Before posting, check the archives andlist of perennial sources for prior discussions.Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.
RfCs fordeprecation, blacklisting, or other classificationshould not be opened unless the source iswidely used and has beenrepeatedly discussed.Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are notpolicy.
This page isnot a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.
For question one the consensus isOption 3 Generally unreliable. Editors should remember that generally doesn't mean always unreliable. He might still be usable for information about thedisclosure movement, while being unreliable for claims by the disclosure movement. On question 2 there's general opposition to adding an entry to the RSP, editors may be interested in creating aproject list instead. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), isNick Pope ...
Option 1: Generallyreliable for factual reporting.
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: Generallyunreliable for factual reporting.
Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)
Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged atWP:RSP?
Option 1: An independent entry for Nick Pope.
Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
OnQ1 Option 3. Nick Pope is best known for dozens of appearances in UFO documentary-style entertainment films,[1] as emcee of "Ancient Aliens: LIVE on Tour!" (part of theAncient Aliens entertainment franchise which posits that Martians used ray beams to build the pyramids),[2] his numerous quotes in tabloids commenting on UFOs, and his non-critical, popular texts on UFOs (see Amazon author page:[3]). Across numerous past discussions (see below) it's been made generally clear that he presents the20th Century UFO Shared Fiction storytelling versus factual reporting or scholarship.
OnQ3 Option 2 but alsookay with Option 3 For ease of presentation and economization of space, they should be aggregated under a common heading with a concise, holistic description using an introductory, independent clause (i.e. "Editors have found the following UFO content creators are generally unreliable ...") that can be separately workshopped later. If additional UFO writers are classified according to whatever the case ends up being for Pope, they can be added, as appropriate, rather than cluttering RSP with voluminous and numerous entries for individual writers.Chetsford (talk)00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC); edited 16:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few thoughts. First, this seems a little narrow in scope. I agree that we should consider UFO content creators more broadly. Secondly, it seems like these people could reasonably be used as a source for information about thedisclosure movement itself (e.g. this UFO conference happened, there were these speakers, and these topics were covered), but obviously not reliable for claims about secret government programs, extraterrestrial contact, etc. Lastly, I'm not sure these discussions are perennial enough to be added to the table.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)17:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On question 2, Ioppose option 2. For the reasons I said in the last discussion, I oppose creating a specific classification for such a varied assemblage of sources; even if we were to include the names manually the implication would obviously be that anyone who writes on similar topics is also unreliable when such people vary greatly. I don't think we've had cause to discuss this enough to insert him or Pope in the table, which is supposed to beperennially discussed sources, this was really only brought up a single time in reference to one AfD and the resulting discussions, and we barely cite him onwiki and for nothing of real importance. It's not a problem if we do add him to the table, so I wouldn't oppose it the same way I do option 2, it just seems unnecessary. You can always just link to this RFC it ever becomes a problem again. As for Q1, while I don't think appearing on a stupid TV show is itself evidence of unreliability, his books push fringe theories and so I would not cite him on this.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1 Option 2 - case by case - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d try to evaluate the RSness of the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I would suspect that he is being used as a cite for what is in his many books so that should be fine and helpful, and even necessary. (Where else to find writings on UFO reports other than books like this author's ?) Come back with an actual entry and cite in question and -- likely it is fine. Cheers part 1
Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP - it seems not a "Perennial" topic so fails the criteria to be listed there.WP:RSP is not supposed to be a list of every single author, just a list meant for sources frequently discussed. In this case, discuss at any article or coming to RSN with any individual issue is the way this should proceed. CheersMarkbassett (talk)01:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q2 – Option 1: An independent entry for the individualiff there is consensus about a reliability rating here. As noted below, we've done this withWP:JEFFSNEIDER. If an individual publishes widely and makes appearances in a variety of shows and publications, is frequently cited on en-wiki, and is a frequent topic of discussion here then this makes sense. I specificallyoppose Q2 Option 2. A blanket entry for "UFO content creators" is too broad and is unnecessary since most of this content is covered under the general reliability standards andWP:FRINGE. This also becomes problematic if individual authors/creators end up with different reliability ratings and may inappropriately imply that the rating applies automatically to creators who have not been discussed. "Paranormal content creators" is an even broader category and therefore more problematic than "UFO content creators". —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP -- solution in search of a problem. Obviously, we're not going to treat fringe UFO believers as RSes on the existence of aliens, but per Anne drew, they're RSes to their own beliefs, the beliefs of others, and the history of their own movement, etc.Feoffer (talk)06:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q1 Option 3: Not reliable for factual content. Thoughts about his own beliefs or beliefs of others that are originated by Pope in books, on blogs, on YouTube videos, podcasts, fringe websites, social media posts, etc. do not merit automatic inclusion and areWP:UNDUE unless they are also noted in third partyWP:RS sources.- LuckyLouie (talk)13:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1, Option 3 As a professional practitioner of woo there is absolutely no good basis for considering Pope a reliable source for any paranormal topics (or "adjacent subjects"), broadly construed. There is also no good basis for treating hisown beliefs as encyclopedic content. No opinion about Question 2.JoJo Anthrax (talk)02:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that if a "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" row is created, people will start proposing other categories of content creators (e.g., legal content creators). Do you envision that over time, we'd just have a bunch of rows for different categories of individual content creators?FactOrOpinion (talk)00:42, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. In the case of law, I'm assuming we're talking aboutpseudolaw content creators, like sovereign citizens. For the most part, we haven't had, in practice, a lot of disagreement about excluding the legal theories of Freemen on the Land or Sovereign Citizens to the point that there would be much benefit in indexing them in a single place to avoid endless argumentative repetition. If that started to be a constant and unending point-of-contention, however, I could imagine the dynamic might then justify a single and concise entry to index the most prolific and frequently discussed SCs and Freemen. But as of now, I don't see any extant record at RSN of these types of discussions.Chetsford (talk)01:17, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thinking much more generally (e.g., any legal content creator, or at least those who self-publish, not just those who create pseudolaw content). The reason I asked is because I don't see how to bound the scope of Q2 if consensus is for option 1 or 2. That is, you're asking specifically about Nick Pope, but editors raise questions about lots of individual content creators here: "Is Paula Person, author of Work 1 and Work 2, a reliable source?" What would distinguish the content creators who merit some characterization at RSP from those who don't?FactOrOpinion (talk)02:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Pope, an RfC is realistically justified as his name comes up repeatedly and he produces huge tracts of information in books by different publishing houses, appearances in different programs and documentaries, etc., and there are demands to relitigate each excision of his content which RfCs were designed to prevent (in the interest of time economization). I think that's qualitatively different from someone who asks "is John Smith's 1982 book about the Third Zulu War RS" ... that said, if there were an entire subculture of authors who create huge volumes of fictional content about the Third Zulu War, sure, I think that'd be fine. I just don't know it's something that would happen, in practice.Chetsford (talk)14:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any other listing on RSP for an individual person? Not that that impacts my answer (which I am thinking about), but I can't think of another.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find any entries on RSP that otherwise refer to a creator rather than the publication, with the exception ofWP:JACOBIN which says "the reliability of articles authored by Branko Marcetic has been considered questionable." I don't see an easy way to mark a person as being more reliable or not with the current system (list) in place? --Reconrabbit15:07, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some precedent withJeff Sneider atWP:JEFFSNEIDER. The facts are a bit different but the entry notes that Sneider's reliability rating does not extend to his podcast co-host; thus the reliability is based on the speaker/"author" and not the show. If Sneider writes a piece in a different publication or is interviewed on a different podcast, I think it would be reasonable for an editor to apply his personal reliability rating to such sources, absent other reasons to doubt the suitability of the source and with all the usual caveats. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk)19:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My close here is going to be very similar to the one for the other RFC[6]. Compelling arguments against reliability have been made and are unrefuted. There may be some limited use for his work, but the consensus for question one isOption 3 Generally unreliable. Again on question 2 there's general opposition to adding an entry to the RSP, editors may be interested in creating aproject list instead. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:44, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Q1: In regards to paranormal topics (including UFOs and adjacent, mainstream subjects such as astronomy, politics, and aerospace engineering), is Richard Dolan ...
Option 1: Generallyreliable for factual reporting.
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: Generallyunreliable for factual reporting.
Option 4: Other (individual authors are unfilterable so no deprecation option is offered)
Q2: If this RfC results in a decipherable outcome, how should it be logged atWP:RSP?
Option 1: An independent entry for Richard Dolan.
Option 2: A single entry for "UFO content creators" or "paranormal content creators" which could be populated with other names if similarly decided in the future.
Option 3: No record should be preserved of this RfC outside of the noticeboard archives.
OnQ1 Option 3. Dolan has appeared dozens of times onCoast to Coast AM,[7] has written numerous non-scientific books exclusively about UFOs,[8] and appears at UFO festivals like Contact in the Desert.[9] He presents himself as a serious academic, self-styled as the "UFO historian", however, matter-of-factly claims things like: a breakaway civilization is operating flying saucers,[10] and that "the existence of underwater UFO bases is likely".[11] His writings include forewords by such luminaries as 9/11 TrutherJim Marrs[12] and he was previously, it seems, proprietor of an indie publishing house called Keyhole Publishing that produced books like Richard Sauder'sHidden in Plain Site[13] that makes the case that The Matrix (apparently a scifi movie from the 1990s) is real. He currently has a YouTube show that discusses things like the Bermuda Triangle.[14]Chetsford (talk)19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnQ3 Option 2. For ease of presentation and economization of space, they should be aggregated under a common heading with a concise, holistic description using an introductory, independent clause (i.e. "Editors have found the following UFO content creators are generally unreliable ...") that can be separately workshopped later. If additional UFO writers are classified according to whatever the case ends up being for Dolan, they can be added, as appropriate, rather than cluttering RSP with voluminous and numerous entries for individual writers.Chetsford (talk)00:00, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OnQ1 Option 3 per Chetsford. As for the second question,Q2 Option 2 would be my preferred choice, though option 1 could also work if he's cited frequently enough, which doesn't seem to be the case so far.Paprikaiser (talk)20:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On question 2, Ioppose option 2. For the reasons I said in the last discussion, I oppose creating a specific classification for such a varied assemblage of sources; even if we were to include the names manually the implication would obviously be that anyone who writes on similar topics is also unreliable when such people vary greatly. I don't think we've had cause to discuss this enough to insert him or Pope in the table, which is supposed to befrequently discussed sources, this was really only brought up a single time as far as I can tell? He is not a perennial source by any means and we barely cite him. It's not a problem if we do add him to the table, so I wouldn't oppose it the same way I do option 2, it just seems unnecessary. You can just point to this discussion going forward. As for Q1, his own reliability, he doesn't seem reliable, and furthermore all his books appear to be self-published or published by publishers only in the business of publishing wonkiness.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1 Option 2 - case by case - as usual, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I’d try to evaluate the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except option2. In this case, I would suspect that he is being used as a cite for what is in his many books or media content per se so that should be fine and helpful, and seems a general source for the field. Cheers part 1
Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP - it has not made the mark of a "Perennial" topic so fails the criteria to be listed there. It is not supposed to be a list of every single author and every single corpration or media entity, just a list meant for thigns frequently coming up. CheersMarkbassett (talk)01:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I’d try to evaluate the source depending on what the proposed edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS" Could you give some examples of Dolan's writing that might, contextually, turn out appropriate for our encyclopedia? For example, would it be his writing inA.D. After Disclosure where he says humans are being abducted and experimented on by aliens? Or the part where he says we should consider if aliens are harvesting human souls? Or that aliens may be interested in using humans as a food source? Maybe just one or two examples so I can better understand your position.Chetsford (talk)16:00, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Q2: Option 1 (individual entry)or Option 3 (no RSP entry). Oppose Option 2 ("UFO/paranoral content creators" entry). WhatI wrote in the Nick Pope RfC applies here. If Dolan publishes/appears widely, has consistent reliability issues, and is a recurring topic of discussion, an individual entry makes sense. "UFO content creators" and is too broad; "paranormal content creators" is even more so. Dolan doesn't appear to have been discussed often enough to be considered a true "perennial" source so option 3 (no entry) makes sense. That said, if there if a reasonable participation here and consensus about a rating, memorializing the discussion at RSP is acceptable. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)16:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2 Option 3 - do not list in RSP As above, this isn't a problem that needs solving. Dolan isn't a RS on the existence of aliens, but he's probably a fine source for, say, the history of the UFO movement, their internecine disputes, and his own personal beliefs.Feoffer (talk)06:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"he's probably a fine source for, say, the history of the UFO movement" His bookAD: After Disclosure asserts as a fact the existence of "The Breakaway Group" which he explains is a cabal of dark global forces who are secretly using Hollywood to leak out evidence of aliens and slowly condition society that UFO believers were right all along. I'd rather not have an article on "The Breakaway Group" in our encyclopedia.Chetsford (talk)15:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, our editorial policy doesn't allow editors to include details from fringe proponents they find interesting - unless secondary RS have discussed them first.- LuckyLouie (talk)16:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let'sdefinitely not cite Dolan on something like that. If memory serves, his very first book, despite being conspiratorial, actually had sourcing and included good debunkings. I don't think anything he's said or done since could be accused of being a RS though, and I wouldn't especially recommend using him even for mundane historical facts. But have people really been trying to use him as a regular old reliable source without any caution on context?Feoffer (talk)13:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1, Option 3 Dolan is a professional practitioner of woo, and for this projectnothing he writes/says/claims/etc. about paranormal topics, broadly construed, can or should be trusted. No opinion about Question 2, although I do not see how Dolan qualifies as a "perennial" source.JoJo Anthrax (talk)16:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Dolan has been previously discussed (e.g.[15], etc.) here and his voluminous writings are cited across the project where they're used to subtly weave-in UFO frames on mainstream topics, such as the biography of U.S. Navy ADMRoscoe H. Hillenkoetter, etc. His writing is currently the only source to support the claim in the biography ofPhilip J. Klass that Klass masterminded a defamation campaign againstStanton Friedman.Chetsford (talk)19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that instead of adding anything to the RSP, or having multiple different RFCs, that a project source list might be the best idea? RSN could still help with any unsolvable disagreements about any listed source. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC: Business Insider after switching to Artificial Intelligence
Option 2.5; Use With Extreme Caution. I'm not too familiar with this change. A.I. does tend to be inaccurate, but I'm not sure how this A.I. will behave. I will be going for 2.5 on balance as a result.NotJamestack (talk)10:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 No issues with reliability for me, but AI-generated stories should not contribute to establishing SIGCOV. Business Insider's AI policy is that the AI will generate a draft of the story that will then be human-reviewed before publication. So I don't have any more issue with using AI here than I would using spellcheck. That said, the bigger issue for me than reliability is whether or not these stories should contribute to SIGCOV for purposes of contributing to N. IMO, they should not. The idea implicit in SIGCOV is that, if multiple slow-moving humans have devoted time to enterprising stories about X, then X must be a matter of great interest to humans. The same can't be said for AI that is hoovering up vast quantities of material and using temporal trend scoring to determine what to elevate.I don't object toOption 3 for Business Insider AI Bylines only as perGothicGolem29.Chetsford (talk)14:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC); edited 01:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. If Business Insider can't be bothered to write their stories, I have no confidence that their editors can be bothered to properly check them. The fact they apparently not to disclose AI use and plan to use it to distort images and videos only makes thing worse.Cortador (talk)14:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. Any publication using LLM-generated content must surely be aware by now of its inherent (algorithmically-unavoidable) flaws - most notably its tendency to hallucinate. If they are prepared to foist that on their readers, declared or otherwise (and note Cortador's comment below regarding limits to their declarations[17]), one has to assume that they simply aren't interested in content accuracy, anywhere on their website.AndyTheGrump (talk)15:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 for Business Insider AI Bylines. Using AI for articles will seriously affect reliablity however, it looks like per what was noted byChetsford and my own research that these AI articles will be under a AI byline and labeled as AI. So we should do what we do withWP:FORBESCONTRIBUTORS and list the AI articles as unreliable but not non AI Business Insider articles.GothicGolem29(GothicGolem29 Talk)15:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No change. Their AI policysaysThere is always human oversight when our journalists use AI, and they are responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and overall quality of everything we publish. The risk of AI making stuff up, when people are to be held accountable, should be treated the same as the risk of people making stuff up—e.g, we judge sources for having editorial controls or not, with organizations taking responsibility for what they publish, and that should be the same here. If they do end up publishing fabricated information, then just like any other source that publishes fabricated information, we see it and go from there. Downgrading reliability without any evidence of actual published fabrication is premature and alarmistPlaceholderer (talk)18:14, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my !vote per Grayfell. I maintain that a policy allowing regulated AI use isn't grounds for deprecation, but the issue is clearly more than that. I guess I'll wait for more information before another !vote, but I could end up supporting a 3+Placeholderer (talk)21:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No change per u:Placeholder's arguments. The argument that AI makes mistakes is similar to the argument that humans make mistakes. We don't downgrade every human-created media because of that. If the change leads to inaccuracies I'd be happy to support a downgrade but doing it preemptively seems like an overreaction.Alaexis¿question?20:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No change for now They say that any pieces that involved AI will be clearly labeled, and these pieces can be evaluated on their own merits. I share PARAKANYAA's concern that a time-based deprecation is not workable. I am okay with considering AI bylined stuff to be generally unreliable, but I don't think this should extend to other BI content until we get a better handle on how this will effect the website in practice.Hemiauchenia (talk)22:09, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 for content under the AI byline, or for all content if AI is also contributing substantive content outside the AI byline. --LWGtalk22:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4Option 3 - BI isn't using AI to spend more time or money on fact-checking. Their over-worked, disinterested editorial department is not going to be doing abetter job with AI. There is no way to confidently tell what percentage of any article is LLM generated. BI has shown that they prioritize expediency over accuracy or integrity.Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2025 (UTC) -edit: yeah, deprecation is too drastic. Business Insider was created largely as a blog fora guy who was banned for life from trading securities, and was financed bya guy who's prior claim to fame was pioneering privacy invading banner adds. It was nevergreat as journalism, but it's become so ubiquitous on Wikipedia that jumping to full deprecation would be disruptive.Grayfell (talk)20:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option not 4 The only thing I'm very confident of here is that we shouldn't deprecate. As PARAKANYAA points out below, deprecation can't be time-gated because deprecation is an edit filter. It is a deliberately blunt instrument and so regardless of how we want to treat this situation it's inappropriate here because everyone involved acknowledges that BIwas reliable in the past.Loki (talk)06:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 - Any site writing stories using AI shouldimmediately be grounds for dismissal.
Option 2 at a minimum, including Culture (which I assume applies) until it's clear how AI use is going to impact their fact-checking overall. Option 3 for AI bylines seems reasonable as well. --Hipal (talk)23:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per previous consensus.Option 3 for AI bylines. Some editors have expressed concerns that Business Insider journalists may use AI without disclosure, but it is already a relatively common practice,Just more than half of the 286 journalists surveyed in Belgium and the Netherlands said they used generative AI tools such as OpenAI's ChatGPT[18], there is no need to single out BI here.Kelob2678 (talk)10:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 - With regret, it's time BI was put out to pasture as a source on EN WP. Essentially it has always had dubious editorial standards and it pretty much was always more the journalist who was writing the article that the what little reliability it had came from. LLM-generated content, with its attendant hallucinations, is the last straw.FOARP (talk)10:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 for non-AI bylines (per previous consensus),Option 4 for AI bylines. The response from thewriters' union there does not suggest good things about how well the AI articles will be edited, if they're not even sure who's going to be editing them.Gnomingstuff (talk)08:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 (for now). AI is unfortunately here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future. Obviously if a source is just 100% AI content, it should never be considered reliable. But if you universally downgrade any source that relies on AI at any point in their editorial process -- assuming they even disclose it -- how many reliable sources will you even be left with? (I don't know the answer to that, but I think the list would be significantly smaller).
I'm not sure if there have been any separate discussions on how to evaluate sources that are now using any proportion of AI content. If not, there probably should be. Maybe adding a separate metric just to grade their use of AI? (Example, a numerical/letter grade based on proportion of AI content, whether human editors review it, what level of transparency they use (like noting it in the byline), etc. There might even already be a reliable source that has set up some sort of grading system like that. I can check around. But for now, I would hold off on downgrading every source that uses AI whatsoever.BetsyRogers (talk)23:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 this AI isn't being used marginally for grammatical errors, but it is used in a major way in their place from what I've seen. In fact, multiple articles have said that they've fired 21% of their staff because of this.
There have been a lot of RfCs on Business Insider in the past, with one discussion very recently talking about the switch to Artificial Intelligence. I don't think this is a bad RfC as a result.NotJamestack (talk)10:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers.From what Status writes, this includes using "A.I. tools for specific tasks and enhancements for images and video". That alone is dodgy since "enhancements" is a fancy term for "making things up", which doesn't bode well.Cortador (talk)14:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis From what I can see from the discussion I linked above, Business Insider will use ChatGPT without disclosing it to the article readers. A.I. has been know to be inaccurate, so I do feel like it will change reliability.NotJamestack (talk)14:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't notice the link at first. I think you'll agree that it's possible to use AI in a way that doesn't hurt and even enhances the quality. Humans are also widely known to be inaccuratesometimes. Let's wait and see whether this change produces inaccuracies - I don't think a preemptive change is warranted.Alaexis¿question?20:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A word of warning: Business Insider themselves writes that they will,in their own words "transparently label any products or contentfully generated by AI". Emphasis mine. So if a story is partially slop, images are altered etc. they apparently won't disclose it. They also state that they will use AI to assist with fact-checking. How's that even supposed to work? AI itself is what needs the fact-checking in the first place.Cortador (talk)15:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly are we going to deprecate it for only post-AI stories? That is impossible with how deprecation works. To deprecate it we have to have an RFC forthe entire publication because you cannot time limit deprecation because deprecation isan edit filter.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This RfC is about the entire publication. The question above is how reliable Business Insider is after they started using AI tool, not how reliable their AI-generated articles are.Cortador (talk)22:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this would also deprecate their pre-AI articles. You cannot time limit deprecation because all deprecation knows is the URL. So this has to be an RfC on the entire history of Business Insider,or deprecation cannot be an option.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEPS merely says that deprecation istypically enforced with an edit filter. The edit filter does not disallow edits but warns the user and tags the edit. So possible outcomes would be:
List BI post-AI as deprecated but do not add it to the edit filter. It's not clear to me how practically this is different from listing it as generally unreliable, but it's at least nominally a thing we can do.
List BI post-AI as deprecated; add BI in its entirety to the edit filter and accept some number of false positives (possibly it would be better to do this with a separate edit filter so we can give a custom message explaining the situation and make it easier for editors checking up on the filter to account for those false positives)
List BI post-AI as deprecated; add only BI articles written after some cut-off date to the filter (articles have the year and month of publication in the url so this should be doable with regexes). This cuts down on the number of false positives in option 2 but makes the filter more susceptible to breaking if BI change their url scheme.
@Placeholderer: There are plenty of sources for BI firing staff and aggressively shifting to AI ([19],[20], etc.) and being in bed with OpenAI ([21], etc.). BI often publishes vaguely proChatGPT puff-pieces likethis without any disclosure. There's also self-citing ouroboros issue when BI generates a story from ChatGPT, which itself originated from BI, etc.
In August, BI took down an LLM-generated article for 'failing to meet standards'.[22] Taking down the article was a good thing, but they only did this after another news outlet pressed them on it. The article was fabricated. Apparently nobody is properly fact-checking these LLM articles. Wired also got taken by the same slop-monger, but Wired had the good sense topublish an article about it. Nothing from BI, as far as I can see. This isn't surprising. BI has a history of 'stealth' edits to articles without acknowledgement of any kind. This is a bad practice which damages BI's reputation regardless of LLMs. (This source mentions an example of this).
Here is an article co-written by a former BI editorial executive explaining why the track record for LLM tools in journalism is 'spotty, at best'. That source also points out that the use of LLMs requiresmore editorial oversight, not less, so they do not justify firing experienced editors.
That incident isn't really the same thing -- it's a freelancer submitting AI hoaxes to a lot of places, basically an LLMJayson Blair, and not one of Business Insider's own AI articles (which don't seem to exist yet).Gnomingstuff (talk)08:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 reliable for anything not related to Indian politics or Hindu nationalism. Our article on Times Now isn't in great shape and should not be used as a definitive guide to evaluate this.
While some editors have raised concerns in past discussions about the reliability of its coverage of the BJP, there has never been an objection to its coverage outside those topics and the fact it's in a joint partnership withReuters[28], which is unambiguously RS is worth taking note. At the very least, as a subsidiary of theTimes of India, it would be hard to imagine it would be less reliable than the parent (which we currently subject to "additional considerations", those considerations being attentiveness to AI and advertorials).
It obviously has a gatekeeping process and a publication record, and I can find no record of it failing any factchecks after checking all the usual suspect F/C entities, (outside of presentation issues related to Indian politics and Hindu nationalism).
Option 2 or 3, low editorial standards which appear to only be dropping as time goes on... There also seems to be ongoing issues with mixing opinion and news content in an unclear way, some of that can be written of to clickbait or sensationalism but it doesn't speak in their favor.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Οption 3. A strong political bias is never bottled and isolated. It leaks and spreads across almost every kind of reporting. The most trivial examples of that typical phenomenon will be found in the realms of sports and culture. Therefore, having established thatTimes Now is virtually a political propaganda organ, we should keep it at a safe distance from the pool ofreliable sources. -The Gnome (talk)10:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. Their handling of the Jasleen Kaur story is a bit concerning (though it was almost 10 years ago). Other controversies mentioned in our article have to do with bias rather than reliability.Alaexis¿question?15:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went for option 3 on the basis of theguideline you invoke. To wit:Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. -The Gnome (talk)12:20, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering Seems to pass all three of thosefor topics not related to Indian politics or Hindu nationalism (the construction of this RfC).Chetsford (talk)20:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)}[reply]
The text is either the same or similar to this one: "For the first time in American history, a Buddhist ordination was held where an American woman (Sister Khanti-Khema) took theSamaneri (novice) vows with an American monk (Bhante Vimalaramsi) presiding. This was done for the Buddhist American Forest Tradition at the Dhamma Sukha Meditation Center in Missouri."
I'll be mentioning theAfD for "Vimalaramsi" and the "Dhamma Sukha Organization" as a supporting argument, not as a definitive recommendation. The AfD closed Vimalaramsi's article with result delete for lack of Notability. All of its sources were either self-published or press releases placed by the Dhammasukha.org organization.
These three pages use asource from an affiliated organization to "Kanti Khema", described by the article passages as being the "first ordained buddhist nun in the US." There is no way to attest this information - i.e that she is the "First nun in american history" from any reliable secondary sources, nor are they presented anywhere for examination.
Dhammasukha.org (referenced in these pages through archive.org) has four components that disqualify it as a reliable source: (I). Primary. (II). Affiliated with the subject. (III.) Non-notable and (IV). Cannot be confirmed by reliable secondary sources. Therefore, it appears to quote groundless information regarding the subject as being "The first in american history". Article text should be cleared of its controversial claim to fame or removed entirely from all pages.Deathnotekll2 (talk)07:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that you have no evidence that the claim is false, and assuming that the claim is plausible, I believe that the claim should be attributed to the organization that made it, rather than stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice. But I do not see your concerns in themself to be an argument to entirely remove the claim.Cullen328 (talk)07:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. However, the claim is not plausible.
Remember we are discussing. I am not attempting to force my conclusion.
The claims are quite boastful, actually. They are similar to saying an unknown person with no verifiable notability has been the indisputable best at something or that they have met Einstein.
Stating that a woman is the first at a fairly obscure but significant accomplishment is not boastful and nowhere near comparable to an assertion that a person is indisputably the best at something. If a person was accomplished in physics and mathematics in the 50 years preceding 1955, it is not implausible to claim that they met Einstein. After all, Einstein loved intellectual conversations with a wide range of people although he did not enjoy conventional small talk and chit-chat. He was not reclusive.
What is your evidence that this specific claim is not plausible? Does the organization making the claim have an established reputation for making false claims? Do you have evidence, for example, of a previously ordained Buddhist nun in the United States?Cullen328 (talk)07:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You see, theOnus of Proof, often summarized by the maximaffirmanti, non neganti, incumbit probatio (the proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies), is precisely the case here.
The organization is required to prove that such a bold claim is true. A company can claim its product is the best in the market with no supporting evidence to back their assertion. It'll be dismissed as marketing propaganda.Deathnotekll2 (talk)19:57, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We commonly deal with such matters by attributing the claim to the person or entity that made the claim as opposed to stating that it is true in Wikipedia's voice. We do not usually deal with evidence free doubts like yours by completely erasing the claim. I have asked repeatedly for evidence that this is false and you have provided nothing more than your strident skepticism.Cullen328 (talk)08:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Policy and guidelines are subject to interpretation.
Should Wikipedia also deal withevidence freeclaims, then? The opposite of evidence free doubtequally applies as well.
I haven't checked yet for additional evidence that contradicts theunsupported claim presented by the article passages that many of its supporters here wish to unambiguously defend. You demand and insist I do, and maybe I will. It's appropriate I demand back equally that you do your own research in the opposite fashion, i.e prove that the claim you defend is true.Maybe if that is done by both sides, a conclusion will be reached.
I attempted to challenge a source so editors could examine it and remove it side-wide if applicable.
I couldn't find a consensus-style process to do so, so I posted here after being recommended to do so by another user.
Anyway, as Gråbergs Gråa Sång said, I'll stay here so we can debate it, challenge it or support it. If necessary, I will open a formal RfC after studying the necessary conditions to do so in full.Deathnotekll2 (talk)19:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because RfCs are formal proposals that often have many users !voting in, so having a non RfC be titled as an RfC can confuse people, and bring them here instead of other, geuine RfCs. Does that make sense?Wikieditor662 (talk)19:55, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. I think.
