Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

(Sections older than 5 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.)

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479
480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

RfCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Start a new discussion

RfC: encyclopedia.com

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Result is Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, and the specific considerations are what the original source for the content was.

There is a clear consensus that Encyclopedia.com is a content aggregator, they don't write their own work. The various people in the discussion agreeing with that use that information to grade them between 1 and 3: I count 4.5 1s, 13.5 2s, and 4.5 3s (approximately, there are many '1 or 2', '2 or 3' opinions), so a clear supermajority of opinions for 2, but let's focus on what we have agreement for. There is general agreement that most of the sources Encyclopedia.com uses are respected and reliable (with a few exceptions such as various encyclopedias of spiritualism); and that they are reliable for that aggregation (with the exception of the discussion nominator who is not sure); and others brought up that many of those respected and reliable sources are difficult to access otherwise, so Encyclopedia.com is a useful and usable convenience link.

So, editors are encouraged to look for the original encyclopedia source of the Encyclopedia.com article and use that as the reference with a via=encyclopedia.com parameter or "via encyclopedia.com" in the reference text. (I can find this source under the “ or double quotation mark icon "Cite this article" link at the upper right of most Encyclopedia.com articles, others said they could find it under the horizontal line following the article. This is not the same as the individual mostly non-encyclopedia sources sometimes listed in various formats at the end of the article; for example the Jenny Randles article the nominator uses for their first example is from Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology not The UFO Encyclopedia leading the entries in the Sources section.) Existing references to Encyclopedia.com can similarly be converted - not deleted! - in this fashion. Then that original source can be questioned if needed, for example I see multiple users saying Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained seems less reliable than other sources, including other Gale encyclopedias which seem more reliable. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is encyclopedia.com ...

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (encyclopedia.com)

Option 3 Encyclopedia.com is a content aggregator. It may be a good source from which to identify sources, but in no case should it be used to directly reference content. A cursory review of some of their entries exposes deep problems if we simply port them over directly as references:

This entry [1] on UFO enthusiast Jenny Randles we're using to source her biography. It is based off four books by Randles herself, and a fifth book by ghost detective Jerome Clark.
This entry [2] is merely a reprinting of the Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained. If we use it as a RS we will be greenlighting the introduction of assertions into Wikipedia like "[once] a necessary degree of telepathic affinity [occurs] ... a real ghost can appear".
This entry [3] makes the factual assertion that "Reiki is a gentle and safe technique, and has been used successfully in some hospitals."
Their article [4] on Uri Geller makes the factual assertion that "As a boy he performed feats of stopping the hands of watches through paranormal means."
Their article [5] on Lemuria is sourced to three books by noted crank James Churchward.

