discussion has run its course and there does not seem to be any kind of clear actionable result of letting it continue, only more fruitless arguing.Hemiauchenia (talk)19:56, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trying to avoid any sort of partisan bias, I see no good-faith reason for the New York Post to be deemed "generally unreliable" when Mother Jones is green and Jacobin is yellow. That suggests clear bias within the platform, and I'm not remotely arguing that all of the Post's coverage is high-quality or notable (to the contrary, a lot of it is shoddy). But the Post is regularly cited by other ("reliable") news outlets and U.S. elected officials themselves, so deprecation feels like a bridge too far. Similarly, there is no good-faith justification for National Review being yellow while Mother Jones is green. Left-leaning or right-leaning, they can both be classified as "partisan sources" by this logic, so make them both green or both yellow, but the discrepancy is a double standard.
Ditto for Fox News versus MSNBC: The former is red (for politics) while the latter is green with no caveats? Both sources are deeply flawed, but we shouldn't be dealing in double standards. I mean, come on...
Both Mother Jones, Jacobin, and MSBNC, while they may make errors, show journalistic integrity and editorial control to issue corrections for their errors and the like. Both the Post and Fox News are notorious fornot correcting errors in reporting, which makes them unreliable.Masem (t)13:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what Masem and Cortador said. Imagine we are talking about the sky. Reliability is "the sky is blue." Bias is "The sky is beautifully blue!" or "The sky is blue and it's terrible!"
Fox News and New York post are known for saying things like "The sky is not blue, it's green and terrible, those people who are saying it's blue are terrible people who should die!" Mother Jones and MSNBC are known for saying things like "yesterday, we erroneously reported that the sky is green. That was an error, it is blue. We stand by the rest of our reporting, that the sky is wonderful and the crazies who disagree with us are crazy."
The bias of a source has nothing to do with it's reliability, seeWP:RSBIAS, and sources are not judged against each other but on their own merits. As to making oppositely biased sources the same colour, this would require judging sources based on their political leaning that would be against policy. I'm not a fan of MSNBC but any arguments about it's reliability need to be based on its own reporting, not how it compares politically in it's reporting to Fox News. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. If you look at the above linked article you will see in the following subsections MSNBC is noted as "making stuff up".
2011 Tucson shootings-- they made up motivation.
Mitt Romney video-- they showed a doctored video.
Romney-Ryan chant video-- they misquoted
Coverage of the 2020 Democratic primary-- they used bad sourcing
Err, even if we accept these were new reports (our article is not clear whether they were), using bad sourcing is not lying. Also Morning Joe is an American morning news talk show (an opinion piece, not a news broadcast).Slatersteven (talk)16:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've shifted the goal post there a bit. They areFalse statement which is what "making stuff up" means to me. The logical difference between intention and incompetence is irrelevant in evaluating the quality of the source. Moreover, as a news organization, they should have people vetting their sources and this indicates that their vetting process is not great, which means they are not a great news source.Andwats (talk)16:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No its not, as the goal, posts are "why is fox deprived and this is not", that is the reason, Fox lied on news broadcasts. So =as this is apples to oranges, I am out of here with a NO, untill some evidance is produced they are as bad as Fox NEWS.Slatersteven (talk)16:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The latter point is an opinion stated by Matthews that was challenged by Levin. We would never use Matthews' opinion as a fact we could state in Wikipedia's voice. But we could cite the opinion expressed by a NY Post columnist as that person's opinion.Guettarda (talk)15:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the justification inWikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources for Mother Jones is more or less valid. But also that justification implies to me that it should actually beWP:MREL instead ofWP:GREL because we are advised to consider how to use it on political topics and then to use attribute usage on those topics. If it wasWP:GREL then thinking about how to use it shouldn't be involved.Andwats (talk)15:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at a lot of these sources recently, I don't see how a source with any political bias can beWP:GREL. It must beWP:MREL by definition because some kind of special consideration must be given to it's usage.Andwats (talk)15:18, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that line of reasoning (and part of the reasonWP:BIASED exists) is because anyone with strong opinions on any subject at all is going to claim that every source that disagrees with