Where and how can I open a formal RfC on this topic if need arises, by the way?
I can't see any reason you would need to open RFC on this at any point. I wouldn't suggest even thinking about them until you have more experience and understand what they are for. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"RfCs are time-consuming, andWikipedia being a volunteer project, editor time is valuable. If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways."
Yes, and it's also important to note what the opinions on the request are. If the proposal is universally accepted/rejected, then perWP:SNOW there's no need for an RfC. Same goes if it can be resolved in some other way.Wikieditor662 (talk)20:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About this stuff:components that disqualify it as a reliable source: (I). Primary. (II). Affiliated with the subject. (III.) Non-notable and (IV). Cannot be confirmed by reliable secondary sources
It's because of the exceptional nature of the claim presented by both a primary and not independent source. The claim is "that a female Buddhist priest is the very first in American History", ordained by a specific monk in a specific meditation center.
Okay... if it's true. How can we know it though? The affirmation is exceptional, and yet it can't be verified by anyone other than the organization directly affiliated with said priest. The only source is theirs.Deathnotekll2 (talk)21:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Deathnotekll2, are you mainly worried that they didn't actually ordain her ("Only the organization that ordained her can verify that they actually did this"), or are you worried that someone else did it first, and she's actually the second or third or forty-second (in which case, how could this be verified by the organization affiliated with her?)?
For WP:V purposes, the point of verifiability isn't to determine whether the source is correct. It's for people to be able to determine whether the Wikipedia article got the information from a reliable source (and not, e.g., from an editor's own imagination). That means that if the reliable source has an error (e.g., it misquotes someone), then that error is still verifiable and compliant with the WP:V policy (though obviously if we have actual knowledge of the source's error, we should remove the error from the Wikipedia article).WhatamIdoing (talk)01:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source that is not just a press release (it specifically has a reporter gathering some information within it.) "Vimalaramsi has founded an order of nuns, which he calls Pearls of the Purple Nuns. Sister Khanti-Kema is the first nun, taking her novice ordination in September 2006." The paper is theWayne County Journal-Banner, the first part of the article ishere and the second part (which has the quote) ishere. The same articleran a week later in theReynolds County Courier. Perhaps these sources will obliterate the need to evaluate the existing sources. --Nat Gertler (talk)04:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But the newspaper says she is the "first nun of the Pearls of the Purple Nuns", not that she is "The First in American History" as Dhammasukha.org says.Deathnotekll2 (talk)18:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deathnotekll2, It's time toWP:DROPTHESTICK. You've gotten no support here. Please find some other way to contribute constructively to the project. At this point you're wasting everyone's time.Toddst1(talk)20:14, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you speak on behalf of the entire Wikipedia and all of its editors?
Deathnotekll2, I wrote a page giving advice to people who find themselves in the exact situation you are in. A lot of folks say that it helped them. You can find it atWP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk)20:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To get back to the actual issue, what exactly is being contested? It seems that from other sources that Sister Khanti-Khema was ordained in the US by Bhante Vimalaramsi[30]. Is it that this was not the first woman ordained by an American on US soil? --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. This information is not verifiable in any way.
An ordination - by the catholic church, by a buddhist temple, whatever it is - is a small event that generally does not cause the need for examination of its factual data.
However, the three articles spin the idea that she is "the first in history", asserting a bold claim to fame. Otherwise, why would she even be mentioned in the article?
If one were to insert a random priest no one heard about as "being simply ordained by another", Wikipedia would readily remove the passage as it is unimportant.Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per my link the Sri-LankanDaily Mirror, which would be considered generally reliable perWP:NEWSORG, says she was the first such ordained woman. At this point it's up to you to show reliable sources that it isn't the case, as sources show say it was. That you may personally think it isn't plausible doesn't matter, you need to have something to back it up. That's either something to show that the statement itself is false, or an early ordination actually happened. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't know, the Daily Mirror Sri Lanka's article you have quoted is apress release placed by the organization "DhammaSukha.org"
Reading Woodroar analysis I would disagree, I don't see that it's definitely a press release. It's obviously based on details that have been, at least in part, provide by Bhante Vimalaramsi Mahathera or whoever was organising his talk, but I don't think it can be dismissed as a press release without any other evidence. That wouldn't have made any difference to the AfD, one source doesn't make an article. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So,this I wouldn't classify as a press release. But it is definitely not a secondary source, but a primary one. It's a self claim and for "first" claims, you need actual secondary sourcing to back it up. There is a lot more scrutiny given to "first" claims.
Then,this source was brought up and I don't know why? It confirms that Khanti-Khema was the first nun at this organization, itdoes not support the claim of her being the first nun in American history to undergo a Buddhist ordination. It doesn't seem to even make that claim?
Do you have a source that actually backs up the stated claim itself,Nat Gertler? Because, if not, then no, the sentence shouldn't be kept in any article. You don't have a source for it. It's self-published at best, blatant OR at worst.SilverserenC05:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it's an exact source for the claim precisely as it now stands; it supports more a claim of "the first by buddhist monk V" than "the first by a buddhist monk (V)". Whether that is a statement worth making (or even if the existing statement would be worth making if verifiable), I leave to others. It does put at least a little dent in the OP's argument that the AfDs mean there were no independent sources, as this provides at least some source for Dhamma Sukha. (It's probematic about the man himself, as it says it's getting the biographic information from the web.) --Nat Gertler (talk)06:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that the soaring is definitely not sufficient to support the claim. Perwikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The sourcing here is weak. I support removing the claim from all articles.4meter4 (talk)05:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bright line against the use of self-published sources for almost everything. Even if the source is written by an expert, if there are other reliably published secondary sources available, the secondary source supporting the same claim is almost always preferred. If we were allowed to make generous use of self published sources, people, companies and public relations professionals would just talk amongst themselves to write up whatever they want covered in Wikipedia and cite that blog/website.Graywalls (talk)00:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it used on many articles and I saw it mentioned on some discussions on the noticeboard archives, but I am wondering if anyone knows how to treat this source, and if this should be with certain caveats or not. It is currently (unless I made a mistake with Ctrl+F) not mentioned on the perennial sources list.Slomo666 (talk)18:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I misunderstood the purpose of the noticeboard. I don't dispute the source's reliability, I just ran into it a number of times and wondered if such a niche publication can be considered generally reliable. Sorry.
The most recent encounter I had would be one where an individual is cited by them:
Jürgen Zimmerer argued that instead of genocide being an aberration, perhaps "the world system is itself the root cause of genocide". A number of scholars, including Zimmerer, foundedINoGS as an alternative to the IAGS.
(At least, if my adjacent edit has not accidentally moved things around too much.)
Actually what I said is probably not quite right as JC was reporting his opinion and the fact that he founded INoGS. I think articles by its own staff or by external subject matter experts would be generally reliable for that sort of claim but that it’s a weaker source than more heavyweight RSs and not good for anything extraordinary or contentious.BobFromBrockley (talk)06:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance I would say the source is fine, as it's not making any extraordinary claims and what it reports is inline with ABOUTSELF comments from INoGS. --Cdjp1 (talk)17:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I should not have brought it here in the first place. I misunderstood the point of the noticeboard. I don't think anyone disputes this claim.Slomo666 (talk)23:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My impression of it has generally been positive and I have not heard of any reason to think otherwise. It's niche in the sense that it is a magazine representing the perspectives of left-leaning or progressive American Jews but as a relatively small publication it punches above its weight. Opinions published there may be controversial, but I am not aware of it ever having published falsities (unlike, say,The Jewish Chronicle in the UK). For more background see The New Yorker:[31] (this Wikipedia page has a mention in the article). I'd consider Jewish Currents generally reliable.AndreasJN46615:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish currents is not a reliable source. One of it's major donors has ties to the Iranian Government through a lobbying group called NIAC which has been labeled as a foreign agent working on behalf of the interests of Tehran. See here for an article on the donor and Jewish Currents [[32]] and here for a piece on NIAC and their relationship with the IRGC: [[33]]Agnieszka653 (talk)21:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source does not say that Francis Najafi is a "major donor" to Jewish Currents; it says he donated $25,000 to them (their 2023 revenue was$1.6 million) and $600,000 to NIAC. His foundationalso donated to the Biden Victory Fund, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Atlantic Council, the American Diabetes Association, and Johns Hopkins University.
The second source does not mention the IRGC at all. It says that NIAC has been accused of being an agent of the Iranian gov, but those allegations have not been proven.
the contributor themselves is writing in an oped/WP:NEWSBLOG. thats not really enough to suggest anything factual in terms of JC.regardless, they seem to group their factual reporting under the report tag, and op-ed style reporting under analysis.WP:DUE applies as to any sourcing, of course.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)03:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It suggests the fact that someone intimately familiar with the outlet has watched it change for the worse. Narrative-spinning as tendentious as what goes on at JC is not redeemed by sticking a "Report" label on it.Tioaeu8943 (talk)18:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it suggest its an oped claiming another oped is an oped. the oped also goes into predictable claims about how focus on diversity is inherently disqualifying.I see nothing "intimately familiar" in that oped, beyond gripes about bias.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)19:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and yet it is the same familiar gripes. there are not talks about the process, there is no discussion about journalistic practices, its just gripes about how the author doesn't agree.the oped has no value in dismissing it except that the author doesn't agree with other opeds.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)19:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bluethricecreamman is correct. The blogpost presents a political disagreement with JC not a problem with its standards of accurate reporting.
Notper se, but a sufficiently zealous effort to expunge all possible pro-Israel perspectives, no matter how qualified, leads to inaccuracies and falsehoods of omission because the situation there is complicated. See, for instance, the train wreck that is theGaza genocide article.Tioaeu8943 (talk)03:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah if citing it introduces inaccuracies into our articles it's pertinent here. If that claim can't be substantiated we can ignore it. My strong belief is that this is about bias not accuracy. (Tioaeu8943. I'm wondering if you would ask us to exclude the Tablet or Jewish News, for example, which make at least an equally zealous effort to expunge all possible anti-Israel perspectives?)BobFromBrockley (talk)22:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seliger's analysis of JC is expert and appears moderate. It indicates editorial bias at the magazine slanted enough to warrant caution about accuracy, though hardly disregard. I repeat that this noticeboard item opened with respect to no particular claim, but if one was introduced we could discuss it.Tioaeu8943 (talk)23:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the oped also goes into predictable claims about how focus on diversity is inherently disqualifying That's not what he said at all and now I wonder if you actually read it.Tioaeu8943 (talk)03:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Revisiting the Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Groups List
I would like to revisit the question of whether the Southern Poverty Law Center is a reliable source for whether or not a group is a hate group.
I would rather not be sidetracked into a discussion of whether the SPLC is reliable on other topics. That discussion may be worth having, but this is not the place for it.
This may turn into an RfC later, but please don't jump the gun -- we need to make sure any RfC asks the right questions through prior discussion.
If the SPLC is the only source for labeling a group as a hate group, Wikipedia should not make the claim on any page, attributed or not.
If reliable sources label a group as a hate group, Wikipedia should use those sources, and should not add the SPLC as an additional source.
In my opinion, the SPLC has a strong perverse incentive to label groups they politically disagree with as "hate" groups in order to solicit donations and advance their political agenda, even when there is no evidence behind the listing.
There exists no RS on whether the SPLC is a RS on hate groups, only opinions. The reader of the following list should consider the source and reliability of the source, and pay special attention to any verifiable facts contained in an otherwise unreliable source. That being said, here are the reasons why I came to the above conclusion:
I would like to discuss one specific example which to me shows exactly why I believe that the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reliable source for whether or not a group is a hate group.
Do they make any effort to check sources? Do they print a retraction or a correction when they are shown to have made an error?
Let's look at the sad case of the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub.
Start with this report from the Iowa City Press Citizen:[34]
Apparently, someone with the screen name "Concerned Troll" posted "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!" on theDaily Stormer website, claiming that this "bookclub" met sometime in September 2016 at a unnamed restaurant somewhere in the Amana Colonies, Iowa. Based upon nothing more that that single post, the SPLC listed the Iowa town a "refuge of hate" and listed them as as "the home of the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group".
One small problem:The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed. They never met. The restaurant was never named. The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing. Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed.
The Des Moines Register contacted the SPLC, and Ryan Lenz, a senior investigative writer for the SPLC initially told them that claims by community and Iowa County leaders that no such groups exist in the town are wrong.
Then later, after there was a storm of controversy, the SPLC silently changed the claim to say that this imaginary hate group is "statewide", and later even that claim was silently deleted.
The SPLC still to this day refuses to provide any evidence other than the internet post by "Concerned Troll" to support the original or the revised claim.
The SPLC vigorously stood by its claim for a full year[35], ignoring all calls for any actual evidence, and only reluctantly revised the page to falsely claim that the nonexistent group exists on a statewide level.
When you make a claim without a shred of evidence[36] other than a post on a neo-nazi website by an anonymous user who is an admitted troll, and then stand by your claim for well over a year without providing a shred of evidence, andthen change the claim to another false claim, never publishing a retraction and never admitting that you were wrong, you no longer have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as required to be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk)14:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If SPLC is theonly source calling a group a hate group (or similar classification), and that that classification is not itself discussed in sources, then it seems to be an UNDUE issue of including the SPLC's mention, rather than trying to use questions around RS to try to justify inclusion or not.
Of course, if the SPLC's classification itself is the subject of coverage in sources though remains the only source actually calling a group a hate group, that is appropriate for discussion along the lines of the issues around the SPLC's classification. eg DUE is meet. And same when other RSes call a group a hate group, or where there at least some debate about whether a group is a hate group or note, then the SPLC classification also would be DUE. All these cases avoid trying to question SPCL's RS's nature, though obviously in all cases where used, we should have in-prose attribution and not assume wikivoice of the SPLC's classification.Masem (t)14:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am pretty sure that we are already attributing SPLC everywhere it is used as a reference for hate groups. Few editors get that sort of thing wrong and if they do thier edits don't survive.WP:DUE says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been publishedby reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." You have to pass the "reliable source" hurdle before you even get to the "due weight" hurdle. We wouldn't reject a citation toInfowars because of DUE. We would reject it because of RS. And we wouldn't allow a citation to Infowars as an an additional, attributed reference even for material already covered by reliable sources. I am arguing that in the area of hate groups, we should treat the SPLC as an unreliable source, not as a reliable source that has been given undue weight. --Guy Macon (talk)15:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am arguing that in the area of hate groups, we should treat the SPLC as an unreliable source, not as a reliable source that has been given undue weight. If that is your contention, then at least for my part, I find your argument in support of it wholly unconvincing. A bunch of sources defending their political allies from serious charges with emotive or unsound arguments doesn't come anywhere near to making that case.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a bunch of sources defending their political allies […] with emotive or unsound arguments Bruh…have you read even one of the articles OP linked? Both contentions in your statement are manifestly incorrect, and several of the sources have a lot less controversy about their reliability than the SPLC. You can’t seriously believe thatThe Atlantic (a national mainstream publication, and leftist enough to platform some very edgy views from time to time) is going to have ulterior motives when it criticizes SPLC. When a very well-researchedPolitico article characterizes its actions the way that it does there, that is a serious matter.RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk)02:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not attributing them everywhere. The RfC for this was very confusing, which was why I attempted to challenge the closure, but was unsuccessful. The status quo is we have to attribute their opinions and everything else is ??? uncertain, due to the lack of clarity in the last RfC's closure, which everyone seems to have interpreted differently. When I proposed actually enforcing said RfC closure, people became quite irate, so... But as is onwiki, we do not actually attribute them for most of what we cite to them, except aformentioned opinion statements, and it is unclear if we have to. Personally, I do not think we have to; the incidents you are discussing are not really convincing.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the SPLC's list should be theonly source used to state in wikivoice that a certain group is a 'hate group'. I think it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis whether to state a group is 'designated as a hate group by the SPLC' on sole basis of inclusion on that list, with a preference towards exclusion.
In all cases, we should have multiple sources asserting that a group is a hate group before we state it in our voice, and in general, we should have at leasesome coverage of the SPLC's designation before we consider itWP:DUE for inclusion.
That being said, that list of sources above isn't the best. For example, theCity Journal piece is from 2017, and it states thatdiversity is universally promoted as a civic virtue which is an unequivocally false statement in 2025. I would even contend that it was an unequivocally false statement in 2017, as well, given that the demonization ofDEI in particular and diversity more generally by the political right in this country long predates that year, going back at least as far as the early days of the Obama administration. (It's arguable that it would be a false statement, no matter when it was made, because opposition to diversity has always existed, but I understand the CJ's statement to be in the context of mainstream American politics.)
Indeed, it looks like most of the sources you've cited are right-wing advocacy groups or right-leaning news orgs, at least two of which are 'no consensus on reliability' sources fromWP:RSP.
Digging further into it... One of the few non-right-wing sources you provided,The Mercury News is merely reposting a story from WaPo written by Dana Milbank, the 'extravagant contrarian', which implies without argument that it is ridiculous for the SPLC to label theFamily Research Council a hate group. Except that is an instance in which the SPLC's inclusion on the list is well-justified, covered in multiple reliable sources, and (while, perhaps, arguable), completely understandable to anyone who cares about LGBTQ issues. The FRC disseminates disinformation about LGBTQ people and issues, after all. In 1999, they claimed with a full chest that one of the primary goals of LGBTQ activists was toabolish all age of consent laws and to eventually recognize pedophiles as the 'prophets' of a new sexual order. At best, that is blatant bigotry, which is the same thing as 'hate' in this context.
While numerous criticisms of the FRC being included in the SPLC's list can be easily found, the objections raised never seem to extend beyond "this is a well-funded and powerful group, how dare you call them hateful!"
I'm not going to go into more detail about the list, because I do think some of those represent fair criticisms. But there's enough dubious sources and dubious claims within it that I think it could use a heavy-handed pruning. At the very least, providing some context about the source and nature of the critiques would be a good step.
To be clear, I stand by my opinion above. I don't think the SPLC should be our only source to establish whether a group is a hate group. I think we need either broad acceptance of the SPLC's designation in secondary sources, or multiple, independent sources asserting it.
But I would also advise you to trim down that list, and possibly to stop reading many of those outlets to get useful views on the SPLC. My opinion is based on my understanding of WP policy, and the argument presented here is far too weak to have had any impact on it.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.15:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"this is a well-funded and powerful group, how dare you call them hateful" Last I checked, you can't promote hatred and persecution in a society if you don't have some kind of funding and access to themass media which are supposed to promote yourpropaganda. Well-funded groups are destined to have more influence on the corporate media, regardless of who is their favoritescapegoat.Dimadick (talk)00:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And it's wild to me that anyone would even defend the FRC. They've been pushing the blatantly falseand hateful claim that most pedophiles are members of the LGBTQ community for years and years. What is that, if not hateful?ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion about the main question yet (as I haven't investigated sufficiently), but a few points:
That there is no public evidence other than one or more pseudonymous statements on the Daily Stormer's site ≠ "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub never existed." The former makes the latter more likely but isn't determinative.
It would help to be able to read what the SPLC actually wrote. Is there an archived copy of it somewhere? For example, the Iowa City Press Citizen says "The Amana Colonies is no longer designated as the home of the neo-Nazi group. The Southern Poverty Law Center had previously designated the historic settlement as the home of the Daily Stormer," but it's hard for me to believe that the SPLC referred to the Amana Colonies as "the home" of the Daily Stormer rather than "a home". (Is "the home" of the website the place where the people funding the website live? where the site is hosted? why would it even make sense to focus on the home of the site rather than the locations where supporters live? ...). Yes, this is picky, but if the Iowa City Press Citizen isn't careful about this, what other elements may they have gotten wrong?
The Iowa City Press Citizen wrote that the SPLC said "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." Google no longer makes their caches public, so there is no way to check that their cache, but if there was a thread in response to Concerned Troll's statement, and the thread mentioned a restaurant, then the public evidence wasn't limited to a single statement by one person, Concerned Troll. Also, if the SPLC did, in fact, have some independent confirmation about a meeting at a restaurant, it would be good to know more specifically what the SPLC itself said to the Iowa City Press Citizen, rather than just the latter's statement describing what the SPLC said.
When I went to find a bit of info, I saw that you (Guy Macon), gave the sameexample in a thread 4 years ago. Do you have any other examples of what you consider serious problems with SPLC's reporting?FactOrOpinion (talk)15:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed here. I'd take the "he said/she said" in regards to a single incident a website mentioned (that is apparently not even accessible) years ago with a huge, huge grain of salt.Lostsandwich (talk)19:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I've poked around a bit more, andGuy Macon, I question some of your information. As best I can tell, here's a timeline of (some of) the relevant Daily Stormer posts:
In August 2017, one source, The Gazette,says "A cached page of The Daily Stormer's former website - which was taken down by the Go Daddy hosting service in the wake of the deadly rally - shows members planning the meeting about one year ago." Presumably The Gazette reviewed the cached copy.
August 31, 2016: someone with an unspecified name posts on the Daily Stormer that "I'm going to be busy on weekends for a while, but let's do an East Iowa book club too." "Reply if you'd be down. CR [Cedar Rapids], IC [Iowa City], Davenport, Waterloo, etc ... The Amana Colonies might be a sweet place to meet. There is an awesome free shooting range on Amana road plus it is a historic German community.” (The Gazette)
September 23, 2016: another person with an unspecified name writes that they're "down for the Amana Colonies. ... I would really like for this to happen, they have great food over there, plenty of outside space to chat.” (same source)
No other info is provided about the rest of the thread; perhaps it also included a suggestion for a book club elsewhere in Iowa, given the "too." Alternatively, that person could have been proposing more than one kind of gathering (again, "too").
September 26, 2016: Concerned Troll posts “The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!” PJ Mediasays "Concerned Troll did not provide specific details about the visit, but went on to suggest a subsequent meeting in Des Moines." Presumably PJ Media also saw a cached copy of the page.
The Gazette also says "The Southern Poverty Law Center - which tracks hate groups - lists Amana as one of several locations in the nation for The Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi hate group. ... [T]hat appears to be due to members deciding to meet there for a so-called book club. Ryan Lenz, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that designation does not mean Amana is home to any actual neo-Nazis. ... 'We know people drive many, many miles - hundreds of miles - to sit with like-minded people.' While hate group activity increasingly has moved to cyberspace, Lenz said The Daily Stormer took the opposite approach in 2016 by calling for members and would-be members to attend 'book clubs” and meet one another. ... Once the center's researchers uncovered the cities where these meet ups were to take place, the cities were added to the map when it was updated this year. Lenz said it was impossible to know how many times the meetups took place." So it sounds like part of the problem is how SPLC and others interpret a given location being listed on the SPLC map, and whether SPLC explains this well.
Guy Macon, you said "Based upon nothing more that that single post, the SPLC listed the Iowa town a 'refuge of hate' and listed them as as 'the home of the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub neo-Nazi group'." Do you have a link to what the SPLC wrote? I think we should all be able to read it in full. Clearly it wasn't just one post. You also wrote "They never met." How do you know? "The restaurant was never named." How do you know? This sourcesays "The owner of the restaurant where The Daily Stormer club met says "people who promote hate are not welcome," so the local Fox channel knew the name of the restaurant; otherwise they couldn't have gotten a statement from the owner. You say "The local police did a thorough investigation and found zero evidence for the meeting ever happening or or the group ever existing." Please link to a copy of this police report. "Someone with the user name Concerned Troll posted something on the Daily Stormer website and that's all the "evidence" the SPLC needed." No, it seems like they were using more than the one post.FactOrOpinion (talk)21:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Local CBS2/FOX28 news station said (Convention and Visitors Bureau Executive Director David Rettig) "Rettig says he even called the county sheriff to see if there had ever been any reports of hate groups being active and was told no. He says the sheriff then contacted authorities in Des Moines to see if anything ever showed up on their radar and again the response was no."[37] The Des Moines Register wrote "Iowa County Sheriff Rob Rotter also has denounced the claim a hate group exists, stating there is no such neo-Nazi group in the county and called the claims 'irresponsible at best'"[38] Compared this we have exactly Zero sources other that the SPLC claiming that the group exists and the SPLC specificly listing one particular anon post on a Nazi discussion group as the reason they think it exists. Yes, we can speculate that other anonymous posts from Nazis (or one Nazi with multiple accounts) may have chimed in, but the SPLC, while defending their listing again and again for over a year, did not quote any other anonymous Nazis. There is no police report because there was nothing to report. There was nothing to report because nothing happened. Any further attempts to convince me that a group of individuals calling themselves the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub met sometime in 2016 at a restaurant in the Amanas should be accompanied by a source other than the SPLC that makes that claim, or at the very least a source where the SPLC provides a shred of evidence other than anonymous posts on a Nazi message board. If the attempt to convince me lacks such sources, I will continue to ignore them. The belief that the group exists is, in my opinion, a matter of faith and not evidence. --Guy Macon (talk)03:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would local law enforcement know or care if a bunch of people held a book club? Are book clubs illegal?
They did not call themselves that as a group, it wasthe Daily Stormer. At no point did the SPLC claim that the "First Iowa Stormer Bookclub" was a group distinct from the Stormer, so we aren't arguing about that, and I don't know why you keep bringing it up.PARAKANYAA (talk)03:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the SPLC specificly listing one particular anon post on a Nazi discussion group as the reason they think it exists. ... the SPLC, while defending their listing again and again for over a year, did not quote any other anonymous Nazis." Please provide a source for that. All I found on the SPLCwebsite is that it was a local group identified as "Neo-Nazi, The Daily Stormer, Amana, Iowa," with nothing about the source of the information. As for "County Sheriff Rob Rotter also has denounced the claim a hate group exists, stating there is no such neo-Nazi group in the county," as best I can tell, a lot of this boils down to a misunderstanding of what an ID on the hate map means, even though I quoted it above. Here it is again:
Ryan Lenz, a spokesman for the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that designationdoes not mean Amana is home to any actual neo-Nazis. ... 'We know people drive many, many miles - hundreds of miles - to sit with like-minded people.' While hate group activity increasingly has moved to cyberspace, Lenz said The Daily Stormer took the opposite approach in 2016 by calling for members and would-be members to attend 'book clubs” and meet one another. ... Once the center's researchers uncovered the cities where these meet ups were to take place, the cities were added to the map when it was updated this year. (emphasis added)
So the SPLC wasn't claiming that there are any neo-Nazis living in Amana; all they were saying is that the Daily Stormer encouraged adherents to meet in person, and there was at least one meeting in Amana, and it may be that none of the people who attended lived in the county.
Re: "we have exactly Zero sources other that the SPLC claiming that the group exists," you clearly have the Daily Stormer site claiming that it existed at least to meet once, and perhaps to meet more than once (since PJ Media reported that Concerned Troll "went on to suggest a subsequent meeting in Des Moines"). As I also noted above, the local Fox station said "The owner of the restaurant where The Daily Stormer club met says 'people who promote hate are not welcome,' so they knew the name of the restaurant and claimed that the group met there. I'm not sure why you say "Any further attempts to convince me that a group of individuals calling themselves the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub met sometime in 2016 at a restaurant in the Amanas should be accompanied by a source other than the SPLC that makes that claim," when I already provided you with the Fox source.
"There was nothing to report because nothing happened." So why did the local Fox station say that the group met? And why would you think that there would be anything to report about some people meeting / hanging out at a restaurant? The proclaimed intent of the book clubs was just to have people who posted to the Daily Stormer meet others who lived in the same general vicinity as them.FactOrOpinion (talk)04:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, as best I can tell, the sheriff did not investigate until a year later and no one in Amana was aware of the listing until the Unite the Right rally a year later, which is why all of the reporting is from August 2017, not the fall of 2016. Not sure why you'd expect an investigation a year later to turn anything up. BTW, in my experience, police do, in fact, write up a report even if they don't find anything, to record what was investigated and what investigative steps they took (e.g., who they questioned).FactOrOpinion (talk)14:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By dint of the fact that we always attribute SPLC (or at least, should do so, which is reflected in the RSP entry), we are clearly treating it as opinion and not fact (by NPOV'sAvoid stating facts as opinions, we should not make such attributions if we consider SPLC's opinions fact). The SPLC is a reliable source for their own opinion, and this can only be an issue with the amount of prominence we ought to give it. The level of reliability issues needed to argue a group is no longer reliable for their own opinion is far beyond people disagreeing in their own opinion pieces.Alpha3031 (t •c)16:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In every article I have seen, the SPLC's designation is attributed inline. For example, "According to SPLC, group x is a hate group." Since whether or not a group is a hate group is reported as a matter of opinion not fact, this is the incorrect noticeboard. It should be NPOVN.
In fact the SPLC is a reliable source of information about right-wing extremist groups. Unfortunately for them, a large number of right-wing columnists subscribe to at least one of the views they consider hate, which generates a lot of opposition in the right-wing echo chamber.
DescribingChristina Hoff Sommers as "giving a "mainstream and respectable face" to groups peddling "male supremacy"" (as stated in theReason article cited above) probably agrees with the conclusions of most subject experts. Of course, it offends some conservatives. But no one is suggested it be reported as a fact without inline citation.TFD (talk)01:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC's reliability really should be deprecated, but that can be reserved for another discussion, for the purposes of this discussion, I'd say that both of the above opinion items are in fact valid and should be implemented. Thanks @Guy MaconIljhgtn (talk)20:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon, it looks like you're getting a lot of pushback, and I don't want to pile on but... I don't see that your opinion if implemented would be an improvement on our existing consensus.
You think thatIf the SPLC is the only source for labeling a group as a hate group, Wikipedia should not make the claim on any page, attributed or not. Currently,WP:SPLC says that "The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy."