And so forth. Chetsford (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford, just a heads up that right now your survey response appears along with the RfC question at WP:RFC/A, as you posted them together (i.e., with only one signature under both, instead of separate signatures for the question and your response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - thank you! Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is like saying we can't use any Gale database (which we have access to through the Wikipedia library) or we can't use JSTOR because some of the sources they reprint aren't reliable. Jahaza (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 Encyclopedia.com is a compliation of other encyclopedias and reference works, some quite reputable, some not so reputable. There's no reason to doubt the reliability of this entry on Bullhead sharks, which originates from the reputable Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, which is currently used as a source in the Bullhead shark article. Encyclopedia.com entries should be evaluated on a case by case basis depending on what the actual source is, which can be found by looking at the bottom of the entry. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an encyclopedia.com article is sourced to Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, wouldn't it be better to just source Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia? Chetsford (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did, but I used the encyclopedia.com URL and put "via encyclopedia.com" at the end of the reference. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2/1ish. Encyclopedia.com is perfectly fine to use when and if it is simply republishing other reliable sources as Hemiauchenia says above. For example the 1911 encyclopedia, JE, etc. Andre🚐 19:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of its articles aren't simply republications. They're compilations of content from multiple sources and the specific content in an article drawn from each source isn't identified. So some articles are a mix of crank sources and reliable sources and the content is stirred together into one big bowl of slop. For instance, its entry for Chiropractic [6] is sourced to two references: The Oxford Companion to the Body (good) and Dynamic chiropractic today (bad). Chetsford (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree but isn't that an argument to make it Option 2, not 3? It is sometimes OK, but not always. Andre🚐 19:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"isn't that an argument to make it Option 2, not 3" Well, right now, you're leaning to Option 1. "It is sometimes OK, but not always." I could see a 2 argument narrowly constructed so that single-source republications where the single source is itself RS are usable, whereas multi-source aggregations are unusable. It's probably not an argument I'd support as my experience has been encyclopedia.com generally is not used in a GF way and the presence of an insane source republished on encyclopedia.com is used to rehabilitate and legitimize that source. But I could understand the argument at least. Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 is generally reliable. I have not perused the whole of encyclopedia.com and I could concede that the % of reliability is unknown to me, but all the times I've used it for e.g. JE or 1911 type topics, I haven't seen a problem with it and it cites its sources and they are occasionally high quality academic sources. Which is why I am leaning 1ish because even an option 1 close is not a blanket endorsement as even gold standard sources often commit errors. as to your comment that it generally is not used in a good faith way, could you give any examples that would help? Because I am coming from the opposite type of familiarity with it as a source in different areas, ie old history stuff not chiropractors. Andre🚐 20:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I have not perused the whole of encyclopedia.com" A very high standard to !vote anything but one, indeed.
"even gold standard sources often commit errors" I sort-of don't feel we're risking unduly maligning a "gold standard" source in this discussion of "encyclopedia.com". But I digress. Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say encyclopedia.com was a gold standard source. I said that even clear Option 1s are not perfect in all respects, and it therefore follows that a mediocre source that occasionally is unusable, could still be a 1ish. Are you saying that more than half of the content on encyclopedia.com is junk? I've seen it used a nontrivial number of times in a good way. Andre🚐 20:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you saying that more than half of the content on encyclopedia.com is junk? " I would !vote 4 if I thought "only" 49% of the information being pumped out by a single source was junk. Ainsi va la vie. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but like 4, 3 is tantamount to almost never or rarely using it, or presuming by default it should not be used for any purpose, including weight. Whereas in my experience it is a good guide for weight as a tertiary source that often cites other academic sources. An option 3 would trigger a mass removal of it for many benign things. Do you have an example of a problematic usage of it (as opposed to problematic content that nobody ever used because it was obvious junk)? Andre🚐 20:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is correct. The Oxford Companion to the Body entry seems to be citing Dynamic chiropractic today in its bibliography, but there is not an entry on encyclopedia.com that is drawn from the text of Dynamic chiropractic today. There are also other entries in the encyclopedia.com article drawn from The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health: A Guide for Seniors and Their Caregivers and Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3rd ed. You can very clearly tell which reference work the entry is drawn from by looking at the very bottom of the entry under the thin grey line, just above the coloured line and cengage rating of the next entry (if there is one). Again, I think we should be citing the underlying source, and then using encyclopedia.com as a freely accessible link to the reference material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, every single entry on encyclopedia.com is from one encyclopedia. The citations are the encyclopedia entry's original citations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, further, disregarding the specific source, the entry on Lemuria and Mu would obviously be sourced to primary source works by cranks. What else would you expect? Is there non-crank primary research on Lemuria? If it was citing secondary sources, those secondary sources would be citing the same. When you get into research on fringe topics the primary sources will obviously be what they have written. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lemuria was suprisingly originally a scientific hypothesis back in the 19th century, so yes, but your point stands for Mu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lemuria as in the equally notable esoteric concept of Lemuria, which is so basically and baselessly divorced from its scientific origins that it is effectively a whole other thing; I meant in covering its esoteric conception. But yes I see your point haha. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lemuria and Mu entry, and several others previously mentioned, are from Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained. It is the Gale encyclopedia that uses Churchward, rather than encyclopedia.com. Whether cited via encyclopedia.com or just from one of the physical editions I don't think we should consider Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained a reliable source.
Also some of the webpages at encyclopedia.com actually have entries for multiple different encyclopedias on one page. For instance the chiropractic webpage has entries for Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine Turner, Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health, The Oxford Companion to the Body, and College Blue Book (as well as four entries for dictionaries). Each of these is a superate entry, not just one source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care or know whether that book is or isn't, it probably isn't, but any source that talks about the esoteric conception of Lemuria or Mu at all would cite primary source claims by people like Churchward, because that is inherent to the concept. No non-fringe writer has ever believed in Mu. I would expect any RS to refer back to the primary claims they analyze. And yes, that is why you should specify the encyclopedia you cite in the ref, it just sort of stacks them. But they are clearly separated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So some articles are a mix of crank sources and reliable sources and the content is stirred together into one big bowl of slop. For instance, its entry for Chiropractic [61] is sourced to two references: This is not correct. The page has a number of different sources on it (more than two), but they are separated and labeled by source, not mixed together in a "big bowl of slop". Jahaza (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 encyclopedia.com is a collection of encyclopedias, some of which will be reliable while others will not. When referencing material on encyclopedia.com you should cite the original source, and include the URL to encyclopedia.com as a courtesy link noting that you've done so with |via=encyclopedia.com. This is the same way of doing things as MSN or YahooNews when they aggregate news sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the supplied examples I don't think Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained should be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure of the integrity of encyclopedia.com in its republications? I've been leaning to moving to Option 2, but on further examination I don't think the re-publication integrity / accuracy of encyclopedia.com can be assumed. The entry on Jenny Randles [7] is sourced to Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. A review of the original source, however, finds no such content [8]. So, were I to adhere to the evolving principle here (attribute the quoted source and link to encyclopedia.com), I'd be introducing content cited to a false source. What am I missing? Chetsford (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the other editions, perhaps? Andre🚐 21:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be due to differences in edition between the one encyclopedia.com is drawing from and the edition archived at archive.org. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as I can tell from Worldcat there is only one edition. This is made problematic a bit by the fact encyclopedia.com provides no other information on the provenance of its sources (i.e. author, ISBN, publication date, etc.) just a title that may or may not be shared by multiple publications. But as of now I have no idea where the content currently on encyclopedia.com for this entry is coming from. Randles is mentioned in multiple places in this volume, she just has no standalone entry. Is Cengage aggregating content into forms that don't exist in the original work (maybe by AI)? I don't know. This problem is putting the standard that's evolving here in tension with WP:V, in my opinion. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This amazon.com book cover [9] says "fifth edition", implying there have been at least that many editions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe she was in early editions but was then removed from the 2000 edition that's present at archive.org. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Academic encyclopedias do this all the time, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, I agree that if they are somehow distorting in their publication I'd go down to a 3, but let's determine what happened there. I do not think Cengage uses AI, they are simply a republisher AFAIK. Andre🚐 21:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"let's determine what happened there" I've tried running ten different, unique phrases from the encyclopedia.com entry through Google and each time I only get the encyclopedia.com entry. This level of ambiguity about the provenance or verifiability of a source seems extremely problematic for something we're rubber stamping through for a BLP. I'm extremely uncomfortable. It's entirely possible I'm missing something; encyclopedia.com's decision not to provide any information on the origin of their content other than the book title does create the potential for omission in a check. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you type "Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology" "randles" into Google Books you get back the 1991 and 1994 edition as others have noted below. So far, I still believe Gale and Cengage are reputable academic publishers, and encyclopedia.com leans to 1ish, but strictly speaking it is aggregating other encyclopedias and similar types of work that are mostly OK to use, so it is perhaps a 2 in that it can occasionally republish something not great, such as "Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained" as noted above. But a 3 is overkill as it would effectively force some reliable material to be made less accessible. Andre🚐 04:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetsford There were multiple editions of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. She only had an entry in the 1991 edition, not the 2003 edition which is on archive.org. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the top of it here [10]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense then. This experience with the level of ambiguity and confusion that arose due to the paucity of information encyclopedia.com provides on the sourcing they're using has been deeply troubling and, for that reason, I think I'll rest at a 3 for now. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Randles entry in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (2001, 5th edition, Vol. II) is found here and here and here. A simple text query of "Randles, Jenny (Jennifer Christine)" in Archve.org reveals multiple copies. Surely we haven't forgotten basic query skills. Note also the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology is edited by J. Gordon Melton and others. Wikipedians shouldn't quibble if those editors use "bad", biased, or primary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Option 2~~ Option 1 as reliable as whatever the source book is, which is reliable 99% of the time since it is only sourced from academic books, but even in the world of academic books there are a few weird ones. It does not alter the content at all, but very annoyingly it never specifies which edition of the book it is sourcing from, and sometimes one edition will have something and the other will not due to content updates. But a free link is good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I personally avoid citing encyclopedia.com copies, for the sole reason that I prefer sources that have page numbers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 I would not trust it, given that quality control issues are uncertain. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: It's a web-based repository run by Gale of mainly originally print encyclopedia articles, including Encyclopaedia Judaica, Dictionary of Women Worldwide and Contemporary Authors. The fact that some encyclopedia articles may be less reliable than others, or that Wikipedians may dislike encyclopedias about fringe beliefs does not mean encyclopedia.com in its entirety is an unreliable source. In cases where a single entry consists of multiple articles (e.g. Chiropractic has 9 distinct entries), more care would of course be needed to ensure the intended article is referenced. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 2. Basically per Animal Party. There is no claim they are not doing what they are doing, giving entries from various published encyclopedia. Did you actually look at how to cite it? Press the cite tab on the page for its suggestion. Any cite is going to cite to the the material via encyclopedia.com, and you can argue over whether that material belongs and it is going to vary (medical claims are widely different from other claims, for example, and exceptional claims are too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 or 2. Also, we need to re-write these categories, so that "3" sounds a lot more like "Routinely gets lots of facts wrong" than "Contains some claims that I disagree with", because it's actually true that "Reiki is a gentle and safe technique, and has been used successfully in some hospitals". Altmed techniques that do nothing are safe. Nobody has ever been harmed by having another person quietly hold their hands next to them, and when the medical problem is that the patient feels lonely and uncared for because the doctors and nurses are always rushing off to the next patient, or that the patient is feeling touch deprivation, then reiki is probably not only one of the safest nothings you can do, but it might also be effective at making the patient feel like someone's finally paying attention to them. Maybe someone should do a study on reiki for hospitalized patients in restraints. Having a hospital sitter say "Hold still so I can fix your aura" might be more pleasant for a confused patient than "Hold still. No, you're not in jail. No, you haven't been kidnapped. You're in the hospital. Do you want to watch some TV?". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 with the | via=Encyclopedia.com parameter when applicable, as in this simple one-author book template: <ref>{{cite book |last1= |first1= |date= |title= |url=[put encyclopedia.com article url here] |location= |publisher= |isbn= |via=Encyclopedia.com}}</ref> 5Q5|^✉ 12:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably shouldn't be listed, Option 1 otherwise. As others have noted this is simply an aggregator which publishes no original content. Most of the content is sourced to academic publishers of well borne credentials such as OUP, CUP, Columbia, Gale and the like. Personally haven't come across any fringe sources in my extensive usage of the site. It's an electronic encyclopedia, so it not giving page no.s or editions is not really an issue as the online version of the data (from OUP, Gale etc.) it cites likely lacks those in the first place. Not going for option 2 as no broad usage of a fringe database has been shown despite some instances shown of the paranormal etc. being covered from the POV of its proponents, that is an issue with the sources themselves (academic publishers when compiling such topics in the form of encycs etc. also tend to do the same); here the fringe policy already applies to even the academic sources undergirding this aggregator. We really needn't list this at RSP though (as good as listing Google Books or The Free Dictionary), the issues with the underlying sources (mostly academic) can be considered separately. Option 3/4 will deprive us of much value, option 2 may lead to discoruaging users from citing academic content as such I cannot support any of these. Gotitbro (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And wouldn't you know it, recently happened to use encyclopedia.com to add info to John Mearsheimer from Contemporary Authors (not freely accesible anywhere else). Simply shouldn't be restricting source databases if the core WP mission of free access to knowledge is to be upheld.