their views is biased. This is an actual issue with eg.Creation-evolution controversy orAnti-vaccine activism orClimate change orAttempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election - people will say "well all those sources you're citing are biased, because they believe in evolution / believe vaccines are safe / believe climate change is real and caused by humans / believe Trump lost the 2020 election." Especially in the modern news environment (where misinformation is common), there are many things that individual editors might personally feel are controversial but which there is a clear agreement on among the highest-quality sources, and in that case we have to reflect what the best available sources say rather than engaging inWP:FALSEBALANCE by treating all sources that take a clear position as equally unusable. --Aquillion (talk)15:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe I understand your point. First let me clarify, I am only referring toWP:NEWSORG. There is an instruction in WP:NEWSORG already that better sources should always be sought. In the first three examples you have, using news sources is undoubtedly going to be dicey. I would not expect to see MSNBC, Fox, MotherJones in the reflist for those, and it is in fact not (unless ctrl-f fails me). In the last one, I think there's probably also better sources available at this point than news sources; but, I believe that MSNBC is used there as one would if it wereWP:MREL so I don't see the benefit to MSNBC beingWP:GREL based on that example. Looking at the titles of the MotherJones articles, my gut is the inline citations should be more like the MSNBC ones in that article.
But anyway, the argument I am making is that the justification for MotherJones to haveWP:GREL includes a comment that it is biased, and so should be contextualized particularly in the type of articles you've listed anyway... it's just confusing to have it beWP:GREL instead ofWP:MREL. For MSNBC, there is a wikipedia article on it's bias, and therefore it should be used followingWP:BIAS (as it is in the articles you've listed) and therefore should not have the automatic protection implied byWP:GREL.Andwats (talk)15:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to find an academic study of US media sources, but sadly unlike other countries there's a real lack of oversight it seems. The best thing I could find wasAd Fontes Media tool. My take away from using that tool and comparing these to, say BBC, is that none of the sources mentioned here deserve to be haveWP:GREL and thus regarded as well as, say, BBC. Pew also notes that MSNBC is overwhelmingly dominated by opinion and (in the full report) that their news coverage is mixed with opinion coverage[67]. I don't buy that it's news coverage is as bad as Fox since it is accurate on some topics[68]. So I really don't understand what it was not ruled asWP:MREL. Maybe all US media should beWP:MREL (joking, but not joking)?Andwats (talk)19:36, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect to some extent MSNBC does have the same issues Fox has. The difference is they are generally aligned with the majority of RSs and likely don't get the scrutiny Fox got. So let's assume, for argument sake, they are exactly the same as Fox. What we don't have is a lot of sources pointing this out. Absent the sources reporting on the issues what evidence do we have to say they get the facts wrong? Not much thus we presume they are reliable but biased. The fact that they are biased means we should be cautious about giving their views UNDUE weight but that would be true of other strongly left sources as well. I do agree with Andwats comment about bias and being GREL.Springee (talk)15:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's always critical to separate reporting from opinion. Opinions shouldn't be used as RSs. Factual reporting that's subject to bias can be useful. Factual reporting that's actually factually incorrect is actively harmful.(MSNBC vs the NY Post, for example.)Guettarda (talk)16:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The challenge is that the justification, for e.g., Mother Jones says it should be treated as WP:BIASED for political topics in general. My point is that that makes it incoherent as WP:GREL and that by definition it should be WP:MREL. The statement in the justification for it's WP:GREL does not say "it's opinion pieces should be blah blah" it says (my highlighting) "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so itsstatements(particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed."Andwats (talk)16:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this isn't true. There's a dearth of right-leaning sources because most of them have been downgraded below usability. If you look at the discussions, it's often because contradictions of progressive narratives have been declaredfalse whenbiased differently or evenunbiased would be more accurate. Even centrist publications, such as Quillette, were bludgeoned intoWP:GUNREL via discussions that were astonishingly petty.[69][70][71]WP:GREL sources based in Israel such asWP:JERUSALEMPOST have carveouts forWP:PIA that effectively make them unusable for their chief use case, and the related RSN discussions, for the most part, fail to explain why. WhereasWP:ALJAZEERA, designated GREL, has been demonstrated to botch and fail to correct major stories, and criticisms of it were dismissed because outlets reporting on AJ's incompetence or malfeasance were accused of, you guessed it, bias.