If SPLC were the only source saying a group is a hate group, and no one else covered it, I would agree with you (and I think our existing consensus would also be to omit the classification). If the SPLC were the only source labeling a group as a hate group,and that designation received significant secondary coverage, I would interpret your opinion as saying we should omit the attributed label, whereas the existing consensus would be to include. I think that your way would undermineWP:NPOV - it's not for us to decide that secondary sources are highlighting the "wrong" opinions, even if SPLC's designations are suspect.
Moreover, I thinkWP:SPLC provides plenty of caution in our use of SPLC as a source for its opinion content (the hate designations), even as it holds them generally reliable for factual information. The question of SPLC's general reliability is separate and not directly addressed by your opinions in the first post - I think that if you're correct about the whole Nazi book club thing, that's concerning and is reason to look into their editorial processes, but given the RfC was recent, I wouldn't want to reopen the issue unless more of a pattern can be established.Samuelshraga (talk)09:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be the comment that claims that anonymous Nazis (or maybe one Nazi with multiple accounts) posting on a Daily Stormer website are acceptable as primary sources? Do you have a single thread of actual evidence that the book club ever met in Amana? Any sources at all that can't be traced back to the post by "Concerned Troll"? The SPLC has steadfastly refused to even mention any other source despite numorous press enquiries. --Guy Macon (talk)15:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That source has been provided to youmultiple times already: "The owner of the restaurant where The Daily Stormer club met..."[39]. At this point you a dangerously close to IDHT.Thryduulf (talk)15:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be covered byWP:ATT. To be called a hate group by SPLC is not nothing, so if a third party source mentions that SPLC calls them a hate group, it probably merits mention. However, “SPLC calls them a hate group, source, SPLC calling them a hate group” is inappropriate for the usual reasons.Guy(help! -typo?)08:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
* SPLC is a garbage source and shouldn't be used for defamatory information.SPLC uses highly negative or alarmist portrayals to drive donations. SPLC has been sued times for mislabeling organizations and people as “hate” or “extremist” groups. Some cases settled, others were dismissed, and some are still pending. That it is used so extensively on this project, many times as the sole source for a defamatory material reposted without attribution as fact is an issue in and of itself.Absadah (talk)21:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That article is more or less just complaining that the SPLC lists groups that are anti-gay marriage as "hate groups". I don't find that to be a compelling argument against it, at least from the perspective that Wikipedia usually comes from. It's not any more garbage than the media, or academia is, which in my experiences in this topic area are just as often wrong as the SPLC is.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that in its 54 years the SPLC has retracted descriptions of people or groups after criticisms or legal threats a grand total of THREE times, two of which relate to a designation as “extremist” and none to a designation as a “hate group”. I don’t think there’s a single case against them that has come to court and resulted in them losing.BobFromBrockley (talk)07:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is aWP:DUE question, not aWP:RS question, since you acknowledge that when it's the only source it's generally used for attributed opinion. Beyond that, sources you cite are unconvincing - these are largely opinion or heavilyWP:BIASED sources (and most of them are accusing it of bias; bias doesn't make a source unreliable. It just requires attribution,which we currently use.) These sources establishe that the SPLC iscontroversial, not that it isunreliable; and they establish that what it says attracts massive amounts of attention, which lends it weight. Indeed, many of these are worded from a clear perspective of, essentially, "everyone trusts the SPLC and treats it seriously, but theyshouldn't", ie. they acknowledge that they are taking a minority position. And beyond that, the argument that we shouldn't describe the SPLC's opinionseven when heavily covered by high-quality secondary sources is absurd - nothing gets that level of prohibition. Literal lies spouted by Lucifer himself could be included in our articles if given sufficient high-quality secondary coverage; we'd want to cover it the way the secondary sourcing does and hope that they'd point out any problems, but in that case it is the secondary source's reputation that matters. And the fact is that, as you are probably aware, secondary sources quite frequently defer to the SPLC - which is doubtless why you made this suggestion, but, again, "fixing" that isn't how we work! "These people areso bad that even when secondary sources quote them we should ignore it because they were obviously wrong to do so" isWP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I don't think you've even convincingly made the argument that the SPLC is unreliable, but certainly we have to cover it when it is given significant weight by secondary sources. If anything, the fact that a significant minority dislikes or distrusts the SPLC is an additional reason to make it clear when secondary sources are relying on them - the implication of your request here would be that if an academic paper says "XYZ is a hate group, according to the SPLC", we would... cite that paper without mentioning that it attributes it to the SPLC? That's worse, you do see how that's worse, right? --Aquillion (talk)21:19, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:DUE question, not a WP:RS question, since you acknowledge that when it's the only source it's generally used for attributed opinion. That was my thought when I first responded, as well, but Guy clarified inthis comment that he's arguing that the SPLC is unreliable. Apparently, Guy finds those heavily biased right-wing opinion articles much more convincing than the rest of us do.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.21:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many were not "heavily biased right-wing opinion articles". It's easy to be correct when you can just ignore every dissenting comment.Buffs (talk)17:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed by your audacity in not putting the word 'many' in scare quotes there. I sure as shit would have.
There is no assumption of bad faith in my response. I merely opined my surprise that you would use such a patently untrue word as 'many' without enclosing it in scare quotes, then laid out why. The why here was germane, of course, as it forms a coherent and sound rebuttal to your eminently false claim.
As for my language... I've had enough collegial discussions peppered with 'shits', 'fucks', 'asses', 'bitches', 'bastards', 'cocks', 'cunts' and 'tits' and even the occasional 'syphilitic shit-packing ass-weasel' to know with absolute certainty that you're just plain wrong.
You know what's not very conducive to collegial discussions? Bullshit accusations meant to sidestep valid criticism of arguments. That shit will derail a discussion like little else. (Notice how we're no longer discussing the number of left-wing sources in Guy's list, if you need proof.) Oh, and pearl-clutching about curse words. That tends to be pretty toxic to a good chat, too.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.18:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are overwhelmingly right wing publications, followed by those few that aren't but which are almost a decade old, and lastly the NYT piece which is an op-edSnokalok (talk)21:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what everyone else, who posted before me, is saying. Your best bet for restricting the use of SPLC is probably asking whether their opinion is undue when their opinion isn't covered in other secondary sources. Or that if their assessement isn't covered in other sources, it should not be in the lead.Rolluik (talk)22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with other commenters - only use with attribution, and not necessarily in the lead. However, this does raise the question of whether it should be down graded atWP:RSP - perhaps to a yellow “additional considerations”.Blueboar (talk)22:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it raises that question. We have discussed this numerous times and no new evidence calling for additional considerations has been presented in this thread.BobFromBrockley (talk)08:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion strikes me as pointless. If the SPLC is the sole source describing a group as a hate group, that description is going to be attributed anyway. If there's multiple source also describing a group as a hate group alongside the SPLC, why omit it them?Cortador (talk)22:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, as someone who mostly edits about the 'far-right', my opinion on the SPLC itself and theirfactual reporting (not their opinions), I would say they are generally reliable, as our protracted RFC earlier this year concluded and my own experience researching and using them as a source. I have rarely taken issue with their factual reporting, far less than with news media, for example. As shown by FactOrOpinion the specific case at issue is overblown and I don't actually see any issue with how they reported it. The other incidents pointed out here are not really convincing and are a mix of opinion pieces and people subject to the pieces complaining about their opinions. They are just extremely opinionated, but so is all scholarship on this topic (and academic on "hate groups" post-NA is almost entirely just recycling the SPLC anyway), but when it comes to factual matters they are generally excellent. In that regard, they are not really any worse than academia. Relative to all other anti-hate watchdog groups they are by far the most reputable and reliable in terms of facts. But whether it's from the SPLC or anyone else "hate group" is like "terrorist" in that it isa contentious label and basically inherently opinion so per MOS:LABELshould never be said in wikivoice, e.g. we do not call Hitler evil in wikivoice for the same.PARAKANYAA (talk)23:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this discussion really changing how the source is used but my feeling is they should be treated like other advocacy organizations in that we shouldn't give weight to anything they report unless independent RSs do it first. The SPLC, in my view, shouldn't be the only source for a claim of any type. In this regard we would treat it like any number of generally respected advocacy groups/think tanks. As mentioned above, we recently had a long RfC on the SPLC so I don't see the status changing here.Springee (talk)00:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do use advocacy orgs for factual claims all the time, and there is no policy reason not to. Especially on any topic related to white supremacists/the far right... check pretty much any page for one, and it will be a main source. I don't see any particular reason to treat them differently than other RS, as bias is not related to reliability, and academia is just as if not more biased against white supremacy than the SPLC.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure wp should be going into whether a group is a "hate group" or not. I think it's more encyclopedic to describe the kind of hate, for example, anti-trans, anti-lgbt, white nationalist, ethnic supremacist, etc. (t ·c)buidhe02:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OP’s proposal has no policy basis. No new evidence has been presented to change our previous consensus reached in multiple discussions. Nothing in this thread indicates use of this source makes our articles problematic in any way. This is not a generative discussion.BobFromBrockley (talk)08:06, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their lists are entirely subjective and opinionated, as PARAKANYAA stated. Who and what is hateful is an opinion. They have also been known to act like a shakedown organization and thrive on churning and farming hate groups to maintain their existence, which has greatly deviated from the original purpose. Designations like this should probably not even be allowed on here, just like the use ofWP:TERRORIST is restricted. ←Metallurgist (talk)06:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a comment on the usage of their designations, which I generally do not care for, but since I find your comment to have some wider implications for their accuracy: when it comes to their factual content they do have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy", and in my experience looking at them as a source they are good. There are no non-opinionated sources on "hate groups" (even academia, which is just as opinionated) or whatever else such groups that tend to be called hate groups are called. If we were to prohibit sources on this topic for being opinionated we would not have any; whether the factual material is accurate is what matters.
And to be fair, in their treatment of 'hate groups', they really have not changed at all from how they were in the past (many of these specific complaints are decades old).PARAKANYAA (talk)07:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon lefta message on my talk page inviting me to this discussion, and it looks like they also invitedabout 24 others too, with no explicit mention of selection criteria. I've read the discussion on this page and a selection of the articles linked to, and like most others who have commented previously I am not persuaded that any change to the status quo is required.Thryduulf (talk)14:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the source of the invitation you will find "Sent to everyone who commented on the RfC" (skipping, of course, anyone who has already commented here). Please note that this means that the majority of those notified disagreed with me last time and are expected to disagree with me again. --Guy Macon (talk)14:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds your decision to ping all of us here reasonably neutral enough in a fashion that does not run afoul ofWP:CANVAS, even if your objective in doing so seems likely to have been trying to blow this discussion up to a scale where you might have a chance at a second bite at the apple. But bluntly, the effort to do that and the timing you have chosen raise some serious concerns in themselves. Given the massive scale of that previous discussion, the substantial consensus that resulted, and the fact that there was a robust closure review affirming the result, this feels far too soon to re-litigate the outcome of that discussion yet again. And you are doing so not in light of new information but by presenting sources that were largely already available during the previous discussions, and by leveraging one niche, cherry-picked case study of your own design. Which, as others have noted, has a non-trivial amount of speculation in it--and indeed, arguably a fair bit of spin/selective presentation of the facts, intentional or otherwise.In short, this dispute has already consumed gargantuan amounts of volunteer time, only to result in a fairly robust consensus. And yet, four months and a few weeks after the end of the closure review, you've revived the discussion basically along the same exact line of inquiry. Now I'll go ahead andWP:AGF that your reasons for pinging such a large group back here to participate again was an attempt to be seen as approaching this situation in a pro forma, neutral fashion. But I also doubt you did so without realizing that the only way the previous consensus would be deemed to be overturned would be if this discussion reached a roughly comparable scale of engagement, and that you had nothing to lose from the effort at making this as big a thing as possible again and hoping that discussion shook out in another direction this time. Frankly, given the full context here, I feel that your overall approach here is very arguablyWP:DISRUPTIVE and I'm a little surprised you haven't faced more pushback for it, all things considered. And I say that as someone who came to the RfC without previous involvement in the dispute, and whose mind remains open to re-assessing in the future.So while I am not advocating for any action as a result of this effort to revive the discussion, if this thread continues to demonstrate anything less than a massive landslide shift in community perspective (which shift seems highly unlikely) I wouldstrongly advise you toWP:DROPTHESTICK on this sooner rather than later. Because it's not hard to imagine the possibility of a TBAN if you continue to try to re-open this black hole of a dispute on the basis of idiosyncratic arguments you appear to have been making for several years now. Consensus can change, and this source does intersect with some controversial topics, but even considering those circumstances, the community cannot keep dropping such a volume of volunteer effort into this matter simply because you are not prepared to admit that you lost the argument for the immediate future.SnowRise let's rap01:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, Canvassingis inappropriate.WP:CANVAS: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate"
In contrast, notifications of this manner areappropriate. Again, from WP:CANVASS: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."
I was canvassed to comment. Of course this requires attribution when mentioned, of course if they are the only organization that characterizes some group as a hate group it is likely to be undue weight, but certainly they are a reliable source. Any organization tracking hate groups is occasionally going to be an outlier in some of their characterizations: each have their own criteria, plus it's not a science. -Jmabel |Talk15:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't call it canvassing—audience notified appears non-partisan. That said, I feel like this discussion can be closed tomorrow if there's no steam for changing the consensus.Aaron Liu (talk)17:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see any problem as long as it's attributed. As mentioned above, the SPLC has existed for over 50 years and the number of times it's beengenuinely pulled up on its definitions is comparatively tiny. Also, I'd look again at whether that long list of sources above is useful here; even at a brief glance, some are obviously unreliable (Capital Research, City Journal), whilst the Washington Examiner/Weekly Standard is yellow-flagged for partisanship at RSP and some of the others are op-eds. Even theHarpers article starts "(SPLC is ...) the do-gooder group that does very little good". There's painfully little from reliable and non-partisan sources there.Black Kite (talk)16:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're generally reliable on the subject of hate groups, though as an advocacy organization their analysis should (usually*) be attributed. (*If a wide number and variety of sources agree that an organication is a hate group, I believe the responsible editorial decision is to say that in wikivoice. That is more of a DUE issue than RS, however.) I don't think the critical sources above move the needle much, if at all.Woodroar (talk)16:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can you look at the way they determined that the Amana Colonies was the headquarters for a hate group and conclude that they are reliable on the subject of hate groups? They based this on an anonymous post on a Nazi discussion list and have refused to respond to multiple requests from the Amana Colonies and the Des Moines Register asking them for a shred of evidence other than the Nazi discussion list that their claim was true. --Guy Macon (talk)17:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See FactOrOpinion's very lengthy explanation above.
Seriously? You are defending using an anonymous post on a Nazi message board as a source? It isn't even a primary source. No actual Nazi group has ever claimed that the Stormer Book Club exists. Just the anonymous post. --Guy Macon (talk)17:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every source aboutThe Daily Stormer, a pseudonymous neo-Nazi message board, is ultimately using The Daily Stormer as a source for its own opinions and operations. The Stormer was not a "group" in that sense so yeah obviously they wouldn't say that. Where else do you expect them to get information on its content?PARAKANYAA (talk)17:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an advocacy organization, I'm of the opinion that all of their content from their own sites should be considered self-published. --Kyohyi (talk)16:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite a policy or guideline for that? Textbooks advocate theories such as the earth is round and it is 4.5 billion years old. We don't question using them because there is no serious objection to their conclusions.TFD (talk)05:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think SLPC is valid for fact checking OR notability. They cover a lot of tiny non-notable groups; that is part of their purpose, so we shouldn't consider those groups notable just because SLPC has an article on them. When it comes to fact checking, this is an example; "Walsh is a self-described “theocratic fascist”".[40] They provide a link to his twitter. He was interviewed back in 2016 about it, and said someone messaged him and told him he was one, so he put it on his twitter as a joke, it's not a self-description of who he is. It is 2025 and they still have it listed as a straight up, factual statement. So, what kind of fact checking did they do? They are a political group, and politicians say this kind of thing about opponents all the time. We can't stop that. But, political talking points like this are always contentious, and should be treated as such. It's not like they are contacting the "hate groups" and asking them for comment - that's not their purpose. But if they aren't useful for Notability or for being reliable... what's the point of using them at all?Denaar (talk)16:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People don't say things like "theocratic fascist" about themselves all the time. He still has it in his Twitter description (https://x.com/MattWalshBlog), so either he recognizes that it's accurate (even though he says it's a joke) or he recognizes that people take it seriously and is choosing to leave it up anyway.FactOrOpinion (talk)20:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the link you provided, it is beyond obvious that the person there is mentioning that label as a joke. Whether it is funny or not is up to the reader.Iljhgtn (talk)20:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That you, personally, believe it to be a joke does not mean that others believe it to be a joke. If it's a joke, the fact that he's left it there despite knowing that some people are interpreting it as a serious self-description tells us that he doesn't care whether people misinterpret it.FactOrOpinion (talk)21:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't seriously believe that he wants people who eat ranch dressing to be burned at the stake, along with anyone who eats Mayo, Ricotta, or Cream Cheese. That's what he says he'll do when it becomes a theocratic fascist.[41]Denaar (talk)03:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That someone has said something is a joke and has, like everyone alive on this planet, made jokes, does not mean they are being honest. The "theocratic fascist" claim appears in a number of academic books, so take up the issue with Routledge, I suppose[42][43], or academics[44]PARAKANYAA (talk)03:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't seriously believe that being a theocratic fascist implies anything at all about eating ranch dressing, mayo, ricotta, or cream cheese. As I said: If it's a joke, the fact that he's left it there despite knowing that some people are interpreting it as a serious self-description tells us that he doesn't care whether people misinterpret it.FactOrOpinion (talk)04:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He literally describes himself as a theocratic fascist. He is therefore indeed a self-described theocratic fascist. Our article onMatt Walsh says this without citing SPLC, and cites his response, and it seems it’s his response for which we are unable to find a solid source.His commentary is sometimes described by media outlets astrolling or provocation.[1][2][3][4] He labels himself a "theocraticfascist" in his Twitter biography,[5][6] which he said was an ironic response to an opponent using the label as an insult.[7][better source needed] In other words, other RSs suggest SPLC would indeed be factual if we cited them. Further, SPLC link to their primary source so you were able to verify yourself that they were telling the truth. Our own quote from him doesn’t in fact say it was a joke, but confirms it was his self-description:It does say in my Twitter bio that I'm a theocratic fascist, well because a few months ago someone sent me a message, trying to insult me, and the message said: 'hey, y'know, you should put theocratic fascist in your Twitter bio because that's what you are.' In fact, if we did actually cite SPLC here instead of him, we’d be able to note that he said it was a joke; they say:Walsh sometimes suggests his most extreme comments are satirical or in jest, as when he explained why he describes himself as a theocratic fascist. In other words, SPLC would be a better fact checking source thanBobFromBrockley (talk)04:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am withUser:MjolnirPants on reasons and argumentation behind this case. To start (and maybe even finish) with sources listed as a basis for questioning SPLC credibility, they are all biased, most are hardly well known and/or mainstream, and apart from Politico, most are right wing polemical outlets, including liberal mainstream but deeply flawed and, from liberal point of view, harshly criticized Atlantic. I would additionally point to arguments offered byUser:Jmabel, with whome I absolutely agree, especially on a matter of criteria and the fact that tracking hate (groups) is not based on empirical evidences so it's not a science, which means there is always risk to digress, for the margin of error. On the matter of usage, concerning atribution, I would repeatUser:Woodroar arguments in a post just above. Bottom line, I find SPLC reliable source that should be used with reason and thoughtfully in every individual referencing.--౪ Santa ౪99°17:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that the SPLC listed Maajid Nawaz and the Amana Colonies were placed on the SPLC hate list? Or that they complained about it? Both claims are well sourced. You can't just dismiss them by saying "everyone complaining is a right wing outlet." Plus, there is the assumption in your argument that it is perfectly OK to label something as a hate group if it is right wing -- no actual evidence required. If I made an article titledList of organizations designated by Infowars as commies, would you argue that the only people complaining are left wing groups targeted by Alex Jones? --Guy Macon (talk)18:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You were responding to "To start (and maybe even finish) with sources listed as a basis for questioning SPLC credibility, they are all biased". Neither of those two things are listed as sources.
And no, the Amana Colonies were never listed on the hate list as a hate group. Nawaz was never designated as a hate group either.
Well, if you're taking issue with the entity at issue in the case you bring up (the Daily Stormer), that openly denies the Holocaust, being deemed a hate group, then I don't think there's anything that would satisfy you here.
The Daily Stormer exists. The The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub in Amana Colonies Iowa does not. It is a fabrication of the SPLC. They have no source other than an anonymous post on the Daily Stormer message board (not the Daily Stormer itself, which never claimed that the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists, just someone posting a message.) That would be like us grabbing the next message from a new IP editor we see on Wikipedia and using that as evidence that whatever they claim must be true. --Guy Macon (talk)19:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what they said, at all. According to the sources thatyou linked, at no point did they claim that there was a discrete group called the "First Iowa Stormer Bookclub" but that followers of The Daily Stormer were located in Iowa. That is the locus of the whole dispute, it was the entry of The Daily Stormer, that is what you are challenging.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I too would concur that SPLC's assessments are overblown and exaggerated for financial gain (at best) or political gain (at worst). That doesn't mean they are wrong on everything or even a majority of their assessments, but the inclusion of some of these groups as "hate groups" is absurd and clearly politically motivated. Such opinions by ANY advocacy organization (left, right, or center) should be treated with a huge grain of salt and with attribution (at a minimum). I concur with Guy Macon's proposal.Buffs (talk)17:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a list of these groups that are listed by the SPLC as "hate groups" but which apparently obviously aren't. It would be enlightening to this discussion.Black Kite (talk)20:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Family Research Council is probably most prominent. Others include Moms for Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, Focus on the Family, Federation for American Immigration Reform, Quilliam, Center for Immigration Studies, The Ruth Institute, Moms for America, Liberty Counsel, Center for Security Policy, Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM), and many others...individuals too: Maajid Nawaz and Ben Carson are probably the most notable, but there are others like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Brigitte Gabriel, David Horowitz, Ryan Mauro, Walid Shoebat, and John Guandolo.Buffs (talk)00:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it is objectionable to describe theFamily Research Council, an organization that uses "anti-gay pseudoscience" to falsely conflate homosexuality and pedophilia' as a hate group.
Or theAlliance Defending Freedom which campaigns to criminalise being gay and considers homosexuality a threat to western society. Or theRuth Institute, whose speakers have compared gay marriage to Nazism, blamed homosexuality for the rise of Nazism, and directly link it to paedophilia. It seems reasonable for the SPLC to say that these groups have"beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." (The value to the reader is knowing that these are not regular research or expert organisations, despite how some of them may present themselves.) I'm struggling with these as examples of unreliability. Quilliam should not be on the list, as the SPLC withdrew that designation several years ago.OsFish (talk)05:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The SPLC withdrew that designation several years ago" That's an interesting characterization. the Southern Poverty Law Center listed Quilliam International and Maajid Nawaz in its SPLC Field Guide to Antimuslim Extremists. Nawaz objected, and for two years the SPLC refused to remove the entry. Then Nawaz filed a defamation lawsuit. The SPLC ended up paying out a $3.375 million settlement, admitting that it was wrong, and removing Nawaz and his organization from the list. --Guy Macon (talk)06:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I guessed that the FRC, who are an obvious hate group, would be mentioned. I didn't expect a number of other quite obvious ones to be listed as exceptions as well though!Black Kite (talk)11:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show where SPLC labeled Ali (or indeed any of these other individuals) a “hate group”? Pretty sure they didn’t. Or are you answering a question other than the one you were asked?BobFromBrockley (talk)04:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually upgrade them a bit from where we currently have them. When they say a group is a hate group, we should attribute that because that's the SPLC's opinion and not a matter of fact. But they're straight-out reliable for facts about the groups they cover and don't need to be attributed in that context.Loki (talk)18:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're straight-out reliable for facts about the groups they cover? They cover groups that don't exist, such as the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub in Amana Colonies Iowa. How is that reliable? --Guy Macon (talk)19:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think persistently pushing one of the very few major problems that the SPLC has had over and over again is really helping, to be honest. If we said thatany source that has fucked up in the last 50 years is not reliable, we wouldn't haveany long-standing RS.Black Kite (talk)19:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of the very few major problems that the SPLC has had? Ben Carson? Maajid Nawaz? The Family Research Council? All of these were highly prominent.Buffs (talk)00:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The “First Iowa Stormer Bookclub” is NOT a “major problem”. As shown above, (a) we don’t know it doesn’t exist, and (b) SPLC didn’t say it does exist. It’s at best aminor problem, but probably it’s nothing at all.BobFromBrockley (talk)04:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what they said, at all. According to the sources thatyou linked, at no point did they claim that there was a discrete group called the "First Iowa Stormer Bookclub" but that followers of The Daily Stormer were located in Iowa. That is the locus of the whole dispute, it was the entry of The Daily Stormer, that is what you are challenging.PARAKANYAA (talk)19:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The Amana Colonies is no longer designated as the home of the neo-Nazi group. The Southern Poverty Law Centerhad previously designated the historic settlement as the home of the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi and white supremacy news and commentary organization."[46] --Guy Macon (talk)20:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know that quote proves PARAKANYAA's point, right?
Yes. The Daily Stormer, which you have just acknowledged is real. Do you dispute that The Daily Stormer is a real group? The basic claim this whole discussion rests on is not true.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Daily Stormer exists. That doesn't prove that they met in Amana. Any further attempts to convince me that a group of individuals calling themselves the The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub met sometime in 2016 at a restaurant in the Amanas should be accompanied by a source other than the SPLC that makes that claim, or at the very least a source where the SPLC provides a shred of evidence other than anonymous posts on a Nazi message board. --Guy Macon (talk)03:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what the SPLC said, again. They said the Daily Stormer met up in Amanas. I see no reason to doubt this claim.
I don't, to be clear, think this is a reasonable objection. I think the Daily Stormer posts themselves are a reasonable primary source that this meeting occurred and so I'm not particularly inclined to try toWP:SATISFY you here. But also, local news directly says the meeting occurred. And they were able to identify the specific restaurant where it occurred, which the SPLC did not publicly name, so this appears to be independent reporting.Loki (talk)06:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think anonymous posts on a Nazi message board are not a reasonable primary source for anything, includingWP:ABOUTSELF claims. That doesn't mean SPLC is suddenlyWP:GUNREL or anything like that, but I really think that line of reasoning should go no further.Samuelshraga (talk)09:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so to be clear I don't mean on Wikipedia. We shouldn't be using primary sources in general anyway. I think it's reasonable for the SPLC or other news organizations to use them as their source that this meeting happened.Loki (talk)16:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is an anonymous post by someone who we only know as "Concerned Troll" (and can changed that user name at will) really a primary source? Its a self-published source with zero indication of who the self who did the publishing is. In todays world we don't even know if there is an actual person behind the post -- it might be an AI that posted a thousand comments using a thousand usernames today. So if an organization can only list a single anonymous self-published source as the sole reason to include a town on a hate list, how doesWP:WEIGHT allow us to have two standalone articles featuring the list? There really is value to the list -- many of those organizations are listed as hate groups by mutiple high-quality sources -- but right now we have no idea whether all of the organizations on the hate group list are actual hate groups. Or whether they are active where the SPLC claims they are. Or whether they exist at all. Perhaps we could replace the current lists with lists of organizations regarded as hate groups by sources thatdon't base inclusion on a single anonymous self-published source? --Guy Macon (talk)20:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've yet to provide evidence that they claimed they "can only list a single anonymous self-published source as the sole reason to include a town on a hate list," despite being asked.FactOrOpinion (talk)20:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a few anonymous posts by different accounts, though, not just the one.
But regardless, we at Wikipedia aren't in the business of second-guessing our sources' sources. We can't cite court documents directly here but we regularly cite sources that read and analyze court documents. We can't cite a petri dish directly but we regularly cite sources that analyze the contents of a petri dish. We don't do original research here but we rely heavily on sources that do.
A quick look at Google Scholar hits shows that a great many writers accept SPLC's hate group classification without question. A few challenge the definitions, but more simply attribute the results to SPLC to make sure that the reader knows the source. Wikipedia should continue to follow this middle path perWP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.Binksternet (talk)18:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the FRC has some really vile positions, but I am undecided as to whether they are an actual hate group. It is a reasonable conclusion, and not batshit insane like the listing of the Amanas and Maajid Nawaz.
From the CNN article:
Peter Montgomery, a blogger for the liberal think tank People for the American Way, said he backs the SPLC's designation. "If you ask me, 'Does the FRC promote hatred towards gays and lesbians?' I would say yes it does," he said. "The FRC is not the KKK. But that doesn't also mean they deserve a free ride from being called out on their hateful rhetoric."
Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry said the council is a mainstream, if very conservative, public policy shop - one of a multitude in Washington. "I'm not comfortable calling them a hate group," he said. "There's probably some things that have been said by one or two individuals that qualify as hate speech. But overall, it's not seen as a hate group," said Berry, who has written extensively about the influence of ideological and public policy groups in Washington.
On the website for "Truth Wins Out," which describes itself as a nonprofit "fighting anti-gay lies and the ex-gay myth," blogger Wayne Bessen wrote that the SPLC was "100% correct" in labeling the council as a hate group. "As someone who reads Perkins' anti-gay fundraising letters - make no mistake about it - this group loathes LGBT people with a special passion," he wrote.
In The Washington Post, columnist Dana Milbank wrote ""I disagree with the Family Research Council's views on gays and lesbians," he wrote Thursday. "But it's absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church."
Do you think a group that conflates pedophilia with homosexuality isnot a hate group?