PS: Google was listing in its Knowledge Panel a random person as the subject's spouse. Added the correct info to the article and sent an error correction to Google both using encyclopedia.com. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No rating but add a note along the lines of "it's preferable to cite the original source of information. The reliability of information is inherited from the original source." Alaexis_¿question? 20:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per Chetsford. Also, its a Wikipedia:TERTIARY source, there should be actual secondary sources for any bit of verifiable data in the article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TERTIARY does not say that tertiary sources are unreliable or shouldn't be used. Andre🚐 19:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, but if there is info we wanna cite to encyclopedia.com, we can just look up the secondary source it cites, and evaluate reliability of the secondary source. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said that there should be secondary sources for every bit of verifiable data, and I don't agree. Primary sources may be used carefully, and tertiary sources may explicitly be used for analysis according to policy. Read again what it says about tertiary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source Policy doesn't lay out what to do when information is in a tertiary source but contradicted or absent in a secondary source. There are some situations where tertiary sources are less reliable than secondary sources, and some situations where tertiary sources are basically as good as a secondary source. For example handbooks and compendia where reliable academics write shorter treatments of their books or journal articles as chapters of a different work, the reliability goes with the author. Or some reference encyclopedias such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which are just fine to use for anything and are generally reliable and go toe to toe with journal articles, and provide detailed bibliographies. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. There is nothing in the policy that says you must replace tertiary sources with secondary sources for every single fact or analyte, as long as the article itself has secondary sources in general. Andre🚐 19:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia.com doesn't primarily cite secondary sources, it reprints tertiary sources, so you can't easily trace what it reprints back to secondary sources, even if you wanted to. You could trace what it reprints back to the original tertiary source, but it would still be tertiary (and in many cases, we'd still be using an electronic Gale reprint of a tertiary source that is originally a print source.) Jahaza (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^ This. If Encyclopedia of Whatever is a traditional encyclopedia, it is a tertiary source, and it remains a tertiary source no matter how many times it gets scanned/uploaded/photocopied. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“You must buy a 200 dollar out of print book if you want to cite it, rather than use a free version from the publisher”. Also, most encyclopedias do not do that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: The only way I can read Option 2 is that in some circumstances it could be ok to cite encyclopedia.com directly, without including a reference to an underlying source - which I do not support. However, I see a few !votes for Option 2 that include language like "When referencing material on encyclopedia.com you should cite the original source" - which I do support. Hopefully the closer can synthesize these Option 2 and 3 votes to reflect this overlapping perspective NicheSports (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you are citing databases/aggregators like encyclopedia.com, the expectation is always that you cite the underlying source (the database can be mentioned in via/website parameters). We don't, for example, expect editors cite the Internet Archive but not the book/work itself! Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 encyclopedia.com is an electronic copy of encyclopedias from some generally reputable publishers. Of course there may be a few bad apples or outdated books but usually you wouldn't go wrong using them as a reference material. Editors should remember to cite the actual book as the source and only use encyclopedia.com as the courtesy link as per WP:SYNDICATED. I disagree with any other option because that starts implying that Oxford University Press, Columbia University Press, Cengage, and Gale books are unreliable, which is clearly bollocks. Jumpytoo Talk 02:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1/2 Ah the good old days. I think on some topics they are reliable. On others, less so. Encyclopedias on niche topics are often all that is readily accessible for constructing an article. It is preferable to dig deeper into the sources used, but that doesnt necessarily rule out the encyclopedia in question. They generally have strong standards and editorial review, even if certain topics may be sparse.Metallurgist (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: Encyclopedia.com only hosts encyclopedia articles of varying quality. It is not a source in and of itself. The underlying encyclopedia should be judged. I would give the same rating as WP:ACADREP. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/3 I see no reason to ever cite Encyclopedia.com when there are sources to cite directly instead. In my view, it's similar to citing a Wikipedia article that's referenced. Particularly if Encyclopedia.com has a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources they themselves are utilizing. That should be an instant non-starter argument for ever citing Encyclopedia.com. Cite the references it uses directly, particularly since you should be confirming what Encyclopedia.com is claiming is stated in those sources in the first place. Silver seren^C 01:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, nobody has provided an instance of encyclopedia.com ever distorting a source that it cited. So I don't see why people should generally be verifying everything printed in it as long as the source it cites is a reliable one. Andre🚐 01:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's free and accessible which academic books are not? Generally sources that people can read are preferred if they are free, legal, and identical in content. It is a 1-1 mirror of reference books, mostly from Gale Research, Oxford University Press, among others. That's like banning any digital source acquired through the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library because we can't be sure it's the same as the print original. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per ActivelyDisinterested and Howardcorn33. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 I think it's reliable but acts as an aggregator. It mainly publishes articles from other sources. It can be used along with supporting references. I would not cite it as the main ref.

