This is anarchive of past discussions onWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent main page.

Dawn (newspaper)/Dawn.com "the largest English newspaper in Pakistan, and is widely considered the country's newspaper of record" and mostly treated as GREL at enwiki (though not listed at RSP) was caught usingChatGPT after it mistakenly published the suggestedprompt in its print and online editions.[1],[2],[3].

The prompt itself has been removed from its online editions but the article remains as is with an editorial note now noting[4]:

This report published in today’s Dawn was originally edited using AI, which is in violation of our current AI policy. The policy is available on our website and can be reviewedhere. The original report also carried AI-generated artefact text from the editing process, which has been edited out in the digital version. The matter is being investigated, and the violation of AI policy is regretted.

The article where the prompt appeared did carry the byline of its "ace business reporter Aamir Shafaat Khan" but not sure if the problem is more entrenched. I have used this as an RS but wonder if this warrants more caution.Gotitbro (talk)07:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This is of course just one incident, but I'm not particularly soldby their AI policy: they state that AI is permitted to be used for "audio/video editing and enhancement" with "human verification", but also state that it's not permitted to use to "manipulate[d] photos of real events". If you "enhance" an image with AI, you are already manipulating it.

They also state that they will note when "substantial AI assistance is used in content creation, an editor’s note/label will be included" i.e. they already admit that not all AI content will actually be labelled. What qualifies as "substantial"? Who knows. The paper also reserves the right to now label AI slop ads because "decisions about labelling for sponsored content are made by our editorial team according to the AI policy". The latter is less concerning since we won't use ads as sources anyway, but this "We'll tell you if we feel like it attitude" doesn't instil confidence.Cortador (talk)13:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

That might be a bit too pedantic. Photojournalists have some rules about what's allowed (like you're not allowed to ask people to stand in a particular place and then present the staged portrait as if it were a candid snap), and those allow some kinds of photo editing (e.g., contrast, brightness) but not others, which are considered manipulating the content.

(Wecan cite advertisements. They are reliable primary sources for their own content. Of course, you're almost never going to have a reason to cite one, but it's okay if you need to cite some technical detail about a notable manufactured product, or if the advertisements themselves are notable, such asApple Inc. advertising.)WhatamIdoing (talk)07:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully it's a one time thing, but something to keep an eye on...Rainsage (talk)06:41, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a pretty egregious editorial error. It's basically equivalent to saying aloud, "yep, ChatGPT is one of our writers!" If it were my decision, I would say they are immediately unreliable as this would have almost certainly happened in other articles, it's just with this one they got caught out. This is definitely one that'll need a close eye kept on it, without blinking!11WB (talk)17:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I guess I would be more concerned if there were actual falsehoods found in their articles. It seems like everyone is using AI these days.Rainsage (talk)17:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• FWIWCJR's coverage of media disinformation in the India-Pakistan conflict notes Dawn rather favorably, though indirectly so. In at least one case, they're used as a counter-example of having provided fact-checking of other outlet's disinformation. I don't particularly think they are a high-quality outlet even without the use of ChatGPT to write for them -- I almost always see it used to cite some of the most dubious nationalist claims that better international media sources would never tolerate; but absent more instances I'd be willing to suspend judgment.⇒SWATJester^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}20:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

His lead currently statesAccording to the Anti-Defamation League, he has endorsed Nazi policies concerning Jews and has denied the Holocaust., and the only source presented is the ADLhttps://www.adl.org/resources/article/owen-benjamin-what-you-need-know I'm pretty sure that's not a reliable source, and either way it seems undue to have such a contentious statement there without further sources to back it up~2025-33803-70 (talk)06:33, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

There are more sources that confirm this, e.g.[5].Alaexis_¿question?09:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I've never heard ofAlgemeiner, so I checked previous discussions and saw someone sayingAlgemeiner is generally reliable but it's not the BBC. However, for allegations serious enough to ruin a distinguished researchers career, you need better sources. obviously this person doesn't seem to be treated as a distinguished researcher, but that's still something to keep in mind.Wikieditor662 (talk)13:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Consideringthis guy's behaviour, the ADL's claims don't seem implausible. Perhaps @~2025-33803-70 can clarify which of the claims made by the ADL are false and provide some evidence for that.Alaexis_¿question?14:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

There's also thisWashington Post story.Black Kite (talk)15:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

While there are a couple of examples that fall into the considerations we have for the ADL, the evidence they provide and the majority of what they write are outside of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The additional sources highlighted show that him being labelled as antisemitic and detailing his explicit Holocaust denial is well within RS reporting. The exact wording "Nazi policies", doesn't appear, but I would hazard a guess this covers instances such asBenjamin defended Hitler's persecution of European Jews, which I would say counts as a Nazi-policy, but we may want to change "endorsed" to "defended", though either is fine in my opinion. --Cdjp1 (talk)17:10, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Considering the explicit, on-the-record endorsement of Holocaust denial and defense of Hitler, this would be one of the situations where the ADL is a fine source with attribution to label one an antisemite; it's not a contentious/likely-to-be-challenged claim when the subject is openly and unapologetically a bigot. The article also has a wide variety of other sources referring to him as an antisemite.TheKip^(contribs)20:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This aside, I'm sure all those things are technically verifiable but do we really need to list off every single possible -ism in the first sentence? You don't need to beat the reader over the head with it.PARAKANYAA (talk)20:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, good point. The epithets most prominent in sources should be described in the first sentence.Katzrockso (talk)03:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• The ADL is considered reliable on anti-semitism where there is no connection to the state of Israel, this would appear to be one of those cases, no?Boynamedsue (talk)06:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Per RSP:There is consensus that, outside the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the ADL is generally a reliable source, particularly for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that the ADL must always be attributed, but there is consensus that its labelling of organisations and individuals (especially as antisemitic) should be attributed. So this attributed usage perfectly complies with our policyBobFromBrockley (talk)04:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I’m seeking input on the reliability of Slidstvo.info. The draft article atDraft:Allatra cites Slidstvo.info[6] multiple times for serious and contentious claims (e.g., alleged foreign influence, criminal investigations, organisational activities). Before relying on these reports, I’d like to establish whether the outlet is considered generally reliable, situationally reliable, or not reliable under WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG.

If anyone has prior experience with this source, knowledge of its editorial standards, or awareness of previous RSN discussions, your insight would be very helpful. Thank you.Deriannt (talk)04:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

There is anarticle [uk] about them on Ukrainian Wikipedia, the organization is mainly funded by Western donors. It cooperates with theOrganized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which is an NGO funded by the US government. Most of their high-profile investigations are due to their connection to this organization, such as their use of thePanama Papers to establish thatGennadiy Trukhanov was a Russian citizen. In 2015, they won a prize for their investigative reporting, but it was followed by a controversy. The editor-in-chief promised to donate the money prize to the Ukrainian military, but, for the large part, didn't[7]. I don't find that manyWP:USEBYOTHERS (Reuters, AP, France24), their movie about Zelenskyy was mentioned byThe Guardian[8]. My personal opinion is that their investigations had a political subtext, such as pressure campaigns againstZelenskyy,Kolomoyskyi, orOASK [uk] (a Ukrainian court that was liquidated in 2022 and whose head was sanctioned by the USA). Summing up, I would say this is usable with attribution.

