Apparently RSN is needed for this according to@Arnav Bhate:, despite it being obvious so here goes…

Flightradar24 is being used to verify the current livery of an aircraft, such as atAir India Fleet#Special liveries. An example of a source is[1]. FR24’s own support page states clearly that this information is primarily sourced from user submissions -[2]. Perhaps someone can explain to me just how exactly this isn’tWP:UGC?Danners430_{tweaks made}08:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I had said either the article talk page or here, instead of on my talk page. Secondly, there is an editorial team that reviews all the things that users submit, so I don't think it counts as UGC.Arnav Bhate (talk •contribs)11:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to get across is that not every source needs to be discussed at length - where it's obvious that a source is unreliable, a discussion isn't necessary. And the exact wording itOur database editor team will review and update the information as soon as possible, which to me simply reads as "the maintainers of the database" - which, put simply, is equivalent to an IP making an edit request or pending changes edit on a Wikipedia page, and another editor implementing that change. But Wikipedia is very much not a reliable source, because it is stillWP:UGC - specifically covered underWP:CIRCULAR. Obviously I'm not saying that FR24 is Wikipedia - I'm merely giving an example.Danners430_{tweaks made}11:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is faulty - the editor team at FR24 are employees of FR24, but the other editor is a random user of Wikipedia.Arnav Bhate (talk •contribs)05:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting to keep the topic from being archivedDanners430_{tweaks made}19:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone able to weigh in on this?Danners430_{tweaks made}08:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Still no responses, so keeping this open.Danners430_{tweaks made}18:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, still no replies so keeping open until someone can weigh inDanners430_{tweaks made}09:25, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is beginning to get bizarrely silly - is anyone willing to offer a third opinion here?Danners430_{tweaks made}10:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody willing to offer a third opinion here?Danners430_{tweaks made}08:54, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to weigh in here. Thanks for keeping this discussion live. I see that this site does not have the same editorial board like typical reliable sources/sites. However, the submissions are made from users withan ADS-B receiver, which increases the data's reliability. Other sources likeCNN andABC News have featured this site, which shows some reliability as to the site's data collection. Additionally, FR24 has been cited by other sites likeReuters, though not necessarily in a manner that assumes its accuracy.

So my suggestion is that the source can be cited and used, but attribution must be clear that the data came from this specific source.23impartial (talk)14:04, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the context being asked about here - FR24 has many, many uses, and there’s no doubting that its ADS-B data is accurate. The context here however is verifying an aircraft’s livery - how does ADS-B verify that? It doesn’t - and FR24 themselves say so. As I mentioned above, the majority of the information in their aircraft database is user supplied.Danners430_{tweaks made}14:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence that FR24 is being used as a source for this material by sources we'd definitely recognise as reliable? Per WP:RS, we look for sources with 'a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy', and that's generally how we assess it.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:11, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can’t find any examples of other sources referencing FR24 for aircraft liveries. Other uses yes, but not liveries, which is the context under discussion here.Danners430_{tweaks made}14:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the specific context of aircraft liveries, yes there are very few sources that use FR24. I was able to find this article byiPad Pilot News that discusses it, and that's about it.23impartial (talk)14:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see how iPad Pilot News would meet WP:RS for anything relevant here. Or indeed for anything else much, given that it is a website for a commercial concern selling aviation applications and accessories.AndyTheGrump (talk)14:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the sake of clarity - I’m being a little pedantic about context here because FR24 effectively delivers multiple pieces of information from various sources. Some of these are absolutely reliable (ADS-B data is pretty much foolproof, as long as you don’tWP:SYNTH it, which a previous discussion covered), whereas others may not be. The liveries are to all intents and purposes a separate “source” to the flight data - it may be presented by the same website, but it comes from a different place as the tracking data.Danners430_{tweaks made}14:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining thefeedback request service. An editor hasrequested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law 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.

IsHOPE not hate a reliable source?

Previous discussions:August 2018,April 2019,February 2025.TurboSuperA+_[talk]23:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue came up atTalk:Reform UK#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK? where editors are questioning the reliability of HOPE not hate. I would also like to add that a report written for HOPE not hate, by their senior researcher, Dr Joe Mulhall, has been published on theUK government website, for theirCommission for Countering Extremism. (report) I mention this as relevant perWP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Dr Joe Mulhall is a recognised subject matter expert in fascism and far-right politics[3][4]TurboSuperA+_[talk]23:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RfC. If the quarrel is about whether to cite Hope not Hate for their opinion re Reform UK, a reasonable question here could be: whether it's okay to cite Hope not Hate for their opinion re Reform UK? WP:RS says reliability is about the piece of work plus the creator of the work plus the publisher of the work; a 4-way tick-a-box RfC about the publisher alone is inappropriate. As for the quarrel: sure, they might be jerks but attributed opinions shouldn't be declared unreliable.Peter Gulutzan (talk)23:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Or more precisely, is it a reliable source on fascism and the far-right? Judging by the previous discussions here on RSN, it is a source that pops up frequently. ItsWP:RSP entry says:Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. But that might be because we've never had a formal RfC. This is an attempt to find a consensus so that we don't have to have a discussion every year on whether they can be used.TurboSuperA+_[talk]00:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Making convenience an objective makes the RfC even worse, I think. By the way, you linked hopenothate.org.uk, which is run by Hope not Hate Limited, notrecently renamed Hope not Hate charity. Intentional?Peter Gulutzan (talk)16:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: Generally reliable. Their investigations are regularly covered by reliable sources, and reliable sources cite them as subject‑matter experts. PerWP:USEBYOTHERS, they should be regarded asWP:GREL.TarnishedPath^talk00:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As reliable as the SPLC is, soOption 1. This does not make their opinions automatically due weight. Attribution is necessary when the content falls under RSOPINION, but not otherwise.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TheSouthern Poverty Law Center?Halbared (talk)15:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And for what it is worth, my opinion on the SPLC is that they are generally reliable for facts but their opinions or judgements aren't magically more due weight than any other source's.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, I wasn't aware of the SPLC, I had to look them up, seems they have their own issues with connexion to reality on some issues, but they seem connected to reality stronger than hatenothope.Halbared (talk)19:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I generally think the SPLC is better than Hope not Hate but the reasons why I think this require lengthy and specific to the topic area explanations that no one here would read.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4: Deprecate - nakedly partisan far-left activist org, zero evidence of reliability, fact-checking or the existence of a corrections policy. (Less pertinent to the point, but worth mentioning: it claims "HOPE not hate exists to challenge all kinds of extremism" yet laser-focuses on baselessly calling everyone ever-so-slightly to the right of Mao a far-right extremist [SPLC/ADL style in that regard] andquintuples down on it, without regard to the violence victims of that label are routinely exposed to from self-described "anti-fascists".)~2026-58663-2 (talk)13:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bias even extreme bias isn't a reason to consider a source unreliable, seeWP:RSBIAS. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to toss out all sources on the topic of far-right extremism that weren't biased against the subject, we would have no scholarship at all. The scholarship (as in academic journal pieces, academic books) on the topic is, with limited exceptions, very similar to Hope not Hate in tone and goal.

Also, both the ADL and SPLC are generally reliable on this topic.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say theWP:ADL is a little bit more complicated than that for reliability.Wikieditor662 (talk)20:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 but clearlyWP:BIASED, as an activist group, and therefore almost always requires attribution; it's also important to distinguish their published research from press releases. That said, there's significantWP:USEBYOTHERS that treats their reports as an expert source on the far right, eg.^[1][2][3][4] There's no reason to think their published research would be unreliable, and they do seem to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy among researchers studying the far-right. --Aquillion (talk)15:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 but clearly an advocacy group, thus need to be attributed for opinion pieces etc. Though, they're actually fairly reliable for an advocacy group and have been quoted many times in the mainstream press, even by right-wing sources such as theTelegraph[5][6] and theExpress[7].Black Kite (talk)19:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Advocacy groups with an established reputation for factual accuracy do not automatically need to be attributed. Their opinions, sure, but they do publish factual materials. If we are going to make them attribute-only, should this not go for all scholarship on this topic, which is also advocating anti-hate, even if published in academic journals or books?PARAKANYAA (talk)19:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 Being a political advocacy group, there is going to be a bias in their articles. I haven't seen them print anything beyond opinion or demonstrably false to justify anything further. But I do think we do need to always make considerations for sources from a group that are going to be endorsing their preferred viewpoint, even if it may be done unconsciously.The C of E God Save the King! (talk)19:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Bias is not a reason for unreliability, though. How would you propose we write about the far-right if we declare all sources with a bias against it to be less than generally reliable? What sources would we have left?PARAKANYAA (talk)19:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would go for a source that is not outwardly ideologically opposed to the organisation that people what to reference. I'd go for more middle ground news organisations and take an average. There are much better sources that could be used to describe an organisation as far right than HnH.The C of E God Save the King! (talk)19:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not in this specific case, but such sources (the SPLC is another) are often amongst theonly sources for more minor far-right groups, as they're rarely covered by the mainstream press. The same actually works in reverse for minor far-left groups, too.Black Kite (talk)19:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That would eliminate virtually all academic scholarship on the far right, and the news is often just recycling the investigations releases of these organizations.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well part of the problem is who hatenothope smear as 'far-right', a pejorative in the UK, that mainstream media does not wish to copy for some of their more daft examples, and withhold only for those who actually are far-right. Plus the bloke in charge of hatenothope has a personal beef with Nigel Farage, which colours his judgement there somewhat.Halbared (talk)20:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I note you're still deliberately typing the name of the group wrongly there (as per[8], which contains BLP violations by the way). It's very juvenile, and I'd suggest you stop it and let the adults continue the discussion.Black Kite (talk)21:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, Blackkite, it is juvenile you are corrct, I'll stop. It's just a daft habit I got into years ago. I shall leave the chat, apologies.Halbared (talk)21:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If you can post constructively and stop doing that, please stay. It's pointless anyway as it just makes people take your comments at lesser value.Black Kite (talk)21:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, if I can see myself adding in a constructive way, I shall. Mostly I like to see what experiences editors chip in with. Ta. Apologies all.Halbared (talk)21:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Does this again, not go for academia? They also frequently call politicians "far-right". News sources are rarely great sources for anything.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  What if Academia are not agreed on the terms, or are in conflict with media?Halbared (talk)21:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We prefer academia over media in most cases. And well, then we treat it however we treat it when any sources don't agree.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 I've never seen a serious scholar or journalist treat them as anything less than subject-matter experts. Indeed, the only critiques I am aware of come from highly unreliable sources known for peddling bigotry. Which only adds to their luster, from where I sit.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2. They are a clearly partisan organization with a particular POV and agenda. The editorial controls also appear weaker than they could be. As such, I would say caution is needed when using this source, and it should always be attributed in text when citing them, and editors should be encouraged to use other/better materials when possible. I wouldn't outright ban it.4meter4 (talk)21:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally unreliable: especially when they are the only source on something.

Of course they are biased -- they self identify as Antifa -- but bias does not equal unreliability.

Hope not Hate isn't like the SPLC, which [A] totally fabricated the existence of a hate group based upon nothing other than an anonymous post on a Nazi message board and defended that decision for over a year, and [B] gets quoted a lot by reliable sourced because they used to not suck. I have looked extensively at Hope not Hate and can't find any fabrications or any of the "they disagree with our politics so they are a hate group" nonsense you see with the SPLC.

However, I also haven't seen any evidence of corrections or retractions, any evidence of editorial oversight, and in most cases they just write something as if it was an established fact without providing any sources or evidence for it.

I looked athttps://hopenothate.org.uk/case-files-odinist-fellowship/ especially carefully, because I have studied that group a lot (they intersect heavily with my main interest, which is pseudoscience -- they have this bizarre racist pseudoscientific belief that the ability to communicate with the gods is encoded in their DNA). Here is our coverage of the group:Heathenry in the United Kingdom#Odinist and Wodenist groups

My problem with Hope not Hate is that, for example, they don't tell you how they know that the Odinist Fellowship "emerged from the Odinic Rite in the 1990s". We, on the other hand, say "In 1990, the Odinic Rite split into two separate organisations that initially both retained the original name. One continued to be known as Odinic Rite while the other changed its name in 1998 to the Odinist Fellowship" with a citation for the split and a citation needed tag for the name change. With Wikipedia, you can check out the sources for yourself. With Hope not Hate you just have to take their word for it. Not Reliable.

BTW, what's up with labeling options ABCD and then !voting for option 1234? --Guy Macon (talk)22:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you keep saying this about the SPLC, even though your assertions were repeatedly debunked in the last RFC. Please stop sayingknown falsehoods that have been debunked. You saying it over, and over, and over, does not make it true.

That goes for EVERY SOURCE. Giving inline citations is not at all universal, and nowhere atWP:RS does it say that is a requirement to be considered true - and none of the sources we use to cite the information you note do so! By your own logic, are those not unreliable sources? And if so, why are you using our article as a strike against it?PARAKANYAA (talk)23:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my comments about the SPLC. If you have a shred of evidence that The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists or has ever existed, in Amana or anywhere else in Iowa, post your evidence and we can discuss it (again). If all you have are the same claims from the SPLC itself and from theDaily Stormer website that I have seen and rejected already, I am uninterested in re-opening the discussion. Please retract your claim that I am knowingly saying known falsehoods that have been debunked. That is a clear violation ofWP:NPA. --Guy Macon (talk)00:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC did not claim that the "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub" existed.[9]. Everyone in the discussion agreed besides you on this point. If you have a shred of evidence that they said "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub" as distinct from the Daily Stormer, you can post it and we can discuss it here. But last time you did not, and you continue to claim this, providing no evidence. And I will strike my statement that it was a known falsehood, as perhaps you did not know.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"The group [SPLC] had earlier stood by its claim that the Amanas were the home of a hate group,noting that it had confirmation that a group of individuals met sometime in September 2016 at a restaurant in the Amanas. A thread, originally posted on the Daily Stormer and since cached by Google, backed the claim.

"The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!' posted a user with the screen name Concerned Troll in a Sept. 26, 2016, thread. Concerned Troll, who did not post specific details about the visit, went on to suggest a subsequent meeting in Des Moines sometime in the late fall or early winter.

"But officials were quick to denounce the SPLC’s claims, statingthere are no such groups active in Iowa County and – while denouncing hate groups and their activities, saying none of their messages or activities are welcome in their town – demanded that the civil rights organization remove their community from their hate map." -- Source:Iowa City Press-Citizen

I am not going to respond to you again. Please leave me alone. Your opinions concerning me are not welcome. Feel free to report me atWP:ANI if you think you have a case. Otherwise, drop theWP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk)03:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to previous thread[10]. This is aboutThe Daily Stormer, which is a real group. The sources are debating if The Daily Stormer was active in Iowa, this is not making up a group. If a group says on their official channels "we are active in Iowa" it is perfectly acceptable to take this as that group being active in Iowa.PARAKANYAA (talk)05:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do they “self-identify as Antifa”? I don’t think that’s right, though I’m willing to stand corrected.BobFromBrockley (talk)03:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do, using terms such as "we" and "our movement" when referring to anti-fascism.