[72] PerWP:RSP: "Some editors consider [The Free Press,WP:MREL] a self-published source with biased reporting," even though bias and reliability are supposedly separate issues, and there's an open item on RS/N about howWP:CBS should be downgraded because Bari Weiss runs it as of last week. No doubt there are exceptions, but as a rule on WP, bias only disqualifies rightward.Tioaeu8943 (talk)17:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that right wing sources should be more careful to avoid making stuff up then. Basically you're putting the cart before the horse by assuming right-wing and centrist sources are equally reliable and that the apparent difference with how Wikipedia treats right-wing and centrist sources is editorial bias rather than something to do with the right-wing media infrastructure.Simonm223 (talk)17:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also besides making stuff up, misrepresenting or trying to factually place doubt on well-established scientific and medical conclusions, like climate change, etc., whereas WP follows the broad consensus of scientific and medical communities, and generally reflected in what we list as reliable news sources.Masem (t)18:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how many times this has to be said sources will never be rated by comparing them to similar sources only their own merits, and sources will never be rated by comparing their political positions. If one source is considered one way and another source is considered another way that is because they're different sources. If anyone thinks that a new discussion should be had about a source they can open one, and see if their arguments can persuade other editors. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If one source is considered one way and another source is considered another way that is because they're different sources. Exactly, and as a rule, bias only disqualifies rightward.Tioaeu8943 (talk)18:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that, yet for this to be true you would have to produce examples of (a) right-leaning deprecated sources that shouldn't have been deprecated, or (b) left-leaning sources thatshould be deprecated. Please feel free to list those here.Black Kite (talk)18:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, to be clear, is between sources that reinforce progressive narratives and sources that challenge them. Referring to my comment overhead, Quillette, TFP, and implicitly, Jpost were deprecated for the latter. (So it seems was the NYP.) Al Jazeera, which does the former, should be deprecated.Tioaeu8943 (talk)19:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Different sources are different in their behaviour and so have been seen differently based on their own merits. If you believe that Al Jazeera should be considered less reliable start a discussion on it, but the behaviour of other sources is irrelevant. Again that different sources are different doesn't show bias against any source. You would have to show that in the discussions about those sources that right leaning sources were held to different standards, noone has ever shown any evidence of that happening. Your argument only works if different sources all behave in the same way, something that reality shows isn't true. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quillette is pretty much purely an opinion magazine. JP routinely publishes disinformation regarding the genocide in Palestine. TFP is also mostly opinion and does a terrible job separating opinion from reportage. AJE should be treated about the same as any other state-controlled media outlet such as BBC, CBC, NPR and, frankly, China Daily.Simonm223 (talk)19:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SinceDifferent sources are different in their behaviour and so have been seen differently based on their own merits, it is impossible toshow that in the discussions about those sources that right leaning sources were held to different standards. I suspect that you know this already and it is by design.Tioaeu8943 (talk)22:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These insinuations and calling editors petty for having the temerity to voice the opinion (in 2) that maybe we shouldn't treat a publication that publishes intentional fabrications alongside mostlyWP:RSOPINION as "able to be relied upon" is really getting tiresome. Why not just loudly proclaim exactly what it is that you mean by that?Alpha3031 (t •c)11:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's doesn't, there even policy to say that not a valid reason to consider something unreliable (WP:RSBIAS). Noone has shown that bias has been the reason for sources being considered reliable or unreliable. The idea that because 7 right leaning sources are considered unreliable, and only 4 left leaning sources are considered unreliable, means that there is some bias against right wing sources is not a fact based idea. It's just the result of treating each source separately. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that any of the sources to which I referred, with the exception of Al Jazeera, involved reporters "making stuff up." Please indicate where that's the case.Tioaeu8943 (talk)18:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not out job to ensure that there are an equal number of right-wing and left-wing sources listed as reliable or unreliable. That's classic false balance.Cortador (talk)18:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No we're not, not in anyway that anyone has has shown any evidence for. That different sources behave in different ways and editors have different opinions based on the merits of the source is how it should work. We should absolutely never take their political leaning into account when making those decisions. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°18:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not evidence of any sort of bias against right leaning sources, it's just comparing the political leaning of sources - something that has no place in discussing the reliability of sources. Even the comment on CBS is completely wrong headed, as reading the discussion is mostly just editor after editor saying a change in chief editor has no effect on the reliability of a source and any discussion will have to weight until their is any change in the behaviour of the source. The CBS discussion shows you are wrong. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:09, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correction:You're saying that it has no effect, and thank you for being sensible. Otherwise it's editor after editor saying that Weiss leading CBS is obviously terrible and already distorting CBS's coverage - citing the most normie centrist reporting imaginable - but they need more evidence before they downgrade CBS as a source.Tioaeu8943 (talk)23:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are many editors saying the same, and Weiss is very far from centrist - but again that doesn't matter. Bias isn't reliability. If CBS continues to published accurate and well fact checked reports it will be considered reliable. If there are changes to those factors, especially if failings are reported in other sources, only then would revalution be necessary. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a dearth of right-leaning sources because most of them have been downgraded below usability. No, that's not how it works. Many right-leaning sources have downgradedthemselves below usability; perhaps if said right-leaning sources didn't make up fictional stories, which is usually the reason any source is deprecated, that wouldn't happen. This isnot rocket science, and neither is it bias.Black Kite (talk)18:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which appears to beWP:OSE. We don't deprecate sources at a whim, you know - even the deprecation of theDaily Mail, a newspaper which has been fictionalising stories for a long time now (usually with a side of some random bigotry), has been through 3 RfCs now. The thing is though, as many people pointed out - in 99% of cases, if something is in the news enough that we want a newspaper to source it, there'll almost certainly be one thatisn't deprecated, whether that be left, centre, or right-leaning. So the loss is ... minimal.Black Kite (talk)18:51, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support closure perWP:NOTFORUM. A discussion on this noticeboard about the political orientation and reliability of multiple unrelatedcherry-picked sources is not going to result in any action. Any editor who wishes to evaluate any individual source in the context of new evidence can do so by starting a focused discussion on that source. — Newslingertalk19:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to exercise my perogative to complain that this thread lacks the latter two elements required by the editnotice (the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.) in my comment supporting this motion to close. (Which is precisely this comment right here).Alpha3031 (t •c)19:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see no good-faith reason for the New York Post to be deemed "generally unreliable". Not sure if serious. I just finished a review of the2024 United States drone sightings. The day before I completed it, the New York Post published a "sorry, our bad" story about how an anonymous military contractor claimed responsibility for all of the sightings. There were no sources mentioned, and frankly, the entire article read like they had outsourced it to someone in another country who didn't speak English and had spent the afternoon huffing gasoline. The piece was so amateurish that basement dwellers on Reddit who hadn't seen the Sun in a year were laughing at them. This was last week. I think that says it all. The New York Post isn't a reliable source, it's some kind of parody of itself.Viriditas (talk)12:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[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.
When discussion hasended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Richard Dolan ...
Option 1: Generallyreliable for factual reporting.
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: Generallyunreliable for factual reporting.
Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)
Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged atWP:RSP?
Option 1: An independent entry for Richard Dolan.
Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
OnQ1 Option 3. Dolan has appeared dozens of times onCoast to Coast AM,[73] has written numerous non-scientific books exclusively about UFOs,[74] and appears at UFO festivals like Contact in the Desert.[75] He presents himself as a serious academic, self-styled as the "UFO historian", however, matter-of-factly claims things like: a breakaway civilization is operating flying saucers,[76] and that "the existence of underwater UFO bases is likely".[77] His writings include forewords by such luminaries as 9/11 TrutherJim Marrs[78] and he was previously, it seems, proprietor of an indie publishing house called Keyhole Publishing that produced books like Richard Sauder'sHidden in Plain Site[79] that makes the case that The Matrix (apparently a scifi movie from the 1990s) is real. He currently has a YouTube show that discusses things like the Bermuda Triangle.[80]Chetsford (talk)19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnQ3 Option 2. For ease of presentation and economization of space, they should be aggregated under a common heading with a concise, holistic description using an introductory, independent clause (i.e. "Editors have found the following UFO content creators are generally unreliable ...") that can be separately workshopped later. If additional UFO writers are classified according to whatever the case ends up being for Dolan, they can be added, as appropriate, rather than cluttering RSP with voluminous and numerous entries for individual writers.Chetsford (talk)00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnQ1 Option 3 per Chetsford. As for the second question,Q2 Option 2 would be my preferred choice, though option 1 could also work if he's cited frequently enough, which doesn't seem to be the case so far.Paprikaiser (talk)20:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On question 2, Ioppose option 2. For the reasons I said in the last discussion, I oppose creating a specific classification for such a varied assemblage of sources; even if we were to include the names manually the implication would obviously be that anyone who writes on similar topics is also unreliable when such people vary greatly. I don't think we've had cause to discuss this enough to insert him or Pope in the table, which is supposed to befrequently discussed sources, this was really only brought up a single time as far as I can tell? He is not a perennial source by any means and we barely cite him. It's not a problem if we do add him to the table, so I wouldn't oppose it the same way I do option 2, it just seems unnecessary. You can just point to this discussion going forward. As for Q1, his own reliability, he doesn't seem reliable, and furthermore all his books appear to be self-published or published by publishers only in the business of publishing wonkiness.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1 Option 2 - case by case - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d try to evaluate the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I would suspect that he is being used as a cite for what is in his many books or media content per se so that should be fine and helpful, and seems a general source for the field. Cheers part 1
Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP - it has not made the mark of a "Perennial" topic so fails the criteria to be listed there. It is not supposed to be a list of every single author and every single corpration or media entity, just a list meant for thigns frequently coming up. CheersMarkbassett (talk)01:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Dolan has been previously discussed (e.g.[81], etc.) here and his voluminous writings are cited across the project where they're used to subtly weave-in UFO frames on mainstream topics, such as the biography of U.S. Navy ADMRoscoe H. Hillenkoetter, etc. His writing is currently the only source to support the claim in the biography ofPhilip J. Klass that Klass masterminded a defamation campaign againstStanton Friedman.Chetsford (talk)19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience the Paleobiology Database is usually reliable when confirming a taxon exists and also it’s authority but has some junior synonyms and is sometimes innaccurate when you deal with the classification of some taxa for example in[82] it states that Sunella bispinata is the type while S. grandis is the type and S. bispinata now has it’s own genus, Caudicaella and they don’t list the real species and list this false species which is from the Eocene while Sunella is Cambrian stages 2-3.Houcaris (User:Zhenghecaris) (talk)20:53, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the title. An IP who says they are a member of the Communist Party of Austriaposted an edit request (please help with COI edit requests backlog, it's HUGE) to update youth wing affiliations of the party. Right now the article has theYoung Left (Austria), and that checks both with the KPO and the Young Left's profiles etc., but they also claim that theCommunist Youth of Austria joined the Young Left to become the second youth wing of the party. KJO does not seem to advertise this anywhere, the WP article says that they used to be together but are no longer so on a federal level, and the only indication is that KPO's Instagram profile mentions the Communist Youth profile in its bio as a youth organisation.
The IP admits that the party did not issue a press release and they cannot find any source apart from Instagram but that the party can confirm the information if reached for comment.