RegardingAllatra [uk;ru], it has articles on Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedias, and it looks like the topic was covered in scientific literature.Kelob2678 (talk)10:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

They appear to have won a few awards[9][10][11], have some uses in reliably published books[12][13][14][15][16][17], and have a programme that's broadcast across multiple TV channels[18] Their funding is unclear, at least until recently a lot of it (80%) came from USAID[19], but any bias isn't a reliability issue (WP:RSBIAS). If they are doing investigative journalism I would suggest attribution, but they should be reliable otherwise. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this was helpful.Deriannt (talk)14:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

See the previous discussions:1,2,3.

Publifye AS publishes AI-generated books with little to no human review. Their books are available on Google Books, so plenty of editors have cited these books as reliable sources.^[a] I think an edit filter that warns editors about this and tags these edits would help us mitigate this issue. I haverequested one, but I was deferred here with the suggestion that I should ask for Publifye to be deprecated, so that it can be added tothe deprecated sources filter. I'm also open toother ideas. What do you think?Kovcszaln6 (talk)09:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I can see no reason not to add this to the deprecated filter list. None of the works they publish are ever going to be usable as reliable sources. At this point it's a perennial issue that is wasting editors time. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm strongly in favour of adding it to the deprecated list.Richard Nevell (talk)13:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, should I start an RfC?Kovcszaln6 (talk)14:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I just sawthis comment on the WikiProject AI Cleanup talk page. Maybe it would be worthwhile having a RFC on deprecating LLM sources in general, the argument against one is going to be the same as the argument against any of them. That could then be used to cover the bureaucracy of any such sources added to filter 869 in the future as well. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSML andWP:RSPLLM already state that they are unreliable. I wouldn't be against deprecating them (thus reducing the bureaucracy to add AI-generated stuff to the list and filter), but then the same question will arise: what about partially AI-generated sources, and AI-generated sources that were carefully reviewed by a human? I think a strict criteria like "wholly AI-generated without human review" would probably be supported by the community.Kovcszaln6 (talk)14:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, I meant sources that are "wholly AI-generated without human review". --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Something like "Should sources that arewholly AI-generated without human review be deprecated as sources for referencing?" --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°14:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although some mention of the proposed reduction of bureaucracy to add links/publishers/etc. to the list should also be mentioned (maybe have a separate list for these likehere?).Kovcszaln6 (talk)14:39, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Having a separate section like the peerage sites sounds like a good idea. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Non-notable websites that almost entirely consist of LLM-generated content are already routinely added to thespam blacklist when there is a pattern of them being inappropriately cited or linked to, because these sources have no valid use case on Wikipedia. As a book publisher, Publifye is not affected by the spam blacklist because their published books are not under a domain name specific to Publifye; some of the citations link to Google Books and some do not include a link at all. This makes Publifye a good candidate for an edit filter. Filter869 (hist ·log) focuses on website domain names, so a new filter may be a better solution. — Newslinger talk20:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright, so should I request one?Kovcszaln6 (talk)18:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Recently, theTimes of London postedthis article about former New York mayorBill de Blasio's comments about New York mayoral candidateZohran Mamdani. This would be a perfectly ordinary article about a subject of public note... except thataccording to Bill de BlasioI never spoke to that reporter and never said those things andThe story in the Times of London is entirely false and fabricated.

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

Apparently they weretricked by an impersonator𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.)01:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Turns out that it wasn't an imposter. It was someone else named Bill DeBlasio who never claimed to be the former mayor (though he recognized that the reporter was assuming this, even though the reporter never said so), and it was The Times' reporter who initiated contact. Moreinfo from Semafor.FactOrOpinion (talk)13:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Pulling an article when it becomes apparent that a mistake how been made, and publicly admitting to that mistake, is how we want sources to behave. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup. They messed up. They owned up to it. They pulled it in two hours. Hopefully theTimes will be a bit more wary in the future, and hopefully Wikipedia will also remain wary of putting too much trust in a single source (any single source) for the sort of content that this sort of hoax could have been responsible for. It doesn't appear to have made it into the de Blasio article, so we're all good there.AndyTheGrump (talk)02:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Fabricating quotes to the former NYC mayor is pretty wild in the first place. They didn't pull it till caught. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)02:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It isn't a good look, certainly. All sources are fallible though, and we have to base content on something...AndyTheGrump (talk)02:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

They didn't fabricate the quote, the quote came from an impersonator who fabricated the quote. The Times fell for the impersonination thinking it was the real Bill de Blasio. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, that's not SO bad then. Not like they're the first people to get clowned like that. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it makes them look stupid, but it's hardly the first time this has happened to a news organisation. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any acknowledgement on theirCorrections page.FactOrOpinion (talk)02:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see whether they add it to the list. If not, we should have a discussion about what not owning up to their mistake means for the Time's reliability.Cortador (talk)07:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

More than half a week later - still no correction.Cortador (talk)09:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Any correction from them yet? I think this part specifically is being overlooked. If they admitted their mistake, then they're fine. But if they haven't, then their lack of accountability should raise farther discussion.Wikieditor662 (talk)05:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

They've publicly admitted their mistake, retracted the article, and apologised to Bill de Blasio directly. I can only guess there's nothing on the correction page as there's no article to correct (as it was pulled). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°10:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh alright, then I don't see the point in this discussion, are you able to close it?Wikieditor662 (talk)19:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It will get automatically archived 5 days after the last comment, but maybe I should do it manually. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that pulling the article was the correct move. However, if they were tricked by an impersonator it still concerns me that they never tried to contact (the real) de Blasio. Even DMing him on Twitter would have been enough to stop this.

Like, the impersonator wasn't even trying to talk like the real guy. Anyone with even basic familiarity with the subject matter could've caught this.Loki (talk)02:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

What action, if any, are you suggesting Wikipedia should take on this?AndyTheGrump (talk)02:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The Times is currently green at RSP and I'm no longer confident it should be.Loki (talk)04:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there's a newspaper of record out there that hasn't made similar slip-ups at one time or another. They messed up. They admitted it. They corrected it, rapidly. We clearly aren't going to change the RSPN entry on that alone. You could start an RfC, but it would be a complete waste of time in my opinion.AndyTheGrump (talk)04:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I doubt there's a newspaper of record out there that hasn't made slip ups.Similar slip-ups, though, I think is more debatable.

The entire premise of the article is wrong. They put words in the mouth of a man that he did not say and in fact has publicly said the opposite of.Loki (talk)04:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

How many reputable mainstream sources were tricked byThe Yes Men's impersonation on theBBC, where one of them posed as an official spokesperson for Dow Chemical, apologizing for theBhopal disaster, promising reparations, etc? This kind of thing doesn't happen often, but it does happen.172.56.13.52 (talk)08:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a long history of news organisations failing for such hoaxes. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the WaPo unreliable because ofJanet Cooke? Is the New York Times unreliable because ofJayson Blair? Or is it only British newspapers that Loki thinks should be targeted?FOARP (talk)16:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

...I am honestly concerned that you have these examples ready but think they are reasons to defend the Times rather than be doubtful of WaPo or the NYT.Loki (talk)16:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Well are you arguing that we downgrade all major newspapers with similar issues or just The Times?Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we should at least be skeptical of any source that does this.