• "While some anti-fascists have retreated to targeting often marginal extra-parliamentary groups, using traditional tactics, our movement risks irrelevance if we do not also find ways to modernise and expand to better oppose more mainstream and powerful manifestations of the far right."[11]
• "It also gives us concrete steps we can take as anti-fascists to better integrate these into our work today, and learn too from their mistakes."[12]
• "A lockdown gig in the name of antifascism: Looking to support HOPE not hate, one artist took his music online to raise money for our work."[13]

Again, that doesn't make them unreliable. Many biased sources are reliable when making factual claims as opposed to opinions. --Guy Macon (talk)04:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Antifa" and "Anti-fascist" are not the same thing. Antifa is a somewhat contested label, but usually its proponents accept that a physical force response, and other tactics that may break laws, may legitimately be used in the social context of a peace-time democratic society. Not all anti-fascists share that viewpoint. The most prominent historic anti-fascist movements in Britain were not "antifa", for example the Anti-Nazi League, whereas AFA, a group which engaged in street-fighting would now be retrospectively classified as antifa.--Boynamedsue (talk)07:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what Boynamedsue said. When right-wing governments are declaring "Antifa" domestic terrorists, claiming that this is how someone describes themselves when they don't is a pretty weighty thing. Unless you're writing in German, putting a capital A at the front is a bit of a tell too, as if it's a proper nounBobFromBrockley (talk)11:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AFA refers toAnti-Fascist Action for anyone who didn't know, based onAntifaschistische Aktion, ie the origins ofAntifa. "Antifa" in Britain is otherwise not really a thing, it's more often organised under anti-fascist groups ofvarying names. Groups are tarnished as Antifa as a convenient reference point but you don't hear academics of subject matter experts refer to Antifa in the UK, as it'd be factually inaccurate.CNC (talk)12:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to get too far into angels on pinheads, in my post I did imply that to use "antifa" to describe UK AFA would be anachronistic. The term certainly wasn't used at the time AFA was active. However, many younger British physical force antifascists would probably accept the term "antifa" (as Bob correctly said, uncapitalised) to describe the methodology they practice in confronting fascism, rather than as an organisation (no such organisation has ever existed).--Boynamedsue (talk)16:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? You are conflating "anti-fascism" and the nebulous organisation "Antifa", and if you believe they are synonyms I'm going to be unconvinced as to how valid the rest of your comment is. They are not the same thing under any definition.Black Kite (talk)10:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

! Is a symbol often used in computer programming to denote “not”, and has become used on Wikipedia with!vote to indicate that the reply is “not a vote”Mitchsavl (talk)11:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the remark is about the list being A,B,C,D, but editors writing "option 1/2/3/4". I have now changed the ordered list to numbers.TurboSuperA+_[talk]11:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Regarding specifically its use toMOS:LABEL political parties, I wouldn't recommend using it unattributed because it's a biased advocacy group—"GREL" or not. This is consistent with howWP:SPLC is treated. I'm not familiar enough with it to comment more broadly. (Ran into it in 2024 as a source for labelling a party neo-fascist, which is more clearly a contentious label, but "far right" is also fairly contentious)Placeholderer (talk)22:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, they're not used to label any party, they were used to relay a comment by an academic (Cas Mudde) inthis article. The quote possibly comes fromthis interview (I haven't listened to it).TurboSuperA+_[talk]22:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoops—I guess then I'd just give a boilerplate "it depends on the expertise of Cas Mudde". There's no reason to think, like, HNH fabricated the quotePlaceholderer (talk)22:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Cas Mudde for reference sake, who is a subject matter expert.CNC (talk)23:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The SPLC and the ADL are regularly used unattributed. That is most of their usages.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SPLC saysThe organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION—statements of fact like what an expert said in an interview wouldn't be SPLC's viewsPlaceholderer (talk)23:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but the SPLC and Hope not Hate publish things that aren't their views OR experts in interviews. That is in fact most of the SPLC's output! Same with the ADL. That is just a reminder to follow RSOPINION which is true even with the New York Times, or any academic piece.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I only mean to comment on the narrow issue of HNH being used in a certain way regarding Reform's being "far right" or not. I amnot well-read on the mountains of discussion around SPLC, ADL, or this groupPlaceholderer (talk)23:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  (It turned out I misunderstood what the issue was)Placeholderer (talk)23:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 with attribution per above. Seem to be regarded as subject-matter experts and have been quoted, published, endorsed, etc in a number of RSes - I agree with the SPLC comparison, and the community regards SPLC as GREL. However, given their open identification as an advocacy group, attribution should be expected for any opinion-based/editorial content.TheKip^(contribs)03:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 per TarnishedPath, Aquillion, etc. Subject matter experts with academic credentials who do robust investigations regularly cited by reliable sources and scholars.BobFromBrockley (talk)03:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1, they take the nowadays extreme position that fascism is a bad thing in and of itself, but EVERY SOURCE EVER WRITTEN has bias, and most sources written between 1945 and 2020 shared that particular bias. Use by others shows Hope not Hate to be a reliable source, although of course, given the nature of its focus, attribution will frequently be necessary.Boynamedsue (talk)07:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. They're cited/referred to by other sources, likeThe Standard,Independent andThe Guardian (WP:USEBYOTHERS). Mediabiasfactcheck.com rates them as"high" for factual reporting.TurboSuperA+_[talk]10:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 (ish) They are reliable but as attrubuted opiniion, not as fact.Slatersteven (talk)11:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Option 4 While a source associated with an activist source is less than desirable, the group conducts their own reports and investigations, which may make them a valuable source for providing otherwise unavailable information[14]. While I am unfamiliar with this source and not willing to state how reliable it is, this potential importance of the source makes me rule out deprecation.

Mitchsavl (talk)11:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4, deprecate it. It fails to meet the fundamental requirements of a source as set out in theWP:SOURCE policy. Firstly, we have seen no evidence that anything it publishes isindependent of its own campaigning. Take a look at its current anti-Reform UK campaigning, for example. Five of the thirteen offerings in the carousel of activities on itshome page are anti-Reform UK or anti-Nigel Farage. It has: "Are you a Never Nigel?", "Who supports Reform UK and why?", "Subscribe: Reform Watch Newsletter", "State of hate 2025: Reform Rising and Racist Riots" and "Join the 2026 Club: Help Stop Reform UK". Could we, legitimately, imagine that anything it publishes about Reform or Farage is going to be totally independent of its apparent hate of them? Secondly, we have seen no evidence that it has areputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --DeFacto (talk).16:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Secondly, we have seen no evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

  According to Media Bias/Fact Check they have had no failed fact checks in the last 5 years (as of 5 April 2024).In general, Hope Not Hate holds progressive left editorial and advocacy biases while consistently publishing fact-based information. ...Overall, we rate HOPE Not Hate as Left Biased for its critical stance on far-right politics and high for factual reporting due to its use of credible sources, detailed data analysis and clean fact-check record.[15] Do you have any evidence of infactual and inaccurate reporting?TurboSuperA+_[talk]16:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There are facts included and facts excluded. Is there evidence that the context in which it presents its 'facts' is valid, and that it is portraying not only the truth, but thewhole truth, andnothing but the truth? --DeFacto (talk).17:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So we can note down that you do not have any evidence of uncorrected false information published by Hope not Hate and so have withdrawn your claim? The "whole truth" is not a falsifiable claim, certainly none of the sources we list as perennially reliable publish the whole truth. Furthermore, semantically "nothing but the truth" means the same as "no false claims have been made". The onus is therefore still on you to falsify the claim by providing evidence of uncorrected false information published by HnH at a rate equal to or greater than UK sources we accept as reliable like the BBC, The Guardian, The Times and The Telegraph.--Boynamedsue (talk)17:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ I agree with your broader point (re: they haven't published misinfo nor does bias equal unreliability), but it's worth saying thatMedia Bias/Fact Check isn't really considered a reliable source in itself.TheKip^(contribs)19:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I wasn't aware of that. I thought I it mentioned in RSN discussions before, or perhaps that was another, similar site.TurboSuperA+_[talk]19:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, we have seen no evidence that anything it publishes is independent of its own campaigning. I can honestly say that this is the very first time in my entire 10+ years on this project that I've seen someone suggest that a source needs to be independentof itself.

  By that logic, there's no such thing as an independent source.

  Secondly, we have seen no evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's just flatly untrue. As TSA+ pointed out, they've been graded for high accuracy by MBFC, and as I (and several others) have pointed out, they have significantWP:USEBYOTHERS.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The times I have seen it used is to support negative material about groups or individuals against which it is actively campaigning. It's like proposing that using output from the Liverpool supporters' magazine to support criticism of a referee's decision to award a penalty to Manchester United in a match against Liverpool. --DeFacto (talk).17:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This would go for any source that ever said anything negative about anyone.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, a proactive attacker is not usually considered to be a suitable source for coverage of the attack. And what if they are also known to have been involved in spreading misinformation or the labelling of legitimate views as hateful? --DeFacto (talk).21:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It is also those activist groups that push hardest for information, and being dedicated to the topic, will use all resources available to them.Mitchsavl (talk)23:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The times I have seen it used is to support negative material about groups or individuals against which it is actively campaigning. Uhhhh... Yes. So?

  It's like proposing that using output from the Liverpool supporters' magazine to support criticism of a referee's decision to award a penalty to Manchester United in a match against Liverpool. That's actually a very valid use of a source. So long as it's attributed, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

  Pardon me for skipping to your next comment, but...

  No, a proactive attacker is not usually considered to be a suitable source for coverage of the attack. You phrase this as a criticism, but this kind of use is actuallyso good that it's an exception explicitly carved out ofWP:BLP, our strictest content policy.

  And what if they are also known to have been involved in spreading misinformation or the labelling of legitimate views as hateful? That is a contentious that would need evidence. Simply assuming that a source is spreading misinformation because they are being critical is textbookWP:OR.

  Not to be too harsh, but your understanding of our policies seems to be wildly divergent to both the common understanding and the explicit text of the policy.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, let's go through that one-by-one:

  • Uhhhh... Yes. So? - That sounds like you think that a self-published primary source from a group which has no obvious reputation for fact-checking and which has skin in the game makes a sound reliable source.
  • That's actually a very valid use of a source. ... there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. - You cannot see anything wrong with using a self-published primary source from a group with no reputation for fact-checking?
  • ... but this kind of use is actually so good that it's an exception explicitly carved out of WP:BLP, - Which section of BLP allows for the details of an attack to be supported by a self-published primary source written by the attacker and published by the attacker that has no reputation for fact-checking?
  • That is a contentious [sic] that would need evidence. - If anyone were to claim that theyare known for that, then, presumably, sources would be provided. I just posed the question.
  • Simply assuming that ... is textbook WP:OR. - No it is not; OR is only concerned with article content, not personal opinion expressed on a talk page.
  • Not to be too harsh, but... - You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but based on your comments, I'm not sure that much weight should be attached to it.

  --DeFacto (talk).21:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like you think that a self-published primary source from a group which has no obvious reputation for fact-checking and which has skin in the game makes a sound reliable source. Red herring. I don't much care what wild imaginings you engage in upon reading my reply, my logic still stands.

  You cannot see anything wrong with using a self-published primary source from a group with no reputation for fact-checking? Please readWP:HONEST before you continue to repeat such false claims as "no reputation for fact checking" after being corrected multiple times.

  Which section of BLP allows for the details of an attack to be supported by a self-published primary source written by the attacker and published by the attacker that has no reputation for fact-checking? The one I linked to. Duh.

  If anyone were to claim that they are known for that, then, presumably, sources would be provided. I just posed the question. Ahh, I see. Your claim that they are spreading misinformation does not require a source, but my rejection of that claim does. Wild.

  No it is not; OR is only concerned with article content, not personal opinion expressed on a talk page. Fair enough, I should have said "worthless bullshit" instead ofWP:OR. Because it is, in fact, worthless bullshit.

  You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but based on your comments, I'm not sure that much weight should be attached to it. lol Pot, Kettle. Which one of us is getting pushback from multiple other editors?ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The first was an opinion, not an assertion. The second was a question, not a claim of any sort. With the third one, I didn't notice that the underlying link did not match the label, apologies - I cannot see anything there though that supports the use I described. The fourth one was a question, not a claim. Thanks for recognising your error on the fifth. On the seventh, my opinions are supported by policy, but I'm not convinced that yous are. --DeFacto (talk).14:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The first was an opinion, not an assertion. Doesn't change anything.

  The second was a question, not a claim of any sort. Doesn't address my response.

  With the third one, I didn't notice that the underlying link did not match the label, apologies - I cannot see anything there though that supports the use I described. Thank you for recognizing your error. The 'attacks' you keep referring to are the words of HNH. The nature and character of those attacks are contained within those words. Citing HNH fortheir own words is such a valid use of a source that it's an explicit carve-out inWP:BLP, our strictest content policy. Hence, your objection was worthless and ignorant of our policies.

  Thanks for recognising your error on the fifth. Moving forward, I will endeavor to always properly label any worthless bullshit you engage in.

  On the seventh, my opinions are supported by policy, but I'm not convinced that yous [sic] are. Well, Mitchsavi, PARAKANYAA, TurboSuperA+, Boynamedsue, ActivelyDisinterested, BobFromBuckley, Black Kite and CNC all seem to disagree with you. And given the fact that I've literally never heard such claims about policy as you've made in more than a decade editing WP, I think I'm safe in my interpretation.

  P.S. There were only six, not seven points in my comment.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Life's too short to go o through all that again. So, although I haven't been able to persuade you that to be areliable source, a source needs to be, at the very least, independent and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and preferably not self-published, I'm going to leave you there. And thanks for highlighting the deficiency in my numeracy skills, it should have been 1-2-3-4-5-6, not 1-2-3-4-5-7. --DeFacto (talk).17:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Life's too short to go o through all that again. Retreat is, in fact, the best course when one arrives at a battlefield with imaginary armament. Good choice. I would advise you to take a similar tact with the eight other editors who have expressed shock at your creative interpretation of policy, as your arguments there are similarly ineffective in doing anything except harming your own reputation.

  So, although I haven't been able to persuade you that to be a reliable source, a source needs to be, at the very least, independent and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and preferably not self-published, I'm going to leave you there. You might be excited to learn that I wholly agree that sources need to meet those criteria. As for myself, I'm content to be disappointed by the fact that you don't seem to understand what any of those words mean. After all, there are plenty of editors on this site who will happily impress me with their arguments and understanding. A few misses is to be expected.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.17:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Let DF bow out gracefully, no need forlast words.CNC (talk)18:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Taking a political stance is something common to many sources, The Times and Telegraph being opening opposed to a Labour government comes to mind. It would be true of dozens of easily named sources. Bias isn't a reliability matter perWP:RSBIAS. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but we're not talking about simply supporting one political side here. We are talking about using a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views to support that stance. --DeFacto (talk).21:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry I don't see how they differ, and even if the is a difference in the nature of their bias - bias isn't a matter of reliability. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I've never said bias is an issue, it's its lack of independence and lack of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that is the problem. --DeFacto (talk).22:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting, you still haven't provided any evidence for lack of fact-checking and accuracy. The fact it is used as a source by academics and mainstream media organisations strongly suggests it has a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Once again, a source is not required to be independent from itself.--Boynamedsue (talk)07:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The default is 'unreliable' until it is shown that theydo have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That others use them is totally irrelevant. Others, including academics and mainstream media organisations also cite theDaily Mail,The Sun and even Wikipedia - that fact is clearlynot a reliable measure of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And once again, we arenot talking about being independent from itself, we are talking about being independent of the subjects involved and not having any influence on them. --DeFacto (talk).10:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That other sources use itis relevant, as perWikipedia:USEBYOTHERS: "Howaccepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given sourceprovides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." While it is definitely not theonly indicator, the fact that it is relevant enough to be used (while not having reliable claims against it) should be factored into this assessment.Mitchsavl (talk)11:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent, but that does not trump the requirements to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and to be independent of the topic. It clearly 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. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them. --DeFacto (talk).21:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is painful to watch. First, use by others, a key plank of our standard practice for determining reliability, is scoffed at. Then once it’s pointed out that it’s a key plank of our standard practice for determining reliability, the goalposts are moved to a totally different argument. Here’s a radical suggestion: we follow our normal policies instead of attempting to redefine them to avoid using anti-fascist sources in our coverage of the far right.BobFromBrockley (talk)12:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Painful? Yes, it seems like some editors are happy to compromise on the fundamentals of verifiability here:

1. Reliable sources
   1. Independent
   2. With a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
2. Secondary sources
3. Published, but generally not self-published, sources

AFAICS, general use of HrH doesn't comply withany of those requirements, let alone withall of them. --DeFacto (talk).13:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is painful to watch. First, use by others, a key plank of our standard practice for determining reliability, is scoffed at. Then once it’s pointed out that it’s a key plank of our standard practice for determining reliability, the goalposts are moved to a totally different argument. Here’s a radical suggestion: we follow our normal policies instead of attempting to redefine them to avoid using anti-fascist sources in our coverage of the far right.BobFromBrockley (talk)12:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just noticed thisa source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views to support that stance. Hope not Hate is an antifascist organisation. Fascism is not a legitimate political point of view. And HnH is considerably less hateful than the Telegraph or Times in its coverage of its political opponents.--Boynamedsue (talk)07:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That says it all really. It's not legitimate to maliciously and deliberately brand a person or an organisation as fascist so that you have an excuse hate, or even feign hate. Again, what happens wrt other sources is irrelevant - this is about HnH alone. --DeFacto (talk).10:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you implying that fascists don't exist? Once again you are stating an unsubstantiated opinion that HnH brand people who are not fascists as fascists. Accusations without evidence carry no weight here.Boynamedsue (talk)21:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You asked:Are you implying that fascists don't exist? No I am not, what a crazy question - what perverse logic led you to ask that?