Definitely not Option 3 or 4 as I have not seen any evidence of them fabricating info.

Overall, I think it can be used as a quick reference but the cited sources on their entries should be used as the original sources. Frankserafini87 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 - As noted by others Encyclopedia.com is a content aggregator and it is not suitable to use some of its entries, which should be evaluated on a case by case basis and if better sources exist, they should also be preferenced. TarnishedPath^talk 08:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - Encyclopedia.com's certain entries seem non-academic and takes too informal of a tone. For example:This entry suggests that their editorial oversight seems minimal to non-existent. Besides based on the precedent established by WP:BRITANNICA, it follows that a seemingly lesser quality of a source than Britannica should also be cited with additional consideration and attributions. Kvinnen (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
....those aren't entries at all. They're site blurbs. it's just saying hey, here's what's on the website. There is no original content on encyclopedia.com. Encyclopedia.com is just a bunch of Gale and Oxford University Press books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 – Encyclopedia.com republishes other sources, and there doesn't seem to be significant doubt that it does so faithfully. As to whether those other sources are reliable, they have to be evaluated on their own merits. Without significant doubt that these are faithful reproductions, to decide that Encyclopedia.com is unreliable makes as little sense as deciding that the New York Public Library is unreliable because we don't believe all works contained in the library are reliable. Graham11 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (encyclopedia.com)

Encyclopedia.com has been discussed repeatedly here over the last 17 years. It is currently and extensively used as a source across the project and is used as a source of last resort to force fringe content into Wikipedia. Chetsford (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: Would like to see what you mean by 'fringe' (and 'utterly insane, bonkers sources' below). I have personally used the website to cite content to its underlying sources which from my usage come from OUP, Gale, Columbia, Cambridge and so on; haven't come across a fringe publisher as of yet. Gotitbro (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Considering that it's a tertiary source that specifies the source of each article (see examples in the voting section), why do we need to assess the reliability of encyclopedia.com itself? Alaexis_¿question? 20:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have over 15,000 references to encyclopedia.com

, so some kind of RSP entry telling people to cite the underlying reference and how to clearly locate what the ultimate source of the text is would probably be helpful, but given that it's come up before at RSN I don't think we need a full and complete RfC to do that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Something similar to WP:YAHOONEWS perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:NEWSAGG but the language is tailored to news aggregators. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Alaexis that's long been my thought as well. But increasingly, and just again today, I've encountered situations in which the mere presence of an encyclopedia.com entry is being used to justify content even if it's just reprinting utterly insane, bonkers sources. Relitigating this matter every time that occurs becomes an incredible time sink that could be remedied by a simple, clear, and concise entry on RSP. An indexed statement as straightforward as User:ActivelyDisinterested's !vote above would be welcome (I prefer a 3 conclusion simply because encyclopedia.com seems to hoover up content in an automated fashion via Cengage, as opposed to the more deliberate way Yahoo News does, but would be fine with a 2 explained in the way they've laid out). Chetsford (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Alaexis. This is a bit like saying we should vote on whether Google Books is a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We (I) should get back to the idea that RSP needs a "platform" category, so that we can easily say "Don't look at the URL – look at the actual source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the website has always been a particularly useful reference work for me to see the general overview of a topic. I have always looked at what and who was being cited, the url is immaterial as a content aggregator. Gotitbro (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Journal of Scientific Exploration

Is the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (JoSE)

Option ~~3 or~~4. This Q4 journal [11] publishes the latest research into haunted houses. It has a well-referenced summary in our corresponding article about it that justifies this option. Contributors to the journal include a person [12] whose website we recently deprecated (WP:THEDEBRIEF). Some recent articles draw conclusions such as:

—"ghostly episodes are best conceptualized, researched, and addressed through a biopsychosocial lens and phenomenological approach, irrespective of the potential contribution of putative psi" [13]

—"A survey of modern-era field Egyptologists reveals a very high incidence of unusual deaths consistent with symptoms of haematopoietic cancer ..." and that this may be due to an "ancient curse" [14]

—If you cast a magic spell on water (AKA "informed water") there's a possibility those who drink it can be cured of COVID-19 [15]

Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC); edited 15:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC); edited 18:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like an argument for option 4 than option 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might have some utility for social facts on the fringes but, you're probably right, and I have no particular objection to an Option 4 close. Chetsford (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 or 4 (Summoned by bot) Per WP:FRIND, while we could possibly use this as a source for various WP:FRINGE topics, we should only do so if it is discussed in another, reputable source. I've been involved in discussions elsewhere on this noticeboard where any proximity to the topic in question is considered to automatically disqualify a source, so for consistency's sake the fact that the JSE is published by a group devoted to publicising these topics should mean it's generally unreliable. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 or 4. In applicable articles Wikipedia is a summary of the findings of mainstream science. On its about page this journal disqualifies itself as a usable source for that with the aim "to provide a professional forum for critical discussion of topics that are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science". Phil Bridger (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 4 I find Chetsford's list of remarkable claims above sufficient to treat this source as generally unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like @Chetsford I'm also fine with a 4 close too. Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 Given what secondary sources say about the journal[16][17]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having read some of their articles I wouldn't oppose option 4. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 for preference, since the editors can't tell fact from fiction. Option 3 as fallback. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 The last number is only nonsense. This is a creation by Ian Stevenson to publish his pseudoscientific claims. Ixocactus (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 or Option 2 as a fallback. We don't need to believe their claims, but subject to other rules like NPOV and FRINGE we should be able to document they have made the claims. Oblivy (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 I think it may have some use to document claims, but shouldnt be considered authoritative for statements of fact. Definitely needs qualified attribution. Metallurgist (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (JoSE)

JSE has previously been discussed a few times here (1, 2, etc.) and is occasionally sourced across the project. I bring this up as there is currently a 1:1 AfD on a BLP (intentionally unlinked to avoid the perception of canvassing) in which one party is more-or-less insisting the non-listing of JSE at Perennial Sources makes it usable. While a RfC here may have immediate relevance, the occasional use JSE still gets across the project may give a definitive consensus more holistic utility as well. Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving the AfD unlinked is probably a good idea, but if you haven't already you should notify the AfD of this discussion - so any participants there have the opportunity to have they say here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have done. Chetsford (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't link the AFD, but there's no reason for anyone to have to repeat the few seconds' work that it took me to find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni (3rd nomination). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though leaning 3 per the nom. But to choose between any of the four options, I need some clarifications. Studying fringe science itself obviously does not mean that those studying it are themselves fringe or publish such content. The current lede for the journal's publisher notes this to be the case as did the now redirected article for the journal (that it studies the subject) not that it promotes it. But from comments here I gather that this is the case. So is the majority of it devoted to the promotion of such stuff or it makes up only a small part of it and it actually does study fringe phenomenon in earnest? Gotitbro (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we set aside for a moment whether we believe the fringe theories or think they are important, the question is whether the journal is reputable. But reputable to whom? It:
- has a long history of publication
- is searchable through university library websites, Google Scholar, etc.
- has an editorial board which includes professors at accredited universities (of which more below)
- claims to be peer-reviewed, and I can't find anything saying it's predatory or lying about peer review
- publishes contrary views and responses to criticism
I was looking at the professors who have signed on and found this article about Idaho professor and bigfoot researcher Jeff Meldrum[18]. It shows the value of engaging with people who have ideas we might think are crackpot, as long as they show their work. A solution that leaves them completely out of the conversation is not good for the encyclopedia.
In this AfD of an author, one question we have to ask is whether she is respected as an expert in her field. If we declare that the most reliable source in the field (I know, that says a lot) is not admissible to talk about her impact in that field then we can't have that conversation. Oblivy (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech for Palestine talk page discussion around the usage of PirateWires.com