WP:ABOUTSELF allows such claims but I'd expect at the very least some confirmation from KJO also. I'm not sure how the party handles the youth wings but I'd be screaming something along the lines of "Welcome back, comrades!" and generally trying to make a massive push for the youth to join. The way the party handles it is just weird so that's why I'm asking for your advice.Szmenderowiecki (talk)12:45, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the KJO website hasn't had news posted since December 2023, so I'm not sure if they actually have anyone managing their media stuff, but I don't think asking them to post something there is overly onerous if that would be the kind of source you're comfortable with.WP:PRIMARY limits us tocan be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. after all, if the statement isn't clear then it's not our job to interpret it or make it clear, and we can only use published sources so no email confirmation on our end. You can always go{{not done for now}} or{{partly done}} instead of a flat out{{not done}} if you want to make it clear you'd do it once they actually announce it, or if you remove theno longer so on a federal level part (without adding the "yes, they're definitely back now").Alpha3031 (t •c)13:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still somewhat weird behaviour from the party but I believe that the second link from KPO's website, combined with apparent lack of media management from KJO, solves the issue for me. Thank you for your repliesSzmenderowiecki (talk)14:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I approved part of the request because just having it in the infobox as "there exists a relationship" doesn't really hurt, doesn't seem like an outlandish claim and appears not to be something they would make up. The youth wings have their own articles. Now if we wanted to write the relation between the KPO and its youth wings using just the interview with the leader of the Communists in those articles, I would not be very happy about that. But that was not what the IP requested.Szmenderowiecki (talk)20:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ProQuest mentions its turn-of-the-milennium rightsholders,Artisan, in at least two results;
the most miniscule of aBlockbuster movie-guide review is as good as it gets atOL/IA;
andGBooks brings up a more substantial review in a 2015 book chronicling vampires on television.
Sadly, unless this last (Web 1.0) recap gets a pass--and unless the S.S.Cunard (talk·contribs) tows in a couple more sources of better provenance--I'm afraid it's a lost cause perWP:NTV; cutely designed bears, though. (Insurance in the form ofLonzo Anderson'sThe Halloween Party is most likely on the horizon come tomorrow.)
"The Great Bear Scare (syndication, 1983)".The Island of Misfit Christmas Specials. Platypus Comix. Retrieved2025-10-26.[A] Halloween special that aired during Christmas by mistake. If that isn't a good enough indicator of the thought and care that went into it, maybe the rest of this page will convince you.
From the previous RFC on the source AeroRoutes, i am restarting this discussion because i am feeling out that there are some few things missed out in the previous discussion that declared it as unreliable and theres too less people that were in the discussion that voted it as unreliable while the source has been already cited in many airport articles and airlines destinations articles,the source itself was dependent on reliable sources and much of the time the routes it announces are not only true but also backed by other sources, the source also isn't a blog as it clearly doesnt mention anything about the owner's experience or stuffs with the exception of the about tab which isn't announcing new routes,it also has new routes, frequency changes, etc summarised in shorter words with the schedule which makes it easier for readers to read and should be recommended, i feel like there should be a new RFC to see if its unreliable.Metrosfan (talk)06:48, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I seconded this and vouched for this. As much as you can say it is his independently owned by one person, He did stated which sources he took and true to what he wrote, some airlines route were postponed or outright cancelled if the flights are indeed was cancelled. Plus, he sourced his route progress based on OAG, GDS and Individual Airline Websites. The first two are surely not easily accessed by common folk or someone who cannot even pay for it and the latter is primary source which as we certainly known - avoided due to conflict of interest or bias. and also, Metrosfan already said that the information is concise enough to make readers understand. Plus, I do know they do not publish sources in a rush and carefully looked into the announcements. This is one of the proofs where MH launched Chengdu resumption:
If we indeed straight up saying AeroRoutes are unreliable because it wasWP:SPS and in form ofWP:BLOGS, it is kind off harsh judgement. I even read back in the earlier discussion that there are points that said OAG and GDS are unreliable which IMHO, sounds elitist there because they are data aggregator for the commercial aviation industry for so long. OAG got so many recognitions from airline and airports and GDS allow so many travel agencies to work together in figuring put the schedules, routes and even prices for the routes. They are definitely credible enough because if these organizations are deemed unreliable, it means all routes and services provided in this wiki which sourced by them - considered as fraud.