Yeah, that they aren't in the same category of harmfulness as the KKK doesn't mean that every group less significant than the KKK is not a hate group.PARAKANYAA (talk)07:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They've beenvery specific on this subject:
"FRC has never said, and does not believe, that most homosexuals are child molesters. However, it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse. Homosexual activists argue that men who molest boys are not actually "homosexual;" but scholarly evidence undermines that claim. It also cannot be disputed that there is a sub-culture within the homosexual movement that advocates "intergenerational" sexual relationships. FRC's writings on this topic--unlike the SPLC's--have been carefully documented with references to the original scholarly literature."source
have been carefully documented with references to the original scholarly literature with the most recent research they choose to use being 40 years old, so it would seem they areseverely lacking in their understanding of the literature. And this is before we get into how the argument of "homosexuals are not inherently child molesters, they're just much more likely to be" is still homophobic nonsense, though it is indicative of their 40 year out-of-date research. --Cdjp1 (talk)09:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's an intentionally and unnecessarily inflammatory reading of the claim being made. A disagreement whether "men who molest boys are homosexual" (paraphrasing) is not the same as "homosexuals are not inherently child molesters, they're just much more likely to be". Just because the research is 40 years old doesn't mean it isn't invalid. Just because it is a "risk factor" doesn't mean it's a probability. A life of crime is often associated with fatherless homes. That means it's a risk factor. That doesn't mean that, just because you come from a fatherless home we should be wary of you because you're more likely to be a criminal. It DOES mean we should identify the correlative factors and do what we can socially to minimize the effects that lead to negative impacts. In the case of a lack of a father in the home, it could be to emphasize good, fatherly figures and engage in activities with positive male role models. In comparison, that same application could apply to saying that we should continue education efforts on safer sex practices and emphasizing the need for consent. That's not the same as vilifying the homosexual community or engaging in "homophobic nonsense".Buffs (talk)17:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is undisputed that the percentage of child sex abuse cases that are male-on-male is far higher than the percentage of adult males who are homosexual. This suggests that male homosexuality is a risk factor for child sexual abuse.
Absolute nonsense. The basic idea behind even making such a comparison is the assumption that how adults select willing adult sexual partners is the same thing as how child rapists choose victims. That isn't even true in addult rapes. See[47]:"The authors ranked accounts from 133 offenders and 92 victims for the dominant issue and found that the offenses could be categorized as power rape (sexuality used primarily to express power) or anger rape (use of sexuality to express anger). There were no rapes in which sex was the dominant issue; sexuality was always in the service of other, nonsexual needs." --Guy Macon (talk)17:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the definition of "hate group" that you are using, and how does it differ from the one used by the SPLC? Is the argument that targeting gay people for who they immutably are is not the same as targeting ethnic groups for who they immutably are? Also, as I pointed out above, Maajid Nawaz and the now defunctQuilliam are not currently listed as "hate groups" by the SPLC. That said, it's also worth pointing out that to characterise their original inclusion as "batshit" (ie it is completely beyond any reason and unfathomable to suggest animus towards the Muslim community) contradicts thethe views of published writers.This article, for example describes Quilliam's work thus:
Stereotypes of ‘Muslim rape gangs’ were greatly boosted by the Quilliam Foundation’s ‘grooming gangs’ report, source of the spurious but ubiquitous claim that ‘84% of grooming gang offenders’ are Asian. 62 Although framed as‘academic’ 63 and ‘evidence-based’, the report is shoddy pseudoscience.
So I'm really not sure what the point of mentioning them repeatedly when you yourself know the SPLC doesn't in any case list them as a hate group is supposed to achieve.OsFish (talk)07:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- you knew before you included Quilliam in that list that the SPLC currently does not list it as a hate group
- you described the SPLC's original designation as "batshit" ie that no reasonable person would say the same thing despite knowing that other experts had indeed said similar things
- you cite an article implying critics of Quilliam's 84% of grooming gangs are Asian claim might be wrong despite knowing it transpired that Quilliam's claims were indeed quite unfounded and that official figures showed something very different
So I really don't think the Quilliam case shows anything much. Nor am I impressed with arguments that targetting people for their sexuality is so clearly less hateful than targetting people for their ethnicity that the SPLC should be considered "unreliable". The idea that sexuality is a free personal moral choice is decidedly fringe, and shouldn't inform policy here.OsFish (talk)06:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil, avoid personal attacks. and assume good faith. First, I looked up the new info on Quilliam right before I posted it, not days earlier. Despite rumors to the contrary, I do not posses a time machine. Second, neither you or anyone else making the "The SPLC deleted it so it doesn't count" argument has established that it really doesn't count. If a source admits to an error and prints a correction or retraction, thatadds to the reliability of the source. If a source refuses to provide evidence for a claim, stands by it for years, and only deletes it when forced to do so by a defamation lawsuit where they also paid out millions of dollars, thatsubtracts from the reliability of that source.
Also, while targetting people for their sexuality and targetting people for their ethnicity is vile (as is targeting people for their political views), neither justifies inclusion in a list of anti-islam hate groups. One would have to target people for their religion for that. Getting the category right is what we would expect from a reliable source. Putting groups in the wrong category and then promenantly featuring that inclusion in fundraising messages is not. --Guy Macon (talk)15:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the SPLC does not include Quilliam as a hate group, it doesn't make sense to raise the issue of Quilliam at RSN. If the idea is to make ahistorical case of broad reliability against the SPLC about that one time, under legal threat, they withdrew a classification, then the whole history of that case is relevant, including whether or not it turned out Quilliam had actually produced bogus figures, and whether other experts would have considered Quilliam to be unfairly targeting an ethnic minorities. That is, the claim that it was "batshit" (ie crazy, unfathomable) to include Quilliam in the first place should be struck, given that other experts agreed, and were proved correct in the end about a significant controversy relating to this issue, and not through sheer luck but reasoned, evidenced argument. (I'm assuming here that "batshit" is being used to mean something other than an meaningless insult.)
As for the Family Research Council, they aren't listed as an anti-Islam hate group. Maybe you have confused issues?They are listed for their anti-LGBTQ policies. My point is, I don't see why being anti-LGBTQ rather than racist is a reason ipso facto not to consider a group a hate group - an argument put forward by the Washington Post columnist you cited. As others have pointed out, the FRC's views on the LGBTQ community are not exactly tame. I'd need to see actual experts in extremism explain why the difference matters.
All these objections to the SPLC seem to be OR based on an unstated definition of hate group that differs from the SPLC's definition, although it's not been made clear specifically how. The SPLC's definition seems reasonable to me. Could you explain, with sources, the problem you have with their definition?OsFish (talk)02:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the Quilliam paper, I don't recommend to click on Kirkegaard's site but to find another copy. The Guardian article is in the "comments is free" section, meaning that it's Malik's opinion. Still, it warns against making hasty generalizations or promoting panic, that there apparently are more claims and cherry picking than evidence, about most offenders being asian. I don't see a mention of the SPLC there.~2025-32692-02 (talk)09:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kenan Malik’s piece is indeed labelled opinion but he’s a well published author writing in an RS that fact checks opinion pieces and he cites the criminological literature in his piece. It’s certainly at least as robust as a Telegraph editorial.BobFromBrockley (talk)04:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(summoned by talk page message). SPLC is reliable for what it publishes: its opinions, which may be due if neutral reliable sources report that their opinion is relevant. They have recognised expertise in American racist groups, but outside of that niche their opinions don't seem to carry as much weight. Clearly they are a player, not a neutral referee, so their opinions should always be attributed. In general, we should put less focus on applying contentious labels to groups and more focus on providing encyclopedic content about those groups. The facts will speak for themselves.Barnards.tar.gz (talk)11:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with the consensus going against me. This isn't about "winning". That being said, certain arguments that have been made do not seem to align with Wikipedia' policies. (And of course, many do).
Can we at the very least agree that a self-published comment from Anonymous user "Concerned Troll" on a Nazi message board in not a reliable source for anything, and is not a primary source for the views of the owners of the Nazi message board?
Can we agree that even if a Wikipedia's editor does some original research and concludes that theremust have been more comments by other Nazis that we don't have any source for, that does not improve the reliability of the Concerned Troll comment?
Can we agree that any attributed claim in a secondary source that is clearly and explicitly labeled as being based only on a comment or comments on a Nazi message board are no more reliable that the original comment or comments?
Can we agree that a secondary source refusing to reveal any other source other than the Nazi comments when repeatedly asked to do so by government officials and a major newspaper should not be considered evidence that other sources exist?
Depends on what you mean. It's not a reliable primary source for Wikipedia purpose but mostly because primary sources are rarely reliable sources for us at all. It's a perfectly fine source for the SPLC itself and it's not our job to second guess our source's sources.
Irrelevant, because that's not what happened. A Wikipedia editor found secondary sources that say there were other comments.
No, absolutely not. That is directly against Wikipedia policy. We can't cite a petri dish but we can cite research based on observations of a petri dish, and similarly we can't cite anonymous forum posts but we can cite secondary sources based on anonymous forum posts. If you were right about thisBellingcat wouldn't be green at RSP.
Again, irrelevant. This is neither what happened nor would it matter if it had. The anonymous forum posts are a perfectly fine basis for the SPLC to say this even if they would not be for us. Expertise exists.
Basically, I think that this is a clear case ofWP:ONEAGAINSTMANY and am thus going to quote your own words back at you:
In a "one-against-many" dispute, you (as the one) might be upholding a Wikipedia policy or guideline against a majority that isn't following policy. If this is the case, the one prevails over the many.
The problem is that for every case where the one is upholding policy, there are at least a hundred cases where they only think they are. The newer you are, the more likely it is that you are wrong about this. Having more than one or two editors who all misunderstand Wikipedia policy doesn't happen very often, and having some uninvolved third party look at the page and make the same error almost never happens.
If you are absolutely sure that there is a Wikipedia policy being broken by multiple editors on a page, and you can quote the exact wording of the policy being violated, get another opinion. dispute resolution is a good place to start. If as a result of dispute resolution a previously uninvolved third party says that no policy has been broken, it is probably time to face the fact that the policy doesn't say what you think it says.
(Warning: This comment is entirely tangential to the topic here.)
While those are good words to quote, I think Guy missed an important caveat when he first wrote them.
There may indeed be a situation in which one editor is upholding policy against a majority who are not and does not (andshould not) prevail, and that is one of thoseWP:IAR situations which merits a subsequent update of the policy (and which usually results in such). I would also point out that this is one of the more common mechanisms by which policy has changed over time.
Can we agree that any attributed claim in a secondary source that is clearly and explicitly labeled as being based only on a comment or comments on a Nazi message board are no more reliable that the original comment or comments? - no, we absolutely cannot agree on that. Your statement here is honestly shockingly wrong coming from an experienced editor. We cannot cite a random man on the street; but we can cite a secondary source interviewing a random man on the street. To a certain extent, using theirreputation for fact-checking and accuracy to perform research on primary sources like forum postings is the whole purpose of secondary sources; in cases like that only the reliability of theproximate source matters. Without that we could never cite anything at all, because all sources could be traced back to research done by someone. And your misinterpretation of policy here allows people to use OR to second-guess any source they disagree with - you could constantly go "yes, this article says X, buttheir evidence isn't good enough, is it?" Is your argument that we could never cover message board postings regardless of the quality of the source covering it, because "well it's just message board postings?" Not how it works; the proximate source is what matters. In any case, nothing has changed since the recent RFC, and most of the objections above (including this one!) essentially consist of people saying they disagree with specific things the SPLC has said, which is not an RS criteria. The SPLC is still widely-trusted and used as a gold-standard source for hate groups in academia; nothing you're saying really challenges or changes that. --Aquillion (talk)15:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Walsh, Matt (April 3, 2019).Fine, I Am A Theocratic Fascist.YouTube. DailyWire+. RetrievedDecember 10, 2022.It does say in my Twitter bio that I'm a theocratic fascist, well because a few months ago someone sent me a message, trying to insult me, and the message said: 'hey, y'know, you should put theocratic fascist in your Twitter bio because that's what you are.'
New York Post, apply a warning/notice when attempting to add it as a source?
The New York Post is cited over 12,000 times despite being considered unreliable in most circumstances, many of the uses post-date the RFC finding it unreliable and many are in BLPs. I don't suggest blacklisting but I believe an edit notice warning editors about using it as a source could be helpful in getting editors to become aware about the source's issues and looking for another source instead. There is already one for the Daily Mail.Traumnovelle (talk)21:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the OP didn't point to any examples of nypost.com cites, I look a sample myself by googlingsite:en.wikipedia.org "nypost.com". The first ten articles wereNew York PostPhil Mushnick (a sports columnist for the New York Post)Steve Cuozzo (an op-ed contributor for the New York Post)Peter Hadhazy (American football executive)TridentNew York Red Bulls (a soccer club)Fiona Hill (presidential advisor)Vincent Musetto (film critic for the New York Post)Oswaldo Cabrera (baseball player)The Knot Worldwide (wedding-planner tools). Eight are about New York Post itself or about sports, one is about a museum piece, one is a repost of reuters, zero look problematic to me and presumably didn't look problematic to the editors who added the cites and whom the OP didn't ping. Count me among the editors who will who go on doing our own evaluations of such sources despite being treated as children who need special warnings.Peter Gulutzan (talk)20:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would functionally mean deprecation; its current RSP guideline probably justifies this, honestly (A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication - intentional fabrication being part of the dividing line between unreliable and deprecated (the other, I think, is that it has to have people who keep trying to use it regardless of its unreliability.) Going over its usages, it is usedfour thousand times in articles about living people, 1/4th of all usages. These include, at a glance, many usages that are trivially unacceptable:
Political positions regardingChuck Schumer, with an obviously BLP-sensitive framing.
Cited alongside other sources for the politics ofElon Musk, again an obviously BLP-sensitive claim
Usedunattributed for obviously BLP-sensitive accusations onNancy Pelosi.
Describing a named individual's struggles with with mental health onJustin Bieber (the framing is positive but this is still obviously BLP-sensitive.)
Describing someone as sympathetic toJohnny Depp during his trial against his ex-wife.
Describing howCardi B started her career sellingsexual wellness products.
Used unattributed as a source for someone's sexuality onCher, albeit not as the only source.
Used as the proximate source to state thatBilly Joel attempted suicide twice, although it's stated to be summarizing another source.
Used to name and describe the alleged attacker against50 Cent (the attacker doesn't fall under BLP, having died shortly afterwards, but using the NYP unattributed to say say that someone is the alleged perpetrator of a crime is egregious enough that I figured I should include it.)
It's honestly worse than I expected. That was the overwhelming majority of BLP usages that I examined, and even the ones I didn't mention leaned towards unacceptable (eg. onAndrew Cuomo it's used for his politics and as one of the sources to state his career is over.) This is just not the sort of thing aWP:GUNREL source should be used for; this is exactly the sort of BLP-sensitive celebrity-gossip nonsense that contributed to its determination of unreliability in the first place. I think we ought to move it to full deprecation. The thing about unreliable tabloid sources like these is that, while, yes, people can in theory find uncontroversial things to cite them for, the very things peoplewant to cite them for - the stuff where we can't trivially find another source, where it didn't just happen to be the first search result for something uncontroversial - tends to be the very places where they can't be used. --Aquillion (talk)16:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source is considered reliable in some circumstances, though, which does not match deprecated which says sources that are never going to be useful forany topic. Our current consensus on the NYPost, which I would stand by, is that it does not, as perWP:DEPRECATE, "fail the reliable sources guideline innearly all circumstances".PARAKANYAA (talk)18:05, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph repeating a hoax from Tucker Carlson
The Telegraph writes that the attempted Trump assassin may be non-binary, because one of his purported accounts onDeviantArt had "they/them" pronouns listed. They also implied that having an account on DeviantArt means he may be a furry.Pretty similar to theDaily Mail write-up.
A few problems with this story though:
Firstly, the source isan investigation done by Tucker Carlson of all people. TLDR, a FOI request led to a phone number which led to an email which led to various online accounts. I think the first published article to connect this investigation to the DeviantArt pronouns isthis NYPost op-ed.
And, most importantly, asNosam555pointed out,DeviantArt by default lists your pronouns as "they/them" unless you choose to change them. All having "they/them" listed on DeviantArt means is that you couldn't be bothered setting pronouns. Of course, they do not mention this.
Pretty shameful stuff, following some pretty rapidly declining quality of their reporting. I really don't see how we can in good conscience continue to considerThe Telegraph generally reliable.Endwise (talk)10:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is normal transphobia for the Telegraph, hence its yellow note at RSP as mentioned above. The last time we discussed its overall reliability in the light of this type of story we found that a number of editors thought this was not a disqualifying trait for a newspaper; your mileage may vary.Black Kite (talk)11:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, The Telegraph does report details on transgender events that most other pubs don’t bother to, which does make it useful for capturing specifics - so long as you use it for its facts and not its perspectiveSnokalok (talk)14:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This goes beyond their “normal transphobia” for which they are rightly yellow listed but speaks to deeper problem with their journalistic integrity if they’re treating Tucker Carlson as a reliable source. I agree they should be downgraded on anything related to any culture war topic.BobFromBrockley (talk)05:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is OR at best.
The first problem is not a problem at all, unless all right-leaning figures are presumed liars by default.
The second problem has a much more benign explanation: since the he/him account (with a different birthday also) has been deactivated since then, it probably did not belong to Crooks (who was shot dead on the day of the assassination attempt). Even if this was not the case, the greenest of green RSes make omissions of this magnitude on a daily basis (edited for clarity, they would say). Same with the furry thing: in the media generally, the worst, most bad-faith guilt by association imaginable always seems to come into play when describing right-leaning figures; this kinda seems to mirror that.
The caveat with the third problem is you would need to prove that this was also how DeviantArt worked 5 years ago, when the account was created. And even then, "All having "they/them" listed on DeviantArt means is that you couldn't be bothered setting pronouns." would not be a true statement.
You surely aren't unaware of whoTucker Carlson is, are you? Our own page on him - working under the stricter constraints of BLP policy - has lots of details of him promoting false information and conspiracy theories, and not hidden away either. It's very odd to suggest that instead of all that, the issue might be that he is "right leaning".OsFish (talk)06:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PerWP:BIASED "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."
The Telegraph is reporting on something newsworthy and disclosing that it may not be trustworthy. They aren't staking their reputation on it. This article falls underWP:RSBREAKING, with "distrust... reports attributed to other news media." This kind of breaking news report is standard, unfortunately. The issue isn't "bias" but breaking news. News outlets pick up stories and repeat them.
Let's look at an a left-leaning example, I'm picking something really far-out there. Here is an article by Pink News that reports that Charlie Kirk and his Wife are trans.[52] Well, actually it's a news reports about social media uses speculating they might be trans. We could look at our reliable sources and say "but Pink News is reliable for reporting on people's identities" except - if you read this report, that's not what they are doing. They aren't claiming Kirk and his wife are trans, they are reporting that people on social media posted they might be. It's really important to make the distinction when reviewing a source, we shouldn't put in Wikivoice "Charlie Kirk is trans" but "Online netizens discussed the possibility..." and that point we get intoWP:NOT - Wikipedia is not for celebrity gossip, it would be inappropriate to include.
The first one is probably more news worthy (speculation, potential if unproven evidence about an attempted assassin), while the second article is pure gossip. But despite being a gossip rag, it's still considered "generally reliable" as they are being forth coming in what their source is, allowing us to make our own judgments about it. Nothing in that first article makes me think the Telegraph isn't reliable, because they are transparent about what they reporting and their sources. However, I'd say the evidence they provide that the shooter is nonbinary is at the level of gossip, and wouldn't include it in an article.Denaar (talk)14:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with @Denaar. This is obviously over-sensationalizedculture war andclickbait, but I don't think that's enough to exclude them from beingreliable in every sense. If they stated as a definitive statement that they werenon-binary, or even if they didn't but this type of article could have seriously damaged this person's reputation, then that would've been a different case.Wikieditor662 (talk)05:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One incident doesn't generally change a source's general reliability unless it has sufficiently heavy secondary coverage to demonstrate that it's changed their reputation, but this sort of thing is certainly in keeping with the poor reputation on trans topics that got them a yellow rating in the past. In any case per their controversial status in the previous RFC they generally shouldn't be used for BLP-sensitive or exceptional stuff on trans issues anyway. --Aquillion (talk)16:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of substance to this article, and I understand the criticism of itbut there's nothing in this article that impacts on the Telegraph's reliability. The Telegraph doesn't actually say that Crooks was non-binary, or a furry, or whatever else. It's all either "reportedly" or "seemed" or "may have", or attributing the claims to Tucker Carlson or the New York Post. That means we can't use any of those statements, because perWP:V, we can only include material directly supported by the source.
On other arguments made above for downgrading, I don't ascribe any reliability to Carlson but if we disqualified outlets for basing reporting on unreliable sources, RSP would be a red wall. High qualityWP:NEWSORGs routinely publish articles based on things said by activists or random people on twitter. It's also the case that "Tucker Carlson said it" is not actually evidence that a claim is false, it's just insufficient evidence that a claim is true. No evidence of a false claim has been provided here. Downgrading a newspaper of record based on an article because of misleading implications, but no actual false statements, is another standard which if applied consistently would knock out all of our frequently used sources.Samuelshraga (talk)20:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it will be prudent to review theTelegraph as a source after its never-ending sale process, because I do wonder how much of its recent shift towards frankly questionable but attention-seeking reporting is due to wanting to embellish its value to potential buyers for whatused to be considered the "Thinking Tory's Paper". Just this week it had a front page substory entitled "did the BBC cause Diana's death?" (which was in fact a frankly puff-piece book review) which is the sort of trash-tier reporting that made theDaily Express a joke in the 2000s (it was infamous for always having a story aboutPrincess Diana).
The Telegraph article seems to be reliably reporting that a controversial source has made a claim on a controversial subject. There doesn't seem to be any reliable source claiming that there is a hoax. Maybe the claim is unconvincing, but that's a personal opinion. This is not an issue of reliability.Barnards.tar.gz (talk)12:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
LUGSTUBS (March 2023, nb. that referencing only to Olympedia was one of the del. criteria and the motion passed, also note the discussion of the incorrect biographical details for Alexander/Arthur Martin)
Option 5 (orOption 4 for biographical data in any event, andprimary) - I don't doubt that the sport-statistics carried on Olympedia are generally accurate since they appear to come directly from official sources, but it would always be better just to cite those sources directly. This is also clearly a sport-reference-type source (indeed, it *WAS* part of Sports-reference.com) that doesn't indicate notability due to its wide-sweeping nature perWP:SPORTBASIC. When it comes to the biographical data, over the years I've seen a lot of mistakes in this whichI've listed here. Asthis Swimming World piece notes, a lot of this biographical information appears to come from either the families of the athletes, or from the research of the hobbyist volunteers who run the website, and they do not cite the sources they get their information from making its reliability dubious. Some (the majority?) of these hobbyists are also active as editors on WP and I don't see why their contributions on Olympedia should be treated as any more reliable than it would be if it was entered as uncited OR here.Olympedia lacks a clear editorial policy, but also clearly solicits contributions from amateurs and again notes that a lot of their information comes from the Olympians themselves or their family members. A lot of emphasis is often placed on Bill Mallon and Jeroen Heijmans having set up Olympedia, but these people are self-described amateurs/hobbyists and, even if they weren't, there is no sign that these people write or edit all or even most of the content on Olympedia. The lack of independence from the IOC is now also undeniable given their business relationship.
The primary nature of this source is demonstrated in the way they repeatedly just relay incorrect data (e.g., the recent case ofDragan Kusmuk, who they describe asDragomir Kusmuk because that's how his name was incorrectly listed by the IOC, one of many, many such cases). If this was really a reliable secondary source, there would be some degree of fact-checking on this and comparison with other sources where his name was correctly listed.FOARP (talk)11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, goodness knows I have no love for the IOC, but Dragan isn't exactly an uncommon nickname for people with the first name Dragomir; I'm curious as to how you decided that was an error on Olympedia's part as opposed to somebody registering & competing under a legal name, but later sources using a common name/preferred name?GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸10:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you check the previous RSN conversation or maybe it's the AfD, someone noted that the official IOC documents gave his name as Dragomir, as did the news reports listing the results of the Olympics.Katzrockso (talk)10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian It was thisAfD (still ongoing). The original reports from the Olympic Committee reported his name as Dragomir. Unclear if there was perhaps a mistranscription of the Cyrillic or perhaps a nickname like you suggested, but it's hard to fault Olympedia from originally having the same spelling of a new as the literal official Olympics did. For all we know they could have a policy for naming that just reflects what original Olympic documentation states, just like Wikipedia has a more idiosyncratic policy on article titles and naming.Katzrockso (talk)10:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Katzrockso I think you might be onto something with the naming scheme - looking at their other entries, though they note the name change, they haveBalian Buschbaum asYvonne Buschbaum andHeinrich Ratjen asDora Ratjen. These are the names they competed under, but they aren't their common names or legal names (as far as I know).A blanket policy like this makes sense - it's not going to be practical, or even wise, for Olympedia to track whether former Olympians have legally changed their name or adopted a new on. For example, a female athlete might change her name upon marriage for cultural/practical reasons, but want to keep her professional credentials associated with the name she is known by - and therefore won't publicize the name change. (And will view trying to give the credit to their husband's name as incredibly offensive). On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I'd imagine women likeRobina Muqimyar are doing all they can to stay under the radar now.So are they errors? We often write about people under the name they used at the time.Barbara Bush, currently an FA, calls her "Pierce" until her marriage, and we often use "Folsom' forFrances Cleveland. I agree it's hardly fair to fault Olympedia for doing the same thing.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸11:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Describing the people who run the site as mere "hobbyists" is a very, very inaccurate label. As has beenexplained to you already by historianBill Mallon himself, the group is composed of ~25-30 members of the International Society of Olympic Historians who are academics, published experts, former Olympians and historians. Mallon himself, who has writtendozens of published historical books on the history of the Olympics, and received numerous honors for being one of the preeminent Olympic historians, performs most of the statistical updates. Forany biographical changes, the site has anextensive, week-long peer-review process in which all 30 historians and experts are required to review the biographical data, several others are required to edit it, and Mallon reviews and edits the final version. That is an insanely thorough peer-review process among historians that I doubt the vast majority of reliable sources even approach for their content. Olympedia is clearly reliable. And I'll add that many of the tiny "errors" list (12 out of probably 1 million+ pages) mentioned by FOARP are not actually errors, such as him deciding himself that Olympedia is wrong since we weren't able to find any further sources under the name they gave for a pre-internet athlete, or them (accurately) having the maiden name of a female athlete which she competed under and FOARP deciding that that's an "error" since she later married and changed her name.BeanieFan11 (talk)16:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Mallon would appear not to be an indendent source on the topic and the International Society of Olympic Historians is an amateur association not a professional one (you and I are both welcome to join it tomorrow despite having no higher qualification than a bank account). Which would make sense because Bill Mallon is an amateur historian not a professional one, he doesn't actually meet the standard for subject matter expert on wiki... Unless I'm missing something none of his work has been published by academic presses.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he doesn't actually meet the standard for subject matter expert on wiki ... none of his work has been published by academic presses Mallon isvery clearly an expert. Policy states that someone is an expert if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Are you suggesting thatMcFarland & Company,The Globe Pequot Publishing Group,Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, andSaunders are all not "reliable publications"? As all of them have published his many books.BeanieFan11 (talk)19:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No those are not in context reliable publications, those are mass market presses. I also think you're mixing his publishing in medicine with his publishing on Olympic history, the only Saunders book I see is "Ernest Amory Codman - The End Result of a Life in Medicine"Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take the emotions down a notch, there is no reason to be getting worked up here. Those are mass market presses (Scarecrow was stripped by Globe Pequot to just its name and eventually not even that) and you do appear to be conflating his publishing on multiple topics. Work with me here, show me a peer reviewed article in a university journal or something like that.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources describing Scarecrow Press as some unreliable "mass market press"? From all the descriptions I can find of them, they're academic and scholarly.BeanieFan11 (talk)20:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said it was published by The Globe Pequot, an imprint is not a publisher its just a trade name. It also seems like you're picking one little thing to focus on while ignoring almost everything else, for example whether or not you're conflating his publishing on multiple topics. Remember he can published by both of those presses and be neither an academic or a scholar but simply an adult non-fiction writer.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His sports books were published by Globe Pequot/Scarecrow Press and McFarland, while his medical books appear to be published by Wilkins and Saunders. I still don't see why Globe Pequot/Scarecrow Press is unreliable?BeanieFan11 (talk)20:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally reliable for sports stats like Olympics results, dates, etc. Plus this source has been used in academic research and sports media. And the IOC's Olympic Studies Centre promoted it as a reliable resource for Olympic info.Frankserafini87 (talk)05:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 or 5 I find the arguments that this source is unreliable to be compelling but the formatting is throwing me a bit here preventing me from arriving at a clean numbered !vote. From their about page[53] it really is a more hobbyist group even if there are some professional participants. Note that theInternational Society of Olympic Historians is an amateur association, not a professional one... There is no membership qualification other than the ability to sign a check. There are also real questions about Olympedia's independence from the IOC, they seem to have had a very real if complicated relationship which ended in the freezing of the site.Horse Eye's Back (talk)19:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification, it would then unambiguously appear to be "Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)." however else we find about its reliability... So I will repeat my confusion/frustration with the formatting of the question.Horse Eye's Back (talk)20:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think its too late for any changes, lets just go from here. I think in general we agree that this source is probably fine for statistics supplied by the IOC but less than awesome for non-statistical information. On the statistics side I also don't see why we wouldn't just use the IOC's stats directly if Olympedia is just copying them without any edits, but thats more a due weight question.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the issue with the formatting of the options is that you have made it unclear what to select if one believes that the source is both non-independent AND generally unreliable. The former is Option 5, but the latter would be Option 4.~2025-34572-30 (talk)03:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the horse has already rather bolted on that one, for which please accept my apologies, but you can simply just state that in your !vote if it is your view.FOARP (talk)09:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. I don't see any reason this wouldn't be reliable. If we were to downrank a source for getting the names of a handful of people out of thousands wrong I we would not have any sources. Also, some of those don't even seem to be wrong? Generally reliable is not infalliable.PARAKANYAA (talk)21:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably we're going to be using them for a source on the Olympics, which is entirely controlled by the IOC. There is no indepedence issue which would apply to the IOC but not the Olympics in this context, there is no Olympics independent of the IOC unless we're talking about really really old ones.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to me that's like saying that any study that receives a grant from any major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from the governmental healthcare body and so cannot be trusted on healthcare. There can be no source on the Olympics that is 'independent' in this context, even the news, but that's clearly not what we mean byWP:INDEPENDENT. They seem to have editorial independence.PARAKANYAA (talk)00:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They would appear to receive 100% of their funding from the IOC... And any study that receives a grant from a major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from that governmental healthcare body but it stops there, there is no wider "cannot be trusted on healthcare." WP:INDEPENDENT instructs us to ask "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" and the answer here is clearly "closely affiliated with the subject" when it comes to the Olympics.Horse Eye's Back (talk)00:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of academic studies and sources that are 100% government funded and yet completely independent of the government. What matters is if their editorial decision making is independent of the funding they receive, which I see no reason to suggest otherwise for this source.Katzrockso (talk)01:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section begins: "An independent source is a source that hasno vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (e.g., advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic."Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, would it not be the case that any sports network (or hell, probably any news network big enough to have a sports division) was non-independent, e.g. ESPN, since that has a "financial or legal relationship to the topic"? They're not financially isolated from the topics they cover.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. If they have a broadcast relationship with the league their coverage can't be considered independent for wiki purposes. Remember that there are still plenty of uses for non-independent sources, it isn't like they can't be used they just have some stipulations that come with them.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with that. Banning all news coverage from contributing to sportsperson notability would be ridiculous, and is not what I get from my reading of the independent sourcing guidelines.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, leagues and teams generally have exclusive or regionally broadcast relationships. Thats already how its written and broadcast relationships are both legal and financial. They come with non-disparagement and promotional agreements. See for exampleOlympics on NBC.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to type "financial interest" (WP:ISS "no vested interest [...] "develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic"). And according to what?PARAKANYAA (talk)02:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the idea that "any study that receives a grant from a major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from that governmental healthcare body", at least if you're exceptinghealthcare. They cannot be divorced unless you can also divorce IOC the company from the broad cultural event that is the Olympics.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on if they have editorial review and the nature of their coverage. I would not call them independent from the NFL's company workings but specific players and games, perhaps.PARAKANYAA (talk)01:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way its written they need both editorial independence and a lack of conflicts of interest/vested interests. A financial relationship is clearly laid out as counting as a vested interest. See above.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I am saying that a publication funded by the IOC with editorial independence would be independent from the people who have competed.PARAKANYAA (talk)02:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would not count as independent coverage of anything those people did at the Olympics or awards awarded by the IOC or constituent organizations. Everything else would be on a sliding scale of how related to the Olympics it was. It would never count for notability.Horse Eye's Back (talk)02:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that, but I've never seen a description there longer than a paragraph or two, so it's not going to count for notability anyway?PARAKANYAA (talk)02:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 and a primary source It is good for statistical data, since it's from the IOC itself, but that's where the buck stops. It's also a primary source for said data, so doesn't contribute to notability in any way. In short, for everything else like biographical and personal info, get some better sources. If you don't have anything else, then sorry, but your person is not notable. My question that honestly has felt relevant for years is: why is the sourcing for sports subjects so terrible all the time?SilverserenC01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 and a primary source: I find the arguments by Silverseren and Horse Eye's Back to be compelling. I would also very much not have to go through so muchWP:BLUDGEONING; I find fifteen comments in one RfC to be excessive. Let someone else get a word in, please. Finally, this is Yet Another Example of an RfC that would have benefited greatly from a pre-RfC discussion about what questions to ask and what options to include. Perhaps we can work that a bit more deeply into the guidance for RfC authors? --Guy Macon (talk)04:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 6 /Option 1: The source is generally reliable. 12 cherrypicked incidents of largely misspelled names is hardly a evidence of inaccuracy when it comes to biographical details. So truly there are 2 examples of errors in biographical data, which amounts to "generally reliable" when it comes to biographical details. I think it's obvious the source is reliable for sports statistics data as well (seeWP:USEBYOTHERS in e.g.[54][55]). This source is obviously not independent of the IOC in the strict sense, as it has a contract with the IOC. So consequently, it can't be used to establish notability on things like e.g.International Olympic Committee. However, this does not mean that the source is non-independent of any Olympic athlete.Katzrockso (talk)09:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it is absurd to claim that this is a primary source - compiling information from news reports by definition makes it not a primary source. Maybe a mix of secondary and tertiary source would be the best designation.