discussion is mostly about piratewires, which is affiliated with michael solana.
previous discussion here: [19]

appearing to be cited in a few other articles, but hasn't been used much yet. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not a WP:RS; they don't seem to have any editorial policies, but beyond that they clearly lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They're a personal website usable only for WP:ABOUTSELF description of their own activities. The only in-depth coverage I could find is here and here. The Atlantic piece describes them as eg. participating in something with the trappings of a classic pump and dump. Also note the description (there and elsewhere, including on its own site) as a "media company", which is very vague in a way that seems to specifically avoid anything that might claim an actual responsibility towards fact-checking. Business Insider describes their outlook (in a quote) as "information warfare of one tribe versus another." Trae Stephens, a partner at Founders Fund (where Pirate Wires' founder works at his day job), described Pirate Wires as a kind of daily affirmation for Silicon Valley. None of this suggests that they are actually doing any fact-checking or that they care about accuracy, and certainly not that they have a reputation for either of these things. --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a previous discussion in archive 465. Personally, publishing Soros conspiracy theories disqualifies a source from being generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not a reliable source, per consensus in previous discussion. Their reports might be noteworthy though where there is reliable secondary coverage of it, eg "'Wikipedia editors colluded to delegitimize Israel'". JNS.org. 2024-11-03. Retrieved 2025-09-04. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Wires' reporting on this story has corroborated other reporting, has been corroborated by other reporting, and has been widely cited by reliable sources. Editors should consider it WP:RS both on this topic and in general.

The article in question, by Ashley Rindsberg, "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative," 24 Oct 2024, confirmed and expanded reporting from the prior June 26 by Gabby Deutch, "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia" at the *Jewish Insider*.

Since then:

25 Oct 2024: Len Sander, writing for the Berliner Zeitung, cited Rindsberg in "Bericht: So soll Wikipedia von Anti-Israel-Aktivisten unterwandert worden sein."
11 Nov 2024: Rabbi Shraga Simmons, writing for Aish, cited Rindsberg in "Weaponizing Wikipedia against Israel."
4 Dec 2024: Debbie Weiss, writing for The Algemeiner, cited Rindsberg in "Wikipedia’s Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative."
12 Dec 2024: Ohad Merlin, writing for the WP:JERUSALEMPOST, cited Rindsberg in "Wikipedia suspends pro-Palestine editors coordinating efforts behind the scenes."
7 Mar 2025: Margi Murphy, writing for WP:BLOOMBERG, cited Deutch at The Jewish Insider in "'Edit Wars' on Middle East Page Raise Tensions on Wikipedia."
20 Mar 2025: Aaron Bandler, writing for the Jewish Journal, cited Rindsberg and Deutch in "Gaming the Wiki System."
4 Aug 2025: Eden Cohen, writing for Unpacked, cited Weiss at The Algemeiner in - "Anti-Israel activists are rewriting Jewish history on Wikipedia — here’s why it matters."

While this was going on, Rindsberg produced two related reports at Pirate Wires, "Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” Enforces Sweeping Ban on Pro-Hamas Edit Gang," 27 Jan 2025, and "Portrait of a Digital Propagandist," 26 Feb 2025.

I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting.

Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages for Jack Dorsey 512 days ago and Bluesky 318 days ago without apparent contention. The page on Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 302 days ago, also without apparent contention.

Consequently:

To the criticism that they "don't seem to have any editorial policies" and related, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The notion that neither does any other news outlet listed above would be absurd.
Pirate Wires in fact does "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as evidenced by the citation and corroboration above.
"Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors for commentary and reporting.
The Atlantic article cited above as criticism suggests that Pirate Wires may have become unwittingly involved in a crypto pump-and-dump. Even reliable sources sometimes act on a bad scoop. The Atlantic's characterization, assuming that it's correct, it is not disqualifying given the realities of journalism.
Wikipedia describes The New York Times as "a mass media corporation." "Media company" means that the company works in a range of media. It is not a suspicious label.
The Business Insider quote cited above as criticism indicates only editorial slant, which does not contradict a positive assessment of Pirate Wires' reliability.
The suggestion that the site is "publishing Soros conspiracy theories" is unfounded. Pirate Wires published another report by Rindsberg, How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Wikipedia, on 6 Jan 2025. I am unable to find a RS characterization of this report as a "conspiracy theory"; judgment to that effect constitutes WP:OR.