Then you asserted:Once again you are stating an unsubstantiated opinion that HnH brand people who are not fascists as fascists. Clearly that's based on similar wonky logic. Read what I wrote again. --DeFacto (talk).00:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine, let's get your meaning clear.We are talking about using a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views to support that stance. The "source" in this phrase must be Hope Not Hate. Why do you say that Hope Not Hate "promotes and encourages hate"? What are the "certain legitimate political views" that you say it promotes hate of?

It's not legitimate to maliciously and deliberately brand a person or an organisation as fascist so that you have an excuse hate, or even feign hate. Who has Hope not Hate "branded as a fascist so you have an excuse to hate"?--Boynamedsue (talk)01:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of articles that might help you understand what I'm saying (and a few quotes from them if you are too busy to read them):

From the left, "Would the Real Anti-Racists Please Stand Up?" (June 2024)Novara Media:

• It isn’t justFarage HnH has in its crosshairs, though.
• The group [HnH] has also been shoving pieces of brightly coloured paper withGeorge Galloway’s face on them through letterboxes in Rochdale'
• called forLiz Truss’s expulsion from the Conservative party.
• HnH has it in for everyone, it seems, exceptLabour. Curious.
• Could it be the fact that two of HnH’s six charity trustees,... are Labour candidates?
• Or maybe HnH’s studied silence isn’t simply the product of this specific conflict of interest.
• HnH does this supremely well, cherry-picking which hatreds it hates in a way that just so happens to swerve centrists:

From the right, "Hope not Hate threatens Anglo-American relations" (September 2025)UnHerd:

• Searchlight evolved into HNH in the mid-2000s under Nick Lowles, retaining close state ties and willingness to smear opponents, including many Americans.
• US conservative commentators, migration critics and academics labelled “extremist” have been directly targeted and maligned by HNH.
• Its reports, cloaked in the legitimacy of a charity with a virtuous name, are cited internationally, jeopardising reputations and careers.
• Once targeted, Google search results tie individuals to neo-Nazi networks or “extremism” in general. After that, anyone — such as Wikipedia editors — could reasonably assume that the person in question is “far-Right”.
• HNH has used fake passports, circulated hoax lists of “planned far-Right attacks” to the Home Office, and published false claims about assaults on minorities.
• Yet the British Government continues to take the organisation seriously. Lowles has given hours of evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee on “extreme Right-wing terrorism” and advised the Commission for Countering Extremism, positioning HNH as a de facto extension of official oversight.
• It is perhaps unsurprising that the organisation has many supporters in the Labour Party.
• Downing Street Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, arguably the most powerful unelected figure in Government, campaigned with HNH.
• In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a leader in American politics who Hope not Hate repeatedly branded as “far-Right”, Washington has been given pause for thought.

Hope that Helps. --DeFacto (talk).11:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to the specific articles? This will make it easier for others to make assessments and determine their reliability in this context.Mitchsavl (talk)11:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, the first link is to the left of the "Novara Media" label, and the second is to the left of the "UnHerd" label.

Sorry if they weren't clear enough - here they are again in the raw:

• https://novaramedia.com/2024/06/17/would-the-real-anti-racists-please-stand-up/
• https://unherd.com/newsroom/hope-not-hate-threatens-anglo-american-relations/

--DeFacto (talk).11:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Hang on, you think HnH is unreliable for talking about Reform, but you think UnHerd is reliable for talking about HnH? (Currently on UnHerd's front page: "Tim Walz: from Democrat hope to chump" and "The white women turning to Dark Woke").Black Kite (talk)12:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, firstly, I think HrH is generally unreliable - full stop, and so is unsuitable for general use in Wiki articles. Secondly, I offered valid and verifiable left leaning and right-leaning views of HnH as part of the conversation on this talk-page and for which there is no requirement that such views are also supported by reliable sources. --DeFacto (talk).13:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  HrH does seem to have a feud with Farage, which helps their unreliability with regards to Reform.Halbared (talk)13:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well if I was trying to make a point about unreliability, I wouldn't deliberately use obviously unreliable sources to try to make it, but maybe that's just me.Black Kite (talk)14:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the fact these sources are "unrated" not a concern for you anymore? There is no RSP entry, and archives don't confirm reliability. I would of thoughtthis RfC would be a red flag based on your high standards of thorough scrutiny?This doesn't look like consensus either. I'm surprised you're referencing these without noting this, given your strong opinions on source reliability. Failing to see how this isn't a dose ofdouble standards.CNC (talk)12:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It’s definitely amusing to see someone taking an ultra stance on source reliability and then rely on two particularly fringe and conspiracyish websites whose entire brand is publishing stuff that mainstream media won’t touchBobFromBrockley (talk)12:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Novara's a pretty good source, in that it is regulated by IMPRESS and tries to fact-check. However, this article is an opinion article and it does not claim that HnH makes false claims of fascism, or anything else, rather that it turns a blind eye to racism from some centrist individuals. Unherd is not a reliable source and, in any case, does not state that HnH spreads hate or accuses non-fascists of fascism. It claims it "smears" people, without saying how or providing evidence.--Boynamedsue (talk)13:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You must surely understand the difference between informing a discussion on a talk page and adding content to a live article. --DeFacto (talk).13:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you are conflating the requirements for a talk page with the requirements for article content in an apparent attempt to belittle my contribution. --DeFacto (talk).13:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Conflating a discussion over source reliability with a discussion over the reliability of sources? Right.CNC (talk)14:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not following properly. The reliability of a source is not relevant when that source is used to establish the reliability of another source. However, the reliability of said source cannot be established by another source which is its ideological opponent, as in this case, the second source would not be independent of the first source. So, ipso facto, in order to establish the reliability of any given source, we would require nothing more than a scribbled message on the wall of the public toilets on Clacton promenade suggesting the source is accurate (providing, of course, the scribbler was not an ideological critic of the source). I am not sure what colour of crayon would establish greatest reliability, though my suggestion would be turquoise.--Boynamedsue (talk)16:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha. No. I think I've made my point. --DeFacto (talk).17:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about using a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views Your contention that HNH promotes "hate" and that the bigotry they campaign against represents "legitimate political views" is unsupported by evidence, wildly irrational and broadly considered unethical. You may wish to choose a different line of reasoning.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation misrepresents my comment. I did not write thatthe bigotry they campaign against represents "legitimate political views". That is either based on a misreading or is a deliberate misrepresentation. --DeFacto (talk).21:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write that the bigotry they campaign against represents "legitimate political views" That's exactly what you wrote and it's plain for all to see, as others have made clear.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The word "bigotry" appears 4 times on this page, and those appearances are either in a post by you or in a direct quote of something in a post by you.

What I wrote, inthis post, was:We are talking about using a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views to support that stance.

You misrepresented that asYour contention that HNH promotes "hate" and that the bigotry they campaign against represents "legitimate political views" inthis post. --DeFacto (talk).18:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views

You still haven't provided any proof of this. None of the quotesyou posted show or say that HNH "promotes and encourages hate".TurboSuperA+_[talk]18:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I provided some quotes from both left leaning and right leaning sources. But I think it's general knowledge anyway amongst the politically enlightened. --DeFacto (talk).18:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You provided quotes, but none of them say or show that HNH "promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views", which is what was asked of you.

I think it's general knowledge anyway amongst the politically enlightened.

Ah yes, when you can't show evidence allude to it being common sense and call it a day. The "politically enlightened" bit is just the cherry on top.TurboSuperA+_[talk]18:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article onHope Not Hate states that it isan advocacy group based in the United Kingdom which campaigns againstracism and neo-fascism.(emphasis added)

You stated that theypromote and encourages the hate ofcertain legitimate political views.(emphasis added) You made no claim that our article is wrong, or that HNH misrepresents who they are actually opposed to. You merely described their activism as the promotion of hatred, and described their opponents as legitimate political positions.

To whit, you referred toracism and neo-fascism aslegitimate political views. (I'm leaving the task of addressing your characterization of their activism as the promotion of hate to others, who are doing quite well in showing that your arguments are utterly worthless.)

As a final note, the word 'bigotry' which you seem to fixate upon was the result of me using a highly obscure and little-understood element of language called asynonym. And if you ever find yourself in the extremely unlikely position of coming into possession of one of those almost-legendarily-mysterious artifacts known as athesaurus, you will be able to confirm for yourself that 'bigotry' is, at least in this context, another word for 'racism'.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• DeFacto On that basis, are you OK with deprecating theDaily Telegraph because of its multiple transphobic articles and obvious hatred of Starmer? How about theSpectator? No, didn't think so.Black Kite (talk)19:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Haven't we seen evidence that they publish content that is independent of their own campaigning? Haven't we seen evidence that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? --DeFacto (talk).21:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, theTelegraph is slipping, as the latest discussions show. But you were basically saying that HnH is unreliable because it's anti-Farage, whereas theTelegraph is virunlently anti-trans and anti-Labour. You can't deprecate source X just simply it is biased against subject Y.Black Kite (talk)08:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Here we need to establish if HnH is independent of the subjects it covers and do not have any influence on them. Not forgetting that we also need to show that it has reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You seem to have an obsession withThe Telegraph (which is deemedgenerally reliable with an exclusion for one set of subjects), but that in not relevant here. Although I suppose we could say that HnH is generally reliable except for on subjects related to politics to the right of left-wing. ;-) --DeFacto (talk).10:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was using theTelegraph as an example of an obviously biased source that we still use for other topics. But it's a useful comparator, because if one is arguing that HnH should be seen as reliable on one set of subjects and not for another set of subjects, then we would need an RfC onthat particular subset of topics (very much like theTelegraph one on trans issues). And I can't see an RfC succeeding on one flavour of politics rather than another, that would be incredibly messy.Black Kite (talk)11:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a perverse definition of independent. If you want us to change our understanding of what we mean by an independent source, this noticeboard is not the place to do it as you are asking us to rewrite our entire verified ability policy.BobFromBrockley (talk)11:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bobfrombrockley, perverse? I assume you are referring to the post of mine to which you were replying where I wrote:Here we need to establish if HnH is independent of the subjects it covers and do not have any influence on them.

  Here is what I was basing that segment on...

  The first line of the overview section in the WikiWP:RS policy says:Articles should be based on reliable,independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The word "independent" is linked toWP:Independent sources, which says in its 'nutshell' box:

  • Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because these sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy.

  Please compare these:

  Me:Here we need to establish if HnH is independent of the subjects it covers and do not have any influence on them.

  Wiki:Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. --DeFacto (talk).22:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I know how we define independent. And it’s very obvious that HnH is independent of its subjects in that sense. You’re saying because it opposes its subjects it’s not independent of them, a standard by which we could use pro-Kremlin sources to describe Putin and only use pro-Nazi sources to describe neo-Nazis, which as I say is… perverse.BobFromBrockley (talk)23:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You saidYes I know how we define independent. So why did you say that my summary of Wiki's definition was perverse? And if you now do know, how can you claim that HnH is in any way independent by that definition? --DeFacto (talk).00:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is approachingWP:SEALION. Bob has explained why it is perverse, I can too. Your interpretation that opponents of an individual or organisation are not independent of them is not a reasonable parsing of our rules and is not employed with regards to any other source. I'd just drop it.Boynamedsue (talk)01:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that "opponents of an individual or organisation are not independent of them". It's that the self-published primary sources written by HnH are not independent of the active campaign group HnH, so should not be considered as reliable sources for information about individuals or organisations that they are funded to campaign against. --DeFacto (talk).11:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hope not Hate's comments about itself are not independent. Its comments about say, well know far right activist and racist school bully, Nigel Farage are independent of the subject. Glad to have been able to clear this up for you.--Boynamedsue (talk)13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• DeFacto, you have commented some 28 times in this discussion, by my count; you areWP:BLUDGEONing it at this point, not helped by theWP:1AM nature of the discussion. You've made your position clear, and it's equally clear that your position (especially your attempt to use a low-quality source like Unherd as a source to establish the reliability of other sources, followed by doubling down by saying that its quality doesn't matter) is an extreme outlier. Repeateding it over and over isn't going to change things at this point; it's time toWP:DROPTHESTICK and let the RFC play out. If your arguments really are as convincing as you think they are, people will eventually be convinced by them without all this repetition. --Aquillion (talk)18:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The subject of Hope not Hate is primarily "far-right extremism"[16]. While there is likely some indirect influence through differing political ideologies etc., there is highly unlikely anydirect influence.

  In this context, I believe direct influence to be defined as things such as the subject asking the reporter to provide feedback, comments, or make an editorial post (like a paid review of c companies products), or where the reporter has a personal connection with the subject (family member, business partner/associate, friend). I highly doubt groups such as the Reform Party UK has gone and asked Hope not Hate to give their honest take, make it widely publicised, and deal significant damage to their reputation or public image.Mitchsavl (talk)00:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1with attribution, followingWP:USEDBYOTHERS across the political spectrum, as others above have shown, fromthe Telegraph, tothe Independent tothe Guardian. As always, we take our cues from established reliable sources.Generalrelative (talk)17:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  With attribution forwhat? If we are voting for attribution for everything, that is Option 2.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The usual thing - "it depends". Not all of HnH's output is opinion pieces; there are properly researched reports as well. This is Option 1 (with some of Option 2 depending on the actual content).Black Kite (talk)19:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify: my understanding of "Option 1 with attribution" is: a) the source is generally reliable; and b) if it's the only source for a potentiall controversial fact, we should typically use attribution, e.g. "According Scholar X writing forHope not Hate..." This seems to be the common practice among established reliable sources when citing HnH,or any other source for that matter. I don't consider this to be "additional considerations apply" because the same applies to established reliable sources like theNew York Times. Both HnH and the NYT publish a range of content from opinion to investigative reporting, and editor discretion is always going to be necessary to sort the one from the other. Unattributed statements of fact, regardless of the reputation of the publisher, typically require multiple sources. So yeah, "with attribution" means for me essentially "normal considerations apply". Note that I am not trying to equate the reputation for factual integrity of HnH with that of the NYT, only arguing that they fall under the same broad category ofgenerally reliable.Generalrelative (talk)20:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  My understanding of saying "with attribution" would be required by attributionfor anything, no matter how non controversial. People have interpreted it this way in the past.