I know we are trying as hard as we can to prevent misinformation (and indeed we try to curb it as much as we can). But to take out the whole categories of informations that are meaningful for common explorer here to get the first gist what airport serves what airlines and what routes they go from one airport to another - is just autocratic and rash decision. So, I humbly request the decisions made to be reconsidered again.Lowyat Slyder (talk)09:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still an unreliable self-published source - It's anWP:SPS. Itstraight-up says it's anWP:SPS. That it's relaying data directly from airlines and from data-websites that you have to pay for access to (whose information ultimately also comes straight from the airlines) doesn't fix this, that only highlights that even if it wasn't anWP:SPS it would still not be independent perWP:SIRS.
I know airline fans really, really needs this source to be legit because, in as much as any of the airline-service articles are cited at all, they're cited to this blog and airline websites, but that doesn't make it not just some guy's website.FOARP (talk)10:20, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are gonna talk about how it isnt a independent source because it depends on the airline or other sources that receives the information from airlines that would mean that many or even every sources are not primary because every sources that talks about these things rely on the airlines themselves or other sources that also rely on the airlines, i would understand why editors dont want the airport or airline's website or social media posts to be cited, but AeroRoutes depending on OAG/GDS should be counted as secondary because it analyses the information from sources that also analyses and interpret the information from the raw information (the airline), besides given with how the airline obviously are the ones that know the most on will they start a new route, increase frequency,etc, why are we supposed to use sources that dont directly or indirectly come from it? I understand your concern but it wouldnt make sense if we are going to see how much of dependency it needs on whether its from the airline or notMetrosfan (talk)11:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where did FOARP say anything about independence?WP:SPS isn't about whether it's first or third party (which is what independent sourcing is), it's about the fact that the site is a one-man operation without editorial oversight. Quote fromWP:SPS:Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. If we were able to ascertain where the information on Aeroroutes came from (ie the original source), then we could use that if it was in itself reliable.Danners430tweaks made11:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask again: “Who is Jim Liu” (the author of the website) and “Why should we consider him reliable”? So far, no one has been able to answer these two questions to my satisfaction… so I have to deem his website unreliable.Blueboar (talk)11:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't understand what do you mean with who is he, he is the person who writes those posts
2. He has an experience on reporting this, he used to own Airlineroute from 2007 to 2020, and now he is writing AeroRoutes since 2022, a total would have been for 17 years, and with how he has been looking at schedules for 30 years, he has also established a reputation of trustworthiness, many AeroRoutes posts have also been used on many other websites and has been a leading source for many to find information on new routes, frequency increase, routes discontination and Codeshare updates, the source also depends on OAG/GDS for updates and as mentioned on the website it says they don't publish too quickly until additional details are available and also frequently makes updates, most of the time I have also seen that the publishments on new routes commencing are also majority correct where routes did launch (unless if there's a update)Metrosfan (talk)12:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know what makes him an expert that allows us to ignore the SPS part of Areoroutes. Just being the one that ran these sites for years is not sufficient. We want to know what other third-party reliable sources think of what work he's done to elevate a one-person blog to a reliable source, and to that end, there is practically no coverage of him as a person that we can find.Masem (t)12:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Metrosfan -"most of the time I have also seen that the publishments on new routes commencing are also majority correct where routes did launch (unless if there's a update)". To be clear here, Aeroroutes is a live feed of things that Jim Liu spotted in various systems, including revisions of previously-announced schedules (which there are quite a lot of).This includes tentative preliminary plans,relatively minor changes in frequency,changes in dates when the schedule will change - and this is just looking at the three most recently-published reports on his blog. That is, these plans changeall the time.