Pirate Wires has accomplished WP:RS-quality reporting here and deserves due credit for it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't constitute OR, as that deals with article content. It's literally in the first sentence of that page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'evidence' the give is that there was connections between Soros and people at the WMF, but absolutely nothing to show that Soros actually backed them to get into those positions or that those people acted in Soros' interest. The typical connect the dots even if there is no prove of anything that comes from conspiratorial thinking. So again that they published such an article should disqualify them as a reliable source. That they might be right at times is beside the point, even a stopped clock. Sources are meant to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Publishing what amounts to lots of connected pins in a notice board is hardly a good sign of that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with the policy which says that if a media outlet publishes an article about Soros that you believe unsound, then none of their reporting on any topic should be regarded as reliable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy would be WP:V reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I described the issue with there reporting and showed why it shod be considered conspiritorial. If you agree with it you should show how the source has the reputation that policy asks for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, documented overhead. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion should have been linked on the T4P talk page so the people discussing there could have had the opportunity to comment here. Anyway, as far as I can tell there has been a lot of opinion expressed about PW not being viewed as reliable by some editors, and even some opinion saying essentially, "Look! They said a thing I disagree with about Soros" or some similar expression, but no real evidence of other reliable sources discussing Pirate Wires in such a way as to deem them unreliable. The extremely detailed review above on the reliability of PW I believe would serve to place PW in an RfC as GREL or at the very most they might need attribution. PW is doing some excellent reporting in the truest journalistic sense, and it seems as if that makes some uncomfortable, but until it is demonstrated that PW is actually unreliable, with specific evidence from a reliable source, then PW is reliable and can be used and cited without attribution. Lastly, bias in a source, if there is even such bias here, does not constitute unreliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I disagree with what they posted about Soros, I said it was conspiratorial rubbish and then gave specific reasons why it was. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, posting conspiracies whether that's about Soros or Trump (and whether we personally agree with it) isn't an indicator of a generally reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking other sources disparaging such a reputation, we cannot come to our own assumed opinion that such a reputation is unreliable, especially not based on one story. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first and most important check of a sources reliability is an editors own good judgement. Blindly restating everything you find online is the thing that would be against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The default is no reputation; as RS says, anyone can create a website and claim to be a reliable source - that doesn't make them one. None of the sources provided above really establish that Pirate Wires has a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; most of them are WP:BIASED and aren't WP:RSes themselves, and some of them don't even mention Pirate Wires. A single brief story in a hot-button cultural dispute that was picked up by a handful of friendly outlets and blogs is obviously not enough to establish that a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The default is not GUNREL. As I've said, I think I could be persuaded that attribution should be required for PW, but other than that, there is no evidence of unreliability beyond some WP editor's opinions expressed in this thread. What PW has said might hold bias as well, but there is no reporting on their having been factually inaccurate or failing in terms of proper fact-checking. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The default for websites with no reputation is indeed GUNREL; anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. Do you genuinely believe that a random website with no reputation could be cited for anything? We don't usually take the time to formally categorize every non-WP:RS, of course, but most webpages are non-RSes, and certainly Pirate Wires is unusable. The fact that you feel that you might be persuaded that a low-quality website with no reputation, no indication that they have any sort of editorial controls, and a single story to their name that most mainstream press dismissed as more back-and-forth allegations between partisans might require attribution falls under WP:SATISFY. They're a low-quality partisan blog who has done nothing but flood the zone with unverified allegations, a single one of which was picked up only by similarly biased sources. That's not enough to satisfy WP:RS. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and every discussion has clearly indicated that they're not an RS; I will, obviously, remove them instantly on sight any place I see them cited directly. If you disagree and somehow think they pass WP:RS, start an RFC, but you'd be wasting your time - you would be better off looking for actually usable sources instead. --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed all of these criticisms, having mapped out the corroboration and citations between Pirate Wires and several other news outlets, including two green WP:RSPS and others deemed acceptable. I repeat that no one has challenged Pirate Wires' reporting on this story, which should be part of the context required by WP:RS considerations. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said, a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources isn't really an indicator of WP:RS. And one of the sources you listed there does in fact challenge it; Bloomberg covers it as follows: Conversely, an initiative named Tech for Palestine allegedly began in the spring of 2024 coordinating editing of Wikipedia pages on its Discord server. The allegations were first reported by the Jewish Insider. Note two extremely important points. First, they frame it as unproven allegations (and they put it in the context of back-and-forth allegations between two sides accusing each other of misdeeds on Wikipedia); that is, in fact, a challenge. The wild disconnect between the way it's framed there and the way it's framed by Pirate Wires itself is what a challenge looks like. And second, note that they studiously attributed it to Jewish Insider, which implies that they do not consider Pirate Wires itself to be a legitimate source. WP:USEBYOTHERS isn't just about whether other sources are discussing a source, but who is using it, and how they frame it. And finally, of course, the lack of a published editorial policy is still fatal; we do, in fact, have to assume that it lacks one, especially given the lack of any real indication that they have a reputation otherwise. Lots of topic areas have these low-quality partisan blogs that flood the zone with sweeping unproven allegations; I think that we should take the perspective that Bloomberg has, as the most high-quality unbiased / independent source that has covered this, and only touch things from them via secondary sources. Even then, it is important to contextualize any allegations they make according to the bias of the sources reporting them - again, actually read the Bloomberg piece. Try reading it from the perspective of someone who is seeing it as the only source on this topic. It doesn't say or support what you're implying at all - it covers it as one of a list of unproven allegations pumped out by squabbling partisans. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was cited by Aish, Jewish News Syndicate, The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, and Jewish Journal. Unpacked cited The Algemeiner. Describing PW reporting on this as "a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources" hinges on all of those outlets being WP:BIASED and indifferent to PW's supposed lack of substantiation. This is not a responsible description of either the initial or subsequent journalism.

Several others picked up on the Jewish Insider material, one of them being Bloomberg, and a couple more drew from both. This establishes that the account of T4P's abuse is WP:DUE. Between the confirmed reliability of Pirate Wires' reporting and the DUE nature of the story, it should be included in the T4P article at substantive length and Pirate Wires given deserved credit.

Regarding the "lack of a published editorial policy," again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not only is it not "fatal," it's not even relevant to determining reliability. WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies."

Repeatedly calling PW a blog will not turn it into one. Rindsberg is obviously not self-publishing. The site lists Harris Sockel as "Lead Editor," which implies the existence of subordinate editors. The site describes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture," emphasis mine. They have made a strong case for accepting that description at face value. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pirate Wires is a blog, and not a very good one at that. It should only be considered for use in line with the restrictions of WP:SPS and frankly its writing staff has no great expertise in anything so WP:EXPERTSPS is unlikely to come up. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USESPS: "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." Pirate Wires employs multiple reporters, and the author of the reporting in question is not the editor. Pirate Wires describes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." Even The Atlantic article cited overhead as criticism of PW concedes that the editor aspires to hard-hitting journalism. The citations and corroboration documented overhead indicates that they have succeeded. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this logic all I need to do is get a friend of mine to write some guest posts for my blog to make it a reliable source. Pirate Wires isn't hard-hitting anything. It's ideologically motivated twitter-churn. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would only establish that your friend wasn't self-publishing. How much of the reporting in the Rindsberg article under discussion was sourced to Twitter? Also, how are you privy to his motivations? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, since this has dragged on off-and-on for a while now, perhaps we should just have an RFC. --Aquillion (talk)

I'm usually the one telling people not to open RFCs, but I can't see the two sides of this coming to any consensus through normal discussion. The perspectives are just too dissimilar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. I'm not convinced by arguments above defending the site's integrity or prominence, & despite previous attempts to explain what a conspiracy theory is, refusal to see one as such does not change the reality of the case. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You neither established that the reporting on Soros sunk to the level of "conspiracy theory," nor explained why, if it did, that would disqualify unrelated reporting that was cited by multiple WP:RSs and a couple of solidly reliable WP:RSPS. If there was a RS describing Pirate Wires reporting on Soros as a conspiracy theory to put up against its solid and cited work on T4P, that would be something. But your opinion versus that work is not persuasive. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Butterscotch Beluga should be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF and via reliable secondary coverage (e.g. their interview with Jack Dorsey which was rereported elsewhere) but probably not reliable for much else.
I used to listen to their podcast, though haven't for probably a year or thereabouts. They clearly have some form of editorial controls and a gatekeeping process, though I'm unclear if there are conventional firewalls between the owner and the reporters or the reporters merely function as scribes for the owner's ideas. I see no evidence they have been specifically identified for uncorrected errors in reporting, which is to their credit. That said, their approach seems to be a style of quasi-gonzo journalism which is probably not appropriate for use as referencing for the limited purposes of our encyclopedia. That fact is not a slight on them, just a point of observation.
Most importantly, however, searching Google News for the unique phrases "according to Pirate Wires" and "Pirate Wires reported" I don't find solid examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS outside of a very small handful of instances. (For full disclosure, their "senior editor" has cited me by name to make unflattering and, in my opinion, erroneous representations of my actions on WP in his writing in other publications so this should be taken into context in weighing my comment.) Chetsford (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i suspect consensus for piratewires would find it somewhat reliable, but have concerns about establishing dueness.
at best, they probably should just be attributed if they need to be used. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Bluethricecreamman that attribution should likely be required, but otherwise I think PW has been well documented in this discussion to be generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Reliability of Pirate Wires

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Politics, government, and law

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Relevant WP:RFCBEFORE: The section above, Talk:Tech_for_Palestine#2025-08_Pirate_Wires, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#Pirate_Wires?