Upon looking closer, the WaPo incident was in the 1980s, and one hopes they've improved their fact-checking standards since then. The NYT incident, however, was both more recent andextremely problematic, considering how it consists of fabrication across multiple articles over years. I'm surprised we didn't downgrade it at the time, frankly.Loki (talk)19:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that we do treat the news media in general with greater skepticism than for example prominently published academic work. This particular case does not strike me as out of the ordinary but is a good example of why we are reminded to be extra careful at the intersection of breaking news and BLP.Horse Eye's Back (talk)21:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

They have put out a statement "The Times has apologised to Bill de Blasio and removed the article immediately after discovering that our reporter had been misled by an individual falsely claiming to be the former New York mayor"HuffPost. I would expect that a correction notice will follow. I don't see how they could have confirmed it with the real de Blasio, when they thought they were in direct communication with the real de Blasio. The mistake was being overly trusting in a source, which they have immediately corrected. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°02:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

DMing the real de Blasio on Twitter. Or emailing him. Or calling him.

Like, you have "de Blasio" making public statements contrary to previous public statements and talking like a different person. Certainly reaching out via a known method of contact is just basic fact-checking.Loki (talk)04:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Individual news sources aren't that good most of the time, but even if editors decided something like that was due, it would be covered by RSBREAKING in this specific case, no?Alpha3031 (t •c)02:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

RSBREAKING doesn't apply because this wasn't a breaking news report. "Breaking news" doesn't refer to news that were just published, it refers to news reports published very close to the event, from a writer who likely has incomplete information or is writing about a developing situation. This interview with the fake de Blasio unlikely happened just hours before they published it. It likely happened at least a day ago or so, as then included into this articles while adding other stuff e.g. Fetterman's comment and the assessment by economists etc.Cortador (talk)07:12, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

If we don't cover exclusives then I think we should.Alpha3031 (t •c)12:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Why? For those unfamiliar with the jargon, "an exclusive" is an opportunity to talk to a newsworthy person all by yourself, with them promising that they won't share the information with anyone else yet. It is the opposite of a press release or a press conference, in which the person (or their publicity team) spreads their information far and wide. I don't see any reason why we should be worried about "exclusives".WhatamIdoing (talk)06:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a pretty bad mistake from the Times, in isolation I could see this as just a mistake that was rapidly caught, but this is not the Times first editorial controversy, for example this one was far worse[20]

While they are generally reliable, I would take their reporting on some controversial political topics with a pinch of salt.Giuliotf (talk)11:40, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just checked and the origibal story still appears to be up on their website[21]Giuliotf (talk)11:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I might just be confused (wouldn't be the first time) but that looks like a different article than the original one in the thread, and than the one in the post you're replying to.𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.)13:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

One problematic article isn't enough to call into question the credibility of a publication.

I've added a separate (and I think much more egregious) example where the Times publish a problematic series of articles, at least one of which is still on their website.Giuliotf (talk)13:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• An individual incident generally doesn't impact a source's reliability, not unless secondary coverage makes it clear that it has seriously damaged theirreputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which isn't the case here. It might be a reason to track coverage and to give the source a closer look, but it isn't enough to make us reconsider its status on its own. If you do want to argue that it's a problem, the thing to do is to look for secondary coverage that shows how this has affected their reputation. --Aquillion (talk)13:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• One of the signs of a good news organization is they retract their articles when they make an error. I think wikipedians have gotten way too attached to "discrediting" news sources when in general, across the board, news isn't reliable when compared to well researched academic works. There are more long-form, well researched news stories, but the news cycle today is faster then ever and focused on generating clicks. PerWP:RS: Eacharticle needs to be evaluated for how reliable it is. Not just the author. Not just the publication. If we have a generally reliable News Source that reports something, that is clearly not true, that's enough to point out that that specific article isn't reliable because it's clearly not true.

Look at this article[22] that claims this about Twighlight: "it was the 2008 movie that truly propelled the franchise (and vampires) into mass appeal. Vampires weren’t just for horror nerds and theater kids anymore. Vampires could be cool and sexy." The author was a teenager when Twightlight came out, it's totally true that Twighlight made Vampires popular for her generation, and that is the personal experience of the author and many people her age. But here on Wikipedia, there are way too many arguments that use a source like that, where it's a throw away remark, over a source like this, that points to the ABC soap opera "Dark Shadows", and a vampire who wakes up after a long sleep and has to adjust to modern society as being a turning point in how vampires are portrayed in video, and then goes on to reference other movies and tv shows that came along before Twighlight that were mainstream and popular with generations before, like Lost Boys, Interview with a Vampire, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.[23]. The second one is clearly better researched, the first one is just a throw away remark buried in an article about something else, based on personal experience, and not based on research.

Wikipedians like to grasp onto that first article and insist "No, Twilight was the first! See this article says so!" and then get their buddies to come "vote" on it. This exact problem is happening on theTerminology of homosexuality article, where editors are defending a blog post, about a person who as a teenager experienced the word "Same-sex attraction" being used by religious groups, as proof the term was created and primarily used by religious groups, when a short search on Google Scholar clearly shows it's an academic term with a long history, used in academic and medical works for decades. Clearly, that particular blog post is "not reliable" because it's obviously not true.

The same problem is onImane Khelif's article, and the whole "no medical evidence has been published to indicate she has XY chromosomes or elevated levels of testosterone" debacle. "We have a source that say's so!" despite... obviously it not being true. Nothing makes Wikipedia seem more unreliable then the manipulation of "reliable sources" in this manner to push specific points of view.Denaar (talk)14:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• I'm in England and I never heard of Bill de Blasio before. Yes it was bad The Times got duped by someone, but the idea that they would bother fabricating something about some New York mayor is quite ludicrous. How many New Yorkers know the name of the mayor of London and do they care in the least about his politics?NadVolum (talk)14:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Mayor of London is Sadiq Khan, and you'd be surprised how much we New Yorkers know about him as a result of Islamophobia. – Muboshgu (talk)18:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  Many Americans seem to think that the mayor of London is a terrorist.Phil Bridger (talk)11:31, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

As others have said, how the Times handled this after publishing us exactly the behavior we expect from a reliable source. It's also a good reason to keep in mind NOTNEWS, particularly when it comes to things that can only be confirmed by one source, that there is never a reason to rush to add such material until it's clear it seems legit.Masem (t)14:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

+1 BestAlexandermcnabb (talk)15:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is a massive error but it does not alterThe Times‍'s overall reliability rating. As others have said, a single incident is rarely enough to undo hundreds of years of credibility and their response is an indication of sound editorial practices. It doesn't appear that the original story made its way into any en-wiki articles but there's a good lesson here about not rushing to catalogue every breaking detail about high profile stories here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk)15:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEWRONG applies. It seems the process worked if they took story down.