The examples of errors in biographical data listed include an error that is now corrected. I didn't think we here atWP:RSN called sources unreliable for errors that were corrected - that's literally a sign of editorial policy in action working. Other than that, precisely no evidence has been offered to suggest even the slightest bit of unreliability for their biographical information, so it seems like it's all based on feels or something. I find a group of historians (which getWP:USEBYOTHERS: search Bill Mallon's name on Google and you'll find him being cited byThe New York Times,ESPN, etc for claims about Olympic history) is generally reliable for this type of information.Katzrockso (talk)10:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5, which, to my mind, is a special species ofOption 2 (additional considerations apply). Compendia such as this do often rely on information from family (per FOARP), and probably sometimes the subjects themselves, and as they don't cite sources, we are left placing trust in what is collated. That this method generally produces information that is broadly true is certainly the case, as is the case for Who's Who (any version). Like Who's Who, the issue isn't so much that there are errors, but that this collation is therefore akin to a self published source. There is no clear biographical research and editorial process. Unlike Who's Who, I am not convinced the issues are so serious as to go straight to option 4, especially since the stats are taken, largely without synthesis, directly from the primary source. But there needs to be a suitable caution, particularly about the biographical information. And to forestall the obvious objection to possible loose wording on my part: I am not saying itis a self published source. Rather, the issue is that the independence of the biographical information is unclear, and there is no clarity that there is any suitable editorial process that addresses this. There should be better sources (and if there are not, the subject is not notable anyway).Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)09:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 (or, at the very least, Option 4 for biographical information) With a heavy reliance on self-proclaimed experts, multiple examples of inaccurate information being published (such as the Frank English case) and a lack of a clear editorial policy, we should not be using this for anything other than pure sports-statistics data. While uncited, [[56]] is also another example of how this source has published numerous inaccuracies.Let'srun (talk)18:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is an error that has since been corrected being held as "inaccurate information being published"? The entire list of "multiple examples of inaccurate information being published" are names discrepancies (plausibly explained by reliance on official Olympic reports) and things that have since been fixed or are accurate.
@FOARP why did you evaluate Alexander Cudmore as being in the "wrong regiment"? His veteran headstone application from 1945 lists him as a private in Company K in the 6th Infantry.Katzrockso (talk)23:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Frank English was fixedin response to our AFD. Do we typically rely on sites that use Wikipedia to fact-check them? No.
2) Their site says that heserved in Europe with the 6th. He may well have served with the 6th, but it wasn't the 6th that deployed to Europe in WW1, it was the 140th Infantry, which was formed by merging the 6th with the 3rd.FOARP (talk)15:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they fixed an error that was first spotted at Wikipedia doesn't mean they're unreliable, and further,worthy of deprecation – an extraordinary measure that only the very worst of all sources receive. Whether his 6th regiment was known under the title of "140th Infantry" in Europe or not is such a very, very minor detail. The outright deprecation of animmensely helpful, expert-run source with hundreds of thousands of entirely correct entriesjust for that and, at most, 10 other similar, extremely minor alleged "mistakes" (many of which aren't actually mistakes), would be one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen at Wikipedia.BeanieFan11 (talk)19:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm atoption 3. There aren't grounds to deprecate it. Deprecation is an extraordinary measure that we use for sources that are reckless or flagrant in their disregard for accuracy. The OlyMADmen, whoever they might be, are not that; they care about details that no other source cares about, and they're completionist. They're not out to gather clicks regardless of the truth. Option 4 is as unjustified as option 1 is. But it certainly doesn't meet my personal reliability threshold for biographies and shouldn't be used in them.—S MarshallT/C23:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the opinions of those voting above for options 5 and 4. I agree with their assessment as to why this source should be deprecated as unreliable. I've also caught occasional errors over the years of editing and interacting with that source. Best.4meter4 (talk)20:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the "occasional error" in an expert-run source with hundreds of thousands of entirely accurate entries warrantdeprecation, an extreme measure reserved for only the worst sources that areso terribly inaccurate that they are never to be used?BeanieFan11 (talk)21:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that was my only reason. It's only one contributing factor ofmany. See the reasons given above by others which I agree with. Green Lipstick Lesbian in particular said it well. I don't need to say anything more than my thinking is the same.4meter4 (talk)23:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I see ~10 "errors" which mainly aren't errors given as a reason. Then I see, as a reason, FOARP declaring that some of the information comes from the subjects themselves (who, naturally, would be the most knowledgeable for information on themselves), that its run by "hobbyists" (who also happen to be some of the world's most prominent experts on the subjects), that they "lack a clear editorial policy" (which is a completely false statement asBill Mallondirectly detailed to FOARP an incredibly extensive process that involves a week of review among 30 historians and academics to makeany change to the site), and that there is "no sign that [Mallon] write[s] or edit[s] all or even most of the content on Olympedia" (also untrue as Mallon told FOARP directly that he is involved in the vast majority of statistical edits and all biographical edits), and that it is a "terrible source". Am I missing anything? What did GreenLipstickLesbian say that indicates Olympedia is unreliable?BeanieFan11 (talk)23:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this is meant to be a survey of opinions not an inquisition. You don't need toWP:BLUDGEON the process by rehashing points we can all read. Other editors may reach different conclusions and find different arguments more persuasive than others than yourself. We should all be able to participate without the diatribe. I don't want to comment more other than to say that I find the opinions of editors above arguing for options 4 and 5 to be persuasive, and I agree with those opinions. I'm not going to change my mind.4meter4 (talk)01:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Olympedia is generally reliable. It satisfiesWP:USEBYOTHERS as shown by Katzrockso. Bill Mallon is an acknowledged expert in Olympic history. Although Olympedia contains some inaccuracies, this is inevitable for any source of such volume. It is receptive to criticism and willing to correct its entries, which is a sign of a high-quality source.Kelob2678 (talk)10:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 A quick glance at the website's about section states that the people who created it are dedicated historians, meaning that the vast majority of them, or at least enough so that contributions by the others can be thoroughly vetted, have the knowledge to make a reliable depository. There could be certain areas where the reliability could be placed under scrutiny, but overall it seems to work fine.interstatefive22:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opening of this RFC was prompted bythis story in Swimming World Magazine discussing the IOC's renewal of their lapsed contract with Olympedia. Particularly it repeatedly describes the people who run Olympedia as being hobbyists engaged in a "hobby", and it is obvious that they are at the very least in a business relationship with the IOC.FOARP (talk)11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the general reliability of the sports statistics is not controversial, I think they should probably be excluded from the RFC. From skimming the previous discussions, the main open questions seem to be how reliable the biographic content is and to what extent it can establish notability. If there hasn't already been a pre-RFC discussion, would you be open to changing the format of the question? —Rutebega (talk)16:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The biographical data and the independence issue, yes. The pre-RFC discussion are all of the discussions linked (and many more on AFD). What format do you propose?FOARP (talk)16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This horse may have already left the barn, which is OK, but I would have suggested something like:
Question 1: is Olympedia areliable source for biographic details other than sports statistics?
This would allow everyone to separate their answers (as you have in your preferred option) or answer only one or the other. People can also !vote "sometimes" or "it depends" (with explanation), which the closer can consider appropriately. There are no options unlikely to be supported by anyone, and nobody has to explain their second or third preferred option.
This is only a valid formulation in cases where the two related questions are not contingent on one another. I think this is such a case, because a source could reasonably be reliable but not independentor independent but not reliable, so there is no chance of a consensus outcome that contradicts itself. If the questions are contingent, an alternative is to provide options that answer both, but only with combinations that are coherent. As a more generalized example, this could look like:
Option A: Generally reliable
Option B: Generally unreliable
Option C: Generally unreliable and deprecate
but not
Option D: Generally reliable and deprecate
As an aside, I think it's also important to clearly distinguish between interpreting policy and interpreting consensus. With a few exceptions (notablyWP:DRV), participants in a discussion shouldn't be asked to gauge consensus, only to assess proposals on their merits, in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. RfCs should not generally ask"is there consensus for...", as this is a question only the closer can answer (consensus can change, after all). Likewise, if an overwhelming majority of participants wind up pickingno consensus, you could have a nasty paradox on your hands. When necessary, just leave an option forno change or similar. The distinction matters substantively because deferring to existing consensus over new analysis undermines the current discussion and unduly privileges the status quo.
This is just my proposed approach to drafting an RfC aimed at being easily understandable and yielding a clear, useful consensus moving forward (as well as being brief and neutral as all RfCs must be). I'm open to any feedback even if it doesn't influence or pertain to this particular RfC. —Rutebega (talk)21:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I've used Olympedia as a source was onChris Chan, to provide citations for his birthdate and an Olympic award he received. Do opponents of this website also oppose it being used to cite birthdates and awards received? ―Howard •🌽3318:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bit of scattered debate about these three sources, from myself included, with some labelling these areWP:SYNTH orWP:SPS in the case of FlightsFrom. I have to admit, the waters are getting muddied every time the arguments crop up, so I think it may be time to put this to bed once and for all:
The use-case here is verifying the continued existence of an air route - eg.Wikipedia Airlines flies from DannersTown to Synthland seasonally (or not seasonally).
FlightConnections seems to be a website dedicated to showing airline routes - there has been discussion (specifically between @Thenoflyzone and @VenFlyer98 that this source isWP:SYNTH. Personally my primary concern is there appears to be zero transparency as to where the website obtains its information, as I cannot find an About page anywhere. Example source:[57] to verify that the route YUL-LIR is operational (Guanacaste Airport
FlightRadar 24 is a popular website for sourcing, but I personally agree with a number of others (such as @10mmsocket) that it's SYNTH - however, it's very similar to the above. Example use is[58] to verify that there are flights between Kuala Lumpur and Juanda (Juanda International Airport).
However, FR24 also has another part of their site which lists future flights for an airline - for example,[59] - unlike the flight history pages in the above bullet point, it's showing future flights. As with FlightConnections, my only thought here is where the data is coming from.
FlightsFrom appears to be very similar toWP:AEROROUTES in that it publishes information about airlines starting, changing or ending routes - however, unlike Aeroroutes, its About page lists two people working on the website, so it would appear to passWP:SPS. I've included it here because it's become the "go-to" source since Aeroroutes was labelled SPS, so I wanted to have clarity one way or the other to avoid any potential conflict or disagreement. Example use is[60] to verify a flight from Houston to Bozeman (George Bush Intercontinental Airport).
To clarify for editors, I don't know what the outcome here will be - apart from FR24 (flight history - not the future flights section), I don't really have any strong opinion... I just want to stop the back and forth between editors by having the discussion once in the appropriate forum, and deciding one way or the other - reliable or not.Danners430tweaks made11:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wouldn't say these sources were reliable, secondary, independent sources in any event. FlightConnections.com is a ticket-sales site associated ultimately with Kayak - very obviously not independent. Flightradar 24 is a flight-tracker website whose data comes from transponders and so-forth: clearly primary. The same is true of FlightsFrom - it's a ticket-sales website.
Please just stop doingWP:OR/WP:SYNTH to generate route-lists and recognise that WP is not a host for non-notable fan-content.
We can keep playing whack-a-mole with the incredibly bad sourcing that people see fit to use for flight information, or people can finally acknowledge that Wikipedia actually has policies for sourcing.FOARP (talk)11:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I remember correctly there were previously removals about how FR24 wasn't a valid source, but flightsfrom isn't a ticket sales website because you can't book any flights on such websites, I genuinely think we shouldn't keep on bringing up about aviation sources because this has prolonged so long and it's already becoming harder to source routes ever since Aeroroutes became declared as not reliable and it will be more harder to source if we start to do one for many other sources, and the case about whether they're secondary is making it look like we're reaching to the point like we're trying to see where a source receives it's information from rather than if it publishes routes/aviation updates that did happen and become true or misinformation that was never plannedMetrosfan (talk)11:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for the record, if we are gonna count a source as non-independent because it receives information from the airline itself or another source that depends on it, it's basically near impossible to label a source that isn't a secondary sources because all sources rely on source that use information from the airline or at most use a source dependent on itMetrosfan (talk)11:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The information it's showing you comes direct from transponders onboard the planes themselves. In what way is this not primary? It's the equivalent of using ATC radio traffic as a source.FOARP (talk)11:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that there’s two parts to FR24 - the flight history which very much comes from transponders, but also the second bullet point where they appear to list future flights. I’d argue they’re almost two separate sources, since they would likely get their data from different places.Danners430tweaks made12:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That also is information direct from the airlines per what it tells you on the page. It's (at most) only as reliable and independent as the corresponding airline web-page.Per the disclaimer:"The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources includingflight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers. The data is provided as is, there are no guarantees that the information is fully correct or up to date. Changes and errors may occur. Therefore Flightradar24 cannot be held liable either for the accuracy of the information or for ensuring that the information is up to date at all times.Some of the flights presented may be charter, cargo, ambulance or other types of flights not available for passenger travel.". It even tells you that these are not necessarily regular flights (see underlined section). Clearly a primary source as there's no actual analysis or comparison going on.FOARP (talk)13:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am largely unknown for the case of FR24 as I do think that FR24 does kinda fail to reach certain requirements so I won't comment on that. However for FlightsFrom and flightsconnections I would say they are reliable, as they update routes each month based on schedules and they do sometimes even list some routes updates or new routes that AeroRoutes didnt end up coveringMetrosfan (talk)11:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for finally bringing this up. I’ll quickly go over my reasoning for saying FlightConnections wasWP:SYNTH:Thenoflyzone (talk·contribs) was using it with a start date. When clicking on the link, it just shows who’s flying the route, but when it’s a route starting multiple months out, you have to click over the calendar to find the first flight. Additionally, FlightConnections doesn’t tell you if it’s a new route, returning route, seasonality…It’s not like a news article where that info may be outright stated. Assuming a route is beginning off of FlightConnections is SYNTH since we’re assuming that’s the actual first date and that isn’t stated by the source. As for using it for existing routes, I’m not too sure. I will say that I pretty much agree with all of the pointsFOARP (talk·contribs) has made. I just feel sites like these don’t provide enough information for route beginning/end dates since it isn’t outright stated when it begins or ends (especially FR24 because it could be a one-off or charter flight), and since it isn’t outright stated by the source, that meets the definition ofWP:SYNTH (specifically the “Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source”). I just don’t think they’re reliable enough for the sake of the tables. (VenFlyer98 (talk)18:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I do not agree withVenFlyer98's assessment. There is nothingWP:SYNTH about flightconnections. I'm not combining multiple sources to imply a conclusion. It's one website clearly listing which airlines fly what routes. All the information is easily available without taking additional steps. We have to be careful here, because airlines don't necessarily announce every single route they operate in a press release. Some routes are simply added in the schedules without much fanfare, as is the case with WestJet from Montreal to LIR and ADZ. It's the same when airlines remove routes. Ex. Emirates to Damascus. That doesn't mean we shouldn't find other reliable sources and include these informations on Wikipedia. Not doing so will render information on airport pages incomplete and unreliable. Is this what we want? I don't think so.Thenoflyzone (talk)20:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the reliability of the sources for a second and addressing the incomplete lists - that is what is required by Wikipedia policy, namely ourVerifiability policy… content only belongs on Wikipedia when it can be sources with reliable sources. This is why there’s an RfC shortly about these route tables atWP:VPP, so that might be a page to add to your watchlist.Danners430tweaks made20:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get that, but what I'm trying to say is that flightconnections is a reliable source. I'll also add that I don't think flightconnections falls in the same category as FR24. I agree that FR24 shouldn't be used as a source, because we can't really determine if a flight shown on FR24 is a scheduled or ad-hoc charter flight. We don't have to worry about that with flightconnections. It lists only scheduled flights available for sale to the general public. So apples and oranges.Thenoflyzone (talk)20:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your points, here’s the other issue I have: the link to FlightConnections in the future. Let’s say an airline launches a route and we use a FlightConnections source. 6 months later the airline cuts the route. Maybe they announce the cut, maybe they don’t. At least if the reference is a news article or some kind of article that says they launched it, then at least if the destination is kept in the table it’s sourced. The source for FlightConnections at this point wouldn’t be accurate because it wouldn’t show the airline flying that route anymore. It would mean we’d have to keep checking back to the FlightConnections source to see if it’s still accurate. Along with that, what if we have a seasonal route and someone looks at a FlightConnections link during the season the flight doesn’t fly? They may think the source is outdated and remove the flight which wouldn’t be accurate. Again, that’s just my take. (VenFlyer98 (talk)20:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Let's take a concrete example. Transat from Montreal to Toulouse. Transat currently doesn't operate this route because it is summer seasonal. Flightconnections clearly mentions this See:https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-yul-to-tls. So I don't see how someone will remove the route when the source clearly mentions "from Apr to Oct", with future dates available to book on top of it.Thenoflyzone (talk)22:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you using a 3rd-party ticket-sales website with algorithmically-generated content? In what way is that at all appropriate sourcing? Even with that, this source does not in fact state that Transat only flies April to October. Instead it states"Air Transat flights start in April".FOARP (talk)09:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does list "April to Oct" under Transat. If you go to flightconnections.com, and they type in YUL in the departure airport, followed by TLS in the arrival airport, if you look on the left side of the page, it clearly states "April to Oct" under Transat.Thenoflyzone (talk)12:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Wikipedia editor is not making their own conclusions or synthesizing sources by inputting fields and looking at the results. That's absurd to call that original research. There is absolutely no requirement that something can only be verified with a direct URL to the data. "Doing work" does not mean a fact is unverifiable. — Reywas92Talk16:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are inputting fields you are doing OR... Sources need to be readily usable without manipulation. That is in fact how verification works on wikipedia, the data needs to be found at the source in the quoted form without manipulation.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable, in the sense that it must be possible for an editor to find a reliable, published source that directly supports this material. Followed byA source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research. What you are describing is definitionally OR.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!17:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was a specific example to refuteVenFlyer98's claim that seasonal routes pose an issue. They don't. Your argument holds no water. The links I am inputing in wikipedia lead directly to the final webpage listing all the airlines that fly a route, with the proper schedules well into the future, not just 7 days like FR24. All of this is verifiable data.Thenoflyzone (talk)19:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just did. And I have read your link aboutWP:OR. What I described above isn't that.
"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language,whether or not it is reachable online.""
Yeah, I don’t understand, in a discussion about the reliability of websites, making the point that the source doesn’t have to be online to be reliable. These are websites, their content is either online or they don’t have it.FOARP (talk)22:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Answering my own question, we've got two examples in contextGuanacaste Airport,Juanda International Airport. Each article has a list of Airlines and their Destinations... and I just question why this detail is needed; it's not static information but rather something that will consistently change, requiring it to be monitored and updated. I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to be a place to go to verify airport routes. So why are we including the information?Denaar (talk)21:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They apparently exist because people want to use Wikipedia to make their itinerary for travel plans and also for last minute changes in routes. Which, you know, isnot what Wikipedia is for. Go to WikiVoyage or, perhaps, these sites themselves if you need that information. There's no reason for it to be here.SilverserenC21:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed a few times in the past, and I'm about to start an RfC on the topic atWP:VPP shortly, but there's a related RfC ongoing at the moment hence the delay. I'll make sure to ping you when it goes up.Danners430tweaks made21:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who mainly edits the lists, my only answer as to why they’re there in the first place is because that’s how it’s always been. There’s been a few discussions on it here and there and I wouldn’t be opposed to a new one.VenFlyer98 (talk)04:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable, inappropriate, and ridiculously primary to boot I don't think you can get more primary than literal transponders on the planes. It's basically like using raw data to make a claim in an article, which is highly inappropriate. Originally, I wasn't going to say the sites were unreliable, per se, since they were just regurgitating said data, but since it appears they're not only doing that, but also combining said data in unknown ways to get their overall output, that means they're actively doing data synthesis. And they are not reliable sources for doing that. These sites shouldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia at all. They're honestly worse thanAeroroutes, which is an impressive accomplishment.SilverserenC21:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aeroroutes was absolutely impressive, and yet we can't use it now. I understand the why, but flightconnections and aeroroutes can't be dumped in the same category as FR24. On top of it, flightconnections, unlike aeroroutes, isn't a blog, so in my opinion, there is no valid reason I see that prevents us from using flightconnections as a source.Thenoflyzone (talk)22:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The argument seems to be "airline routes are notable, therefore there must be reliable, independent, secondary sources, these are sources about airline routes so they must be reliable independent secondary ones", rather than looking at what the sources actually are. Sometimes the thing you are trying to write about just isn't notable.FOARP (talk)09:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
abcnews, cnn, abcnews, etc. are random people's websites too. It doesn't matter who they are. As long as the info is verifiable. And on flightconnections, it is.Thenoflyzone (talk)12:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good argument at all. The news sites that you quote are run by multiple people with strong editorial controls. A one- or two-person enthusiast/fan site is completely different.10mmsocket (talk)12:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not how WP works … perWP:Burden andWP:Onus it is up to those wanting to include material to prove the positive (ie that the source IS reliable). It isnot on those challenging the material to prove the negative (ie that the source isn’t reliable).Blueboar (talk)13:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flightconnections is neitherWP:SYNTH norWP:SPS. It collects its information (airline flight schedules) from multiple sites selling airline tickets. It's as simple as that. It is completely verifiable data and is 100% accurate. What more proof do you need.Thenoflyzone (talk)18:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isabsolutely on those challenging the claim to prove their point. You haven't shown me one shred of evidence claiming flightconnections is a fanboy site, unverifiable and/or not a reliable source. I, on the other hand, have shown on multiple occasions that this particular website is very much a reliable source.Thenoflyzone (talk)20:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "editorial controls" would you even have over flight schedules? This is not a newspaper and is not opinion pieces or reporting, nor can only newspapers with editors be used in articles. Articles can use data, and there is no actually presentation that this data is false. — Reywas92Talk16:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same we expect of any RS, I'm not seeing how this topic would differ signficantly in any way. Why do you want to apply a different standard to these sources than those for other topics?Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a different standard. These sites say that X airline runs a flight from A to B at a certain time, and they know that because the airline says so, sells tickets for it, and is tracked as such. That's perfectly reliable data with no concern for bias or fabrication of facts. Is something inaccurate about this? — Reywas92Talk17:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All sources are required to meet the same editorial standard... You appear to be saying that standard doesn't apply to these sources because of the information they cover. Is there something I'm not getting?Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I believe thesedo meet that standard: the website has appropriate controls to ensure that when it says X airline flies from A to B, that it's an accurate statement. Do you think these websites are just making things up? That they are happy to allow incorrect information to be presented? — Reywas92Talk22:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reywas92 and Thenoflyzone here, the sources lists what airlines fly on a route and it shows what destinations a airport have, unlike AeroRoutes it doesn't publish articles and it was only a tab of destinations listMetrosfan (talk)23:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find more information about their editorial policy and staff? Maybe I'm just missing what you're seeing... Also remember that reliability on wiki requires more than accuracy, no amount of pointing out how accurate a SPS is for example will make it not a SPS.Horse Eye's Back (talk)23:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't self-published material, it'srepublished material, making data from airline timetables, booking portals, transponders, and other sources accessible. This isn't a blog, podcast, book, or forum post by someone making their own claims or sharing their research, it's simple data already published elsewhere. They don't name their staff because staff aren't coming up with their own reporting or commentary. Yes, FlightRadar24 has a podcast, and I would not cite that! But the website as a whole is not merely a banned SPS, and it's perfectly reliable for verifying that an airline flies a particular route. — Reywas92Talk01:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a website. Nobody other than me decides what information is or is not published on that website. That website is unquestionably self-published.
Transport for London publish lots of factual information about the services they operate, including details of planned weekend engineering works[61]. That information is:
Primary
Reliable
Not-self published
They also make this information available via an API[62] meaning that (if I had the technical ability) I could incorporate TfL's weekend engineering work information as part of my website. I would be republishing TfL's information. Would that make TfL's data:
Secondary? No
Self-published? No
Unreliable? Not if it is unaltered.