  I agree with attribution being required in the cases you mention.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense. Given the potential ambiguity, I'll go ahead and strike "with attribution" from my !vote.Generalrelative (talk)22:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 Given the stronguse by others. I would usually say that this shouldalways be attributed, which would be Option 2, but many of the academic uses I've found don't always attribute. It depends what is being stated, so attribution may be required in matters of opinion (but that's suggestible for all sources perWP:RSOPINION). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Use by whom?Alaexis_¿question?21:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Scroll up the thread. Most major news organisations in the UK, plenty of academics.BobFromBrockley (talk)22:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Their use is very easy to find, many have been mentioned here by searching online with show you more. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 but I'm open to changing my !vote. Theypresent themselves as an advocacy group and I wasn't able to find their editorial policy so I'd be wary of declaring them fully reliable.Alaexis_¿question?21:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 as biased but generally reliable, attribution is necessary for opinions perWP:INTEXT (same as any other reliable source). USEBYOTHERS otherwise swings my !vote due to usage in the following peer-reviewed journals in 2025:International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society,^[5]The British Journal of Politics and International Relations,^[6]Journal of Gender Studies,^[7][8]Critical Criminology,^[9]Crime, Media, Culture,^[10]Studies in Conflict & Terrorism,^[11]Terrorism and Political Violence,^[12][13]Ethnic and Racial Studies,^[14] andHolocaust Studies.^[15].CNC (talk)23:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• The relevant criteria are "reputation for fact checking" and not "reputation for lack of bias". Whether or not other RS consider them reliable.Slatersteven (talk)12:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1. They do have a solid reputation for fact-checking, and as CNC and others observe above it is very easy to find reliable, often peer-reviewed, sources that treat HOPE not hate as trustworthy. --bonadeacontributionstalk16:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 This isn't a media site, it's an advocacy organization. As such we should always be cautions with how it is used, views should be attributed and we need to question if claims are due if they aren't reported by others. Of course any material they publish in traditional academic sources/journals would be treated as reliable scholarship on the topic.Springee (talk)22:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Springee just to say, I think that line has become irrecoverably blurred at this point. In a bid to remain relevant in a digital age almost every newspaper or news organisation of record seems to have become very selective in what and how it reports now to the point of clear political agenda.The Daily Telegraph in the last five to six years in particular has really demonstrated this issue as it's gone from a "broadsheet" reputable paper with a Conservative Party favouring line to just being little more than a mouthpiece of populist-right causes to try and flaunt itself to potential buyers.Rambling Rambler (talk)23:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 - They are not a news organisation in the strictest sense, but a campaigning organisation focused on right to far-right extremist groups of which it has done a great deal of accurate and trustworthy investigation over many years now (frankly I find it telling how criticism of them seems to come from editors with known bias towards support for the right of British politics). As a result I think it's "officially" Option 2 as while I regard them as reliable in what they do say I think it should be something that is clearly attributed to them, but then to be honest I think attribution is something that should be done with any generally reliable source anyhow for transparency reasons (i.e. saying in prose that aGuardian source is used as many will be aware that theGuardian's political line skews liberal).Rambling Rambler (talk)23:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the above - Reliability is the wrong question. HnH is an advocacy organization, and the views of ANY advocacy organization should be presented with in-text attribution.Blueboar (talk)13:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blueboar, would you expect its views to be supported by a reliable secondary source to establish due weight, or do you think its own self-published primary source would be adequate? --DeFacto (talk).18:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Neither… HnH, like SPLC is asignificant advocacy group, and so their opinion (ie labels) can and should be mentioned. However, we should not use them in the opening sentence to say that “Xis Y”… rather we should place their opinions later in the lead paragraph as: “The advocacy organizationHope not Hate describes X as being Y”.Blueboar (talk)22:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blueboar, what type of source would you use to support their view in that case? --DeFacto (talk).22:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t understand the question. Are you asking “what type of source can we use to say “X is Y”?Blueboar (talk)22:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blueboar, you indicated above that you would expect neither of my suggestions (a secondary source or a self-published primary source from HnH) to be used to source content attributed to HnH. If we added "The advocacy organization Hope not Hate describes X as being Y" somewhere, what would you cite to source that? --DeFacto (talk).22:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would cite HnH as a primary source for their (noteworthy) opinion, but not as a source of unattributed “fact”.Blueboar (talk)22:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blueboar, thanks for the clarification. --DeFacto (talk).22:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that reliability still applies even when using in-text attribution; attribution alone is not a cure-all, because even an attributed statement introduces something to the reader. We shouldn't use a low-quality source to make exceptional claims or to eg. characterize living people as far-righteven with attribution. I think that HnH is high-quality enough to be used for those statements with attribution, of course, per my statements above; other high-quality sources seem to uniformly treat them as reliable (perWP:RS,How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.) But this high-quality reputation is actually necessary for the sort of attributed statements people want to use them for; we wouldn't use eg. Occupy Democrats the same way, even with attribution. Hence why bias and reliability are separate questions. --Aquillion (talk)18:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 One of the activities of the organisation is acting as a news publication on activities of hate groups. In the interests of providing a useful service they are careful to fact-check and report developments accurately. It’s a generally reliable source.Cambial—foliar❧23:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambial Yellowing, can you share with us the source of your confidence in their reliability please. --DeFacto (talk).13:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No. Other editors have already explained this in more than adequate detail above. Read their statements, if you like.Cambial—foliar❧15:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 orOption 3. The traffic-light source designations are a reductionist insult to the intelligence of our readers and editors, but given that we are apparently obliged to choose one, there's no reason why we should give the imprimatur of "green" to the political claims of something which is very obviously a political advocacy organization.jp×g🗯️04:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The traffic-light source designations are a reductionist insult to the intelligence of our readers and editors,

  I see you have previously !voted on RfCs at RSN[17][18] without calling the designations reductionist or an insult to our intelligence. Why the sudden change of heart regarding the RfC process and designations? I also see you had no problem voting option 1 forPirate Wires, a conservative, "MAGA-adjacent" and "anti-woke" advocacy newsletter that published false information in the past.TurboSuperA+_[talk]05:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate the bizarrely combative and vaguely threatening aspersions, but I have been pretty consistent critic of the "traffic light" RSP regime for many years. It's not really clear why you are going through my contribs to assemble a history of my comments on this board, but if you do not possess the ability to find all the times I have called the three-color thing dumb, which I have done many times, it is not really my problem.jp×g🗯️23:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here If its fact-checking holds up, then obviously Hope Not Hate is reliable for factual statements. That said, I am uncomfortable with it being used for branding various people or groups "fascist" and "far-right". This surely falls into the realm of opinion (which has to be justified by reasoned argument), rather than simple factual claims (which are either demonstrably true or false). If a party or organisation is properly far-right, then you'd expect even mainstream right-wing/conservative publications to categorise them as such. In the absence of such examples, Hope Not hate and other left-leaning sources should not be relied upon solely for such labeling perWP:EXCEPTIONAL.Betty Logan (talk)05:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the political leaning of HnH is centrist rather than left-wing. It has campaigned against left-wing groups as well. In practice, its use for defining political position are usually either attributed or part of a group of academic and other reliable sources and contrasted to the self-description of the group/individual concerned and its supporters. And your qualification would apply to any and all reliable sources.Boynamedsue (talk)10:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In an earlier comment I noted that Hope not Hate focuses primarily on "far-right" sources, as per their website.[19] The group also engages openly and highly in activism[20], which suggests that their members would likely have strong opinions on these issues, which canoften lead to bias, andpotentially impact source quality.

To clarify, I am not saying that this source is significantly reliable, nor am I saying it is or isn't reliable.Mitchsavl (talk)10:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source, anywhere, that does not have a strong opinion on the "far-right"?

I've read dozens of books about this topic, both written by far-righters themselves and anti-fascist activists. I've written dozens of articles about this topic. I am yet to find a source that didn't have some strong opinion on the subject. People keep mentioning this as a criteria but I am left wondering then what sources should we use?PARAKANYAA (talk)02:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion was brought to the wrong noticeboard, in fairness, but the concern is valid. I think HnH is reliable for factual statements, but calling an entity "far-right" is not a straightforward factual claim. I think it is an analytical judgment, and it needs to be supported by not just reliable sourcing but also neutral sourcing. BothThe Telegraph andThe Times (both conservative outlets) have referred toTommy Robinson, Britain First and the BNP as far-right, but I have not come across them classifying Reform in the same way. I do not consider Hope Not Hate "centrist"; some of their members have connections to the Labour Party (seeJohn Cruddas), so their is an inherent left-wing bias. I don't see that as a barrier to factual accuracy, but I do see it as a source of bias. By definition, far-right organisations are to the right of the mainstream right, so I would expect some recognition of that in conservative media if it were a neutrally held position that Reform were far-right. If there is some evidence of that in the mainstream conservative media then fair enough, but to label a political party—possibly one that is now odds on to form the British government at the next general election—as far-right is an exceptional claim, and that needs to be reflect in the sourcing.Betty Logan (talk)14:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is suggesting that we use HNH to label Reform (or any other political party) as "far right".TurboSuperA+_[talk]14:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only example you provided at the start of this discussion was "Comment. The issue came up at Talk:Reform UK#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK? where editors are questioning the reliability of HOPE not hate", and linked to a relevant RFC. It certainly looks to me like you are questioning whether HnH is reliable for claims in this context. If this is indeed not the case, then it would be helpful if you could provide some further context for the kind of statements where the reliability of HnH is being questioned. Either way, I think my position is clear: I think HnH is reliable for factual statements, but not for exceptional claims where they may have a perceived bias.Betty Logan (talk)15:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to get too deep into it, but the question of reliability arose when editors disputed/questioned a quote from Cas Mudde, which was included in a HNH article, really did come from Cas Mudde. If you look at the RFC I linked you will see that there is a source review table that doesn't include HNH (except as a source for the aforementioned Cas Mudde quote). In the source review table the position of HNH on whether Reform is far right or not was not considered.TurboSuperA+_[talk]15:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider it generally reliable for quotes, unless there is evidence of it mis-quoting people to advance its political agenda. Nobody above has presented evidence counter to that.Betty Logan (talk)16:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 and can certain parties stop banging on about the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub, thanks.—Fortuna,imperatrix10:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 As an advocacy group it should be used with attribuation.Rolluik (talk)11:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 As good as they come for tracking the UK fascist movement. The current RSP listing simply isn't upto par with bad-faith actors using it to dismiss HnH launder their reputations. I witnessed this first hand atTalk:Homeland Party (United Kingdom) at an unprecedented scale.Gotitbro (talk)00:45, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2or 3:

A number of problems:

1. It appears this organization is being investigated by a government commission.Jack Rankin, agovernment officialMember of Parliament (United Kingdom), wrote a request for this commission, which included this:

“Hope not Hate Limited is a purely political operation with a reported history of fabricating security threats, spreading disinformation and pushing smear campaigns.

“It seems incompatible with the charitable requirement to further public benefit in a balanced, non-partisan manner.

“This context strongly suggests that Hope not Hate Charitable Trust does not act for public benefit. In fact, in my view it seems that in many ways the work it funds directly opposes the national interest.”

The commission replied

“We have received concerns about Hope not Hate Charitable Trust and are currently assessing these, as part of an existing compliance case, to determine if these raise any new regulatory concerns.”

However, hope not hate denied the allegations, and we might want to assume the role of presumption of innocence here. Still, this should be a point of concern.[21]

Edit:

The investigation closed after HnH made certain changes.However, the commission noted that it's very important that little action was taken by HnH even when previously stated. Put in the commission's own words:

The Commission welcomes these steps and so is now closing its case. However, it is critical that limited action had been taken at the point of opening its most recent case in July 2025, despite concerns relating to this matter being raised previously.

The Commission has also set an expectation that the charity can evidence its grant-making decisions when called upon. It acknowledges that the charity has developed new grant criteria but detail on this is limited.

Although pointing to some good changes, I still believe these findings, including not taking necessary steps to ensure accuracy until direct intervention was given, farther damage their credibility.[22]

2. The organization has been accused of conflatingcentre-right politics withfar-right extremism, as well as downplaying other forms of extremism.[23]

3. Hope not hate has also been accused of criminal conduct, as well asmisinformation if not outrightdisinformation.[24]

4. Other people here have pointed out they were unable to find a review board for this organization that ensures the information is accurate.

5. Other editors have pointed out that the organization is not only biased (which can still be reliable), but that it this causes them to disregard the truth and factual accuracy.

I'm not sure how much of a problem these are, but I believe that these are a challenge, so I suggesteither putting it atWP:MRELorWP:GUNREL.Wikieditor662 (talk)20:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, far-right people complain about it. Your sources are right-wing outlets and right-wing MPs. The source you just cited: "Generation Remigration And Their Lebensraum", "The Betrayal of Rhodesia", "The Horrifying Reality Of "Trans" Surgical Butchery", "The Anti-Scientific Error Of Net Zero Climate Religion", and multiple articles where they espouse Great Replacement theory. Wow. I wonder why these guys don't like not Hope not Hate. If you think these are acceptable sources I am not sure what to say.PARAKANYAA (talk)22:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of the UK government should be considered. While being under an investigation does not necessarily mean a organisation is extreme, or against the public interest (the whole point of an investigation is to establish that itis the case), it also means that there likely is some semi-plausible reason for suspicion (which I guess is not too hard to find forany source).Mitchsavl (talk)03:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the opinion of "the government" it is the opinion of one right wing MP.PARAKANYAA (talk)04:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the investigation has concluded, finding no issues in relation to the MP’s claim.BobFromBrockley (talk)08:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I couldn't find some of these sources mentioned in eitherWP:RSP norWP:RSN, so I just put in "has been criticized", even though I'm also not familiar with some of these sources. If any source I cited is unreliable or was inaccurate, then I apologize for that. But pleaseassume good faith, even if I made a mistake, it was with good intentions, and we're all here to try and improve Wikipedia.

For the sources, if you could please tell me which of them are unreliable, I would be happy to cross that part out. I know the UK government is reliable and thethe spectator isWP:MREL (which is why I didn't put the latter as an objective fact). The civil society source has a UK domain so I assume that's reliable too; I'm not sure about restoremag. I also cited the opinions of other editors as well.Wikieditor662 (talk)03:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil Society source is indeed reliable but doesn’t say that HNH is unreliable and in fact reliably shows that your claim about the government official is obviously wrong.BobFromBrockley (talk)08:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1/ So many errors here but let’s start with the idea thatJack Rankin, a politician, is “a government official”, an error that should’ve been obvious to you within half a second of clicking the link to his own WP page which you shared. You say that “we might want to assume the role of presumption of innocence here”, but neglect to say that we don’t need to because the regulator has completed its investigation, as shown in the second link you shared, and concluded that there has been no breach. The actual issue was the relationship between the trading arm and the charitable arm of the organisation, not anything related to reliability. 2/ HnH “has been accused”. By whom? Per your link by the associate editor ofThe Daily Sceptic (opening line of our article on it: “The Daily Sceptic is a blog created by British commentator Toby Young. It has published misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines[9] and engaged in climate change denial.”) writing an opinion column inThe Spectator, Britain’s most right-wing commercial magazine, famous for publishingTaki Theodoracopulos’s defence of theWehrmacht. In short,Well he would, wouldn't he?. 3/ HnH “has been accused” again. By whom? You’ve linked an actual fascist website. 4/ “Other people here have pointed out they were unable to find a review board for this organization that ensures the information is accurate.” No evidence and what does this even mean?BobFromBrockley (talk)08:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• For Rankin, I'm not from the UK, so I thought "government official" was sufficient for an MP, but I corrected it.
• the regulator has completed its investigation, as shown in the second link you shared, and concluded that there has been no breach. I checked the second source (from civil society) and I don't see it saying the investigation concluded. Where do you see that?
• WP:RSP said thatWP:THESPECTATOR goes underWP:MREL and that it can be attributed asWP:RSOPINION. This what we go by, even if they occasionally host articles from people defending extremist beliefs.
• By whom? You’ve linked an actual fascist website. I once again couldn't find evidence calling that source (the restorationist)an actual fascist website, could you please provide sources for your claims?
• I'm not the most experienced Wikipedian out there, but I believe certain sources have ways to be transparent about their sources and ways they show people their methods that ensure accuracy, and what I said was people are saying that HnH does not do this.Wikieditor662 (talk)19:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Re Rankin: I didn't think the difference between the executive and legislative branch was UK-specific, but OK.

"Re the second link you shared: sorry, my bad, I meant thefirstlink you shared, the actual regulator's statement.

Re the Spectator: yes we can attribute its opinions, but the point is opinions are opinions and not helpful in determining reliability, and that far right opinions about an anti-fascist source are pretty predictable.