if there is constant pattern of doing this, we might need to consider reliability, but a single incident is understandableUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

• Correcting mistakes should make a source goup in our estimation of (general) reliability.Barnards.tar.gz (talk)09:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

They made a terrible mistake, but the owned up to it and pulled it. It's not part of a pattern of behavior.LDW5432 (talk)14:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

• The article in the first place is a bad mistake for sure, but I mean, them removing it entirely is exactly how we expect reliable sources to behave when they screw up - they realized they got duped/messed up, owned up to it, and removed the content from circulation entirely. If anything, it's a pointin their favor as an RS rather than against.TheKip^(contribs)06:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  They didn't "get duped", they duped themselves by reaching out to a completely different person. Even more concerningly, the Times itself is misleading in its correction by stating DeBlasio was "falsely claiming" to be de Blasio[24]. When a newspaper makes a misleading statement in their removal of a fabricated article, it makes sense to asks serious questions about their reliability. That they didn't haveany form of fact-checking to make sure they were speaking to the correct person is indeed very concerning, as Loki points out. As DeBlasio says, "He assumed the reporter would “have all his people check it out.”" The fact they did not is a problem.Katzrockso (talk)02:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  +1 (t ·c)buidhe01:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

The man was aware they thought he was the mayor and didn't correct them. That means he was impersonating Bill de Blasio. They made a good faith error and the man decided to have a laugh with it. I would not expect any media organisation to fact check a quote they had obtained by calling an interviewee.--Boynamedsue (talk)10:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

About the idea thatThat they didn't have any form of fact-checking to make sure they were speaking to the correct person is indeed very concerning: Shall we just stop using news sources, then? Because this basically never happens at any of them. The closest you might get is someone checking that they've got spelling of the person's name or the job title right, but you wouldn't do that for a more famous figure. (Think about how stupid that would look: "Just to be sure, he spells his name D-O-N-A-L-D T-R-U-M-P, right?") And since a lot of "interviews" happen in e-mail or DMs, you might just look at the signature block/profile instead.WhatamIdoing (talk)06:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• This is a daft thread and should be closed. Of course this has no effect on reliability. The Times has done everything we would expect, and the article appears not even to have got into its print edition. In that case, one would not even expect a written correction, the statement on the mistake suffices. Almost as if this wasn't really about the somewhat anonymous (in the UK at least) Mr de Blasio at all...Boynamedsue (talk)10:17, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
• This is less of an issue than the current BBC scandal, and that quickly closed with a consensus not to change the reliability of the BBC. I do not see any reason why theThe Times reliability should be overall questioned due to this.Traumnovelle (talk)21:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. I don't think this mistake was intentional. But for BBC's case, it is hard to say.MrGerLib (talk)05:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I was looking for sources for a possible article about Fortnite Friday, a twitch show, and I've found four; two by Courthouse News ([25][26]), and one each by Aftermath ([27]) and Esports.gg ([28]).

Courthouse News seems pretty professional and previous discussions ([29][30]) are encouraging as to its reliability, but it would be helpful to know more, if any more can be said.

Aftermath, according to itsAbout Us, is written by journalists who have worked for Kotaku, Vice, The Verge, and Washington Post. They also claim to not use AI. Nothing specific is said about their editorial policy though. Is it reliable?

I couldn't find anything about esports.gg on RSN. The article seems alright, but there are a lot of bad gaming news websites out there and this may be one of them.

KnowDeath (talk)22:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Of these I only know Courthouse which is definitely a good source.BobFromBrockley (talk)05:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a dispute over these sources? What specific claims? Ramos1990 (talk)08:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

There is no dispute. I just don't know if Aftermath and esports.gg are reliable.KnowDeath (talk)16:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

How reliable do we think Film Feeder is for A.) giving critical reception and most importantly B.) for sourcing the credits of cast? An example -[31]DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)15:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

There are certain areas in which it's not considered generally unreliable (see RSP), so these citations are not necessarily problematic.Alaexis_¿question?21:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I've come across many used forWP:BLP claims, those are problematic. It didn't take long to find a use for a controversial BLP statement.Traumnovelle (talk)22:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Ive also seen their sports coverage said to be reliable. They probably should be reevaluated for some topics at least. ←Metallurgist (talk)06:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Used for the birth date of non-notable BLP figuresMuhammad Ali, used for politicsJeffrey Epstein, and used for New York City politicsAndrew Cuomo.

All three are things the source should not be used for perWP:NYPOST, and I found these through looking at the first 20 articles using a Wikipedia search, not a Google search.[32]Traumnovelle (talk)20:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Muhammmad Ali is both notable and very much not a living person.Just10A (talk)19:39, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Its being used to support a claim about his children, they are living and non-notable.Traumnovelle (talk)20:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

"Trump gunman Thomas Crooks may have identified as non-binary",The Telegraph.

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.
• Secondly, of the two DeviantArt accounts,the second one listed "he/him". They do not mention this.
• 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)

I don't know if this falls under "trans-gender topics" or not, butWP:TELEGRAPH has a note on that.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)10:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

To be honest their complete misunderstanding of what non-binary means here really shows they don't know what they're talking aboutLunaHasArrived (talk)00:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.

I would drop the stick at this point.~2025-34674-58 (talk)13:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

For reference the last RFC on the Telegraph and trans issue was in2024, also a gentle reminder that thissubject area is acontentious topic area. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°15:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Will you consider closing this discussion as well? It seems people have reached consensus.Wikieditor662 (talk)17:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Generally discussions aren't closed, they're just archived after 5 days. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:34, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Are there exceptions forWP:SNOW?Wikieditor662 (talk)20:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

We already know that The Telegraph is not reliable for gender stuff. Although perhaps that should be expanded to any culture wars stuff.TarnishedPath^talk08:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you noticed "may have identified" in the article? The article says that Carlson "published what he claimed was evidence" which is obviously true.Alaexis_¿question?08:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• 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.[33] 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)

Ironic given the BBC "expose", but we need a bit more than one or two rush to publish "Scoops".Slatersteven (talk)14:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• This seems to be within an area of weakness we're already identified with this source.Horse Eye's Back (talk)16:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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).

Rambling Rambler (talk)12:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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

The text is either the same or similar to this one: "For the first time in American history, a Buddhist ordination was held where an American woman (Sister Khanti-Khema) took 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)

All of its sources were either self-published - nope; Natalie Quli is not self-published, seediif, which was removed by this editor from his talkpage as he perceived it as harassmenrt, an accusation for which they have been warneddiff; see alsoUser talk:Monkeysmashingkeyboards#Please remain civil.. Their attitude has detoriated rapidly intoWP:BATTLEGROUND; seeUser talk:Deathnotekll2#What's up, from Deathnotekll andUser talk:Deathnotekll2#About. Regards,Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!07:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This is theReliable sources/Noticeboard. Comment on the merit of the proposal or discussion instead of attacking the proponent.