The questions for this discussion are thus, (1) are airlines a reliable source for the flights they operate? Unquestionably yes. (2) Are the websites in question republishing airline data without material modification? I've not seen any evidence to the contrary.Thryduulf (talk)02:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, FR24 and flightconnections cannot be bunched into the same category. Just because both websites have the word "flight" in them doesn't make them similar. Yes, FR24 is transponder based live information website. That is not the case with flightconnections.Thenoflyzone (talk)12:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All reliable These are all widely-used, highly respected sources. I have seen no basis to believe their content is likely to be incorrect or unreliable. This data is generally compiled from information submitted to the FAA or other entities and published in timetables to reflect actual flight schedules and movements. There is literally nothing wrong with using "raw data", nor does a source providing raw data affect its reliability. These may not establish notability, but that does not mean they cannot be used generally for verification. A source being a primary source doesnot mean it is unreliable or unusable, it means it should be considered carefully for bias or omissions, which is not an issue for straightforward data like this, which is routinely used in articles. This is yet another roundabout way to delete airport destination tables by systematically attacking the numerous sources that can verify them, despite there being no legitimate issue with accuracy.Reywas92Talk16:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: can you support "widely-used, highly respected sources" or is that your personal opinion? Even if marginally reliable I'm not seeing widely used or highly respected for any of these so I'm wondering what I'm missing.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quote says authoritizative for flight tracking, which isn't what we're trying to use them for. How would importing the same data as another source ammount to widely used and highly respected?Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92 I suggest you readWP:AGF - as I've made abundantly clear in my message, there is no "ulterior motive" so stop suggesting there is such. There have been arguments about the use of these sources, so this is the correct place to discuss their inclusion.Danners430tweaks made16:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a thought. What if we use the airport website as the main source for all destinations for the table. I mean they are the ones that know the flights after all and most airports have a list of destinations on their websites. It seems fairly simple instead of running around trying to find something that mentions the route we are wanting to edit in a vague article. It’s not the airline themselves stating the route rather the airport which seems to make sense to me.DesignationJazz07 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)strike sock --Ponyobons mots21:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However not all airport websites have a destination list that they serve, and furthermore, they might not list every single airline that operates a same route. I still think it's a good idea however.Thenoflyzone (talk)19:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is true unfortunately. I was looking at the Lincoln, NE airport website for example and they didn’t have a list of the destinations but provided an article with announcements of Breeze starting flights. Could we hypothetically combo both, the airport websites that list all their destinations, as well as articles the airport pages that post on their websites who don’t have the destinations list? I hope that made sense. Basically to the airport website that has no destination list, we use the article announcements they list instead? Yes? Maybe?DesignationJazz07 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)strike sock --Ponyobons mots21:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think so too. But I'm wondering if the airport sites themselves could be help fixsome sourcing issues if they are posting specific articles. Now this only would seem to work for route resumptions or beginnings as I doubt the airport websites would post route ending. So yeah definitely a reliability problem trying to implement at a mass scale.DesignationJazz07 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)strike sock --Ponyobons mots21:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't the airport website be reliable?[63] and its corresponding linked[64] are perfectly reliable – this is theexact kind of source we would want to use that verifies everything. I know many airports don't have this kind of a page, but we should be using this wherever possible. — Reywas92Talk22:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, what I'm gathering from this discussion thus far is that the editors involved in this topic area don't understand what reliable sources are on Wikipedia and are extremely dedicated to pushing the entirety of such trivia ephemera into articles (or their own separate articles like the destination lists).SilverserenC23:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm gathering from this discussion is that there are many editors who should know better who are failing to distinguish the concepts of notability, reliability, primary/secondary source, independent source, and DUE. This is not helpful to anybody. So lets set out some basic facts:
Primary sources can be reliable, and indeed are almost always reliable for statements of fact about the source.
Primary sources do not confer notability, but can be used to verify information about notable topics.
Not every bit of information in an article needs to be independently notable.
Whether any particular information is DUE or not is unrelated to the reliability of the source it is found in.
Information can:
Unverifiable and UNDUE
Verifiable only in primary sources
and DUE
and UNDUE
Verifiable only in non-independent sources
and DUE
and UNDUE
verifiable in independent secondary sources
and DUE
and UNDUE
Reliable sources can be:
Independent or not independent
Primary, secondary or tertiary
Commercial or non-commercial
Published by an individual or an organisation
Unreliable sources can be:
Independent or not independent
Primary, secondary or tertiary
Commercial or non-commercial
Published by an individual or an organisation
The current consensus of the English Wikipedia community is that lists of airline destinations can be DUE for inclusion.
There is a vocal portion of the community that dislikes this consensus, but unless and until the consensus changes that is not relevant.
Whether a given airline flies between Airport A and Airport B is a matter of fact, not opinion. There is therefore no requirement that sources be independent or secondary.
An airline is a reliable source for whether that airline flies from Airport A to Airport B, and for whether those flights are scheduled or chartered. They are not independent, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of facts.
Aircraft transponder data is a reliable source for whether an aircraft flew between Airport A and Airport B on a given date, but not whether that flight was scheduled, charter or something else. They are not independent, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of facts.
Schedules published by an airline are reliable sources for whether that airline intends to operate flights between Airport A and Airport B on dates covered by that schedule. They are not independent, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of facts.
Thryduulf, we aren't discussing the airline websites. We are discussing some websites run by random people that are synthesizing transponder data with other unknown data in unknown ways. So it's both primary and not. The original transponder data would be primary, but then they are using it in a way that makes it not. And they aren't reliable for being secondary reporters in the latter manner. So the websites in question are not reliable sources.SilverserenC01:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're talking about FR24, it literally tells us that"Some of the flights presented may be charter, cargo, ambulance or other types of flights not available for passenger travel.", and this is being used as a source for what are and are not regular flights.
I am happy to use airline websites, which is what has been done all along for many lists with a references column, though not all of them have an easy-to-link route map or timetable. FR24 data does usually have a flight number and history that is identifiable as a regular passenger route, though that type of page has not been extensively used since a route is usually not tied to a particular flight number. Context and what is being sourced to what matters – we are usually not stating facts that relate to precise locations of plane transponders anyway. — Reywas92Talk18:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that I deliberately put examples of where and how these sources are being used in the original statement, with the intention being that these are the use-cases to be discussed.Danners430tweaks made18:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just a thought - the current guidance atWP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is thatairlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meetWP:DUE, which is based off themost recent RfC on the topic - so arguably, using airport websites as sources would go against this previous consensus. Now, given the current inclusion of full route tables, I'm personally also of the opinion that they should be used - from my reading of this guidance, the use of secondary sources is specifically to ensure notability of the routes being included, not due to any reliability concerns (which would of course be nonsense). But for now, they would go against that consensus, so I'd suggest we not try and add them for now.
Given the impending RfC on what to do with the route tables, which will explicitly not discuss the sourcing guidelines as previously agreed during theWP:BEFORE discussion, we can have a second RfC specifically on the sourcing guidelines following the first one's conclusion so that these can be amended if required. It may well be that we decide to keep the route tables - then it would make sense to change the sourcing guidelines so that the lists are complete... whereas if we decide to summarise, it could make more sense to keep the guideline as is, so that only notable routes are included. Personally I don't know what the outcome will be, so we'll have to see.Danners430tweaks made19:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunate for me then that we are not discussing my competency here. Oh and btw, last time I checked, Rupert Murdoch is a random dude, and foxnews is one of this websites. I rather read what's on flightconnections than on that guy's new sites. I guarantee you it's more accurate and verifiable. Maybe you should get your competency questioned.Thenoflyzone (talk)20:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about this entire situation, I’m starting to think another RfC may be needed for the inclusion of destination lists. When I think about it, so many airport articles have unsourced destinations, there’s always discussions about what sources are reliable…withWP:NOTTRAVEL, I really think a new discussion on the lists is needed.VenFlyer98 (talk)22:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By 18 December 2024, an average of 4 flight departures per day was recorded.[1] By 17 April 2025, an average of 11 flight departures per day was recorded, all by TAAG Angola Airlines and nearly all to Angolan destinations.[2]
Well... Firstly, the two references are for the same FR24 page retrieved on different dates, so without an archive they are unverifiablea posteriori. Secondly, I don't see any mention on the cited FR24 page that would verify the "all by TAAG Angola Airlines and nearly all to Angolan destinations" claim. Thirdly, FR24 doesn't explicitly give a daily average, though I guess that could be allowed underWP:CALC. With those caveats, I guess this is just about acceptable, yes.Rosbif73 (talk)16:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not reliable, per the extensive reasoning above by @VenFlyer98, @Silver seren, et al. If certain details can't be sourced directly from RS then theydo not belong in an encyclopedia. And even info that would be nominally acceptable through WP:CALC is not BALASP if you're making a whole table column out of calculations not present in any source.JoelleJay (talk)16:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether something is reliable, and whether it is secondary are completely independent questions. I benefits absolutely nobody to conflate them.Thryduulf (talk)11:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does "certain details" mean?WP:CONTEXTMATTERS – different types of sources can be perfectly appropriate for different types of content but suboptimal for others. These sources just put airline schedule data in visual formats and there's no reason to believe they are unable to verify straightforward schedule- or route-related content. — Reywas92Talk16:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All details must be supportable by RS... if the only sources supporting certain flight schedule details are SPS like the sources above, then those details are not encyclopedic.JoelleJay (talk)17:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the RSN discussion for the use of Eric Gilbertson's peer-reviewed survey journal articles as sources about relevant mountain elevations (i.e:Mt. Rainier). Since I am a COI user, I will not participate in the discussion.
For the full list of articles that will be published, seeGilbertson's blog. Journals include the Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, and American Alpine Journal.
He's a connection I have in the outdoors/highpointing and knows I am active on Wikipedia, so of course he wants his surveys recognized. I understand that Wikipedia works by consensus, and I was told by you to start an RSN discussion, so I did (and let Eric know this via email, also discouraging him from starting an RSN discussion on his own work).
I don't see what the issue is if I don't actively participate in these discussions and no longer do COI edits. If you want me to completely stop engaging in any Gilbertson-related content (which includes starting discussions), I can do so.KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk)19:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe starting this specific discussion was essential, because it would allow others familiar with the Gilbertson issues as well as those uninvolved in it to take a look at past discussions, the newly emerged source and be able to form their own view from it. I asked for details on COI in the hope it would help all of us understand exactly how you have a COI with him. I asked for details on COI in the hope it would help all of us understand exactly how you have a COI with him.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15230430.2025.2572898 article was just published on November 10, 2025 and articles on Wikipedia almost immediately started getting drizzled with this source even though the source has merely 650 or so views with zero cross ref citations and at last one addition came from author affiliated higher education institution immediately after publication.Graywalls (talk)21:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it should be deprecated, but non-neutral use; or academicWP:CITESPAM would be an issue; which has been an issue that persisted with that particular author's materials. I did note a handful of brand new users/temp accounts going to several mountain articles specifically to introduce Gilbertson sources into several mountain articles. If it's added as a normal course of editing process, it is likely fine, but concerted effort to shoehorn into articles for the purpose of using that source would be an issue.
I hold to the opinion that the general concept discussed in the article that Gilbertson's findings on the changed summit elevation are likely true and in the very least worthy of inclusion in the prose but I agree that exact elevation figures provided in one single peer-reviewed journal do not outweigh the hundreds (thousands?) of sources utilizing the official peak elevation. Other peer-reviewed academic articles authored by Gilbertson should be treated similarly - as material noteworthy enough of the article but not enough to be treated as the primary elevation listed in the lede/infobox. I share the concern mentioned byUser:Graywalls that there has been a semi-organized effort by COI editors to shoehorn Gilbertson's data into articles in a manner that exceeds their notability and reliability.DJ Cane(he/him) (Talk)13:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In academia, Wikipedia is nearly always considered an unreliable source for the same reason we consider ourselves and otherWP:UGC unreliable, because it's UGC. However, it's highly utilized reference index. For this reason, academicWP:CITESPAM is regularly done by COI parties in a hope of getting their sources picked out and cited by other scholars in scholarly journals for the purpose of increasing citations and h-index boosting. Something like this happened with ADLhttps://forward.com/news/467423/adl-may-have-violated-wikipedia-rules-editing-its-own-entries/ I've also encountered quite a few PhD types that go around bibliospamming orWP:cITESPAM their own or institution affiliated sources not for the purpose of covering a gap in knowledge, but for the purpose of shoehorning their presence into the topic area. Unfortunately, given the history behind Eric Gilbertson's finding, there's been years long concerted effort to push his presence into mountain height referencing. We are expected toWP:AGF, but there is no requirement to continue assuming it unconditionally. It is ok for someone to cite a credibleWP:MEDRS about the application of certain medication for certain conditions through natural casual research process, but when account farms in communication with a pharmaceutical company find every place they can insert the client's product via scholarly journal citations into anywhere they can get away with, this causes a disturbance of balance. Given the history of Gilbertson advertisement over the years, this is something we need to watch closely and tread carefully.Graywalls (talk)17:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that many of these appear to be in press or under review (not reliable yet) and many more are in theAmerican Alpine Journal, which appears to be an enthusiast magazine rather than a scholarly journal. I am not convinced by the reliability of such sources. —David Eppstein (talk)19:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, it's a significant minority viewpoint in a reliable source, and it belongs in the main body of the article to maintainWP:NPOV."Neutrality requires thatmainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published byreliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."
RE: Published by reliable sources
The journal "Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research" seems to be a peer-reviewed academic journal of reasonable quality and is reliable on the topic of the subject matter. So I think the article in questionhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15230430.2025.2572898#abstract is a reliable source. It was also referenced in some secondary sources - I read"Outside Online".
The same logic ensures it's not appropriate for the infobox - the prominence of each viewpoint should be maintained. The NPS Rainier homepage does really put it's foot on the scale here.
@FastpackingTurtle:, I know you already replied you have no COI with Gilbertson or the subject matter inSpecial:Diff/1322909450. Do you haveWP:COI, or personally met or corresponded with any of the authors of that article? John T. Abatzoglou, Kathryn E. Stanchak or Scott Hotaling. What about any affiliation with Seattle University or any of its department, Utah State University or any of its department in any capacity?Graywalls (talk)13:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITESPAM has been a persistent issue with this cluster of sources, the problem seems to be that even when marginally reliable they get overused by people connected to the source in a way which is damaging to the project overall... These aren't source that non-COI editors even seem to want to use and this discussion itself is a prime example of that... We're here because COI editors are pushing the use of the source, not because non-conflicted editors tried to use the source.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was an AfD participant. Thanks for the ping @Graywalls.
"Their findings are consistent with broader trends we have observed in our glacier-monitoring program: thinning and retreat of summit ice (and other large glacial bodies in the park) over the past several decades. The rock summit of Mount Rainier has not changed; rather, variations in the thickness of the ice cap atop Columbia Crest influence the measured high point," Beason said in an email to the Traveler.
However, he added, "[R]egarding the 'official' elevation of Mount Rainier, the National Park Service does not independently set summit elevations. The U.S. Geological Survey is the federal agency responsible for publishing mapped elevations on USGS topographic products, which incorporate standardized national geodetic data. At this time, no official change has been made to the published elevation of 14,410 feet."
It seems like both Beason(who did the melting glacier volume article) and Gilbertson (who did the melting Columbia Crest height article) are both a part of the scientific record, and those two sources agree on a good bit. Both seem to acknowledge that Columbia Crest and the surrounding glacier - the spot that was 14410 - is thinning and melting - as you put it, the "frosting on the top changed". And both agree the highest rock - the "rock summit" - is unchanged. For what it's worth,https://www.nps.gov/places/columbia-crest-glacier.htm says:"Highest Elevation (Head): 14,393 feet", from Beason.FastpackingTurtle (talk)17:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so then we maybe able to put that in a fine print somewhere WITHOUT the use of Gilbertson source, fulfilling the information sharing purpose while not giving in to the COI author's satiety.Graywalls (talk)14:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have a COI with Gilbertson? I met a guy once who had been on a couple of trips with him. Anyway, I was opposed the last time this came up (believing that Gilbertson's measurements were for the most part more accurate than officially published results, but didn't meet WP criteria for inclusion), but if he can get them published in specialist sources I do think that shifts the balance in terms of considering him WP:EXPERTSPS for this very niche topic. (t ·c)buidhe18:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why the USGS-recognized elevation cannot change in response to new evidence
as Mike Tischler, the Director of the USGS National Geospatial Program, has reported,the USGS does not currently collect or maintain point elevations of summits. Tischler reports: “Historically, point elevations of prominent peaks were printed on topographic maps, with the source of the elevation being manual survey. The most recent USGS example of this is a 1996 update of a topographic map originally produced in 1971, based on a field verification in 1971.” Though the USGS is actively conducting surveys using lidar technology to offer 3D elevation data for the U.S. topography, a specific spot elevation value is not official, nor does it represent a precisely measured value for something like a summit. As the USGS warns on their website, the data found by this method might not be the most accurate for alpine landscapes, as “differences between these elevations [manually surveyed elevations vs. lidar data] might exist for features such as mountain peaks or summits, and where the local relief is significant.”[65]
At least in the US case, there is no reason to discount more recent surveys simply because they are not accepted by the USGS, which all of the other federal agencies such as the NPS are more or less obliged to follow, per the sources that I have seen. (t ·c)buidhe14:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbertson, Eric; Gilbertson, Matthew (2025). "Determination of new national highpoints of five African and Asian countries—Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Togo".Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment.doi:10.1177/03091333251401102.
He has more accepted but not published yet according to his website. IMO, that validates a WP:EXPERTSPS exemption for the elevation of mountain summits that he surveyed himself, attributed alongside other estimates that may exist. (t ·c)buidhe02:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still concerned about Gilbertson cherry picking data points for more shock value (as discussed re: using the 1929 datum for Mount Rainier). It's clear this is less of a scientific endeavor and more of aWP:CITESPAM campaign. I hold that it can be mentioned but that utilizing the specific values in any way isWP:UNDUE until additional source material corroborates the findings. Wikipedia has no obligation to be on the forefront of this.DJ Cane(he/him) (Talk)13:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fallacious to assume that because some new editors believe that Gilbertson is correct that means that therefore they must be promoting him because of a COI and therefore Gilbertson is spam/a bad source, compared to if the issue was raised by an established editor.
After researching the issue I'm convinced that the peer reviewed sources are a higher level of reliability for the current elevation than the USGS, which does not even officially recognize summit elevations. If you have any evidence of Gilbertson promoting sensationalism (as opposed to newspapers reporting on him) I'd like to see it. (t ·c)buidhe15:13, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem with using Gilbertson as a source for many, but not all, summit elevations. Attributed, of course, and if there is another reliable (not USGS) source that disagrees cite that as well. Some summit elevations are a lot more contentious (seeTalk:Mount Rainier) and need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but I am not seeing any claims that Gilbertson is clearly wrong about multiple summits. Not so sure that Gilbertson should always or even usually be the main source though. I see a lot of possible sources atWikipedia:WikiProject Mountains#Resources.
One thing we at the RSNB could do is to have a discussion in a separate section with the goal of arriving at a Wikipedia guideline for what to do when the peak consists of ice or snow instead of rock, and what to do with geologically active peaks that change summit elevation due to earthquakes or volcanoes. Maybe evaluate the sources listed at WikiProject Mountains? --Guy Macon (talk)15:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of sensationalism are sprinkled throughout Gilbertson's blog and media interviews, including by conflating chatting with a former signal corps buddy as being "peer review" (1) and by undergoing his various media blitzes (most notably re: Mount Rainier) before attempting to publish in an academic journal. Additionally by using terms such as Mount Rainier's summit being "scientifically recognized" (23) as his result when no other scientist has actually corroborated his findings.
Gilberson commonly inflates the significance of his findings in media interviews and also, as demonstrated inTalk:Mount Rainier, engages in utilizing whatever datum fits to amplify the differences he reports.DJ Cane(he/him) (Talk)16:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it's sensationalism to speak to the media and for the record his stated reason for using the older datum was to preserve comparability with older measurements, including the 1956 survey that the USGS still uses (because it currently does not recognize summit elevations, per the above). (t ·c)buidhe16:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not sensationalism to speak to the media, however it is sensationalism to spike the football on your supposed new discovery prematurely. Science is slow and right now the consensus of scientific knowledge is overwhelmingly against Gilbertson. Unnecessairly attempting to speed it along so you can have your fifteen minutes of fame is sensationalism.DJ Cane(he/him) (Talk)17:18, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Guy Macon —I don't see any problem with using Gilbertson as a source for many, but not all, summit elevations.Attributed, of course, and if there is another reliable (not USGS) source that disagrees cite that as well ... Not so sure that Gilbertson should always or even usually be the main source though.(emphasis mine) I understand the hesitancy to use his data, just because it's Gilbertson, but the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. In my view, a peer-reviewed academic journal accepted his research, so it can be used on WP with proper attribution, just because it's new, and Gilbertson, doesn't automatically mean exclusion and disqualification of a reliable published source.—Isaidnoway(talk)22:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So yeah, I've got another NCORP AFD going (Tenna) and I am once again exercising the clause where it says if you have an ORGIND dispute to bring it here. Most of the sources in that article are fairly obvious adverting (oh I'm sorry I mean "business-to-business media and buyer engagement") companies just looking at their about pages, butSpecial:LinkSearch/thesiliconreview.com, is less obvious, and while it's mostly not used in mainspace, people have brought it up in good faith at other AFDs as well (also DRVs, edit requests, etc)
See for example42Gears (June 2019),HIR (December 2023),InfoVision (July 2025) andLocus Technologies (October 2025). It's not exacly acommon source, but given that a decent number of reasonably experienced editors have expressed that they're not sure about it, I thought it might be worthwhile chucking it here so it gets logged in the RSN archives as well. Thanks for your thoughts!Alpha3031 (t •c)07:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Silicon Review has a list of testimonials on their"Clients Speak" page, indicating that the site frequently publishessponsored content that is not designated as such. Examples include:
"From initial contact to final draft, the process was smooth, efficient, and handled with professionalism. They understood my vision and brought it to life effortlessly."
"I highly recommend them as a potential PR partner"
"They grasped our cross‑border consulting mission in minutes and crafted messaging that amplifies Gershon Consulting’s boutique value proposition to the exact executives we serve."
"Excellent support by the administration and content-creation team."
"Your team followed through on featuring what matters to our brand and center and it was very well written."
The testimonials are for the website's interview articles and lists (e.g."Global Best Companies to watch 2025"). The Silicon Review also publishes other types of articles, all of which also appear to bepromotionally toned. Based on this, I consider The Silicon Review generally unreliable and would not count it towardnotability requirements. Even uncontroversial self-descriptions (perWP:ABOUTSELF) should ideally be sourced from the company itself, and not a third party like The Silicon Review that does not clearly disclose whether the article is an authorized press release. — Newslingertalk14:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newlinger covers it well above; this is simply an unmarked paid placement farm. Just searching "Silicon Review" + guest post will return hundreds of shady seo freelancers that will publish there without any material editorial control. Even articles that are not overtly adcopy should be avoided as sources.SamKuru(talk)15:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so how do we know that the site is not offering these reviews or articles for free? None of these reviewers have indicated that paid for the coverage.Pemmnali (talk)09:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to believe that the following webpages are unrelated, and even more difficult to believe that they were not paid for by the same source:
If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it swims like a duck. and there is a sign in front of it saying "Anas Platyrhynchos (Common name: Mallard Duck)", it is most likely a duck. --Guy Macon (talk)11:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asked"so how do we know that the site is not offering these reviews or articles for free? None of these reviewers have indicated that paid for the coverage". I answered by showing that the silicon review clearly publishes paid content, and used Walmart as just one example. Nobody in their right mind would believe that someone at thesiliconreview.com wrote those words about Walmart -- that just happen to mirror Walmart's press releases and internal web pages -- "for free". I could list another dozen examples of obviously paid content. --Guy Macon (talk)01:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This change means we need to officially declare the CDC an unreliable source on these topics. That needs to be done here and then reflected atWP:RSP. I'm not sure of the best way to move forward. Should we start with an RfC atTalk:CDC or just start a discussion right here? --Valjean (talk) (PING me)14:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Govermental organisations are reliable for their positions and statements, better sources should always be found for medical advice. For a long time this hasn't been an issue, as most govermental organisations have agreed with the consensus model of governance. As governments move away from that, it's something that editors will need to be more aware of. If any particular governments position on a subject is due going to be determined by secondary sources. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And we already do this with such governmental organisations as India'sMinistry of Ayush which peddles pseudo-scientific medical advice, but we don't reflect that at RSP. We can easily state in Wikivoice atCDC that the CDC is peddling misinformation and point users towards that.Black Kite (talk)15:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a nice criticism section in that article, but why don't we reflect that at RSP? What makes this any different than other cases where we do register these issues at RSP? --Valjean (talk) (PING me)15:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy, is there someplace we are keeping track of these changes and deletions at the CDC website? We should be documenting this stuff and including it in articles. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)15:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can call me Walter, or Roxy, I don't mind. The only place we are documenting changes that I know is in this very discussion, but I agree that a more formal and central RFK cock-up repository (not suppository, note) would be a good idea. -WalterEgo15:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. There is a section for state-sponsored fake news sites at RSP, but this doesn't seem to fit into that box or indeed any other at RSP. Definitely worth a discussion, though.Black Kite (talk)15:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are strange times. The rise and mainstreaming of ignorance and belief in anti-science conspiracy theories, all being pushed by the current administration, are concerning. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)15:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of two lengthy quotes with in text citation, just summarize what they say. Facts should not have in text citation.TFD (talk)03:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that an RFC is necessary at this stage, and I do think that pausing for a moment would help. People seem to be reacting to this as if they're totally shocked and surprised, and that's a situation that may lead to politicizing our guidelines in reaction, rather than finding a reasonable path forward.WhatamIdoing (talk)07:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be said that people are reacting in shock, this is the third discussion on the politicisation of American govermental organisations and the sentiment from all three seems to be the same. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than single out the CDC I suggest that any institution vulnerable to political interference shouldn't be consideredWP:MEDRS.
As well as anti-vax woo, we should also exclude anti-trans, anti-fluoride, anti-medicine woo such as the Cass Review and whatever it is that the anti-fluoride crowd are freaking out about at the moment.Daveosaurus (talk)06:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CDC is talked about a lot inWP:MEDRS as is NIH. our policies do not treat these as government orgs, they treat them as biomedical orgs.
Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, to public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. - fromWP:MEDRS
For a long time it didn't matter, as those organisations followed what you would otherwise find in independent medical sources. But I'm not sure that it was ever a good idea, it opened up Wikipedia to criticism of following the US government and to now not following it because it doesn't agree with us anymore. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
its not about agreeing with us. Its about denying basic reality and facts.
Bluethricecreamman, I suspect you inadvertently left out a couple words. Maybe you meant to write "It is not an opinion that vaccines [do not] cause autism". --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, I'm not saying that it's because they now disagree with us. I'm saying those who want to criticise Wikipedia could us it in that way. Vaccines don't cause autism, and there is a mountain of medical sources that will back that up. But by using and then not using US govermental organisations those who would push such shit will say we're being underhanded (even if that is as much bullshit as the shit they push). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°16:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most laws act like Hammers - it's hard to have a lot of nuance when the government is involved, things easily become black and white. That's why in the United States, we have regulatory organizations that are independent of the government, but behave in a government like manner. An example in tech is the PCI Security Standards Council. Make no mistake: These groups are political. The PCI Council, for example, rolled out a new security requirement for web based payments, "PCI-SAQ-A-EP", which applied to "Direct Post" and "Javascript" payment collection methods. Stripe was using Javascript methods, all their merchants would have had to pay a third party to security test their website, it would have had a huge financial impact. In a short amount of time, they rolled back the requirement and made an exception for Javascript style payments to fall under "PCI-SAQ-A" which has less involved security requirements. I don't think anyone in cybersecurity thinks it was a purely sound security decision, rather than a result of industry pressure. In the realm of medicine, we have the same thing - groups that act in a quasi-government way, providing guidelines that are independent of the government but impact the way medicine is delivered, but these groups are absolutely political and influenced by lobbying and special interests as well. This is true across many industries in the United States: Independent groups provide regulations, and the government steps in when they don't regulate themselves. You'll find this across multiple industries in the United States as a way to avoid government regulation by business.Denaar (talk)16:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"in the United States, we have regulatory organizations that are independent of the government, but behave in a government like manner." We need to separate US government stuff from the others as there is no independence anymore. Trump and Kennedy are using their authoritarian powers to interfere in almost everything, including science and health. "If the Trump administration has touched it, it is polluted and suspect" needs to be our motto moving forward. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While Im agree that we should not really trust them are they really all that different from any other government agency, of any other government?Slatersteven (talk)16:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's high time for a change, especially now that the political control no longer backs science and common sense and is clearly anti-science. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)19:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should take a look at a random selection of articles inhttps://www.cdc.gov/health-topics.html and see if you think that's generally true, or only true in certain topics. For example, I looked at these randomly selected pages:
I do not think there are many Government medical agencies that actively push false information to their citizens, however. We already deal with the Indian one; we certainly do need to deal with this as well.Black Kite (talk)20:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This does happen occasionally (e.g.,AIDS denialism). However, views that depart from the mainstream, no matter which country/government/agency/university/entity we're talking about, are alreadyWP:UNDUE under existing policy (except in anWP:ABOUTSELF way). We don't need a special rule for this situation, because the existing rules are already enough.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Reporters also examined his official statements and dozens of social media posts, finding that he frequently relied on misinformation to support policy decisions and misstated scientific evidence."
This is absolutely something that needs addressing. Our policies have, until now, assumed that independent government agencies were actually independent, and that they focused on their area of expertise without regards to politics, but as has been pointed out already, that was never really true, and it is blatantly false now. While I have previously been of the opinion the pre-2024 publications by the CDC at least (perhaps not so much for less independent agencies, like the FCC) were generally reliable, the speed and degree to which trust in their findings have been undermined in the past year have raised questions about them that are not so temporally limited.
For example, the CDC has a relative paucity of research on transgender people and their healthcare. Even back in 2015, I'd have acknowledged that was most likely due to the influence of political factors (there simply aren't enough transgender people to motivate the CDC to do research on issues that affect mainly them), but I'd have left my criticisms at that. However, seeing how quickly and far the CDC could fall in under 11 months, it raises a lot of questions about how badly their political biases were even before that fall began. It could be that their dearth of research is far worse than it would be, were they truly independent, and simply mostly unaware of the health issues that trans people face.
I don't have answers to those questions. It could be that this comment is a bit of an overreaction. It could be that I'm about to re-write my entire view of how nominally independent government agencies have operated throughout American history.