What is the reliability of Pirate Wires?

Generally reliable
Additional considerations apply
Generally unreliable
Deprecate

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Option 2~~: making this per aquillon. editorial controls for PirateWires is mostly the wealthy benefactor/Silicon Valley investor Michael Solana, and the Soros story seems concerning. I think this is an SPS source regardless, and usage should be by attribution only. In general, PirateWires by itself cannot establish dueness, and relevant policy WP:BLPSPS should apply if they do any gonzo-style hit piece on a person. When it is cited by other mainstream sourcing, that could indicate dueness, like in the TechForPalestine canvassing coverage, but only as much as the mainstream sourcing is mentioning it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2.5 if there is a 2.5 option, i'll vote same as chetsford and bob. At the end of the day, it seems hyperpartisan opinion, and its framing is hard for use in a neutral way on an encyclopedia article by itself. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: @Tioaeu8943 made a compelling argument for its reliability here, and I endorse it. The arguments against its reliability lack substance or actual claims of factual inaccuracies, and seem motivated by ideological differences (which shouldn't guide reliability discussions). Jcgaylor (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 Publishing Soros conspiracy theories is not the sign of a generally reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating this line. What, specifically, in the article is a "conspiracy theory"? Jcgaylor (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explained this in the section above, you're free to disagree with my assessment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read that above discussion (and the archived one discussed in it). You did not articulate specifics about what made the article conspiratorial. You asserted a similarly conclusory statement. Even the bare bones you do provide isn't accurate, though. The article lays out, in-depth, how leading figures of the WMF and Wikipedia have received funding from Soros and his many ventures throughout their careers. That substantiates its headline. The article also argues, using direct quotations from Soros and WMF/Wikipedia executives, and fact-based research on events, that the governing philosophy of these executives aligns with the policies openly-championed by Soros.

Whether one agrees with the comparison between WMF/Wikipedia ventures and the governing/political philosophy of Soros is a matter of personal opinion. It simply isn't true, however, that the article is "conspiratorial" or fails to explain how key WMF/Wikipedia leaders have received financial support from Soros.

If the basis for labeling PW as unreliable hinged on this one article being "conspiratorial", it lacks a strong or objective foundation. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you can disagree if you want, but nothing you've said changes my mind in the slightest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My goal isn't to change your mind. As part of this RFC, I'm making the case for finding that PW is reliable, and explaining why arguments against a finding of reliability lack credibility or foundation. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the before discussion I think opinions on this source are so dissimilar that we basically talking at odds with each other. Your argument showing how all the little lines add to to something is the exact issue I have with the article, but for you it's why it's reliable. If you wish to add anything more to your own comment please do, but I don't see anything useful coming from further discussion happening under mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the above discussion, you claimed the PW article failed to demonstrate how WMF/Wikipedia executives received funding from Soros. A simply read-through of the article demonstrates that isn't true. Therefore, your argument that PW isn't reliable because this specific article is "conspiratorial", doesn't hold water.

This discussion, while not aimed at persuading you or I to change our positions, does contribute and is germane to the larger purpose of this RFC. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It does hold water because it is quite self evidently true, any simple reading of the article shows that to be the case. This is my point - are opinions are so wildly different and to make discussion pointless, we both look at the same thing and see something quite different. Nothing I say will ever be satisfactory for you, and nothing you put forward will change my opinion. No, in your opinion my description doesn't hold water but you arguments only serve to firm up mine. So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show. That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow, or that they have been corrupted by the bad money man maybe? Absolutely nothing in the article shows that they are "Soris operatives" or operatives of any kind. Nor does it show that Soros backing is the cause of any of the initiatives at the WMF that the source is so ideologically opposed too. What it does do is hold up connection between those individuals and Soros and than say that other things are e because they are his operatives. That's conspiratorial thinking, the exact issue I have with the source. You see this very different, and will dismiss and diminish my comment but I will find your points as unconvincing as you find mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show[?]"

"That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow . . .?"

As I stated earlier, one's viewpoints on the value of the similarity between these executives and their ideological/philosophical alignment with Soros' views is a matter of personal judgment that you are improperly attempting to elevate to a matter of Wikimedia policy. Your personal views on the matter do not negate the fact that the article substantiates the factual allegations of its thesis: that people who have received financing from George Soros now work in leading roles at WMF/Wikipedia. That is indisputable, and, based on your reply, a point you concede.

As defined by Merriam-Webster, an "operative" is "a person who works toward achieving the objectives of a larger interest". The article, using the own words and actions of these executives, demonstrates what these individuals are working to achieve: various DEI initiatives, the Knowledge Equity principle, etc. Again, one's views on the author's condemnation of these efforts does not diminish the reality that these executives are working toward their own stated goals.

All of this to say, your and other's opposition to a finding of reliability for PW is not rooted in the lack of fact-based reporting, but in your opposition to the judgments of this one author of this one article the outlet published. In other words, it does not hold water under the policies and guidelines that are supposed to guide these reliability determinations. Jcgaylor (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not my opinion, just an observation of the nature of the article they published and how it doesn't substantiates anything unless you consider guilt by association prove of wrong doing. But this is going nowhere we're just repeating arguments, and adding nothing to the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article about Soros, could you address the following points?