Natalie Quili is not being discussed here, nor is the AfD per se. Read the proposal correctly.

No administrative warnings have been placed in my account.Deathnotekll2 (talk)07:28, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Very well. However, the claim is not plausible.

Remember we are discussing. I am not attempting to force my conclusion.

The claims are quite boastful, actually. They are similar to saying an unknown person with no verifiable notability has been the indisputable best at something or that they have met Einstein.

How is one to say it isn't a lie?Deathnotekll2 (talk)07:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Personal commentary: I'm actually delighted you labeled me as a "strident skeptic". That's exactly theboldness Wikipedia needs. Really, I took no offense.I liked it.Deathnotekll2 (talk)19:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

For something to be aWP:RFC (that has a particular meaning here), the steps on that page needs to be followed. But just having a discussion about something is fine, too.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)08:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I second this. @Deathnotekll2, I highly recommend you take a look atWP:BEFORERFC andWP:RFC.Wikieditor662 (talk)16:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

I've renamed the section, this isn't aWP:RFC and the title is only a distraction from any other discussion. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I'm new here.

I didn't understand why the title would be a "distraction" though, as I didn't intend for that.Deathnotekll2 (talk)19:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Yes, it does. I think.

Where and how can I open a formal RfC on this topic if need arises, by the way?

It's probably best to do so after this discussion ends, right? Or so I'd assume for now.Deathnotekll2 (talk)19:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Why? Are theythat difficult to open?Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, if you really want to know, I suggest taking a look atWP:BEFORERFC andWP:RFC.Wikieditor662 (talk)20:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok.Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFC says how you can open a RFC.GothicGolem29(Talk)20:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

"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."

The RfC page quotes that. Do you think the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard is a good alternative to a WP:BEFORERFC?Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

@Deathnotekll2, you seem to have confused the rules forWP:General notability guideline with the rules forWikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.WP:PRIMARY sources can be reliable for article content; non-independent sources can be reliable for article content; non-notable sources can be reliable for article content (and if that weren't true, then most textbooks and reference works would be banned); and informationthat isn't truly exceptional doesn't require more than one source.

I suggest reading the FAQ at the top ofWikipedia talk:Verifiability, the bullet list atWP:NOTGOODSOURCE, and alsoWikipedia:Independent does not mean secondary (because a lot of editors confuse the two).WhatamIdoing (talk)06:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. Got it.

One thing though: the case we're discussing involves the use (or claim) of something exceptional through a primary source alone.Deathnotekll2 (talk)06:35, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll have to take your word for it that this is really "exceptional", but is your concern really that it'sprimary, or that it's notindependent?WhatamIdoing (talk)21:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You can take it.

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

So you speak on behalf of the entire Wikipedia and all of its editors?

Are you attempting to pressure for the closure of this discussion?Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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[34]. Is it that this was not the first woman ordained by an American on US soil? --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  If it's is the latter you will need a source showing that an earlier ordination of this kind happpened. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe, but not necessarily.

  The organization responsible for the claim has theonus of proof.

  A source proving an earlier event happened can be used assupporting evidence.Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:37, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Nope, reliable sources say it was the first as per the link in my comment. It's now on you to show otherwise. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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"

  It isnot journalism.

  For more information, see Woodroar's analysis in "Bhante Vimalaramsi's" AfD (2nd Nomination).Deathnotekll2 (talk)20:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Where does it say that it's a press release, I can't find anything in the article to that effect? --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°20:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  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)

  Take a look at a different article from the same newspaper:https://www.dailymirror.lk/latest-news/Elon-Musks-1tn-pay-deal-approved-by-Tesla-shareholders/342-324342

  Now, compare it to this one:https://www.dailymirror.lk/news-features/Dhamma-Teaching-for-Daily-Life/131-140058

  What is the difference between them?Deathnotekll2 (talk)21:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

  Attributed, solved.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!21:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• 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.Silverseren^C05:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

Moved fromWikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § X (Twitter) posts

 –Aaron Liu (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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 just looked at the table inWikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and I think my practice is consistent with the recommendations.

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)

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)

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.⇒SWATJester^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!}18:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your responses.S Philbrick(Talk)18:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Curious, I just clicked on it, and received the "You’re unable to view this Post because this account owner limits who can view their Posts" message.S Philbrick(Talk)01:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

Yeah, blue tick says nothing except "I have x dollars a month to give to a meff".Boynamedsue (talk)22:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

The date when the meaning of the blue check changed?Twitter under Elon Musk § Verification has a bit of info.FactOrOpinion (talk)02:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.Tioaeu8943 (talk)18:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)19:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies,

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:

"Can Genocide Studies Survive a Genocide in Gaza?"

inInternational Association of Genocide Scholars

to support

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.)

Slomo666 (talk)19:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There it’s being cited for his opinion not for a fact, so the question is more about whether his opinion is due which in this case it seems to be.BobFromBrockley (talk)05:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

is the claim contested? it would be nice to have seen some talk page discussion, instead of bringing directly toWP:RSN. I still do not see much of a reason for discussion here yet.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)23:41, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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:[50] (this Wikipedia page has a mention in the article). I'd consider Jewish Currents generally reliable.AndreasJN46615:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Thanks for the detailed description.Slomo666 (talk)15:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I agreeRainsage (talk)21:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If its not discussed, its usually fine if it meets the general guidelines for RS. Also depends on the article. ←Metallurgist (talk)06:18, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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 [[51]] and here for a piece on NIAC and their relationship with the IRGC: [[52]]Agnieszka653 (talk)21:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The poltico article does not say the NIAC has ties to the iranian regime.Rather ironic you would post RS abuse on the RS noticeboard: the free beacon is considered"generally unreliable"also perReliable sources/Perennial sources#The Washington Free Beacon.Slomo666 (talk)22:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

"RS abuse"? Also, have another look atWP:FREEBEACON.Tioaeu8943 (talk)22:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

My sincere apologiesSlomo666 (talk)22:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

Anyway, unless Jewish Currents has published multiple falsehoods related to Najafi or Iran, I don't see how this matters.Rainsage (talk)22:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Rainsage. None of the claims about Najafi are data points for lower reliability.BobFromBrockley (talk)23:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Most of JC's content should be treated perWP:RSOPINION, probably including much of what it labels as "reports." Alongtime JC contributor who now blogs at TOI has noted its slide into one-sidedness and omissions.Tioaeu8943 (talk)22:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I see nothing "intimately familiar" in that oped He worked with them for 23 years.Tioaeu8943 (talk)19:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Bluethricecreamman is correct. The blogpost presents a political disagreement with JC not a problem with its standards of accurate reporting.

Anti-Zionism isn’t a form of unreliability any more than Zionism isBobFromBrockley (talk)23:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

What problematic content in that article cites JC? The three footnotes to it all seem pretty uncontroversial to me.BobFromBrockley (talk)01:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

JC and the article suffer from the same issue. This is getting off-topic. I'll gladly discuss it with you there.Tioaeu8943 (talk)16:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This is very on-topic actually. I am very confused what you are talking about.Slomo666 (talk)20:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have created a new section:

• CDC#CDC revises stance on vaccines and autism.