Re The Restorationist blog: maybe not full-blown fascist, but it quacks like a duck - calls to repatriate "second generation immigrants", take away the right to settlement for spouses from "culturally distant countries", white Rhodesia was a utopia... I withdraw the word "fascist" but it's pretty extreme.BobFromBrockley (talk)22:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

While Rhodesia is a fascinating subject (the history of discrimination has long been a favourite subject of mine), multiple fanciful articles espousing the imagined virtues of Rhodesia while obfuscating/denying the crimes of the regime does not inspire confidence that an outlet isn't some flavour of far-right. --Cdjp1 (talk)10:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The restorationist appears to promoterestorationism, a subset of Christianity. Links tohttps://greatrepeal.com/, which in turn links back to specific articles on the site for seven different proposed bills, which includes Negative Liberty Act, which "eliminates income tax above 10%, abolishes planning permission entirely, and restores the ancient English principle whereby all actions are lawful unless Parliament explicitly prohibits them."; the Barbaric Practices Act, which bans Islamic practices, greatly restricts abortion access, and "treats biological sex as immutable scientific reality"; and the Oblivion Act, which abolishes the past 125 years of laws. These proposed laws are from a book published by author Alexander Coppen, and on its cover, writes "We Can Heal Our Country In A Single Day"[25], which is completely unrealistic. Such a source which promotes such blatant disinformation would make theDaily Mail(RSP entry) look reliable.Mitchsavl (talk)11:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also it’s a group blog - an SPS - so it’s bizarre anyone would propose it for consideration here. But I think we have consensus on this now. Time for a SNOW close?BobFromBrockley (talk)15:57, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it per the first source (which has now moved) -- even though it was closed due to changes made, it seems the commission has also found that HnH has refused to make appropriate changes until directly confronted by the commission, despite being warned earlier, which appears to still be a red flag.

As for the restorationist (and somewhat the spectator), I think it's important to note the difference betweendescriptive andnormative claims. Saying "Pope Francis hasdied in 2025" is a descriptive claim, while saying "abortion should be illegal" is a normative claim. A source can make normative claims that you disagree with, or even think are deeply immoral, but that does not automatically mean that their descriptive claims are wrong. That is whyWP:BIASED saysreliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.. As such, I think it's best to assess the specific accusations made against HnH.

Also, I changed my mind from eitherWP:MREL orWP:GUNREL to justWP:MREL.Wikieditor662 (talk)19:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 Given that it's an advocacy group per its own description, it should be treated like other advocacy sources, i.e., not ideal as a neutral source on its own especially for contentious topics. It can be used with attribution for its own analysis, reports, or viewpoints under certain circumstances.Frankserafini87 (talk)14:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining thefeedback request service. An editor hasrequested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Economy, trade, and companies Wikipedia proposals When discussion hasended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is thereliability ofThe Points Guy (TPG) as a source?

• Option 1:Generally reliable in its areas of expertise
• Option 2:Marginally reliable, unclear, or additional considerations apply
• Option 3:Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable and should bedeprecated

— Newslinger talk17:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#RfC: The Points Guy (2019)
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 501#Question about removing The Points Guy (TPG) from spam blacklist (2025)

--Guy Macon (talk)18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 or 4. The Points Guy (TPG) is a travel blog consisting ofsponsored content that primarily focuses on theloyalty programs of credit cards, airlines, hotels, and other travel companies. As anaffiliate marketing company, TPG is paid when a reader signs up for a credit card or other product that TPG promotes on the website. TPG is aquestionable source because it has an"apparent conflict of interest" with the financial institutions that offer those products, and with the companies whoseco-branded credit cards are marketed through TPG. The topics covered in TPG's content almost entirely overlaps with the companies and products associated with TPG's affiliate relationships.
  The 2007 contract"Chase Bank USA, N.A. Affiliate Program Agreement with Affiliate" that was publicly released in anSEC filing bya web property ofBankrate (whichacquired TPG in 2012) includes the following clauses:
  • "Affiliate will only use credit card descriptions provided or approved in writing by Chase."
  • "Prior to using any of the Licensed Materials, Affiliate will submit to Chase for approval a draft of all proposed material that incorporates the Licensed Materials, together with a brief statement setting forth the proposed use of such materials and any other background or supporting material reasonably requested by Chase to allow Chase to make an informed judgment. All such materials shall be submitted to Chase at least seven (7) days prior to the date of first intended use. Chase will notify Affiliate of its approval or disapproval of such materials within five (5) business days of its receipt of all information required to be submitted. The approval or disapproval of such materials will be in Chase’s sole discretion."
  • "Affiliate agrees not to use the Licensed Materials in any manner that is disparaging or that otherwise portrays Chase in a negative light. Chase may revoke Affiliate’s license at any time."
  • Specifies a long list of"Restricted Trademark Terms", including airlines (e.g.British Air,United), hotel chains (e.g.Holiday Inn,InterContinental,Marriott), retailers (e.g.Amazon.com,Toys "R" Us), and other businesses (e.g.Disney,Starbucks) that have released co-branded products with Chase Bank
• Two years after Bankrate acquired TPG and took over the management of"some affiliate links",Skift published"The Blurring Ethical Lines Between Credit Card Companies and Travel Writers", which stated:"As highlighted in this Mr. Money Moustache post, advertisers like Chase aren’t above nudging the editorial in a direction of their choice — and when bloggers don’t step in line they risk losing their revenue stream." That sentence linked to another sponsored credit card blog which reported that Chase Bank revoked their affiliate contract, with one of the reasons being the blog's use of the text"WTF!?" to describe one of Chase's rewards cards. As of today, TPG continues to advertise credit cards from Chase Bank and other financial institutions (which also require such affiliate contracts) on just about every one of its pages, which indicates that TPG is apparently complying with the content-related terms set in these affiliate contracts.
  In 2019,Red Ventures (RSP entry) acquired Bankrate, whichincluded TPG in the purchase deal.A 2024 request for comment (RfC) on this noticeboard designated Red Ventures properties asgenerally unreliable, because"Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner" and"The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic." However, TPG was excluded from that RfC because TPG had already been placed on thespam blacklist at that time. I see absolutely no reason to consider TPG more reliable than other Red Ventures properties, including sponsored blogs (other than TPG) owned by Bankrate as well asCNET (2020–2024) andZDNet (2020–2024), all of which are considered generally unreliable during their Red Ventures eras. — Newslinger talk17:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC); edited to clarify attribution of contract 12:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 A travel blog reliant on sponsors should definately be considered non-RS. I don't think its that bad to need full depreciation as its not published false information. But since it is likely to be reliant on opinion related to sponsorship then just a straight option 3 would be best in my view.The C of E God Save the King! (talk)18:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 Editors need to be on the lookout for sponsored content or CoI, and it's generally not notable material anyway. That being said, in the few instances where the blog actually provides information useful for an encyclopedia, I don't see why not.NotBartEhrman (talk)19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 34 and Blacklist: From [https://thepointsguy.com/about/ ]:

"Our site may earn compensation when a customer clicks on a link, when an application is approved, or when an account is opened with our partners, and this may impact how or where these products appear."

We know that thepointsguy can't be trusted on credit card rewards programs, because they're partners with the credit card companies, not an independent reviewer.

How do we know that they are not also partners with airline rewards programs and hotel rewards programs?

Looking at a recent article"I left my laptop on a flight. Here's how I got it back within 24 hours"[26] thepointsguy says some really nice things about Delta.

Right in the middle of the article is this ad:

"Earn up to 80,000 miles with our favorite Delta cards. To help you decide which Delta card is best for you, take a look at the details of the most popular Delta Amex cards from our partners" (they use the word "partner", but I am pretty sure that the money and the control only flows one way).

That ad leads me to"Best Delta credit cards of February 2026" which in turn says"Most of the cards we feature here are from partners who compensate us when you approve through our site",

So imagine if the author of that article (Clint Henderson / The Points Guy) had said something bad about Delta. Or even pointed out that even if Delta does everything right there is a high probability that someone will steal the laptop instead of turning it in to Delta lost and found. Do you think Clint's "partners" would be happy? Even if Delta had nothing to say, which kind of article would result in the most people clicking on that link, getting a Delta card, and putting money in Cliff's pocket? The Conflict of Interest cannot be surmounted give their current business model.

In my considered opinion, thepointsguy.com should go back on the spam blacklist. --Guy Macon (talk)19:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the record,Guy Macon, the blacklist "is intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses". It's not for blocking unreliable sources absent other concerns.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd be curious for people's opinions on this site's non-sponsored content. I don't really think there's any question that the sponsored material/really anything relating to loyalty programs is unreliable, but we should be looking at the entire site. When you do that, you can find a host of articles about things likealtered airline routes,improved aircraft interiors,airline orders for new aircraft andairline policy changes. These pieces could, subject to editorial discretion, have encyclopedic information and are factual/reliable in the colloquial sense (Wikipedia reliability very much TBD).
  I'm personally leaning option 3 because that Red Ventures ownership is a flashing red warning light andLiam at TPG did not respond tomy questions about their editorial practices. Still, there's more nuance to this question than the comments above have considered.Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]}21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 It's not much better than a press release. But press releases do have their uses, so I don't see the need to deprecate or blacklist.JumpytooTalk02:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4. No case has been made why this site should no longer be blacklisted. The user who requested it is here to promote their business, not to build an encyclopedia.Cortador (talk)07:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 per above.TheKip^(contribs)19:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 TPG is only marginally better thanWP:Simple Flying which was depreciated in terms of accuracy, but much worse in terms of the amount of promotional content they publish. Anything important would have been covered by others, we should depreciate them.Avgeekamfot (talk)20:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 The site's promotional and advertising is an excessive part of the content. There is zero (negative?) evidence of even an intent to maintain a solid editorial/revenue wall. I'm sure there's some journalistic effort and truth in there but the end product is tainted. The site barely rates a page in the encyclopedia. It's unfortunate that the revenue model is so tightly founded on the editorial subject. If they want to be considered a reliable source, they need to find advertisers that they don't need to write about and get on, and stay on, a neutral, non-transactional footing with the credit card companies and the travel venues. (invited randomly by a bot)Jojalozzo (talk)00:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4. Grossly promotional. And blacklist again if there is the slightest effort to cite it anywhere by anyone who should know better.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4Wikipedia:Reliable sources excludes any content that is either an aggregator, not verifiable, or produces sponsored content. It may barely meetWikipedia:Acceptable sources guidelines, where articles list individual authors, but I would state that it is generally unreliable and should never be used. I don't recommend blacklist.Abs145 (talk)19:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 and blacklist again. This is sponsored content, the owner gets paid for landing on his site. It is utterly unreliable and the fact that the site owner (who is not here to contribute) to request unlinking is single proof that that request was made to (enable) spam again. This should first have been decided through a RSN RfC to be reliable and of significant use, and then delisted, not the other way around.Dirk Beetstra^TC10:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 For non-spon content I think there are certainly more reliable sources that go in-depth vs what TPG puts out.netstars22 (talk)05:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The Points Guy (TPG) was recently removed from thespam blacklist in response to a request from TPG's representative atWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 501 § Question about removing The Points Guy (TPG) from spam blacklist. In that discussion, I recommended a new request for comment on the reliability of TPG, because TPG was excluded fromthe 2024 RfC about the reliability of its parent company,Red Ventures (RSP entry). There isone previous RfC regarding TPG's reliability from 2019. — Newslinger talk17:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• HiAbs145, it looks like you inadvertently commented twice with different options (first comment,second comment). Would you like to remove one of these comments? — Newslinger talk16:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes - thanks! will remove comment 1 nowAbs145 (talk)18:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Desk HQ today made the wrong call in the Democratic primary race for New Jersey's 11th district. This was then covered by multiple outlets as candidate Tom Malinowski having won, and subsequently this made its way into his wikipedia page. For example, this article -https://www.insidernj.com/mejia-dogfight-malinowski-cd-11-as-mejia-surges-into-first-place/. Or articles like this, which the URL shows originally were quite differently written -https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/new-jerseys-tom-malinowski-wins-primary-for-suburban-house-seatThis is not DDHQ's first mistake, in 2018 it made a notable mistake, projecting David Valadao would win, although in that case AP also had to retract its projection -https://www.270towin.com/news/2018/11/21/gop-wins-ga-7-while-ca-21-is-now-too-close-to-call_719.html. They have main multiple other mistakes since, such as in 2022, or in the 2025 Seattle mayoral election. In that one particularly, their call was criticized, and a local outlet they had partnered with decided not to display it at the time. I believe they should not be used as the sole basis for calling elections, and articles or sites that rely on them when declaring a winner should be taken with similar caution.Ezra Fox🦊 •(talk)04:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would Wikipedia ever need to "call" an election? We would (orshould) wait until the result is confirmed. We aren't a news ticker.Black Kite (talk)10:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia will say which candidate won an election. Elections typically take weeks to be certified, even if the results are not in dispute. Especially considering many editors race to be the first to add an update, it seems extremely unlikely editors will be willing to wait those weeks. What do you mean by "the result is confirmed"? For many, race callsare that confirmation. That's why I think it's important to recognize that those flaws can be flawed, and for some organizations significantly more than others. But if you know of a broader policy Wikipedia has on when to edit articles to write down the winners of races, please share. Perhaps attributing any calls, or whatnotEzra Fox🦊 •(talk)19:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Editors could wait until multiple sources have called the election, and there is more certainty about the result, rather than just relying on the first source to make the call. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Decision Desk HQ enjoys a strong reputation for what it does, but Wikipedia shouldn't be in the position of citingprojections for the basis of whether someone has won an election.Mackensen(talk)13:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DDHQ (which I interned for in 2016) adopted a very aggressive strategy to get their name out by calling races first. They didn't have a reputation to lose yet, so there wasn't much risk. This paid off massively for a while, especially calling 2020 a day or so before the networks. A fair amount of luck was involved. I expect them to pull back now as a more established player, facing the same incentives as the networks. Anyway the other editors are right, we should never cite projections as fact anyway.GordonGlottal (talk)13:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even RS are wrong occasionally. The key thing is that they correct their mistakes publicly. DDHQ seems RS to me. In polling and modeling, you're bound to get things wrong occasionally depending on your error tolerance.EvergreenFir(talk)20:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's fair. I guess we just disagree here. Or rather, I think the error tolerance they have here is irresponsibly large. For me, it's not so much about making a mistake once in a blue moon. It's about their aim of being first, leading to a pattern of calls that were considered riskyat the time. The thing I consider most significant is when the local paper they teamed up with in Seattle reversed course right after their call, before it was known to be wrongEzra Fox🦊 •(talk)22:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to read this, but looking at the edit history for Tom Malinowski seems to show that it was only done by one editor and only for a period of three minutes. That wasn't the impression I got from "subsequently this made its way into his wikipedia page" given how brief it showed up.