Medical research priorities depend upon multiple factors, not just prevalence. For example, breast cancer and cystic fibrosis are over-researched relative to population, but that's due to factors such as convenience (breast cancer patients have high all-cause survival rates, so they're an excellent group for long-term studies) and the current state of knowledge (we know more about CF than about other genetic conditions). There are political factors (cf breast cancer), but it's not the sole, or necessarily even a significant, factor.WhatamIdoing (talk)20:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a government organization isn't reputable by default but cansometimes have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (as well as independence from government control) ala the BBC; however, that reputation can be lost. Additionally, since governments can change hands, a change of administration that receives coverage indicating they're drastically changing course in ways that impact the independence and reliability of governmental organizations can cause a rapid re-evaluation of their reputation - as has clearly happened here. Whileusually I'd say that one event doesn't change a source's reputation, the coverage here (which is part of coverage going back to RFK's appointment) makes it clear it has, unsurprising when it suddenly starts pushing fringe theories so hard. It's unreliable now, and we should make that clear, but I'd hesitate to say that that automatically means it ways unreliable in the past - I would say it became unreliable under the Trump administration specifically, not that we need to go back and remove every reference to it from when it previously had a strong reputation. --Aquillion (talk)20:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boud, I like it!Aquillion also touched on this above: "I would say it became unreliable under the Trump administration specifically, not that we need to go back and remove every reference to it from when it previously had a strong reputation."
We need to state that "before [a certain date], the CDC was a RS, but after [a certain date], it is dubious and now promotes misinformation." Something along those lines. Boud's version is nice. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)22:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we do that, we need to specify SPECIFICALLY which info is misinformation, since the problematic reality here is that 95+% of the CDC's content is probably still very accurate medical info. We should talk about WHICH areas (subjects) have lost reliability. ---Avatar317(talk)01:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to record exact dates. That just sets things up for wikilawyering. The dates aren't the problem. The problem is undue political influence diverging from mainstream science. It may be a while before we really know when that started to take hold and when the last bits were over. Just record the principle and let people use their brains to apply it to their subject.GMGtalk13:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to provide a "before [a certain date]" statement, nor any statements about being "dubious and now promotes misinformation". No large website has ever been 100% correct on every point, and cdc.gov isn't special in that regard. Also, I suggest that fringe theory is more accurate than misinformation. (Misinformation can be an honest mistake.)WhatamIdoing (talk)05:33, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there reason for concern with the NIH as well? Their grant framework has been hijacked, but I haven't seen reporting on changes in its own publications (at least not to the extent of the CDC)Placeholderer (talk)05:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far this affects autism and vaccines, but it will likely affect other topics commonly attacked by alternative medicine and other fringe types. Fluoridation will likely be affected, but iscurrently good.
This also creates the need for searching for our uses of CDC and other .gov health-related citations, and then adding links to archived versions that are still good.— Precedingunsigned comment added byValjean (talk •contribs)02:36, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, thanks. It may still be a reliable site as far as saying what the american government is about but it is fast becoming junk as far as actual medical science is concerned. Most of it is still okay but I sort of wonder how long before it starts encouraging people to swim in water contaminated by sewage like Kennedy did with his grandchildren.NadVolum (talk)10:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The CDC website is huge and most of what they publish seems absolutely fine. Can we be a little more targetted in our criticism, to avoid throwing the good out with the bad? Is the problem just this page?:[67] Is there a specific false claim on that page? Remember that articles should be sourced to specific claims, not to the general impression that a source gives.Barnards.tar.gz (talk)12:37, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, we let RS reporting guide us, so this thread is primarily about vaccines and autism. The current page (the one you link) is the one under discussion here, and it is now pushing outright falsehoods, not some minor tweaks.
Our CDC article now has simple coverage of the change. It should be expanded, so feel free to add more commentary from other RS:
Since these changes at the CDC touch on the stated beliefs and goals of Trump and RFK Jr., known to be strongly false, anti-science, and conspiracy theories, we can expect other topics to be affected and then covered by RS, and when they do, we will also deal with them. That's why other topics are also included in the discussion. Currently, it appears that most of the CDC website is still good, but we must be aware of future changes, and RS will let us know when to act. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should let reliable sources and common sense guide us, but that's not necessarily what I'm seeing in this thread. There's a theme in this thread that sounds like this:
A: Some politician is pushing misinformation aboutVaccines and autism on the CDC website.
B: The CDC is not reliable about vaccines and autism! The CDC is not reliable! The CDC is not reliable on anything!
A: We should check 7,000 mostly unrelated articles because they really screwed up big on one claim.
and what I worry about coming next is:
Snake oil salesman: You know that thing you've been deriding as ineffective pseudoscience? Well, your criticism of my product is cited to cdc.gov, and you just said they're not reliable, so I'm blanking that criticism now.
For vaccines in general, if a governmental POV is wanted (e.g., whether a vaccine is recommended at a certain age), I suggest the WHO or any large country in Europe would be an adequate substitute. The UK'sNICE is particularly valuable if the questions are around efficacy or cost effectiveness. For non-governmental POVs, then major medical organizations (e.g.,American Academy of Family Physicians) are usually a good source of what mainstream medicine does or believes.
WAID, while your concerns are good to keep in mind, I think you're creating a bit of a scary straw man. There's a lot of common sense in the room. There is some exploration of various concerns, but nothing to worry about. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)18:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I worry when people start suggesting that our guidelines should make politicized comments such asTheCenters for Disease Control and Prevention were generally reliable in this sense prior to 2025, but started significantly promoting misinformation in November 2025 under theleadership of Robert F. Kennedy.
The CDC has made mistakes in the past, and they are making mistakes now, and they will make mistakes in the future. I see no reason to identify this month as the "start", nor any need to name any politician in our guidelines, or even to say anything about them at all, for that matter.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about wordings for our own RS guidelines, not for some official public statement from Wikipedia. This is not about "mistakes", but about a clear and deliberate political attempt by the current administration to delete good information and replace some content with purely fringe misinformation. We need to describe the context, as the "unreliability" is connected to named people, in this case RFK Jr. RS tell us this, and we can cite those sources.
These changes may not be permanent, as he may not remain in his position, and if a sensible administration is elected in the future, a return to sanity may result in positive changes that restore accurate wordings, although it may be difficult if old wordings have not been archived. I have hopes that such will not be the case.
Whatever the case, we have not finalized any wording. We are just brainstorming. That process allows lots of OR, speculation, experimentation, and other processes that are not allowed in articles, but are part of the discussion process. I suspect final wordings will have to go through an RfC process, so I hope you add your valuable, more-than-two-cents worth of input and suggested wordings. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)23:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wording of our guidelinesis "some official public statement from Wikipedia". Every word we post on this site is public. Our guidelines are formal statements from the English Wikipedia's community. There is nothing more "official" that we publish than our policies and guidelines.
I can understand the desire to let some editors relieve their emotions by officially declaring thatwe are on the side of Science™ and Facts and Accuracy, unlike certain politicians(Do you also hearTom Lehrer's "The Folk Song Army"? "We are the Folk Song Army/Everyone of us cares/We all hate poverty, war, and injustice/Unlike the rest of you squares..."), but I don't think that is a good reason to change a guideline.
If weneeded to do something (which has not demonstrated; in fact, I don't see anybody even attempting to demonstrate that there are any disputes involving this ), then the first thing to do would be to simply remove the CDC's name from MEDRS, and then see if that's enough to quell any disputes (assuming any actually exist that aren't easily solved by pointing atWP:FRINGE). And if it's not enough, then it could become a sentence about how no source is perfect, and as an example, the CDC is mostly good but the one page the posted in 2025 about vaccines and autism was nonsense and isWP:UNDUE for the articleVaccines and autism.WhatamIdoing (talk)04:03, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The CDC is not reliable about vaccines and autism! The CDC is not reliable! The CDC is not reliable on anything!" - nonsense and insultingly dismissive of the actual discourse. The CDC is reliable for the CDC, one countries goverment institutions shouldn't necessarily be used to cover global issues. As you said for medical information "look for a review article in a reputable journal, and for long-settled science, look for a med school textbook". --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see as the outright falsehood on that page? To be clear, it’s very obviously politically motivated and gives off a really bad vibe, but the primary argument on that page is “causation has not been disproven”, which is an extremely weak claim. Like, I don’t think there are any studies disproving the claim that chickens cause earthquakes. It just seems like a not particularly useful statement rather than an actually false one, and so not strictly a question of reliability. Now, one might read the page as giving theimpression of saying “causation is not disprovenand so you should be hesitant to get vaccinated”, and I’m sure it’s been designed that way, but it doesn’t actually say that, and we don’t build articles out of theimpression that a page gives. Our existing policies and guidelines seem perfectly capable of coping with this. Meanwhile, the CDC can spend a bunch of money disproving the guilt of chickens and we can summarise their eventual findings.Barnards.tar.gz (talk)16:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Barnards.tar.gz:, maybe "outright falsehood" aren't exactly the right words, but they are pretty close. Let's look at the three points in the new wording:
"The claim "vaccines do not cause autism" is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism."[68]
You accurately write: "it’s very obviously politically motivated and gives off a really bad vibe, but the primary argument on that page is “causation has not been disproven”, which is an extremely weak claim."
The previous wording is accurate and is actually "an evidence-based claim": "Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD)."[69]
"Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities."[70]
That is completely false. They have been thoroughly debunked, not "ignored".
The previous wording is accurate: "No links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD."[71]
"HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links."[72]
There are plenty of assessments and research that reveal the "plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links." Kennedy is the one who is "ignoring" the existing evidence.
Feel free to use other words to describe the situation. Whatever it is, the wording is deceptive, the situation is indeed "politically motivated", and it all stinks of fringe POV pushing. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear that anything coming out of US agencies that have been considered scientifically/medically authorative, like the CDC, EPA, NASA, etc., should be treated as state-controlled media organizations during this current admin and definitelynot authorative until the changes that were made are completely undone. That should be an RPS entry at this point to clarify that these agencies are only reliable up until 2024.Masem (t)16:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% withMasem. We already have a problem with the government of India having a government department (Ministry of Ayush) that pretends to promote science while actually promoting and funding quackery. It is clear that the US government now has the same problem. --Guy Macon (talk)16:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do weneed an entry inWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? Is thisWP:CREEPY? Is this just wanting to make your mark on the world, to say that we're on the side of all that's good and true? Is this because we're feeling betrayed?
Where is the evidence that anybody, on any page anywhere in the English Wikipedia, has actually struggled with whether to trust the CDC's (politically motivated, deceptively framed, etc.) claims?
Put another way: When some newbie shows up here with a proposal for RSP about some nonsense website, we routinely send them away because there's been no evidence of that website getting misused. So why is this one, which has so far caused exactly zero disputes – indeed, has only led to editors improving articles with top-quality sources – so special that the usual processes aren't good enough?WhatamIdoing (talk)19:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, that until we see a lot of editors trying to use post-2024 CDC for "factual" information, we don't need it at RSP. That said, I fully expect that at some point we will see a good number of editors trying to push the new antivax stance as legit backed by the current CDC language and if that does happen, then we will need the RSP aspect.Masem (t)20:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered that the CDC has changed more than the "Autism and vaccines" page. They have also changed the page on "Thimerosal and Vaccines". I have created a section below:
I'm trying to depopulateCategory:All articles with bare URLs for citationsIt won't surprise anyone that many of the bare citations are to X (Twitter).My personal approach has been to convert citations to a proper format in cases that the owner has been verified e.g. accompanied by a blue, gray or gold check.
I have generally taken a pass on unconfirmed posts although the recommendations suggest I'd be perfectly commemorates to remove them as not acceptable.
That said, I came with a specific question.
On occasion I will see a citation to X.com, such as citation 12 inRabih_Alenezi:X.post
In this case I can't tell whether the author is verified but more importantly, instead of seeing the content I see:
You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts.
It's my opinion that this should not constitute an acceptable citation and I'm tempted to remove it. I'm interested in other's views and suggest that the perennial sources table be amended to note that such a post is never acceptable.S Philbrick(Talk)14:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources must be published. Wikipedia has a extremely broad definition of what that means, basically it must be available to the public. That's a very low bar to pass, but if a source doesn't pass it then that source can't be used.WP:V#Reliable sources "Source material must be published, on Wikipedia meaningmade available to the public in some form." (formatting in the original). So paper documents that you have to make arrangements and payments to see would be fine, but private communicate would not. If you have to follow someone to see their tweets I would have thought those tweets are usable per the former example, a hassle but possible to access. If the tweets are only available to a specific group of people (the accounts that the poster follows for example), then the tweets are not available to the general public and not usable. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a twitter account would otherwise be acceptable (i.e. the exception for experts), they'd still unambiguously failWP:V if they restrict access to the account to friends only, which is what you're seeing, based on the error message. While we do not require that sources be *easy* to access, we do require that they at least be *capable* of being accessed. A locked-down twitter post is not.⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!18:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do tweets get archived at archive.org? I understand you can publish something, and then change its visibility later. (I'm getting error messages, or I'd check myself.)WhatamIdoing (talk)18:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theycan be archived. Since the Wayback Machine is down right now, we'll have to wait to check whether this one was archived. I'm also getting a different error message from X for that tweet,Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else, so I assume that it's since been deleted. That adds another wrinkle. I'm also curious what info comes up when one uses a site like xcancel.com; in this case it just said "No items found."FactOrOpinion (talk)18:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. I have no idea what accounts for the difference. When I just try to see the account profile (usinghttps://x.com/manisha_bot), it saysThese posts are protected. Only approved followers can see @manisha_bot’s posts. To request access, click Follow. But I still get "Hmm...this page doesn't exist ..." when I try to view the specific tweet (above and previously in citation 12). The Internet Archive is back up, and it looks like there were two attempts to archive it last year, but both show up as blank pages. This is all peripheral to your main question though.FactOrOpinion (talk)02:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My personal approach has been to convert citations to a proper format in cases that the owner has been verified e.g. accompanied by a blue, gray or gold check - wait, hold on, a blue check doesn't indicate verification anymore, does it? All it indicates is that they're a subscriber. Fromtheir description of what it currently means:The blue checkmark means that an account has an active subscription to X Premium and meets our eligibility requirements. These accounts may represent an individual or an organization.Accounts that receive the blue checkmark as part of a Premium subscription will not undergo review to confirm that they meet the active, notable and authentic criteria that was used in the previous process. Emphasis mine. A blue checkmark alone is not sufficient to let us use a Twitter link as a source even viaWP:ABOUTSELF /WP:EXPERTSPS; they'd need to be verified elsewhere (which usually means a secondary source must be included anyway.) A blue checkmark has no value whatsoever in terms of our sourcing policies and has to be totally disregarded (although ofc it still works for archive links of pre-Elon twitter, I guess, where it did represent verification.) --Aquillion (talk)19:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It used to mean something, but that has changed, so I'll modify my approach. I did accept a few, but many were old, do we have a firm date of the change?S Philbrick(Talk)01:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience (which may just reflect the leaning of my editing), a fair portion of the no-checkmarked X posts are in BLPs where the individual also has an official page that links to that X account. This should be sufficient confirmation, certainly better than a modern blue checkmark.
While the example post you linked to does not tell me that I don't have the ability to link to it but rather that the item simply doesn't exist (perhaps it's been deleted since your checking of it?) if one is an active X user we cannot assume that an individual's inability to read it means that most people cannot, as one can block an individual (or at least could when I was still using it.) If you're not an active X user, this is not a likelihood. --Nat Gertler (talk)02:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith that the tweet was accessible to the public at the time of edit, I don't see why they cannot be treated as a standardWP:DEADLINK and dealt with appropriately (try an archive, alternative version...). If someone tries adding a protected tweet as a source that would not be acceptable, but generally I don't think tweet authors who are both actively publishing content and that would be consideredWP:RS would protect their tweets, so usually there will be some other rationale to remove the source.JumpytooTalk04:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, I can see the tweet, which hasn’t been deleted, as the journalist and I seem to follow each other. If anyone is interested, here is its content:It's been a year since Col Rabih Alenezi, a senior official in Saudi Arabia's security service, fled to the UK after criticising his country's human rights record. Yet Saudi trolls like @whatsayeezy continue to offer bounties for his capture on X. Even though the journalistManisha Ganguly is a reputable journalist, I don’t think we should be using tweets to source this sort of stuff. If it’s noteworthy, it would have been written up in an article. This particular BLP is pretty appalling quality. I did some editing on it after reading this thread, but it’s still got a very long way to go before it is acceptable.BobFromBrockley (talk)07:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered that the CDC has changed more than the "Autism and vaccines" page (see section above). They have also changed the page on "Thimerosal and Vaccines"
It looks like statements have been removed; I couldn't see any new statements added. It still states: "Research does not show any link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism".Barnards.tar.gz (talk)17:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that changes may not be as egregious as the "Autism and vaccines" page, as the NIH has been planning, since 1999, to gradually phase out thimerosal from all vaccines, not because of any claimed dangers, but because of public suspicions. Currently it is in multi-dose vials of SOME vaccines, but not in single-dose vials, at least not in developed nations, unlike in underdeveloped nations.
Stuff like what Barnards.tar.gz wrote above. We need to know if that page is still reliable, or if there have been changes that damage its reliability. We need to keep an eye on coverage of this in RS. Our articles that deal with Thimerosal may need updating. I'm sure you can figure out other possible things to keep in mind if you care at all. Of course, if this doesn't interest you, you don't need to comment. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)20:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPS imagines the blogs and unfiltered writings of "established" subject-matter experts can be used in limited circumstances.
Avi Loeb is an astronomy professor at Harvard. In recent years, he's become known for repeatedly and incorrectly predicting that various interstellar objects are alien spacecraft on a mission to Earth, though, asJason Wright notes he always assigns a percentage probability to his predictions"which gives him plausible deniability of the bad-faith “just asking questions” variety... It certainly gets him lots of TV time and fan mail."[74]
Lobe himself says his blog and social media are"detective stories" in which he just throws out possibilities because"the public loves detective stories".[75] According to theChicago Tribune, Loeb's scientific peers consider him"outlandish and disingenuous, prone to sensational claims, more interested in being a celebrity than an astrophysicist — not to mention distracting and misleading".[76] In an article forSmithsonian Magazine, the author reports that other scientists"chuckled" at the mere mention of Loeb's name.[77]
With that context, is Loeb "established" as a subject-matter expert in such a way that his unfiltered writing can be directly introduced as a RS?Chetsford (talk)06:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you already know based on the quotes.
I assume Chetsford is bringing it up because they're dealing with some editors who are trying to say that all of Loeb's claims should be 100% reliable and probably even included as wikivoice. They sound like they're the usual type of UFOlogist crank, though this time trying to use percentages as plausible deniability for their pseudoscience.SilverserenC07:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the NYT article: "Yet many in his own field consider Loeb a pariah. His more polite critics say that he is distracting from the horizon-expanding discoveries astronomers are making with new instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope. The more outspoken ones accuse Loeb of abandoning the scientific method and misleading the public in pursuit of fame." --Guy Macon (talk)07:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So he got outspoken critics that find him distracting as well as views that you in your nonexpert personal opinion find absurd. How does it make him less of an expert in various fields? Please elaborate, thanks.Prototyperspective (talk)23:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main claim to reliability would be based on his being a professor of astronomy. Now regardless of this person, let us ask a "general" question. Assume someone gets tenure as a professor, does that stop them from hitting their head to a low doorway? Or something falling on their head? No. So a tenured professor who has been hit on the head (Loeb excluded of course) may say all kinds of things. No need to say anymore.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)08:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for selfpublished sources is that they gave been previously published by other reliable independent sources. But even if they meet that standard they still need to have 'a reputation for fact checking and accuracy', as with any source. There's enough reliable reporting to say that's not the case here. Outside of ABOUTSELF statements I don't see how his selfpublished work would ever be due, and it's certainly not reliable. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The statements of individual scientists are usually only used for basic biographical information about themselves (WP:ABOUTSELF) that is not self-serving, or whereWP:DUE, put in context by a reliable secondary independent source (this excludes press releases and opinion pieces). Another exception isWP:PARITY when they have a reputation to counter fringe claims (rarely necessary to be an expert in a particular field to do this, it's another reporting specialty). For general information about astronomy, there are many textbooks available. Wikipedia not being a place for sensationalist pop science journalism, textbooks are often enough... For recent events like a meteorite, there usually are acceptable independent news secondary sources if they are lacking, it is an indication that the event's article lacks notability.~2025-35304-53 (talk)13:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not reliable for statements made in wikivoice (“The object was a UFO”)… reliable for an attributed statement (“Avi Loeb claimed that the object was a UFO”) - however, given the fringe nature of his claims, they would beWP:UNDUE in almost all articles.Blueboar (talk)13:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He should normally be used only when quoted by a reliable source. His personal views when unpublished are unlikely to be notable enough to be due as, although a subject matter expert on astronomy, his views are likely to be unusual in his scientific community. However, given his qualifications, position and publication history, they are not Fringe in the sense we usually use the term.Boynamedsue (talk)17:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These Avi Loeb discussions often pop up. The answer is that he makes theories, which are testable, it is scientific method. He does not made absolute predictions. He is too smart for that, many assume he predicting something. So I don't know why he would not be a subject matter expert on the search for alien life, similar to other science projects such as SETI. --GreenC18:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It depends on the field of course. incorrectly predicting that various interstellar objects are alien spacecraft on a mission to Earth false. as Jason Wright notes he always assigns a percentage probability to his predictions "which gives him plausible deniability of the bad-faith… Please do not put false bad faith allegations in your questions that this would be just "for plausible deniability" and assume they have no genuine reasoning. This is some criticism or rather some accusation by the individual Wright. Lobe himself says his blog and social media are "detective stories" Loeb described the collective scientific process to learn more about the interstellar object as akin to a detective story where more clues are found and analyzed. Where is the problem? Loeb's scientific peers consider him Some peers dislike him. So what? Inform about the criticism where adequate as with other criticized subjects and scientists. the author reports that other scientists "chuckled" at the mere mention of Loeb's name I didn't know that! Definitely, not a subject-matter expert on anything – I didn't know they chuckled at the mention of his name. /s
The problem isn't that other astronomers "dislike" him. The problem is that other astronomers are concerned that he's engaging inScience by press conference. In that situation, "let the readers make up their own minds" is aWP:GEVAL violation. We don't need to have articles saying "Astronomers have identified this as a meteor, but one astronomer posted on his blog that there's a 4.2% chance that it could be a flying saucer".
In such cases, erring on the side of omission is better for Wikipedia. The other option is erring on the side of being gullible.
I didn't say the issue is that they dislike them. I said they have criticisms. I referred to part"outlandish and disingenuous, prone to sensational claims, more interested in being a celebrity than an astrophysicist — not to mention distracting and misleading" which is an expression of disliking including unfounded bad faith accusations and nothing more.
I wasn't saying neutrality shouldn't be kept when it comes to balance.
but one astronomer posted on his blog that there's a 4.2% 3.1 It's not one astronomer 3.2 he didn't say this on his blog but wrote scientifically robust papers 3.3 he didn't say 4.2% but that it would be less likely than likely 3.4 he never said it would be a flying saucer
As is clear, your comment is riddled with falsehoods. Please address the specific points by the number to make clear to readers which points are being addressed – or not addressed – and if so how.Prototyperspective (talk)00:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are these "scientifically robust papers" self-published (e.g., on arXiv.org or his own website) or were they published in peer-reviewed journals? If the latter, could you provide a couple of citations? Thanks,FactOrOpinion (talk)00:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prototype, youliterally wroteSome peers dislike him. So what? That indicates that "dislike" was an issue (although not theonly issue). You now write about his peers givingan expression of disliking, which again is an indication that "disliking" is an issue. (Also: how doyou know that their dislike is "unfounded" and/or "bad faith"? It is unpleasant, and I'm sure that someone coming out of a culture that values indirect communication [e.g., Japan] would find it extremely uncomfortable, but that expression of disliking might be 100% founded in facts and told with perfect sincerity and truth.)
Maintaining neutrality is very frequently going to mean omitting his self-published works.
Where exactly did he self-publish these papers? It doesn't matter whether it's "his blog" vs "his website" vs "his social media channels": The principle is the same.
Since when does having peers dislike you mean the person shouldn't be considered an expert anymore? This is also what I previously said. And atThe problem isn't that other astronomers "dislike" him you suggested I saw the issues raised by others as mere disliking but I admitted that some also have criticisms which is more than mere expressions of disliking. Moreover, now it seems like you changed your mind and also claim that disliking would be an issue when previously in the quoted sentence said it wouldn't be "The problem".how do you know that their dislike is "unfounded" and/or "bad faith" […] might be 100% founded in facts the quoted part is clearly a bad faith accusation. Whether or not they're unfounded is debatable but the quoted part doesn't substantiate it anyhow and that's what I was addressing and I doubt they substantiated it in any meaningful form and if they did that should be included here but as far as I can see also has little to no relevance as to whether the person is an expert in various fields.
As well as including info on these works, especially ifWP:RS cover them. This is also not tied to whether Loeb is an expert in various fields which he is.
Where exactly did he self-publish these papers? May I ask why you make assumptions without substantiating/explaining them? They weren't just self-published preprints. You can see his papers published in scientific journals athttps://scholar.google.ch/citations?user=CvQxOmwAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate and you can see 3I/ATLAS-related papers that substantiate his claims you may find absurd there which could be summarized as 'it can't yet be ruled out that 3I-ATLAS, whether largely natural or not, has some kind technological origin and there unexplained peculiar anomalies'. In any case, this isn't about the specific case of 3I/ATLAS anyway – Loeb is no less an expert in various fields and has an impressive academic record and rigor.
I suggest that you readWikipedia:Assume good faith – actuallyread it, or at least the first few sentences, so you know what my working definition of "good faith" is, and can make reasonable predictions about what my working definition of "bad faith" is.
If reliable sources cover his self-published work, then it might, sometimes (but probably rarely), be worth mentioning them.
Yes, I'm "assuming" that you're asking about the definition ofexpert inWP:SPS because you want to cite one or more self-published preprints. There'd be no need to talk about whether he qualifies underWP:SPS if you wanted to cite a non-self-published paper of his.
1. I know that policy. Here you're assuming that with a bad faith accusation I was referring to things relating to Wikipedia contributors or that "bad faith" can only relate to such. This assumption isfalse. Again, what is in the quote is an expression of disliking and bad faith accusations.
3. It's not something I want to do. Loeb is an established subject-matter expert in various fields, whose work in the relevant fields has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The things you complained about were picked up by reliable sources outside of his personal writings so there's no need to use his self-published writings. I think self-published sources of experts are generally supposed to be avoided if possible unless for occasional due info, e.g. about more details than the same subject covered in reliable secondary sources. So if secondary sources for example report on his calculations and some preliminary conclusions he took from it, then adding a few words or a sentence or just the self-published source in addition about the technical details of the calculations can be due. Also note that he's an expert in the fields of the first stars and galaxies as well as for example in black hole physics and this thread specified "any of the natural sciences".Prototyperspective (talk)19:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is either self-contradictory (you say you don't want to cite the self-published source, but you do) or a waste of time (you're not planning to cite the self-published sources, but you just want to talk about the hypothetical situation in which someone might want to cite these self-published sources).
Maybe if I ask a completely different question, we would be able to develop a good shared understanding of what we're talking about here. Here's my new question:
Are you willing to promise today, on pain of being publicly called a liar, that you personally will neither add (including reverting other editors' removals) nor encourage anyone else to add citations toWP:PREPRINTS or any other self-published works written in whole or in part by Avi Loeb until at least 00:01 UTC on 1 January 2027?
If your answer is "no, I won't promise that", then tell me what "[Citing his self-published preprints" is not something I want to do" means. For example, it might mean "I do want to cite them, but I would never do so if other editors object" or "I do want to add them to the articles _____ and ____, but English Wikipedia editors can be somean to people who support so-called fringe theories that it makes it socially risky to tell you exactly which source I want to cite, in support of exactly what text I want to write, in exactly which section of exactly which article.
If your answer is "yes, I can promise that because I never intended to actually cite any of these in any articles, and I was just asking for fun", then we shouldbox up this discussion, because hypotheticals don't belong at this noticeboard.WhatamIdoing (talk)21:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll end this discussion with you here at your suggestion my input here would be "a waste of time" if I'm not planning to personally cite Loeb's self-published writing. You didn't address the points in my earlier comment anyway.Prototyperspective (talk)22:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a Harvard astronomer is of course reliable as a source on astronomy perWP:SPS. He might have a penchant for making eye-catching headlines, but he doesn't publish falsehoods which is what we care about here.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)00:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, when we are talking about a Harvard astronomer being a recognized subject-matter expert, whether he publishes falsehoods isnot all we care about. The key word is "recognized". To be recognized as an expert by the scientific community, subjecting your papers to peer review instead of publishing them in the popular press without review is an absolute requirement. That's why nobody considers theCold fusion "discoverers" to be recognized experts.
Please take a look atEvidence of Aliens? Harvard Astronomer Avi Loeb, published inSkeptic. Here the question is whether certain spherules are Interstellar in origin. That's a legitimate thing to research. The problem is that Loeb published his conclusions in a press release without submitting his paper[78] for peer review. That puts him outside of what scientists consider to be a recognized expert.
His paper was submitted for publication. And equating the longest-serving Chair of Harvard's Astronomy Department with cold fusion proponents is a false equivalence that ignores hish-index and hundreds of peer-reviewed contributions to mainstream astrophysics. We already have policies requiringmultiple sources orattribution for controversial claims by experts. These tools are sufficient; no need to dramatically deprecate a well-known and accomplished professor.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)01:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "equating the longest-serving Chair of Harvard's Astronomy Department with cold fusion proponents is a false equivalence"
Martin Fleischmann held the Faraday Chair of Chemistry Electrochemistry at the University of Southampton, was president of the International Society of Electrochemistry, was awarded the medal for electrochemistry and thermodynamics by the Royal Society of London, and received the Olin Palladium Award from the Electrochemical Society.