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)

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)

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)

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)

They've withdrawnExcipient & Media Summary too.WalterEgo15:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

In mainspace we have2025 United States government online resource removals.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)04:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@Valjean has it been decided yet whether there will be anRfC about this? If so, I'd be happy to help.Wikieditor662 (talk)06:00, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Doesn't mean people aren't still in shock though.Wikieditor662 (talk)18:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

All institutions are vulnerable to political interference.WhatamIdoing (talk)07:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I think most sociologists of science have long established that science is in large part a political enterprise.Katzrockso (talk)07:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

The WP:RSP section aboutState-sponsored fake news sites does mention "disinformation sites", and the current CDC is already becoming that. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)15:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

we may need to reconsider our stance.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Wow! So that needs to be revised. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I've notifiedWT:MEDRS about this discussion as well.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)15:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

its not about agreeing with us. Its about denying basic reality and facts.

We should not fall into the same trap as many other commentators of confusing evidentiary standards with POV opinions. It is not an opinion that vaccines cause autism.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

i didn't. It's a lie that vaccines cause autism, not an opinion. and we don't need to attribute that, as an encyclopedia, we can useWP:WIKIVOICE to state, unequivocably, that sometimes something is true, and that sometimes something is a lieUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Ah! That's another way to get the same point across. We agree. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)19:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

You nearly got me in the first half there...Wikieditor662 (talk)05:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

though there is attempts to intimidate editors, we should ignore the shit thrown at us, andKeep Calm and Carry On. Truth is truth,and anyone who wants to push shit can eat it.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)17:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

+1 --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Its fairly obvious at this point that NIH and CDC are not independent and may never have been.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"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)

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)

We apparently came to a consensus that they were different, as perWP:MEDRS. time to change that.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)16:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

And I am saying this should never have been the case, They have always been political.Slatersteven (talk)16:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. It was probably a mistake to use them, and MEDRS should be changed so that we don't in the future. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°17:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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:

• https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/vaccines/
• https://www.cdc.gov/kyasanur/about/
• https://www.cdc.gov/mucormycosis/about/index.html
• https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/robotics/about/index.html
• https://www.cdc.gov/violence-prevention/

and I see no evidence of political control, anti-science content, or any other problems.WhatamIdoing (talk)07:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

there is significant reliable sourcing suggesting this isn't an exception. we should prepare for occasional to become more frequent.[53]User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)20:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"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."

https://www.statnews.com/2025/11/18/rfk-jr-profile-hhs-secretary-delivers-on-trump-maha-priorities/ --Valjean (talk) (PING me)22:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• 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.

But one thing I'm quite confident of is that we need to tackle these questions as a project, because they make a great deal of difference to what we do.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.20:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• While maybe a generic policy update is needed, I think a concrete change to the paragraphs inWP:MEDORG is definitely needed, and should be easy to consense on, probably with aWP:BRD. I propose something like changing from
  Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include theU.S. National Academies (including theNational Academy of Medicine and theNational Academy of Sciences), the BritishNational Health Service, the U.S.National Institutes of Health andCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, and theWorld 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.
  to
  Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include theU.S. National Academies (including theNational Academy of Medicine and theNational Academy of Sciences), the BritishNational Health Service, and the U.S.National Institutes of Health, and theWorld 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.
  TheCenters 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.
  Boud (talk)20:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

Maybe list the CDC as reliable before a certain date and unreliable after? Can we always tell when a CDC page was last modified? --Guy Macon (talk)01:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Guy Macon, the bottom-level pages likehttps://www.cdc.gov/mucormycosis/about/index.html have dates at the top of the page. General landing pages likehttps://www.cdc.gov/fungal/index.html don't. However, they're heavily archived (322 copies of that page at archive.org), so we could probably figure it an exact date if we needed to. I wouldn't expect the general landing pages to get cited very often. They're similar to our Portal: pages: more for navigation than for full content.WhatamIdoing (talk)07:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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.GMG^talk13:06, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?:[54] 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)

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:

• #CDC revises stance on vaccines and autism

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)

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.

WhatamIdoing (talk)17:26, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah i agree we cant throw baby out with bathtub.

But not sure where bathtub ends and baby begins, which is part of the strategy for RFK jr and his ilk.

the question(for this incredibly strained metaphor) then becomes is there other babies we can use? Other reliable sourcing does existUser:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs)17:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

Otherwise, for newer science, look for areview article in a reputable journal, and for long-settled science, look for a med school textbook. Several of them are available inWikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

@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:

1. "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."[55]
   1. 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."
   2. 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)."[56]
2. "Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities."[57]
   1. That is completely false. They have been thoroughly debunked, not "ignored".
   2. The previous wording is accurate: "No links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD."[58]
3. "HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links."[59]
   1. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fair point regarding "studies supporting a link...".Barnards.tar.gz (talk)17:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

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:

• #CDC page on "Thimerosal and Vaccines" changed

This situation needs to be examined. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)17:06, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss this in the section below. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)17:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

The new CDC statement seems fallacious. I heard someone say its like saying, 'studies do not show that umbrella's do not cause cats'. So, maybe.Alanscottwalker (talk)22:56, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

If you haven't readhttps://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 then I think you will like it.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

At its peakRoti (restaurant chain) had 42 restaurants in 6 markets. I have sourced the launch date of each market exceptHouston.This is the only source I can find. Is it an RS for the fact of its November 2019 launch in Houston.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)02:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.Silverseren^C02:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

• Thx.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)21:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Do we trulyneed such a summary,for practical reasons?WhatamIdoing (talk)02:40, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

PersonallyYmblanter's comment from the last discussion seems about right.[60] 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)

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)

Scanning through the Wayback machine the site went down at the end of June 2024, and came back in it's new form at the beginning of August the same year. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

The source is[61]. Another editor,User:Anomalocaris says that we should say "appeared" in it not posted it, based on social media reportsDoug Wellertalk11:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC).

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)

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:

• @SenatorSlotkin (November 18, 2025)."We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community. The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution. Don't give up the ship" (Tweet) – viaTwitter.
• Elissa Slotkin (November 18, 2025).Don't give up the ship – via Facebook.
• Elissa Slotkin (November 18, 2025).We want to speak directly to members of ... – via YouTube.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why would you think I would bother to respond to this? You talk of assuming good faith, but seems to be lacking it. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°06:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the sources and diffs[62], 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)

There is an active RfC atTalk:2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii#RFC which may be of interest to RSN regulars. Thank you.guninvalid (talk)10:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• EnergyFunders (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

Is either crowdfundbeat.com or crowdfundinsider.com acceptable for sources on the companyEnergyFunders?

Crowdfundinsider is used for its history[63], its staffing[64], and its project funding[65].

Crowdfundbeat is used for how company takes its cut of transactions[66] ☆Bri (talk)20:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Ishttps://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/09/a-critique-on-the-great-porn-experiment.html reliable?