In any case, it is usually best to lean to how the last main election article handled it. I believe it was either three or five specific sources in agreement for the 2024 election. --Super Goku V (talk)07:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On this noticeboardThe Hill is rated generally reliable. This is sourced to 10 discussions. However, looking through them, most seem to only mentionThe Hill very tangentially, and none go into much depth, with the possible exception of number 8. All of these discussions are also several years old. I thinkThe Hill is likely generally reliable for statements of fact that have been firmly established, though I hold that opinion somewhat tentatively. However, when it comes to breaking news, they have a history of having to make corrections. More worryingly, they do not disclose what changes they make when they make them, even when completely rewriting an article, as this URL shows -https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5724818-tom-malinowski-wins-nomination/. Because of this, it's somewhat hard to judge their reliability. I will note that Media Bias/Fact Check lists them as mostly biased "they have rushed to publish breaking news that needed to be corrected or removed in the past". MBFC should be used with caution, so take that or leave it. This article also notes errors in the past. In it The Hill attributed the errors to one employee, who left before this latest mistake -https://thedesk.net/2025/04/olafimihan-oshin-the-hill-discipline-settlement-nexstar/Ezra Fox🦊 •(talk)05:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Media Bias/Fact Check itself is unreliable.Cortador (talk)10:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEHILLWP:MBFC.Phil Bridger (talk)11:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is easily solved by not adding breaking news to articles, regardless of the source. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perWP:RSBREAKING.BobFromBrockley (talk)08:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, thanks for pointing me to the specific policy!Ezra Fox🦊 •(talk)07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AfaikThe Hill is mostly neutral and avoids sensationalism, except for its talk showRising which should probably never be cited, as with any other news talk show. ―Howard •🌽³³18:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on Rising, and that should probably be noted in the consensus. I have seen people try to use Rising before with The Hill's reliability as justification.LordCollaboration (talk)18:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding specific mention of The Rising’s unreliability to RSP entry as I’ve also seen editors trying to use it for dodgy claims.BobFromBrockley (talk)08:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrites aren't great, but besides that this is a problem inherent to breaking news sources, which is why they should be used sparingly. I've written an essay on this atUser:Thebiguglyalien/Avoid contemporary sources.Thebiguglyalien (talk)🛸00:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The image ishere, a self made map. Do you think this is reliable to be used on wikipedia articles? Per the creator of the map, texts fromvarious sources were used to draw this map. Question comes down to a) factual accuracy? b) verification? c) are all kingdoms/towns factually located? e) reliable sources? Are all borders factually accurate? d) are all kingdoms/towns factually named? Please share opinions.RangersRus (talk)22:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on maps is really, really bad. This example is an extreme example, butmost or our maps are making some basic cartographic errors, are poorly sourced, and if they were text would be considered synthesis or blatant original research.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

my thoughts toosynthesis or blatant original research.RangersRus (talk)23:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we were applying original research policy to images we wouldn't be allowed to have any non-historical images at all, maps or otherwise. The act of producing an illustrative work, photography or otherwise, is "original research", whether it is taking a photograph of a celebrity (after all we have no secondary source that says it is that celebrity) as much as making a map is. As long as the sources check out it is fine.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Images that are used forillustration are held to a different standard than images that are used forinformation. The problem with maps is that they can fall into both categories (illustrationand information) simultaneously.Blueboar (talk)00:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that a user created map should be fine, as long as the information is properly sourced, such as to other maps, databases with specific coordinates etc. For historical maps such as this one, there would be complexities as, prior to modern measuring and recording equipment, finding a precise location would be near impossible.

Thepage on commons lists a large variety of sources (of which I know nothing about), and if those sources contain maps, coordinates etc, and are reliable sources, then I would say a self made map can be used. I would still prefer a map which is not self made, but in many situations, this may be impossible for copyright reasons, or they are not of a suitable quality.

I would suggest asking around atWikiProject Maps, whose editors would be well versed in consensus around this topic. In fact, I think I may go and notify them of this conversation now.Mitchsavl (talk)01:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is this source onDurrani Empire map. Supposedly reliable source but the creator of the self made map called this sourced map "poor to reality". In own wordsIt is unfortunately, poor to reality (and rather simple) as you suggested. To list a few errors (with the iranica map) among many; The Durranis never controlled Wakhan, and rarely exercised control over Badakhshan, only intermittently. They also did not control Chitral nor Kafiristan. So the creator said he used texts from various sources to create a map of his own. The green color looks like the shades depicting Durrani Empire but I just picked one town "Ladakh" to search the sources (as many as I could that were from historians) if it was ever under the empire in 1765 but I did not find any such reference. How are we to believe that the map is notWP:SYNTH ? Some sources listed are unreliable and primary like "Ayn-al-Vayaqi", "Katib Hazarah" and many like these. I haven't even looked at other towns yet.RangersRus (talk)01:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All images used for illustration are informing you of something. An image of a squirrel informs you of what a squirrel looks like. An image of a celebrity informs you of what the celebrity looks like. We haveWP:IMAGEOR that explicitly says images are not covered by this unless they advance new arguments.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the map consists entirely of a 'new argument', as documented by the map's own creator, who explicitlydocuments the multiple sources from which it was synthesised, WP:IMAGEOR rules out its use.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending this image specifically, because I don't know how well the sources back up what is shown, but as to the general idea IMAGEOR saysunpublished ideas or arguments. If you read a source about geography and then distill what you read into an image that is not OR, it is not presenting anunpublished idea or argument, any more than taking an image is. After all, there is no published source that explicitly says the image you took is of what you took it.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are a bit more complex then images and our policy is not adequate to address them.Map communication model andCritical cartography, are both interesting reads related to this, andHow to Lie with Maps is a great book that discusses the problems around them in an excellent and digestible way (You can download at least part of an old edition from the authors ResearchGatehere). Maps can serve many functions, but one view is that they are models of reality, and can serve as a scientific hypothesis that is tested every time the map is used. An extreme view on this can be seen inWilliam Bunge's bookTheoretical Geography, where he defines maps as a subset of mathematics. The critical cartographers (I'm not a member of their school of thought, but I keep up with their rambles) generally reject empirical views of cartography and believe maps reflect the bias of the cartographer as well as underlying power structures. The act of creating a map from this view is making an argument. While the quantitative geographers and critical cartographers really don't get along most of the time, they would both agree a map is more then just an image.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}03:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting critical theory here for the sake of argument by this logic would we not just entirely ban maps to be compliant withWP:NPOV? If no map can show anything of empirical value, then we can't use any. If we're using an out of copyright map, we're dealing with the NPOV views of that time, if we're using a US government map we're spouting off US government propaganda, same with the UN. So we have no maps to use.

And a map is information, sure, an image is not just visual, but I disagree that maps are extra special vs any other kind of visual.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In terms on maintaining a neutral point of view, I would say that with a modern border, that recognised by a majority of countries would comply, as is the case with other generally accepted information. Notable disputes would have to be noted, and there are some ways to show multiple borders on the same map. A map showing mainland Australia, for example, is something that almost everyone agrees on, and would qualify as NPOV, whereas a map of the borders between oceans is disputed, and one single map may not be enough to cover all points of view. Certain solutions exist, such as the use of agif.Mitchsavl (talk)04:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA, this is why it is important to cite our sources. We can absolutely use U.S., U.N., or really any map from a reputable source, but we need to clearly state the source just like anything else. Merging together several sources, making modifications to the underlying data ourselves, or creating new maps all together is OR. Currently, citation practices on our maps are abysmal.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but then they aren't NPOV to use for facts, we would be presenting the opinion of an organization, not a fact. So we cannot use maps for any purpose where we are trying to represent objective reality. This is going to be almost none of our current uses for maps.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We need to cite everything on Wikipedia. We cite the U.S. government for population statistics, the CDC for disease stats, peer reviewed journal discussion sections, textbooks, news articles, etc., these are all reliant on the government being transparent and accurate. "Objective reality" is not the best way to think of what maps are showing, the most quantitative positivist view them as models and simplifications of reality. For examplecartographic generalization is used to actually get the information onto a visual representation; a map designed to be seen at a global scale will have more generalized borders then one at a regional scale. Further, the concept of a border isn't "Objective reality," it is a human construct. According to some countries, Morocco has annexed Western Sahara, others say it is disputed. Kashmir appears differently on Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese maps. Whatever set of borders we use, we need to cite whose world view we are using.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}07:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you read a source about geography and then distill what you read into an image that is not OR. That isn't what has been done with the map though. It is made by distillingmultiple sources into a single map. This is synthesis. Nobody could recreate the map from a single source. Or, for that matter, with the same results from the multiple sources cited, I strongly suspect, though that isn't really relevant. The map is an image of nothing but the map creator's own personal interpretation of multiple sources. Per core Wikipedia policy, we leave such interpretation and synthesis to WP:RS. We don't do it ourselves, regardless of whether we are writing text, or creating a map.AndyTheGrump (talk)03:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The map is an image of nothing but the map creator's own personal interpretation of multiple sources Just to note, this is in line with the critical cartography view point on what a map is in general, and why our policies break down when cartography comes up.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}03:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(I amreviewing the article where the map appeared) I am of the same opinion as @AndyTheGrump. At very least to evaluate a map, we need to have asimilar enough map from aWP:RS to compare with, i.e., a solid point of reference. Otherwise, it becomes to challenging to evaluate from text sources. Countries claim sovereignty and even go to war over maps. So we need apply a similar level of scrutiny in maps as we do in text sources. Btw We need to distinguish when we talk about geography over political/area of influence/battle maps. I talk about the latter.A.Cython(talk)03:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of boundaries countries go to war over, I've been trying to sound the alarm wherever it comes up: A lot of our orthological locator maps are very poorly sourced, and might have user generated boundaries. Example is the one fromSouth Sudan. One of many issues we have is that we don't have an agreed upon "reliable source" for boundaries, or a way to easily update them when changes are made to the source. This has lead to a lot of heated discussions over maps from the U.S. government that show Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}03:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We're never going to have solid agreement on borders as long as there are borders. What are you expecting?PARAKANYAA (talk)01:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Citations for the borders we are using. That is what I'm expecting.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}00:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not well versed in the history of cartography, take the following with a large grain of salt.

The problem with historical maps is that, in most cases, exact information would be incomplete, missing, or filled with errors. Whenever a border dispute is involved, such as would be the case for historical wars and conflicts, the different perspectives may result in contradictions, and the victors of such a conflict may have the ability to destroy or alter records. You then have additional complications where geographical features shift significantly over time, as is often the case with mature rivers, major volcanic eruptions etc. As a result of these various factors, it may often be impossible to accurately create a historical map, or even find sources which agree.Mitchsavl (talk)03:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a cartographer, if I make a map that depicts a historical event where sources either don't exist or disagree, I become the source. I make maps as part of my IRL job, it is definitely original research. Because I'm semi-anonymous here and my IRL credentials are meaningless here, I'll point to examples from Wiki. I've madeseveral maps for various Wikipedia pages that I've tried to use fairly strict and conservative cartographic approaches on. I try to document my sources and the methods I use to manipulate the data in those sources to produce the maps so that anyone could theoretically recreate them and check my work. All maps are models (at least in the theoretical framework I subscribe to), andAll models are wrong, but some are useful. They are only useful though if we follow proper cartographic conventions, document our sources and methods, and on Wikipedia follow a strict interpretation of policy. If we can't find good sources to make a map for Wikipedia, unfortunately not having a map is better then including a bad or misleading one. Unfortunately, most people do not understand cartography enough to actually know how bad the mistakes are, we have an entirecategory on Commons filled with maps that are characterized by polite literature as "misleading" (I can cite almost a century of peer reviewed literature and textbooks where cartographers explain why they are misleading, all while expressing frustration that no one cares to actually do basic research on how to make a map before publishing them). Rather then simply deleting them, others have argued that we should leave them until they are eventually replaced by ones using correct symbolization. No where else on Wikipedia would we leave misleading information until it is replaced with something better. Our policy is not adequate to handle maps, and the policy we do have that might apply (like cartographic conventions in the literature) is relaxed or ignored.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}06:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not let our ignorance upset you. We all know that you have studied these things in detail. And we all know that the end result will be WP:OR.Let it be as he said.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)09:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Upset is not really a word I'd use, frustration maybe, but more broadly at the world/project then at any particular person. In theliterature there is a particular quote: "As cartographers, therefore, it is our responsibility (though not ours alone) to ensure well-designed, data-rich maps are part of any online geographic visualization system, and to be"Internet activists" in developing good content. It is now, while the web is relatively young that we have the most opportunity to shape it." I am trying to do my part as an "Internet activist" to improve cartography on Wikipedia, in my limited capacity as an anonymous editor. On Wikipedia it is a bad word to say you are an "Activist" becauseWP:RGW, but I agree withWikipedia:We are absolutely here to right great wrongs and think it applies to this kind of advocacy. Whenever the discussion about issues on maps comes up, I try and bring some attention to the issues in hopes some momentum builds for community consensus change.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}01:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The map does not consist of a new argument, it strictly follows text-basedWP:RS sources.Noorullah (talk)08:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In cartography, drawing lines from historic text based sources would be publishable in a journal as original research. . .GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}07:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The map is clear and unambiguous WP:OR. It cannot be used in any article, per policy.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)09:51, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should discourage self-made maps in and of themselves. But as has been said, they have to be sourced, and this one contains way too much information drawn from way too many sources; it's clearlysynthesis (it's a beautiful work, but not suitable for Wikipedia).

I suppose the thing about maps that makes them uniquely challenging compared to text and other diagrams is that it's difficult to omit information from a map. You may have a source that says "The Empire of Alethkar contains the City of Kholinar", but you can't make a map that illustrates just that fact because the map will also inevitably imply that twenty other cities are or are not contained. For maps showing something complex like a border, I don't think it would be crazy to have a policy that requires a reliable GIS data file.

Maybe if the borders on this map were smoothed or blurred, and all of the tiny countries were removed, it would be better? Presumably theapproximate size and location of this empire can be found more unambiguously in text sources.Justin Kunimune (talk)01:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the arguments here do not seperate de-jure and de-facto from reality.

-

The map pasted in question from @RangersRus is based on de-facto boundaries and borders. I.e what's owned in reality akin to what is claimed. In this notable example, the Durranis claimed control over all of Iran. Did the Durranis in reality control all of Iran? Not even laughably close. What matters is ade-facto control over a region. Notde-jure. It depicts the ground reality of the situation, not meaningless claims of sovereignty at the time that is different to reality.

-

Moreover, RangerRus's nitpicked example chooses a "town" (Ladakh is not a town,it's a Kingdom/polity). He claims that there was no such references of Ladakh being nominally under theDurrani Empire yet there are plenty, to source a few...[27][28]

-

@AndyTheGrump said: "That isn't what has been done with the map though. It is made by distilling multiple sources into a single map. This is synthesis." - The map itself in question uses sources that don't dispute with each other. There isn't a source that says (x) control happened here versus (x) control never really happened! The source itself uses numerous sources because it's depicting a very vast region fromEastern Iran -Central Asia and toNorthern India. Questioning the sources and usage is fine, but claiming it's incorrect for a map to be depicted on a large scale (since it relies on many sources to depict the regions) is simply not an appropriate argument.

-

Overall, maps should be created as long as there isWP:RS to attribute everything depicted accurately. In regards to the above map, I'm more than cooperative in helping by providing sources for things into question because it's well sourced and thoroughly researched/depicted without making my own summary judgement. I stuck to the sources and what they depict.Noorullah (talk)08:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To argueWP:SYNTH is again, baseless, since this map is strictly following sources themselves. (Mainly text-based)...Noorullah (talk)08:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He claims that there was no such references of Ladakh being nominally under the Durrani Empire yet there are plenty, to source a few. Here is what I also said, in my commentas many as I could find and you do not even have these sources listed that I was going through but still its not a good representation for a self made map that is clearly synthesized. By the way one of the author Sophie Ibbotson is a British writer, explorer, and development consultant specialising in emerging markets. She is no reliable for the history area of study. Going by what you shared just on Ladakh alone, In 1751, the tribute paid by Ladakh to Mughals, was transferred over to Durrani through representative in Kashmir. So your interpretation and depiction of Ladakh as part of Durrani Empire in 1765 as you show in the map you created, is based on just this brief mention? Yes? Does it say that Ladakh was formally or directly part of the Durrani Empire in 1765? Did empire ever annex Ladakh? Could it be that Ladakh maintained its independence and tribute was for some specific reason only? This is the problem here on why self made maps where creator uses self interpretation and depiction is clearlyWP:SYNTH.RangersRus (talk)11:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources listed in the citations that mention Ladakh. These ones I chose from a simple search on google books (to show that there's readily references that do clearly attest this). For Sophie Ibbotson, seeWP:HISTRS as to what defines historical scholarship, She's chairman of theRoyal Society for Asian Affairs and has widely dived into the history of the region.

-

"is based on just this brief mention?" - Does it say otherwise? Are you saying they didn't pay tribute?, that would beWP:SYNTH. The book goes on to say that they had been paying tribute all the way until 1819, when the Sikhs conquered the region. (See Page 180)[29]

-

"Does it say that Ladakh was formally or directly part of the Durrani Empire in 1765?" - The book clearly says they swore nominal allegiance to the governors of Kashmir (Kashmir was ruled by the Afghans and its governors were appointed by the Afghans, or were typically Afghan governors themselves (most of the time)).[30]

-

"Could it be that Ladakh maintained its independence and tribute was for some specific reason only?" - I think you need a refresher on understanding tribute systems in this time period for Asia, much of it would typically be for realizing paramountcy of another nation.