"Mainly based in Vancouver, Canada, Jim is an airline schedule nerd, started collecting airline timetables since 9, and has been staring at flight schedules via various platforms for almost 30 years, including nearly 18 years of experience of documenting airline schedule/network changes. Literally Jim is always working (staring at flight schedules) when not working." -per his blog.FOARP (talk)11:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not reliable - I think that the only time that we could use it, perWP:SPS and expanded hereWikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works § Acceptable use of self-published works is ifThe author is an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, except for exceptional claims. Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so. I would not personally consider the author of Aeroroutes to be an established expert. Cheers,SunloungerFrog (talk)12:18, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This really didn't need a RFC to begin with, it's a selfpublished sources by someone who hasn't been previously published in the field by other reliable sources. That's covered by policy, seeWP:EXPERTSPS. Separately republishingprimary information doesn't make itindependent orsecondary. If I were to copy a book and republish it I wouldn't become it's author, and it would still just be the original book. So even if this wasn't selfpublished, and was reliable, it still wouldn't be useful were most editors want to use it. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also got to say, just finding, I don't know, some news piece where they interview Jim Liu, would not do this. You'd need to show that a book or similar by Jim Liu was published through a reputable, independent publisher (not just some article in trade-press), on the topic of airline routes, and even then you're required to be careful with such sources (which I would say precludes citing thousands and thousands of airline schedule-changes to his blog).FOARP (talk)14:09, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion was closed at 11 am on 20 October; this was opened at 6 am on 27 October. The consensus in the previous discussion was clear, and the opener of this one didn't give any concrete examples that I can see of relevant information which they claim was missed. Why are we relitigating this already?Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk)14:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not reliable I really don't see the point of re-opening this discussion. It's a self-published source and I don't see any evidence of Liu being an expert.10mmsocket (talk)14:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are Nişanyan Dictionary and Nişanyan Names considered user generated?
Nişanyan dictionaryNişanyan namesI'm interested in the etymology of the Turkish language, so I contribute and edit content on this topic to Wikipedia. I mostly use these two sources. Today,user:KhndzorUtogh wrote the following about the sources I use: "Haydi123 continues to useuser-generated sources like nisanyansozluk and nisanyanyeradlari." They claimed that both "Nişanyan Yer Adları" (Nişanyan Place Names) and "Nişanyan Sözlük" were user-generated. The link they provided only discusses the Nişanyan Place Names source, and as far as I can tell, it doesn't say "this source shouldn't be used, it's not reliable." Furthermore, I've never used the Nişanyan Yer Adları; the sources I use are Nişanyan Sözlük and Nişanyan Adlar. This person didn't provide any sources on whether Nişanyan Sözlük is user-generated, but they claim it is. Therefore, I'd like to ask: are these sources considered reliable? Are these resources considered user generated? Can I use these resources on Wikipedia?Haydi123 (talk)13:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're user generated, you can suggest additions but you don't seem to be able to make them yourself. However they do appear to be selfpublished, per Google's translation of the "What is this dictionary?" page:[83] "The Nişanyan Dictionary is Sevan Nişanyan's individual work". So it's reliability would depend on Sevan Nişanyan other works. You can read the policy for selfpublished sources here (WP:EXPERTSPS), but basically it would be considered reliable if other independent reliable sources have previously published Nişanyan in the field of etymology. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:41, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was about nisanyanyeradlari.com, a separate website. I don't see anything to suggest that the names or dictionary website offer the same function. There are two prior discussions about these[85][86], but they were some time ago now. They do show the source is at least contentious, even if they don't have a definitive answer. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article you linked, and these two sources seem to meet the guidelines. Nişanyan's work on etymology is generally considered good, having been used on many wiki pages before. I'll continue using these sources, and if there are any issues, I'll move the topic to the talk page or back here. Thanks for your response; it was very helpful. Have a good day!Haydi123 (talk)14:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is not about whether his work is generally considered good, it requires that he has been previously published by reliable sources in the field of etymology. From the prior discussions I linked it seems his work is at least contentious, so I would suggest more solid proof. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y
N