I'm not sure, so I'm askingbefore performing edits.tgeorgescu (talk)16:21, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Well as a blog, is she an acknowledged expert on the subject?Slatersteven (talk)16:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: She is a sex therapist.tgeorgescu (talk)16:42, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

So are many other people; they are not acknowledged as experts by RS.Slatersteven (talk)16:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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[67][68], but they are both selfpublished throughCreateSpace and so wouldn't help towards showing reliability. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Is this disussion about Gary Wilson or Natasha Helfer?Phil Bridger (talk)20:29, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The URL links an article by Natasha Helfer that's about Gary Wilson. I took the question to be "Is her article reliable for use in theGary Wilson (writer) article?" --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°21:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit less confused now. thanks. I think I know what the question is, but I need to look further to provide an answer.Phil Bridger (talk)21:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Would you people consider Restpublisher[69] 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.

My general views of the reliability of the sources in that article are on the talk page there. ThanksYesterday, all my dreams... (talk)19:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It does not look like a particularly well established or reputable publisher, no. Not indexed in Scopus or DOAJ or anything either.Alpha3031 (t •c)00:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

–MrPersonHumanGuy (talk)13:36, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@MrPersonHumanGuy, do you have a question?WhatamIdoing (talk)21:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

My question is whether any of these sources would be considered reliable enough to warrant putting "yes" or "partial" in ther parameter on{{source assess}}. –MrPersonHumanGuy (talk)22:22, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

So the goal is to determine whether any of these would getDraft:SuperCarlinBrothers declared to be an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article?

This noticeboard is focused on things like whether"40 Under 40: Jonathan Carlin" is reliable in theWP:RSCONTEXT to support a claim that "The Roanoker Magazine named both Jonathan and Ben Carlin as part of their 40 Under 40 Class of 2023". The answer is yes, but that's not very helpful for determining notability. It's reliable for that claim, but it's also primary for that particular claim, and most notability standards want secondary sources. The 300 words at the top of that source might be accepted as partially demonstrating notability. The rest would probably not be counted.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

A user on this page keep saying i cant use this source by f4wonline even through it heavily used on all wrestling pages something i dont need show. A new reason each time. Possibly created account only to obstruct/gatekeeping changes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maxxine_Dupri&diff=1324497119&oldid=1324319394

The user has a extreme high rate undoing revision since creation of account Nov 3, 2025 and been targeting pages that has no edit activity or low activity of edits.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PepsiPhilPunk

ANTIFA2026 (talk)23:33, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

You've got a grand total of 2 reverts by that user, with neither of you taking the matter to the article talk page. Perhaps that should be the first step. --Nat Gertler (talk)23:40, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Using the talk page is a good first start. If no resolution, then discussing here would be appropriate. Ramos1990 (talk)07:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Just as a side note on your comment about their edit history, this board can't help you with user conduct issues. It's sole purpose is to give third opinion on the reliability of sources. If you're in a dispute with another editorWP:Dispute resolution is very helpful. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°09:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. — Newslinger talk14:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenna (company), the Silicon Review article in question is"Tenna: Construction Technology Platform That’s Revolutionizing Equipment Fleet Operations". This article is clearly unreliable and does not count toward notability, as it is highly promotional and formatted similarly to the paid articles that The Silicon Review publishes testimonials for. — Newslinger talk14:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with Newslinger. Get rid of it.Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk)16:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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:

• https://thesiliconreview.com/2025/01/walmart-unveils-comprehensive-brand-refresh
• https://corporate.walmart.com/news/2025/01/13/walmart-introduces-updated-look-and-feel-a-testament-to-heritage-and-innovation
• https://blog.founders.illinois.edu/walmart-announces-comprehensive-brand-refresh/
• https://blog.founders.illinois.edu/what-is-a-rollback-in-walmart/

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)

How are these Walmart articles related??? are you sure you are responding to the correct thread?Pemmnali (talk)03:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

The best answer to "how do we know that the site is not offering these articles for free" is simply that we are fundamentally competent. This is a junk paid placement extension of a SEO marketing/PR firm ([77]); they also run CIOBulletin, another paid placement farm with the same garbage content. If any percentage of their content is unmarked advertorials with fake claims and puffery, then none of the content is reliable.SamKuru(talk)22:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion atTalk:Monarch butterfly#Use of blogs in Wikipedia regarding the reliability of two blogs:Garden Diaries, andMonarch Butterfly Garden. Your input is welcome.Magnolia677 (talk)23:16, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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"

• Version from December 19, 2024, archived on October 9, 2025.
• Current page from October 28, 2025

This needs to be examined.

• Google search:[78]

Valjean (talk) (PING me)17:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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.

See this list:Thimerosal Content in Licensed Vaccines --Valjean (talk) (PING me)17:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

When you say "This needs to be examined", what exactly to do you want to examine?WhatamIdoing (talk)19:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Given thatthe CDC page you link isn't used anywhere except in this discussion, why are we supposed to care about what it says? If it says something good, then that's nice for the world, but has no apparent effect on Wikipedia articles. If it says something bad, then that's unfortunate, but still has no apparent effect on Wikipedia articles.WhatamIdoing (talk)23:31, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you put the contrasting phrases on this page and possibly paraphrase what you think needs to be analyzed?Agnieszka653 (talk)00:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Agnieszka653, here is a comparison:

• Version from December 19, 2024, archived on October 9, 2025.

1. Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative that has been used for decades in the United States in multi-dose vials (vials containing more than one dose) of medicines and vaccines.
2. There is no evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.
3. In July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

• Current page from October 28, 2025

1. Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative that has been used for decades in the United States in multi-dose vials (vials containing more than one dose) of medicines and vaccines.
2. In July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

Line 2 has been removed. RFK Jr. doesn't want people to know that there is "no evidence of harm". This change followed his vow to do this, which was covered in independent, secondary sources. Here are a few:

• NPR:RFK Jr.'s vaccine advisers raise disproven fears about the preservative thimerosal
• The BMJ:RFK Jr bans thiomersal from influenza vaccines in “safety” move
• StatNews:RFK Jr.’s warnings on thimerosal in vaccines threaten to instill doubt overseas, experts fear
• Politico:Kennedy’s vaccine panel votes to remove preservative long targeted by activists
• Helio:HHS moves to remove thimerosal from influenza vaccines. Read the "Perspectives" at the bottom. Lawrence O. Gostin, JD wrote: "Simply to describe this process is to show how flawed and biased it is. The secretary is adopting the language of science to denigrate science. It is out of a book by George Orwell."
• Nature:RFK Jr’s vaccine advisers vote down flu-shot ingredient — but back some jabs
• PBS:Ousted vaccine panel members say rigorous science is being abandoned under RFK Jr.

As mentioned in these sources, this is a move that will appeal to anti-vaxers and be used to lend credence to the false notion that thimerosal is somehow dangerous in these small doses.