-

Nonetheless, to conclude, none of the above isWP:SYNTH, the sources clearly establish that Ladakh recognized the Durranis nominally as their suzerains, and paid tribute.Noorullah (talk)14:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am only going to respond to Sophie Ibbotson as unreliable and leave on others to give opinion onWP:SYNTH per the source and its content you shared. Sophie Ibbotson is not historian and has no credentials in that area.The majority of Sophie’s work is economic development consultancy through her company Maximum Exposure and the World Bank. You can read more about her in thisarticle.RangersRus (talk)15:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It states in article: "Sophie writes for a variety of academic and consumer publications, focusing predominantly on Eurasia". It's important to note what qualifies forWP:HISTRS.Noorullah (talk)15:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly doesn't help with reliability. Scholarly historians (she is not) ensure their work is worthy through a disciplinary practice called historiography.RangersRus (talk)15:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Ibbotson book is a travel guide published by Bradt/Sawday/Wh, who are not an academic publisher. So to build any artefact from it dealing with history (whether that be a map or article text), would be very poor practice. --Cdjp1 (talk)18:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Noorullah, you write thatTo argue WP:SYNTH is again, baseless, since this map is strictly following sources themselves. You cite 62 different sources for your map.[31]. Can you explain how it would be remotely possible for any contributor to actually verify that the sources have been 'strictly followed', and that the sources 'don't dispute with each other'? Thatcontent be verifiable is an absolute requirement of Wikipedia, and it is blatantly obvious that a requirement to study 62 different sources in the sort of depth necessary to confirm your claims doesn't constitute 'verifiability' by any reasonable definition whatsoever.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump A possible solution to this would be clearly dividing what sources were specifically dedicated/relied upon for a region. Some of these sources used are also used to reinforce others. (as in some sources cited just reiterate what is used, but more sources for the sake of it).

- Another solution is dividing the map into appropriate areas to depict a specific region. For example, if I wanted to include a focus on theSikh Confederacy, I could split the map to focus more on that section (and subsequently include sources for solely that as the map would be focused on that area) and vice versa for other regions compared to one large grandiose map.Noorullah (talk)16:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:SYN:Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. THe 'conclusion' in this case is your map (and please don't even attempt to argue that maps don't have 'conclusions'). A map you have created through synthesis from multiple sources.Any map that can't be derived from a single source is synthesis.Any map that wouldn't be arrived at by a reasonably competent contributor reading the same single source is original research. This is core Wikipedia policy, and has been for many years. If people have been getting away with WP:OR/WP:SYN with maps and similar images for years, it is only because policy hasn't been properly enforced. If you seriously want to argue that contributors should be able to synthesise maps from multiple sources, make a proper policy proposal in the appropriate place. Until then, policy stands, and your map does not belong in any Wikipedia article.AndyTheGrump (talk)16:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion notexplicitly stated by any of the sources." - But.. they are covered by the sources? That's the key underline here, the policy states that you can't synthesize meaning not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In this case, they are stated by the sources. You also can rarely make a map without utilizing multiple sources, and I'm sorry but your blanket proposition would see most maps on Wikipedia taken down.Noorullah (talk)17:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your map is unambiguous synthesis, created by your own personal interpretation of multiple sources, and it will remain so, regardless of how much repetitive bullshit you post claiming otherwise. As for other maps, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who take the trouble to look that maps and other images have routinely been used to insert WP:OR, synthesis, and outright misinformation into Wikipedia for decades. This needs to be stopped.AndyTheGrump (talk)18:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why it isWP:OR or /WP:SYNTH without resorting to insult? SeeWP:NPA and remainWP:CIVIL please. The map was created through the usage ofWP:RS sources, as are many maps created on Wikipedia alike. You erroneously quoted Wikipedia policy regarding WP:SYNTH when its conclusion is supported by sources. Whereas if it was determining something else, that would beWP:SYNTH.Noorullah (talk)19:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have already both cited and quoted the relevant policies. Which apply regardless of whether you understand them or not, and whether you agree with them or not. I suggest you stop attempting to bludgeon your synthesis into Wikipedia, and find something more useful to do.AndyTheGrump (talk)19:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Noorullah21, I can try. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you're getting hung up on the "explicitly stated by any of the sources" phrasing. It's not saying that the sources, in sum total, must support the conclusion (i.e., the whole map). It saying that the conclusion/map must be present in "any of the sources", or, in other words, at least one of them.

Imagine if, instead of your 62 sources, you only had 2 sources. One gave the borders and name of every country, and the other gave the coordinates and name of every capital. If you put them together, that would be synthesis because the "conclusion" (again, the whole map) is partially stated in one source and partially stated in another source. If you need more than 1 source to assemble a map (or any other conclusion), then it's almost always going to be synthesis.

Ultimately, the most we should be doing with maps is taking existing sourced maps and making them easier to read, turning them into other formats (like SVG), changing to accessible colors, and so on.Woodroar (talk)20:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is almost all contemporary existing sourced maps are in copyright, so we cannot use them.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The data behind maps of actual places would (I think) be non-copyrighted, or ineligible for copyright, as detailed inWP:NONCREATIVE.Mitchsavl (talk)02:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Editors can still create maps based on geographical facts, which cannot be copyrighted. They just have to avoid violating policies like OR when doing so. There are templates for creating maps atWikipedia:Blank maps, plus plenty of other resources atWikipedia:WikiProject Maps andcommons:Category:Maps.

It's unfortunate that not every country has (relatively) open policies like theUSGS, but editors should be used to this. It's not like we can take most images or text, either. Virtuallyeverything that's contemporary is under copyright.¯\_(ツ)_/¯Woodroar (talk)02:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the way most maps are made on Wikipedia are made looks like watching someone try to do photoshop withMicrosoft Paint, or trying to write a report by attempting to edit a PDF. Free professional cartography/GIS software exists, for exampleQGIS,GeoDa, and evenArcGIS Online lets you make simple maps with a free accound. We should not be encouraging the use of .svg or .png images for creating a map, we could and should create a repository forShapefiles,Geodatabase (Esri)s, or other formats that are specific to storing spatial data. There are tons of datasets that are publicly available, my personal favorite for the United States is theCDC Social Vulnerability Index because of all the data, but there is alsotiger files. For international boundaries, I tend to like theLarge Scale International Boundaries published by the state department, which are "the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use." They are free to use, but should be attributed. jpg, .svg, or whatever format are generally final products, like exporting a PDF from a Word doc at the end of writing a paper. The entirety of Wikipedia's map making is not only amateur, which is forgivable, but the instructions have no grounding in the reality of how they are made, and I an others have encountered active resistance at changing that.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}08:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changing colors on maps can actually change the message a cartographer was trying to convey. There is a HUGE body of literature around how to select colors on a map, and it varies by intended audience.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}07:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say it involves theFour color theorem though.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)10:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that is a very small part of it, the entirety ofColor theory technically applies. A big part of the literature is byCynthia Brewer, and the result is the defaults in ESRI software as well as her toolColorBrewer.Choropleth maps, andChorochromatic maps both have their own body of literature surrounding them, such as the the number of class breaks in choropleth maps (Example isGeorge JenksJenks natural breaks optimization or the unclassified scheme proposed byWaldo R. Tobler). Color has cultural connotations, such as red meaning danger in the West but luck in many Eastern cultures, soColor symbolism needs to be considered. Once the data are processed, creating the final map is a subset of graphic design, so a good cartographer should have at least a basic understanding of graphic design principals. If you're interested, there are some good papers on the topic of color on maps. Here is a VERY small selection of some of my favorites:

• Color use guidelines for mapping and visualization By Brewer inVisualization in Modern Cartography
• Spectral Schemes: Controversial Color Use on Maps by Brewer
• An Evaluation of Color Selections to Accommodate Map Users with Color-Vision Impairments by Brewer
• Choropleth Maps Without Class Intervals? By Waldo Tobler
• Maps Without Class Intervals?: A Comment by Michael W. Dobson (Direct response to Tobler's paper above)
• The hopeless pursuit of purification in cartographic communication: A comparison of graphic-arts and perceptual distortions of graytone symbols byMark Monmonier

I'll also say that two papers that should be required reading for anyone who wants to make a map, anywhere, are:

• Ethics and Map Design: Six Strategies for Confronting the Traditional One-Map Solution By Monmonier
• Lying with Maps by Monmonier

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}00:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Maps are slippery customers"J. B. Harley inWriting Worlds: discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of landscape, Cambridge University Press, 1992. I once wrote an essay suggesting that maps aren't just rhetorical devices - arguments - but that they frequently containarguments with themselves as they attempt to hide contradictions imposed by their attempt to classify (and thus assert control over) a messy world that rejects easy classification. I may have been overdoing the Foucaultian postmodernism, but it didn't go down too badly, so I may have been onto something. Or at least given an indication of why Wikipedia needs to avoid treating maps as some sort of authoritative statement, and instead look at them as sources like any other, subject to all the usual rules.AndyTheGrump (talk)06:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please see my proposal below.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)11:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This map is absolutely OR/SYNTH and not reliable. It should not be used on Wikipedia.Woodroar (talk)18:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that has come up in this discussion several times is the need for some specific policy related to maps. Here are some of the thoughts I have in regards to what considerations would be required. I do not know to what extent any of these aspects have been implemented, or how necessary they are.

• If Wikipedia were to add map making instructions, the biggest challenge I suspect would be ensuring newcomers are aware of these guidelines. I think there would need to a template, similar to the {{Welcome}} which can be added to talk pages when a user uploads a self made map, added manually by editors.
• Any policy would have to not be too restrictive on style and criteria, at the risk of negatively impacting the usefulness of them, but should include certain aspects such as sourcing requirements.
• Perhaps guidelines may be better, with a procedure for replacing maps with ones which are more fit for purpose.

Mitchsavl (talk)09:09, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm unconvinced that we need 'specific policy related to maps'. What we actually need is acommitment to apply existing policies (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR/SYN, WP:NPOV) to maps and other images. If this needs clearer instructions then we can have them, but core policy on how we construct articles shouldn't need to be redefined to suit the content type. If something is unsourced, unverifiable, synthesised, or lacking neutrality, it doesn't belong in an article, regardless of how it is presented to the reader.AndyTheGrump (talk)11:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need to apply existing policies, but believe maps need something more. Some examples: we need a list of reliable sources for boundaries, some basic standards around symbolization, and to enforce some standards around appropriate projection. A map is a lot like a text block, it includes a lot of information to communicate to a user, and choosing inappropriate symbolization can be as misleading or more then improper word choice.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}00:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to create an exhaustive 'list of reliable sources' for anything is unwise, given that policy requires that reliability is assessed in context, and perhaps more obviously because any list would inevitably be out of date: new reliable sources (and of course unreliable ones) will be published all the time. As for standards regarding symbolisation, projection etc, that is maybe an argument for 'MOS'-style guidelines, but I think what we are discussing here is something much broader - the need for map creators to comply with the general verifiability/no WP:OR/NPOV policies and ethos of Wikipedia.AndyTheGrump (talk)05:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So here is a verifiable bit of ink which might be used in the article:

• Singh, Ganda (1959). "Ahmad Shah Durbani's Empire in 1762".Ahmad Shah Durrani: Father of Modern Afghanistan(PDF). Asia Publishing House. p. 288.

The author here has chosen to illustrate the location and extent of Durbani's conquests in 1762 by inking in some space on a map. I think that should be first and foremost what is verifiable, the choice to define some drawable element and exactly what that represents. Editors should not have license to choose for instance 1765 or to align with modern boundaries from another source.

We canrubbersheet that image, create a feature ready to be rendered, but what then? The author here chose to add large landmass and water bodies, labeled rivers. a few towns, lines of longitude, and what looks like a major roads transportation network. The easiest thing to do, and maybe the most useful for modern readers would be to simply plop that polygon down on a modern basemap showing political borders. Every element of the resulting map would be strictly verifiable, but in my opinion it would change a great deal the information presented by the author. That road network, major towns and waterways are very important for an 18th century empire that didn't really have well-defined borders. Adding in the modern national boundaries, while helpful for modern readers in localizing the area, are maybe not an element that should be added? Just how far can editors depart from the author's original map within the ethos of Wikipedia?fiveby(zero)15:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an old saying about shopping in Beverly Hills: If you have to ask the price, it will probably be too high for you. Similarly if we have to wonder how far we can depart from a specific item, then we are probably beyond the limit of acceptance.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)11:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• PROPOSAL : Let the articleMap coloring be seriously expanded. It is very brief at the moment and the material GeogSage provided above is far more informative. He would of course be the best person to do so, but please help/lobby for this to happen. ThanksYesterday, all my dreams... (talk)11:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

About this source:[32].

Fact Focus is a [well-known] Pakistani investigative news portal co-founded byAhmad Noorani. I used a detailed in depth article from this by Noorani (where he alleges nepotism byAsim Munir) to expand the existingAsim Munir#Allegations of nepotism section.SheriffIsInTown asserts that "Fact Focus will be considered a self-published source by Noorani" and "Noorani founded FF, sits on its editorial board, and any material written by him about himself, where he is an involved party, and published on a platform he owns and oversees editorially, is unequivocally a self-published source. This constitutes aWP:BLPVIO and falls underWP:BLPGOSSIP"

The report has nothing to do with Noorani himself and the argument that an editor writing an article for their publication makes it SPS I find quite untenable. Note that the article includes first hand interviews with all of those accused of benefiting from the nepotism and the article itself and Noorani were both attributed in text within the article.

And I quite doubt noting corruption by aWP:PUBLICFIGURE falls under GOSSIP.Gotitbro (talk)22:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What the article already stated[33]:

On 17 March 2025, Ahmad Noorani published a report alleging that relatives and close associates of Munir had interfered in key government appointments, securing top positions despite lacking merit or performance. The next day, about 20 armed men who identified themselves as police raided Noorani's family home and forcibly took away his two brothers to an undisclosed location. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) described the abduction as likely an act of retaliation for Noorani's reporting, while the Committee to Protect Journalists said that Noorani and his family's court petition linked the brothers' disappearance to his report on Munir. RSF further reported that local police denied any involvement.

What I added (expanded)[34]:

Noorani reported thatMohsin Naqvi, a close relative of Munir's wife Irum Asim, was appointed as thechief minister of Punjab,chairman of Pakistan Cricket Board andinterior minister respectively at Munir's behest after he became the Chief of the Army Staff. Noorani further stated that Syed Babar Ali Shah, Munir's maternal uncle, had secured key appointments for his close associates in the government including ofArshad Hussain Shah as the caretakerchief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Ahmad Ishaq Jahangir as Director General of theFederal Investigation Agency and his daughter Syeda Hajra Sohail as CEO of thePakistan Education Endowment Fund.

I find it quite stunning that we would state that a journalist's family was harrased and outright kidnapped by a BLP for a report on the BLP but not what the report was actually about.Gotitbro (talk)22:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown now asserts[35] (beyond SPS) that "this piece is totally written in an opinionated language and not suitable to be used as a source about a BLP, it is the only source reporting these, WP:EXCEPTIONAL will appy here as well".

"totally written in an opinionated language and not suitable to be used as a source about a BLP" would be well covered byWP:BIASED especially when we attribute the very thing.