Stanley Pons was a PhD student under Fleischmann, and later became the chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Utah.
The equivalence is almost perfect: Recognized scientists who did good work that is still considered to be sound science today, who then pivoted from peer reviewed research to announcing fringe theories in the popular press as if they were established science. Nobody is questioning Loeb's earlier work on the modeling of plasma acceleration of charged particles or Fleischmann's earlier work on the Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering effect. But cold fusion still isn't real, and 3I/ATLAS is still a comet and not an alien mothership. --Guy Macon (talk)13:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken - I didn’t know some of the cold fusion crowd were so credentialed. But the fact remains, Loeb has not been shown to publish falsehoods, and if he does publish exceptional claims, we have existing policies in place to handle that. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)14:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally consider this[79] and this[80] to be publishing a falsehood. Others disagree. They look at his "Might be a comet, might be an interstellar spacecraft. The verdict is still out," song and dance and conclude that because he didn'tactually claim that it wasdefinitely a spacecraft he didn't claim a falsehood. After all. saying"In case 3I/ATLAS is a natural icy rock as they suggest, Mother Nature was kinder to NASA than expected from a random delivery of rocks by at least a factor of 100,000"[81] isn't the same as saying that he knows for sure that 3I/ATLAS isn't a natural icy rock, right? After all, there is still a 0.001% chance that NASA might be right and Loeb might be wrong... --Guy Macon (talk)15:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
isn't the same as saying that he knows for sure that 3I/ATLAS isn't a natural icy rock, right No, it isn't.there is still a 0.001% chance that NASA might be right and Loeb might be wrong he never claimed this and said things that directly contradict your false statement.Prototyperspective (talk)16:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are claiming that the quote by Loeb ("In case 3I/ATLAS is a natural icy rock as they suggest, Mother Nature was kinder to NASA than expected from a random delivery of rocks by at least a factor of 100,000") is a forgery? Or are you claiming that a 1 in 100,000 chance is not the same as a 0.001% chance? --Guy Macon (talk)17:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand the concept of calculating likelihoods according to current knowledge without precluding that our knowledge is incomplete where if it was more complete it would be much higher, specifically when making your calculations public in studies as part of the scientific process that others can find flaws in them that they can raise in papers. *Moreover, you seem to assume that "natural icy rock" is the only natural explanation.
The full quote starts with "NASA's officials should have at least acknowledged this unlikely fortune." and he was criticizing that they didn't even mention (or address) this puzzle – or nonpuzzle if you will – of the object's unexpectedly large mass.
Wikipedia shouldn't be based on the opinions, scientific literacy, and personal understandings of editors but on reliable sources and robust policies.
subjecting your papers to peer review instead of publishing them in the popular press without review is an absolute requirement. He's doing it. And he has published lots of papers in scientific journals. Your comment is refuted.Prototyperspective (talk)16:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. That username and that attitude look strangely familiar. Let me check...
Your comment doesn't include any explanation and no link to any WP policy. To answer your question:yes he has – examples (and only examples):[82][83]. And he has also published papers about the anomalies in interstellar objects and the potential for them to have some artificial/technological aspects such as[84]. Also, the thread seems to be about a broader topic.Prototyperspective (talk)22:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EXPERTSPS involves someone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." He meets this condition for astronomy. But there is no academic field that studies alien spacecrafts, so he cannot meet this condition for his discussions of alien spacecrafts.FactOrOpinion (talk)00:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"field" there is not defined as "long-establishedscientificfield". Looking atSubject-matter expert linked there, that page also does not link to a wikilink or include a definition that suggests so and saysA subject-matter expert (SME) is a person who has accumulated great expertise in a particular field or topic. Loeb meets this condition, leading the world's largest systematic scientificUAP research project, having gotten lots of coverage by reliable sources, and having written several books and academic papers on the subject. Note that experts can disagree with each other and neutrality must be maintained if Loeb is cited. Moreover, "field that studies alien spacecrafts" is a flawed overly-narrow ("studies" "alien" "space""crafts") description that essentially is ridiculing the subject and moving goalposts.Prototyperspective (talk)22:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subject-matter expert is an article it doesn't control Wikipedia policy. The policy isWP:EXPERTSPS and particularly "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". Loeb needs to have been published in the field of extraterrestrial life in scientific journals or by academic publishers. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See prior comment"field" there is not defined as "long-established scientific field". Talk is of "experts" so "field" there refers to 'field of expertise'. Re "field of extraterrestrial life" – the relevant topic is not so much astrobiology/extraterrestrial"life". Loeb is an expert with such published works in: the study of interstellar objects, search for UAP (example), technological signatures (example,example), early stars, black hole physics, and various other topics that need more, nuanced, investigation to all list.Prototyperspective (talk)23:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Chetsford didn't point to any examples of cites ofAvi Loeb's blog in Wikipedia articles, I looked myself at the cites inThe Age of Disclosure,CNEOS 2014-01-08,The Galileo Project,Rolf Dobelli,2022 in science,Avi Loeb,Eric Burlison,Interstellar object. Most specifically identify either Avi Loeb or the Galileo Project in the source text, an exception is the Rolf Dobelli article but it's merely identifying a speaker at a conference and there's a picture of him apparently on stage. I see nothing extraordinary about e.g. the claim that Avi Loeb is involved with the Galileo Project, orThough Loeb has conceded on publishing platform Medium that the object is "most likely a comet of natural origin," he has not ruled out the possibility that it could be extraterrestrial technology. etc. Of course,WP:SPS has a note that wasn't in Chetsford's partial quote -- "Note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." -- so that's already covered and requires no denigration of the professor's whole work. By the way, I notice Chetsford startedan RfC which includes Chetsford's evaluation of what Avi Loeb says and hope that all participants have been or will be notified about this specific discussion thread here.Peter Gulutzan (talk)16:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any claims of even thepossibility that something represents evidence of or is the product of extraterrestrial intelligence is on the extreme end ofWP:EXCEPTIONAL, and therefore should not be cited to aWP:SPS source under any circumstances whatsoever. Such things absolutely, unequivocally require multiple high-quality published secondary sources, per the high bar for exceptional claims; without them we should not include even the smallest hint of a suggestion in that direction. Like any such exceptional claim, if it were anything but absurdly out-there belly-laughWP:FRINGE, coverage would be deafening; the absence of such coverage means that a particular claim is fringe nonsense and shouldn't be included. For such topics, primary cites to Loeb should be removed instantly on sight, and editors who persist in trying to restore them should be taken toWP:AE forWP:PROFRINGE editing. This is not a hazy or complex situation, it's red-line classic profringe editing and should be treated as such. --Aquillion (talk)21:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally I would point to Loeb's opinions of fields that are actually related to the search for potential alien life, where he repeatedly disparages entire fields in interviews and to the faces of SMEs in these fields because they do not entertain his exceptional claims about what he believes to be evidence of aliens (see the zoom call that included Loeb andJill Tarter). --Cdjp1 (talk)22:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a very local newsorg, and whilereporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable, the fact that you're trying to cite (opening date of a restaurant) seems like a very uncontroversial fact and probably any local paper or possibly even weaker sources would still be fine.Alpha3031 (t •c)02:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's not like you're using the source to establish notability. If you're just trying to source a basic fact, then all that matters is that the source isn't outright unreliable. Outside of that, even the weakest of local sources would be good enough.SilverserenC02:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's good enough, but I don't think we should equate "local" with "less-established". Some local newsorgs have been in business for over a century. A "less-established" newsorg would be one that's only a couple of years old.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As recently noted by CJR, TheIndian Defence Review, formerly a website dedicated specifically to coverage of the Indian military, has become a generic SEO content farm covering all kinds of random unconnected topics like Atlantis and window cleaning, and now forms part of the Algerian SS Tech content farm network. We have several hundred uses perIndiandefencereview.com, which seems mostly to be on the original Indian military focus of the website. I think the current form of the website as a content farm is inherently unreliable. My questions are 1. when did the website transition to being a content farm and 2. Was the original, Indian military focused incarnation of the website (which CJR alleged was aa peer-reviewed academic-journal website dedicated to the Indian military), a reliable source on Indian military topics?Hemiauchenia (talk)03:17, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From when I've looked at the IDR before (and prior to the slop it is now pumping out), it seemed more reliable in its articles than a lot of the Indian news sites for the topics it covered, but it didn't seem to bea peer-reviewed academic-journal website, though I can't say for that itwasn't for certain. --Cdjp1 (talk)22:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From scanning back and forth in the wayback machine to find when it went done I wouldn't say it looked like a "a peer-reviewed academic-journal", but it seems to have had at least some reputation for it's reporting. Saying that some of the article headlines I saw seemed a little sensational. The new website is odd. Some of the military reporting seems to be the standard fair for such sites, but the reporting on science and climate is full of fringe junk. I don't think the two should be treated the same. I don't know whether the new site is trading of the old name, the site was relaunched to try and increase profits, or sold and the new owner took it in a new direction. Whatever happened it's very different to how it was. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed here:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 422#Great Russian Encyclopedia Online in 2023, but the discussion sizled. Many people were for its deprecation. However in was pointed out that many articles are written by respected scholars and are good. At the same time it is definitely censored as a state enterprize (by the way, liquidated right now) , and it is definitely not an RS for contentious topics. Currently it is used as a ref in about 500 pages. Shall we summarize the position about GrRuEnc inWP:RSNP, or restart the discussion first? --Altenmann>talk14:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PersonallyYmblanter's comment from the last discussion seems about right.[85] Many of the uncontroversial articles are written by experts and are probably reliable, articles on more controversial topics effected by censorship (that they must write certain things, rather than not being allowed to write at all). I don't see why this would need to be added to the RSP, but what should appear onWP:RSP is a matter forWP:RSPCRITERIA and it's talk page. The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss the reliability of sources, not the contents of the RSP. Those criteria really need a note that discussions about adding something to the RSP doesn't count towardsWP:RSPCRITERIA. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:20, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Claim: "Harvard astrophysicistAvi Loeb, lately criticized for his courting of the UFO believer community,[1] said of the film, "[T]hese stories are very intriguing and if the government does have access to such information, I think they should share it with scientists like myself because my day job is what lies outside the solar system."[2]
No, becauselately criticized for his courting of the UFO believer community is a violation ofWP:NPOV that is not supported by that cited source. A short statement by Loeb – an astrophysicist and quite likely the most featured scientist regarding 3I/ATLAS in news media where the latter clearly establishes notability – does belong in the section. That's a case for the talk page, not this noticeboard however.Prototyperspective (talk)22:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to believe that it's not a RS in this context, that is, it is a RS for that claim. The true question seems to be DUEness.Katzrockso (talk)01:12, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is Loeb a reliable source on the topic, I don't think so given the criticism from independent source shown in the other thread. Is Loeb a reliable source for his own quote - yes, but verification is required by included content - reliable sourcing doesn't mean it has to be included (WP:VNOT). Is his quote due for inclusion, that would rely on whether any secondary sources have reported the quote rather than a primary source. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°12:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Business Insider source ispossibly usable but doesn't support the quote; the Medium source is utterly unusable and should not be cited, or used to support even attributed quotes, in any context whatsoever. This is not the sort of thing thatWP:EXPERTSPS is for; using it to cite a fringe figure is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk)13:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Loeb has verifiably beenlately criticized for his courting of the UFO believer community, as further sources make explicit.
“(Loeb) became an eager spokesperson, appearing not just in mainstream media outlets, but also UFO podcasts and conferences.“
“When asked directly about the dangers of involving such outspoken UFO advocates, Loeb points out that he did not recruit them; they all approached him.“
“But others say Loeb is tarnishing astronomy and undermining the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) just as that effort has started to acquire a veneer of respectability. In particular, they are bothered by the outspoken UFO zealots with no science background whom Loeb has welcomed into the project. “He’s intermingled legitimate scientists with these fringe people,” says Caleb Scharf, an astrobiologist at Columbia University. “I think you lose far more by doing that.”
“(Astronomer Jill) Tarter said it was important not to make any conjectural leaps about aliens unless there was “extraordinary evidence.” This, she added, was the only way of “differentiating ourselves from the pseudoscience that is so much a part of popular culture with UFOs.”
My apologies for writing an unclear question. Let me try again:
Question A: Is the Medium source (a self-published Transcript of a Q&A About 3I/ATLAS by Avi Loeb) both reliable and due?
Question B: Assuming that the answer to the above is yes (if it is no this is irrelevant -- no need to mention Loeb), is the Business Insider source (a criticism of Avi Loeb) both reliable and due?
A: In generalNo. However, it can be a good occasional source if some subject-area expert wrote it and the content is due, e.g. to specify in more detail what Loeb argued if his broader input was picked up by reliable sources. This is the same as withWP:THECONVERSATION.
B: Afalse assumption you made there is that the source above is a medium post but it's an interview with FOX 32 Chicago plus a Medium post. BI isn't the best of sources and probably can't be classed as entirely reliable, it nevertheless is orcould be due there. The content there supported by that source iscriticized for promoting unverified and sensationalized claims about extraterrestrial life apparently based onDiamond, the SETI Institute CEO, told BI he had "mixed feelings" about Loeb's approach. Loeb's provocative take is probably what allowed him to generate cash for a field that has long been underfunded, he said. On the other hand, he added, "I think that there are many in the scientific community who feel that he's gone beyond the bounds and confines of the scientific method and scientific rigor. And there's some sensationalism there, part of which may be an effort to help sell books, which of course is understandable," he said. Still, Diamond said, "what Avi's proposing to do is a worthwhile endeavor." which I find it not sufficiently well reflecting what's in the source or not sufficiently backed by it, not in a severe way but I think it should be edited to be closer to what the source actually says.Prototyperspective (talk)17:55, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not recommend using any of the EWTN publications without attribution in general... On controversies relating to the Catholic church I would avoid them all together.Horse Eye's Back (talk)01:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, a good number of the writers for the Eternally Confused Network seem to have had too much sacramental wine to drink. I would not consider them reliable for anything beyond the weather report.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)01:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should avoid making insulting religious jokes. It looks like about 15% of the world is Catholic, and that means something like 15% of the editors reading this section could be Catholic. We need everyone involved in Wikipedia, not just vocally non-religious editors.
Looking at theFBI Richmond Catholic memo investigation article, it says that the FBI considered adherents ofTraditionalist Catholicism to be at-risk for domestic terrorism. According toTraditionalist Catholicism, at least some of these people aren't Catholics any more. Based on that, this sounds like a case of "Media group A investigates former/anti-A members". It's probably a case ofWP:RSBIAS, rather than being unreliable.
As a more general statement, I would accept a media org like this for objective facts about the in-group (someone was given an award, became a bishop, or whatever). Sources in the in-group usually know what's happening in the group.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are still Catholics, just schismatic ones. They are hostile to the church authorities but practice a more extreme (?) version. As there is a left/right issue here and EWTN is to the right they'll probably have some sympathies.Secretlondon (talk)07:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which bit you are challenging. If it's whether they are Catholics - they are not in communion with Rome, but practice pre-Vatican II rites.Secretlondon (talk)22:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said "They are still Catholics". The article says "they are not regarded by the Holy See to be members of the Catholic Church". Membership in an organization (any organization) is determined by the organization; therefore, if the organization says they are not members, they aren't. I therefore think it's fair to say that they aren't members of the Catholic church/not Catholics.WhatamIdoing (talk)22:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You get catholics that are not members of the Roman church at all such asAnglo-Catholics (who are certainly not trads). Catholicism is a set of doctrines rather than a membership organisation. It's a bit like the way Mormon fundamentalists sects are still Mormon.Secretlondon (talk)23:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster defines Catholic (as a noun) as "a member of a Catholic church, especially Roman Catholic." They give no definitions based on beliefs instead of membership. But even if it's "a set of doctrines", who decides which doctrines matter, and how do we know that these non-members subscribe to the relevant doctrines?WhatamIdoing (talk)02:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I should be very careful not to offend myself then, given that I am Catholic. But I seem to recall something about telling the truth being an element of Catholic teachings. Publications that stretch the truth do not seem to recall that item. By the way, your attempt at stratified sampling logic for the 15% is probably inaccurate. But that is a separate issue.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)08:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per theirabout us page, it's not clear what kind of editorial policy they have, but they have an editor-in-chief and other editors per theircontact us page. The editor-in-chiefKen Oliver is described in his biography as "a former White House director of specialty media, news editor at NBC Radio, and evening news producer at Radio Martí, among other positions in journalism and public policy." The organization also is cited quite a lot byNPR ([86][87][88].The New York Times cites them too, but always precedes it with "conservative outlet" or otherwise qualifies their citations;[89][90]. I would attribute their claims about contentious (more exceptional) facts, but as Whatamidoing above noted, it doesn't really need attribution for less exceptional objective fats.Katzrockso (talk)04:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly familiar with this noticeboard, but I don't think that a source getting discussed once typically merits an entry on theWP:RSP, perWP:RSPCRITERIA.
The "brief mention" in November 2022 is just a link to the June 2020 discussion, with a claim that it has "been deemed unreliable" that I don't think is justified by the June 2020 discussion. A quick glance over the June 2020 discussion suggests that it is considered reliable (for the claims in the relevant article), and the source is currently used in that article.
I'd summarize past discussions as:
June 2020: deemed reliable for serious/criminal accusations, and is used in the article
November 2022: incorrect claim that June 2020 said it wasn't reliable, as part of a list of other/unrelated religious media
September 2025: deemed reliable for the claim that a bishop said something, but undue and so not used in the article
Usually, we're looking both at the difficulty of the disputes, the number of them, and the frequency. There's no need for an RSP entry if it's obvious to everyone that a website is reliable or unreliable, or if a source only comes up every few years. On the other hand, if we've had two separate fights in two months (not just the sameWP:IDHT editor twice), then it might be helpful to pursue an RSP entry.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, as always, on what you are using it for. They have a US right POV. They will reflect some US right concerns such as traditional masses, which can be weaponised against the church in Rome.Secretlondon (talk)07:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable for mundane claims in the Catholic Church like bishop appointments, writings/opinions of recent popes and bishops, canonizations, canon law... They also seem fine with respect to criminal acts by individual priests and bishops (CSA scandals and others) but I would use other more mainstream sources for this out of caution. They are not reliable for the truth of miracles, dogma... Don't use them for social policies where they are incredibly biased like abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, transgender issues, anticonception... (they will not misquote popes, bishops or priests on these topics but absolutely don't use them for anything else).Rolluik (talk)11:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Things like bishops appointments etc you can get from the Vatican rather than from them. Theydo have a conservative POV compared to some other Catholic media.Secretlondon (talk)22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of the helpful comments. It’s clear there is not total consensus on the limits of its reliability but I think we have consensus that it can be used for mundane facts about the Catholic Church and consensus that it should be avoided for contentious topics. I am interested in the fact that at least one editor felt it should be avoided for US culture war topics. The article mentioned above probably falls into that category as it is a minor focus for conspiracy-minded Trump supporters. The source has been added to a related page,Paul Abbate, and I’m going to assume that because that’s a BLP it’s even more of a red flag.BobFromBrockley (talk)19:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Editors involved in the above discussion might be interested to note that this source has now been added to theSouthern Poverty Law Centre article, without attribution, in a section about the FBI using SPLC definitions in investigating TradCath extremists.BobFromBrockley (talk)10:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use this source atMark Kelly to say he and others posted a video?
TheRoll call report used in the article has both: "The Pentagon missive follows a videoposted on social media last week by Kelly and five other Democrats in Congress". and: "While the Democrats whoappeared in the video were all ..." So I don't think it's possible to say one is more correct than the other. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller claims that my basis for saying that Mark Kelly "appeared in" rather than "posted" the video is "social media reports". Not true. It's not based on social mediareports, it's based on theactual postings of the video on social media by someone who is not Mark Kelly. It is afact that the video was posted by Sen.Elissa Slotkin:
There is confusion here about reliable sources. We have here reliable sources for these propositions, respectively:
Elissa Slotkin posted the video on X.
Elissa Slotkin posted the video on Facebook.
Elissa Slotkin posted the video on YouTube.
This video, posted on three social media sites, is not necessarily a reliable source for the proposition, "members of the military have the legal right to refuse illegal orders." But these postings are reliable sources for the proposition, "Senator Elissa Slotkin posted the video." —Anomalocaris (talk)20:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In controversial matters it's always best to use secondary sources, such primary sources would be ok forWP:ABOUTSELF statements but you can't use them in an article about a living person unless they are posted by the subject of the article (seeWP:BLPSPS). So you can't use a social media post by Slotkin to say anything about Kelly. The Roll Call article uses both 'posted' and 'appeared' about the senators who were in the video, which one to use is a content discussion rather than a reliability one. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°23:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ActivelyDisinterested: I assume good faith, but let's be clear. There might be a controversy over the actions of the six federal legislators appearing in Elissa Slotkin's video, and over the Trump administration's response, but there is no "controversy" over thefact that Elissa Slotkin posted the video. I cannot find a copy of the video posted by Mark Kelly. It does not look like Mark Kelly posted the video. Nobody has provided a link to any copy of the video posted by Mark Kelly. It is likely that theRoll Call story is simply careless regarding the detail of how a video Mark Kelly participated in, and may have helped to write, landed on the Internet. Wikipedia should not say something that is probably wrong when it can say something similar that is definitely true and confirmed by reliable primary and secondary sources. —Anomalocaris (talk)00:04, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I didn't use Elissa Slotkin's social media postings inMark Kelly. I used them here, to establish the fact that Elissa Slotkin posted the video, for the purposes of this discussion. And one more thing, I summarized my previous edit "Don't be stupid", and I ask that other editors assume good faith on my part when I say that I meant that Wikipedia should not be stupid and say things that are not true. I definitely did not mean that any Wikipedia editor was st*pid. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk)02:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources and diffs[92], the 'posted' claim does not originate inThe Hill but rahterRoll Call.
Well, it's not a good sign for the reliability ofRoll Call that it's been easier for me to figure out how to contact their advertising department than report an error/find a corrections page. Which, judging from the absence of any evidence or sourcing saying that Kelly (or his account) posted the video, and a great deal of evidence that it was posted by a Slotkin, this appears to be. In their favour, it's abreaking news story, likely rushed, and we expect newspapers to get things like that wrong from time to time.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸07:10, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Behind the scenes, content on the SuperCarlinBrothers channel is produced by a small production team.
During his time atVirginia Tech, Jonathan Carlin developed an interest in YouTube and began posting sketch comedy and observational humor videos to his own channel.
As of 2022, the Carlin brothers have a studio-office space in downtown Roanoke where they film, edit, and publish content with the aid of their staff members.
In late 2019, Jonathan and Ben launched Popcorn Culture, a podcast that releases episodes on a weekly basis where they talk about their personal and professional lives along with many other topics.
Jonathan studied mass communication at Virginia Tech.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is not generally considered a reliable source for factual claims, as it's a late-night comedy/news satire program. However, it can be used to reliably attribute opinions or criticisms expressed on the show itself (e.g., "John Oliver criticizedAir Bud Returns for [specific reason] onLast Week Tonight").
In this case, would it be appropriate to cite the segment where Oliver criticized the production of the movie in the reception or legacy section? This avoids using it for verification of facts but highlights the commentary.
as a joke, to push the entertainmentWP:GOSSIP. if this shows up in more places, it would indicate dueness. of note, many of his antics are regularly covered and make headlines, and are noted as such on wikipedia, so it could be a strong possiblity this does end up becoming dueUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)21:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's Pop Media, but I wouldn't say that it's quite unreliable, it's just effectively video essays for people who go on Bluesky. As a crash course on a topic, his work is usually partisan but factually solid.Snokalok (talk)16:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i'd almost say his work is tertiary, in that he reports on secondary analysis, but he has recently been using journalists to do their own reports and analysis. There are a few deep dives.not sure about how to define editorial control, would remain uncomfortable using the show currently.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly, given their notable history of getting sued and (IIRC) a 100% win rate, and now it's a running gag to point out whenever HBO legal censors them... it's reasonable to assume that Last Week as a news/event analysis show discussing events as reported is totally fine. It gets into "John Oliver said..." when it's clearly his opinion versus reporting (like his intro/outro stuff, "And now... this").
I agree. The issue here is less about the reliability of the facts the show relays, and more the tone and the overall satirical package in which those facts are presented. The edit which gave rise to this discussion is a great example; having watched that segment, I don't know that it is strictly speaking particularly faithful or elucidating to say that Oliver "criticized" the production team in question. I'm not a religious follower of this show, but as I recall, after every season, in the off months between November and February, they produce two or three of these joke segments on a light-hearted takedown of something that's really a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. The entire point of these bits is that the subject matter isn't really anything a reasonable person would get so worked up about, but Oliver (or at least his screen personality) presents as lacking the perspective/opinion that they are below intensive scrutiny and gets way too emotionally invested in, for example, the legacy of a series of direct-to-distribution movies about a dog that plays basketball. It's supposed to blur the line about how much the audience is supposed to care about these issues and what constitutes reasonable indignation, versus histrionic ire directed at topics nobody should be too preoccupied with; it's a kind of self-effacing humor in that respect. The problem is, this technique is also reflective of rhetorical methods utilized in the show proper, when it is legitimately trying to draw attention to major social ills, scandals, corruption, dirty politics, inane public policies, poor moral leadership, misinformation campaigns, and any of the other serious and heavy topics which are the man subject of the regular airings of the show. It is very much a part of the normal ebb and flow the show to punctuate horrific facts and dismissive or descriptions offensive commentary around them with hyperbolic, sarcastic, or purposefully obtuse comparisons. Indeed, this satire is often laid directly over the topic in Oliver's discursive style so thick that if you read a particular quote about a given subject, and removed both context and the live tone of the commentary, you can easily end up presenting statements that are the exact opposite of what Oliver and the show are clearly trying to impart. In short, I think the show, as a kind of secondary/tertiary source re-(or re-re-)relaying information is probably more reliable for factual accuracy and presentation of facts without distortion than 2/3's of the current news media environment. But is it particularly useful for encyclopedia writing? Unfortunately, I think the heavy reliance on unspoken subtext and the disputable intention inherent in the shows approach to satire presents major issues in that regard.SnowRise let's rap03:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point where Oliver shows an overly sexualized horse or fornicating rats, agrees with you, says "of course I'm not a fucking reliable source, you nerds, but you can quote me that this horse wants it," and finishes with, "And now, this..."
Haha--just so: Oliver would probably be the first person to deflate the idea that he should be treated as a reliable source. And you and I might actually listen to him do so and think "I understand why you are saying this, but I think you are probably more intellectually honest and scrupulous about how you present the reality of a situation than nearly all the talking heads that might have tried to reach me this week." But critically, and I think Oliver would agree with this, when you choose to speak truth to power by assuming the role of a kind ofpublic jester mixing humor into your your social criticism to make the darker realities a little bit easier to grapple with, you become a less-than-optimal reference point in drier treatments of the things you discuss.SnowRise let's rap03:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why we are talking about this, when the question of whether Monty Python's Life of Brian is a reliable source remains unresolved. My view is that we can use the non-cartoon bits, but all the UFO stuff is covered byWP:FRINGE--Boynamedsue (talk)07:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crowdfundbeat has been usurped by curiousgrape.com, and I can't find an archived copy of its about page. I was redirected to fintechworld.com, which invites me to send my guest contributor article to info@fintechworld.com or call them on the phone. If anything it is as good as any press release publisher. Crowdfundinsider seems to be about the same though its website is still online; they welcome guest contributors, paid press releases, and inline advertisements. They are about as reliable as the company's own website (EnergyFunders); I would not consider them as contributing to notability and only useful for self-descriptions of the company, and even then these are fairly self-aggrandizing articles. --Reconrabbit15:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not sure it currently uses the A.B. construction, it appears that the University of Oklahoma used A.B. in the early 20th century[97] don't think it was terribly unusual then, and we should not convert the abbreviation to something that it wasn't.Acroterion(talk)16:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It stands for Artium Baccalaureatus and is awarded instead at some universities, including Harvard. It's equivalent to a B.A., but I'd use A.B. instead of B.A., since it's the correct degree for Harvard.FactOrOpinion (talk)19:08, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For selfpublished sourcesWP:EXPERTSPS says "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I can find two books by Natasha Helfer[98][99], but they are both selfpublished throughCreateSpace and so wouldn't help towards showing reliability. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was a well respected journalism site. In June 2025, it was bought byValnet and gutted to maximize profit - firing employees, reducing pay, changing focus. The new owner said: "Forget the ‘newsroom’ concept—we are a simple and honest editorial operation." A lengthy expose in theColumbia Journalism Review has the ugly lowdown. The owners of Valnet go their start in the online porn business, launching sites like Jugg World and XXX Rated Chicks. They do not have a reputation for reliable journalism. It is (probably) no longer a trustworthy source. Currently used in2,000 pages, though most of it is the old site. --GreenC17:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the typical behaviour from Valnet. Certainly the site after June 2025 shouldn't be handled the same as it was before, as it's a completely different operation now. At best it'sWP:RSEDITORIAL per their own admission. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you people consider Restpublisher[100] reliable? It is used inFuzzy concept. The specific item is ref 274 there: M.S. Raju, "Fuzzy Physics: A New Paradigm for Modelling Physical Systems". REST Journal on Emerging trends in Modelling and Manufacturing (Pavagada, India), Volume 6, Issue 4, 2020, pp. 260-266.
, which seems mostly to be on the original Indian military focus of the website. I think the current form of the website as a content farm is inherently unreliable. My questions are 1. when did the website transition to being a content farm and 2. Was the original, Indian military focused incarnation of the website (which CJR alleged was a