So, contrary to what WAID has written, this has been covered in secondary sources and should be mentioned in our articles here. The medical, scientific, and legal communities have criticized this move. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

So the issue is the CDC via RFK is obscuring or hiding the claim that vaccines DO NOT cause autism--IE a deceptive omission considering RFK and a large section of anti-vaxers believe that they do. I'm conflicted because the CDC is unfortunately a political tool in addition to being the most important source for official/federally approved information about diseases and health. I do not think the CDC should be depreciated but possibly there should be a caveat when citing information from the CDC regarding vaccines that it should always be followed by another secondary source? Or a source that contains the caveat about RFK's vaccine stances?Agnieszka653 (talk)16:25, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. We should distinguish between the previous CDC version and the Trump/Kennedy version. We can do that by always including the dates, with the secondary source criticisms and cautions. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)16:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed--is there a way of adding this to the RS list of perennial sources list?Agnieszka653 (talk)16:41, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The CDC page would be a primary and non-independent source for its own contents/changes to that webpage. (SeeWP:ALLPRIMARY.) I don't see any need for citing that page at all, given that there are independent sources discussing it. However, I'm not convinced that we need "Oh look, the bad evil antivaxxer removed some sentences from this specific webpage!" as much as we need "This politician, while in control of this agency, implemented a policy that cast unwarranted doubts on vaccine safety and was predicted to lead to the deaths and permanent disability for dozens of children per year".WhatamIdoing (talk)01:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable andWP:DUE for this article section?

• The sources: Harvard professorAvi Loeb, Business Insider
• The page:The Age of Disclosure
• The article section:The Age of Disclosure#Scientists
• 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]

Related discussion:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Avi Loeb a citable PRIMARY as an "established subject-matter expert" in any of the natural sciences?

--Guy Macon (talk)21:14, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Yes Loeb has verifiably beenlately criticized for his courting of the UFO believer community, as further sources make explicit.

Science.org article:Why is Harvard University astrophysicist Avi Loeb working with ardent UFO believers?

• “(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.”

- LuckyLouie (talk)14:01, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Related:

• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Age of Disclosure
• Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Age of Disclosure Again

--Guy Macon (talk)05:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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?

--Guy Macon (talk)17:05, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

I'm not sure that "the Medium source" is an especially relevant question, since it's a transcript ofan interview he gave on Fox News. A more relevant question would be "IsFOX 32 Chicago reliable and due?"WhatamIdoing (talk)02:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Used the following as a source for Sd.Kfz.254:https://tank-afv.com/ww2/germany/Sd.Kfz.254.php

Seems to be a reliable source. Well laid out, lists it's own sources for information, not sponsored by any particular group and no political bias. For this particular article another editor stated it was not a reliable source. Looking to see what others think.Tengu99 (talk)04:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It's the archive of tanks-encyclopedia.com, which has been discussed a couple of times (2020,2025) and mentioned in relation to its sister site naval-encyclopedia.com (2024). None of those are particularly positive about the site. Some of the writers and editors of the site do have relevant academic backgrounds, but most appear to be hobbyist (including some who are anonymous). They appear to have been referenced in a few academic works, but I don't think it would be enough to showWP:USEBYOTHERS. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°13:14, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 496#Self-published source used to support unverifiable claims

I'm restarting the previous discussion. It was archived just as new members were weighing in different opinions.

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

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

The text is either the same or similar to this one: "For the first time in American history, a Buddhist ordination was held where an American woman (Sister Khanti-Khema) took 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)

User:Silver seren,User:4meter4 andUser:Graywalls had added several meaningful counterpoints that clashed with the initial majority.Deathnotekll2 (talk)19:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Yes. As I stated elsewhere, the claim isWP:EXTRAORDINARY and therefore requires extraordinary sources. The one source in this case is too closely connected to the topic, and isn't sufficiently independent enough to verify an extraordinary claim of this kind in my opinion. Plus, I would thinkmultiple sources independent of one another would be needed to verify an extroardinary claim of this kind. As it is, we have one source. I would support removing the content unless clearly independent multiple sources can be located.4meter4 (talk)20:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• "First" claims always meet the requirements of WP:EXTRAORDINARY and need very strong, specific sourcing to back them up. This isn't that in the slightest and many of these sources are also not good enough even for general factual information anyways. Proper secondary sourcing is required and not sourcing that is just quoting a claim to the owner of the organization.Silverseren^C20:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that "first" claims arealwaysWP:EXTRAORDINARY. Sometimes they're obvious, uncontested claims.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  The obvious, uncontested claims will basically always have strong secondary sourcing to back them up though, hence why they would have become obvious and uncontested. As they would be discussed and commented on widely in sources. So those ones would meet the required criteria anyways.Silverseren^C02:13, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  At some level, "she's the first" is automatically a secondary claim, as it is a comparison to others and therefore analysis.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Indeed, I agree with you both,User:Silver seren andUser:4meter4. However, an user is gatekeeping these three articles against any changes. I will not name him. Even if an informal consensus arises from this discussion, a stronger dispute resolution procedure may be required. Should you feel the need to seek more information on why this issue has become difficult to solve peacefully, send me an e-mail. Anyway, don't let me keep you (as well as any new participants): feel free to continue the discussion below this comment.Deathnotekll2 (talk)21:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's a conduct issue, not a sourcing issue. (t ·c)buIdhe16:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm in a dispute withUser talk:GuardianH over whether we should used Harvard's unusal description of their Bachelor of Arts as an AB and not a BA. I see that atHarvard College we use the same abbreviation as they do, AB.Doug Wellertalk10:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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[79] 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)

Depends on context, we can say it is what they offer.Slatersteven (talk)16:07, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

Yes, it depends on the context which hasn't been shared here despite the header of this page and edit notice specifically asking editors to provide the context.ElKevbo (talk)14:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, struggling.special:Diff/1324564397 andhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GuardianH&action=history ipad and life not cooperating.. I also expected the other editor To show up.Doug Wellertalk16:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's probably best to go with however sources report on the degree, e.g. I'd look at if there are news articles that mention it, or maybe his CV (if he had one). Where is the information about his degrees sourced from?Katzrockso (talk)22:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The New York Times article uses B.A. so I'd probably just go with that.MOS:COMMONABBR suggests both are appropriate but doesn't offer any further guidance (and seems to be in the context of titles in front of names)Katzrockso (talk)22:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the context. I'm afraid that I don't understand what specific source you're asking us to evaluate. I suspect that the issue is not the source that is being used but what specific text is being used in the article and that falls outside the remit of this noticeboard. This particular topic happens to be squarely in my niche wheelhouse so if you open a discussion in the article's Talk page please let me know (or drop everyone a line atWT:UNI) and I'd be happy to weigh in.ElKevbo (talk)02:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

After resubscribing to the Times I see the source says BA. Maybe I should just drop this.Doug Wellertalk08:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Harvard certainly knows better than anywhere else what degree they award. I'm guessing that more RSs say B.A. than A.B. for Harvard just because more readers are familiar with the meaning of B.A. Normally, when there's conflicting info in different RSs, we note both (e.g., "B.A., also known as an A.B. or Artium Baccalaureatus", or in a footnote that universities that started off with Greek and Latin traditionally use(d) the A.B.)?FactOrOpinion (talk)19:56, 29 November 2025 (UTC)