As for claims of "EXCEPTIONAL", to restate this was merely expanding on the corruption/nepotism reporting as to why a journalist's entire family was kidnapped and disappeared.Gotitbro (talk)23:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it, I see that SheriffIsInTown made the same SPS arguments at a redux of this discussion atWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Factfocus.com about an year ago. This does not appear to have swayed anyone then either.Gotitbro (talk)23:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, there is a reason whyFact Focus redirects toAhmad Noorani; it is his publication, and it was founded by him. He is on the editorial board himself, along with one other indivdual. My opinion in this matter is that any publication authored by him, editorialised by him, and published by him on a platform founded by him should be considered self-published. Secondly, sourced toThe Print, we already have coverage of what he published and what he alledged, as shown here,On 17 March 2025, Ahmad Noorani published a report alleging that relatives and close associates of Munir had interfered in key government appointments, securing top positions despite lacking merit or performance. This should be sufficient. I think it would be aWP:BLPVIO andWP:UNDUE to name six other living people, some of them non-notable, based only on his report. In my opinion, if mainstream sources do not cover this and he is the only one making these allegatoins against six individuals, then we should be cautious about including them. Fact Focus, which is founded by him, is not a mainstream source.WP:EXCEPTIONAL should also apply, as some of these are serious allegations and he is the only one covering them. I have no problem if the same thing is sourced to a mainstream source; I only have an issue with this source, which I have explained above.Sheriff |☎ 911 |02:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether a source is a redirect to a journalist or whether it has an article has no bearing on its RS status or it being an SPS. I will wait for other editors to comment on this but the root case of your argument for it being SPS is untenable. If the problem is just with this source, then we are at the absolutely right forum. Though it should be noted that the SPS argument itself was soundly rejected the last time it was brought here and it is questionale if a relitigation is even needed.

  PS: As for exceptional, BLP et. al., it is properly attributed and provides substance [not handwaving] as to why the entire family of a journo was picked up and disappeared for reporting on corruption by ministers and chief ministers and the most powerful man in the country, these are simply not "non-notable" people but asWP:PUBLICFIGURE as one can get.Gotitbro (talk)02:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:PUBLICFIGURE states thatIf you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Sourcing is not the only issue for me, and Fact Focus as a whole is not an issue either. The issue is multifaceted. Firstly, my concern is with the founder and head of the editorial board writing, approving, and publishing his own opinionated articles. Secondly, even if we find that the source is copacetic, there are other issues with this content.WP:UNDUE,WP:NPOV,WP:EXCEPTIONAL, andWP:BLPVIO are among the issues that a discussion at RSN cannot resolve.Sheriff |☎ 911 |03:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Then you should not have and should not continue to refer to the source as SPS all the while repeatedly removing that content. I for one consider the allegations of it being SPS already well settled i.e. refuted in the extant (previous) discussions.

  Above, you alter quite significantly what the original BLP policy states. Your quote:

  "If you cannot findmultiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

  While what the actual text says is:

  "If you cannot find reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

  That is quite an alteration of P&G. As we do know that FF in this case is as 3PARTY as they come. I might as well take this to BLPN but the untenable SPS argument should very well be settled here.Gotitbro (talk)05:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said that I do not have a problem with this specific article being an SPS. I said that I have multiple issues with this content, not just the sources. I also never said that Fact Focus as a whole is a self-published source. At this point, I only have a problem with this specific article being an SPS and opinionated, not with Fact Focus as a whole. No, the matter was not settled before. In my opinion, it was inconclusive. The neutral editor cautioned the OP that they should not bring the matter to the forum unless someone objects to the source, and in their concluding remarks they said that no source is reliable all the time and that reliability can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure what you are reading, butWP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly states the word "multiple" in that sentence. Would I have to give you a screenshot?Sheriff |☎ 911 |11:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Let us focus on the SPS claim from the previous discussion. Where we already have two editors disagreeing with your assertions of it being SPS explicitly.

  ActivelyDisinterested: but I would disagree with classing it as self-published. ... I can't see any reason to dismiss the source out of hand. It doesn't appear to be self-published, it's used by other sources, and I can't find any reports online that would cast doubt on it.
  Saqib: Noorani is a co-founder, so unlike TPMM, he isn't the sole authority here. Additionally, many credible journalists have contributed to this website. ... Merely dismissing it as a self-published source overlooks its legitimacy and the valuable information it provides.

  You can say perhaps the RS question wasn't settled but it not being SPS very well was. Though it was clearly stated, as you note, that no one has actually shown it to be unreliable in the first place and tempering arguments on that is a non-starter. And with the extensive usage by other 3PARTY sources, then and now, I would say it very well is RS.

  To restate, "I find it quite stunning that we would state that a journalist's family was harassed and outright kidnapped by a BLP for a report on the BLP but not what the report was actually about." But that is perhaps a more suitable question for BLPN. Where I would take this, lest any objections come from other editors for this source.

  PS: Had a template display issue, you had correctly quoted the BLP portion. I apologize.Gotitbro (talk)19:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro So, if I stated the BLP portion correctly, then the matter should be considered settled. This should not be included until it is supported by "multiple reliable third-party sources."Sheriff |☎ 911 |21:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, as the fact that a journo's family was kidnapped and disappeared is widely reported as is also the fact that it stemmed from reports of corruption on the most powerful man in a country (CPJ, RSF etc). This is already very well settled in the article.

  This would then perhaps be the only article on enwiki where we state consequences of illegal action (kidnapping) without exactly specifying the fact which caused it in the first place which would be of utmost importance for the subject and readers.

  The primary facet of bringing Fact Focus to RSN was to shine a light to it simply not being SPS, the crux of the original argument. I see this to be quite well refuted by different editors.

  If no objections from other editors come as to the source itself being non-RS or SPS, I will further move the discussion to BLPN.Gotitbro (talk)21:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to modify my comment further with the following: Why should an encyclopedia cover these? Most of it isWP:UNDUE as well, as he merely recounts who was posted to which position without clearly stating that Munir was behind those postings, nor does he establish how he believes those people were unqualified for the jobs to which they were appointed.Sheriff |☎ 911 |22:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The first sentence of the section sourced toThePrint already covers what his report was about.Sheriff |☎ 911 |22:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would limit the discussion of the content dispute here but would state that a journalist's family being illegally targeted for that reporting makes it more than due. That the article includes first hand interviews with the accused (many of whom don't even deny the allegations) only further establishes solid journalistic practice.

  It is indeed the job of a journalist to hold the powerful to account and not be targeted for it and a textbook flouting of that happened here. It is entirely encyclopedic to note why the state apparatus was so moved to act.

  And nepostism in any administration anywhere in the world is not to the surprise of anyone at all. We even have specific articles for some of them,Government hiring and personnel of Donald Trump.Gotitbro (talk)22:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro No source states that the family was abducted by Munir. Rather, the sources state that his brothers were abducted after he published the report. This does not amount to a direct allegation that Munir ordered or carried out the abduction, so presenting it as such goes beyond what is due. I believe that would also constitute aWP:BLPVIO, as we would be adding an allegation that the sources do not directly make against Munir. Therefore, we are already being very generous in including material that arguably should not be included at all. There are six individuals named in the disputed content you were attempting to add, and all are living persons. This is not only about Munir. Some of those six are not even notable public figures, to whomWP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE would apply, meaning no inclusion even if multiple sources exist. For the rest,WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, which requires multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources. So no, we are not taking sides, neither that of the journo nor of the most powerful man. We will follow our policies and guidelines.Sheriff |☎ 911 |23:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Are his brothers not part of his family. A report on corruption was filed by a journo on the leader of a country and his family was targeted is as simple as it gets. If the assertion is that the entire content is violative of BLP then nuke the section but if that isn't to be done and we already feature quite prominently the allegations then it is only reasonable to feature what the specific allegations were which I repeat "would then perhaps be the only article on enwiki where we state consequences of illegal action (kidnapping) without exactly specifying the fact which caused it in the first place".

  As stated earlier we already have multiple sources stating in no uncertain terms that the abduction stemmed from the allegations. Most of the alleged individuals are of course as prominent as they get, it could indeed have been discussed whether some of them need to be included (would argue yes) but complete blanking resting on claims of SPS render that extremely weak.

  With the claim that Fact Focus/the article is either SPS or non-RS very well opposed by different editors, I will now be taking this to BLPN where "policies and guidelines" can indeed rightly be applied.Gotitbro (talk)05:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily. Brothers are not always considered part of one's family once they are adults with families of their own. When the broader term "family" is used, it first implies a wife and children to the reader. Secondly, the abduction incident does not belong in Munir's article. BLPs should document only what the subject of the article actually did, supported by reliable sources. Here, the source merely states that the abduction occurred after the report; it does not say that he carried it out or clearly allege that he did so. That is why this part isWP:UNDUE in Munir's article. No source has made such an allegation, so we will not go beyond what the sources state, nor will we include content in an article where it does not belong.Sheriff |☎ 911 |11:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That brother's are not part of one'sfamily is an absurd statement. To clarify, none of this is meant to be added to the article in the first place, as what has been proposed to be added above and subsequently blanked contains none of what the discussion is being sidetracked to.

  As for what the community ("we") would decide that should be left upto it not unilateral assertions by editors. With most editors here and back then disagreeing with what you have stated till now. I will end the source discussion here, seeing clear disagreement with claims of SPS and non-RS. Will continue this at BLPN and ping involved editors to resolve the content dispute.Gotitbro (talk)13:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact Focus as a platform for investigative journalism has beencovered inColumbia Journalism Review, and its reporting on Pakistan's generals even before Asim Munir was cited globally, includingby Bloomberg in 2022. I don't think there's any argument that it's a self published source. The idea that a single article on the website is a self published source while the rest of the website isn't, also doesn't make any sense. It's obviously a reliable source.
  I haven't looked at the actual content dispute too deeply since this is RSN, but if the supposed SPS-ness of the source is the only issue, it should be restored. regards,TryKid ^{[dubious –discuss]}12:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @TryKid CJR is not citing Fact Focus; rather, their report is about Noorani, and in that context they mention that he founded Fact Focus. They are not citing any report by the publication. Only Bloomberg is citing it. I am not sure whether we can classify a rather new platform as a reliable source solely on the basis of one other RS citing them. I would like to see feedback from more contributors, especially some regular contributors of this forum, before considering this a consensus on Fact Focus being an RS and reports by Noorani not being SPS, although he constitutes 50% of the editorial board. I see you are not a regular contributor of this forum, as your last contribution before this was in October 2025 (four months ago), which is quite a long break from the forum, so no offence, but I am going to take your feedback with a grain of salt here.Sheriff |☎ 911 |21:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not just Bloomberg. Fact Focus and its reporting has been covered byArab News andHindustan Times, and cited byThe Friday Times,The Print,The Business Standard,WION, and theVoice of America. Its reporting has lead to resignations of senior officials in the past. Does not make sense to downplay this source. regards,TryKid ^{[dubious –discuss]}22:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FactFocus is looking like a good source, it is not self-published for Pakistani CoS Asim Munir but it is self-published if Noorani is writing about himself. What's the problem?Omen2019 (talk)18:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far as the content written is backed by the source. It should be accurate to the source not made-up obviously.Omen2019 (talk)11:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to see thatThe Irish Times, a major newspaper published in Dublin since 1859, is not included in the perennial sources list.Thriley (talk)22:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSNP is a list ofsources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of sources, and if the reliability of theIrish Times hasn't been questioned, there is no reason why it should be there.AndyTheGrump (talk)22:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I've never stared a discussion here. CurrentlyRTÉ is the only Irish news org marked as generally reliable. I thought a second one labeled that would be helpful.Thriley (talk)23:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to compile an exhaustive list of reliable sources (or of unreliable ones for that matter) would be a fools' errand. That isn't the purpose of the list. It is there to indicate consensus on sources we've discussed in depth, most commonly because reliability (sometimes in regard to a particular topic) has been a matter of debate. If a source is being frequently cited, as theIrish Times is, and it's reliability hasn't been questioned, I think it is reasonably safe to assume that it needn't be, at least by the standards applied to newspapers. As always, 'reliability' depends on context, but I'd think that most western/central European 'newspapers of record' would be deemed generally reliable, and it would only be the exceptions that might find themselves on the list.AndyTheGrump (talk)23:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some could argue that Wikipedia is an eternal fools' errand. A brief discussion confirming that it is indeed a reliable source isn't wasted time. But that's from me, someone who isn't deeply familiar with the format of discussions on this page. From a Google search I made before posting here, the overview stated that it is "often described as having a left-liberal or centrist-leaning perspective." I thought that would be something best discussed here and not left entirely to AI.Thriley (talk)00:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's political standing is completely irrelevant, bias isn't reliability as per policy (seeWP:RSBIAS). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°00:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base our reliability assessments on Google's search engine comments. We shouldn't be basinganything on such comments. Search engines aren't WP:RS, and in any case, reliability in Wikipedia's terms is something that only Wikipedia contributors can determine. We may take into consideration what relevant WP:RS has to say about a source when coming to our decision, but the decision is ours, and may come down to editorial judgement.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If that bias has influenced coverage, that should be discussed.Thriley (talk)00:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All sources have biases. Beyond that, if there is aspecific issue with theIrish Times being cited in a particular place, we can discuss it. We don't engage in pointless debates over vague unspecified suggestions of 'bias'.AndyTheGrump (talk)00:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The perennial sources list is a log of discussions that have happened here, not a exhaustive list of reliable or unreliable sources. Unless someone is questioning the reliability of the Irish Times there is no need to have any discussion about it. As to RTE it should never have been added to the RSP as it doesn't meetWP:RSPCRITERIA, I've deleted the entry. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°00:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To give my post context, I am beginning the process of gettingSinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live to FA. I've noticed many news orgs lacking in their coverage, particularly in detailing O'Connor's struggle with childhood abuse and mental illness and also the strength she found in Rastafarianism. This issue exists in material published immediately after her performance as well as in the articles published years later. As I start to pick through sources, particularly in Irish news, I want to be aware that I could be using sources that have a bias. I went to the source list and saw noIrish Times, so I came here.Thriley (talk)01:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking whether a source is biased in the context of an article in which it isn't even cited? If that isn't the definition of a pointless question, I don't know what is. If you think there is anything in theIrish Times that might be relevant to the article, either add it yourself, or if you think it might be contentious, start a discussion on the talk page.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I try to edit in good faith. Please try to be less rude.Thriley (talk)02:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's Andy in polite mode.Phil Bridger (talk)09:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. I appreciate it somewhat. Too many Gruff and Grumps have been banned.Thriley (talk)10:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't expect to see anything about this paper that made me question it, but seeing this article fromLe Monde makes me think it would be worth the time for editors to have a look at potential problems:The 'Irish Times' mistakenly publishes fake article written by AI I know this does happen, but seems to becoming more common as paper's dump staff, don't bother to do any copy editing, and slowly hire a new generation of journalists that are addicted to short form videos. All Western papers of record are going to have problems if they don't already. We can't pretend that the standards followed yesterday are the ones followed tomorrow.Thriley (talk)10:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• That was in 2023, the article was withdrawn within hours and the newspaperapologised, which is what we would expect to see from a reliable source.Black Kite (talk)11:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was questioned about this in a WP:GAN and was wondering the publisher which is Asian Media Group and owns WP:RS sources like easterneye.biz. please let me knowTheArchitectOfYe (talk)01:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The outlet (India Weekly) isn't really super covered anywhere and it's also not listed atWP:ICTFSOURCES. If it's deemed usable (or not) then this should get included there.

Theabout page says that it started as a newspaper in 1965. I do see mention of anewspaper of the same name, but it's unclear if that's the same newspaper. It looks like it might have been, since a search for the creator's name (Tarapada Basu) does show up in the source. Not sure if that would mean that thecurrent incarnation is reliable, but it does mean that it existed prior to the website. Of note is that there may be some false positives asThe Pioneer went by "Pioneer Mail and India Weekly News" at one point and appears to be unrelated to India Weekly in specific.

In any case, I checked the website for anything that would mark it as obviously unusable. Theirterms and conditions page does mention branded and sponsored content, but says that they will be clearly labeled. Them doing this doesn't make them automatically reliable, but it is a good sign. If they didn't have this, then it would be instantly considered unreliable. They also have staff bios, which is also a good sign.

I don't have much more than that, but I figured that I'd add in what I could find.ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)02:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a false positive. I think it was acquired by AMG early on when it founded Garavi Gujarat. Thewho we are page of AMG lists itself as the publisher of India Weekly and not just owner of the website.

The three AMG papers look like reliable well-established diaspora originating sources whether Garavi Gujarat (www.garavigujarat.biz),Eastern Eye (www.easterneye.biz) or India Weekly. I think Garavi Gujarat may be particularly good due to the lack of good Gujarati language vernacular news sources.Omen2019 (talk)17:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]