And the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency by falsely labelling it the product of Russian disinformation. Is it really appropriate to outright call it false? Surely, the overall effect was very small, but it still could be large enough to flip a few battleground states.
Maher’s emphasis of ... word — “open” ... was about making “the world” an open place. ... Soros built a global political machine ... on the concept of openness I guess, Rindsberg tried to tie Maher to Soros via the word "open", but this is a post-WWII concept whose prominence is hardly related to Soros. Ngram
Another attempt at the same connection is done via Maher → Minassian → Clinton → Soros. This is standard conspiracy thinking.
Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid, giving nearly $10 million — has played a leading role in her ability to pursue this ideological platform. Per Open Secrets, Clinton received $770M in total, including $22M from Paloma Partners and $17M from Pritzker Group.
Democracy Alliance, a mega-donor fund co-founded — and primarily funded — by George Soros. I failed to fact-check, but I suppose it is very dubious that at least half ("primarily") of the contributions came from Soros. For instance, in this Politico article, it says, "The donor clique, which counts George Soros and Tom Steyer among its members."
Zack Exley is framed as a Soros operative, but the article failed to mention that he was the Director of Online Communication for the 2004 Kerry campaign.
The article claims that the WMF endowment is connected to the Tides Foundation, stating, Since Tides is a donor-advised fund, Soros could have used it to funnel money to the Wikimedia Endowment without any trace. The context is that the organization is a mainstream progressive one that spent $620M in 2020, which is far more than the $10M yearly from Soros.
We get to the direct link, Soros doubled down on his commitment to the Wikimedia Endowment with a direct $2 million donation. But Wikimedia received $120M that year.
But Soros’ statement spoke loudest. “My gift represents a commitment to the ideals of open knowledge — and to the long-term importance of free knowledge sources that benefit people around the world,” he said. Looks like an empty platitude to me.
While her repeated echoing of Soros’ language of openness may seem coincidental, in truth Maher has nurtured deep ties to Soros’ views Buried at the end of the article.
More on Maher, Her first real professional experience in NGOs began around 2008. The Wikipedia page about her said she worked at UNICEF from 2007 to 2010, at the National Democratic Institute (which got 97% (p.9) of its funding from the government in 2024, so she was akin to a civil servant) from 2010 to 2011, and at the World Bank from 2011 to 2013. Hardly a career of a professional NGO activist.
Ethan Zuckerman is also framed as a Sorosite, but the article failed to mention that he headed the MIT Center for Civic Media. The MIT isn't a Soros organization. Among other people mentioned, there were Melissa Hagemann, Eileen Hershenov, Rebecca MacKinnon, and Cameran Ashraf. Maybe some of them are professional Soros types; I don't know.
WMF recently noted that Wikipedia is among the most important content sources being ingested by LLMs, with one analysis showing that the site is one of the three most important sources for training data and among the highest for reliability. Doesn't explain that content ingested into the LLM is written by the editors, while the Foundation has relatively little control. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to support Clinton's assertion that Russian disinformation determined (in a fashion required for the presidency to "be a product of" such interference) the outcome of the 2016 (or 2024) presidential election. The DOJ, Mueller's report, and the Senate report on the subject all agree that Russia did make efforts to influence the election, but did not find evidence of such success, and did not make that conclusion (1.). Some experts have said that it would be impossible to make such a determination, due to the countless variables that drive voter behavior and election results. We do know, per an NYU study, that despite the complexity of Russia's online disinformation efforts, its impact was very limited to highly-partisan right-wing citizens (2.).
As I stated in earlier responses on this thread, one's views on the nature of the parallel or similarities between the rhetoric of WMF/Wikimedia executives and Soros is mainly a matter of personal opinion. However, No one here is disputing the facts of what they said or the quotes the article uses. That is all sourced and verifiable.
Or, it is context to substantiate the professional proximity of the article's subjects. Again, you're discussing the bias or merits to the reporting, not the factual accuracy of the connection.
I'd note you cited organizational donors, not individual donors. Other sources cite Soros as the highest, or the near-highest individual donors to Clinton's 2016 election efforts, depending on how they associate donations between hedge-funds and other groups. (3. (corroborating the "nearly $10 million" claim and that this makes Soros a leading donor) ; 4. (this source places Soros' contributions at $25 million); 5. (noting that Soros and Sussman, founder and Chairman of Paloma Partners, donated roughly the same amount)) In any case, the amount claimed is corroborated, while the claim that Soros was the "biggest donor" is used by some other sources, depending on how they count and organize donations.
I, too, was unable to source the "primarily" portion of this claim, mainly because the clique is so opaque about its funding and donation history. The rest of the quoted portion is verifiable and widely corroborated.
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
An irrelevant observation as to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. This fact does provide context to the association between WMF/Wikipedia and Soros (the premise of the article).
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
Started working at UNICEF in 2007 --> "experience in NGOs began around 2008". Seems like a fair claim. If I was being nitpicky, I'd want to know what month in 2007 she started working at UNICEF. She has worked in the NGO sphere for 17 years at the time of the article's publishing. Calling her a "professional NGO activist" has a sensible foundation (though the article doesn't call her that). I'd dispute calling her a civil servant, though, but (like most of your points) that is a matter of personal opinion.
An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. That he worked for that center has no bearing on the factual claims the article does make about him, nor would the addition of that piece of information substantially alter the information that is included.
Missing context. The article is discussing the implementation of Wikimedia's "Movement Strategy", which aims to alter Wikipedia's (among other WikiProjects) policies, guidelines, and practices. The author asserts that the Strategy is a manifestation of Maher's (and Soros') focus on concepts like "equity" (like altering notability guidelines to remove "barriers of access to content related to underrepresented communities" (6.)). The author then highlights the impact the Strategy would have by referencing the increased importance of Wikipedia itself. The author uses the WMF quote you cited to demonstrate the importance of Wikipedia in the modern world, not to say that WMF makes editorial decisions over Wikipedia articles. But your comment misses the crux of the article's (and the Strategy's) point. The MS, sponsored by the WMF, openly aims to alter the policies and guidelines that determine what makes it into articles (and all Wikimedia work product) in the first place. You may feel the Strategy and its goals are positive developments. But, the article doesn't make any factual errors on the subject.

In sum, none of your comments undermine the factual accuracy of the article's claim, which is what we're hear to discuss. Again, if the only argument against a finding of reliability is the canned line of "peddled Soros conspiracy theories", then that position lacks any credibility or foundation.

Jcgaylor (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your dismissal of several points with "An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims", misunderstands what constitutes a conspiracy theory.

A collection of technically correct, but misleading statements are the connective tissue of conspiracy theories. The article's content is mostly stringing together a web of guilt by association - Someone worked for someone that Soros has given money to, therefore "[S]oros-linked operatives have spent the past eight years embedding themselves in top roles at wikimedia foundation and transforming the site into a tool for radical social engineering".

It recreates several hallmarks of other Soros Conspiracies, such as being behind a migrant crisis, globalism, attacking various NGOs as part of his "global political machine", & general fearmongering about progressivism & DEI.

If this is their "Editor-at-Large" &/or "Senior Editor", I fundamentally mistrust the quality of their editorial process & certainly consider them a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the "points" raised above show the article to be misleading. Take number 6, for example. The fact that the article "failed to mention" that this individual was a comms director for the 2004 Kerry campaign has no bearing on the information presented, and would not substantially alter the context or meaning of the information that was included. It is an irrelevant aside that was, correctly, left out. If anything, its inclusion would have aided the author's point, considering that Soros spent roughly $27 million on Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush spending that election cycle (1.). Likewise with 7 and 8. Those claims were included to demonstrate that Soros has spent significant capital on WMF/Wikipedia. The amount of money Tides or the WMF raised/spent is irrelevant to that claim. Points like 9, 10, and 13 are personal gripes the commenter has with the article, not examples of misleading statements.

I think your dislike for the factual claims the article makes doesn't elevate the article to a conspiracy theory. If the article didn't mention specific quotes and initiatives from these individuals that are aligned with the governing philosophy of Soros, then, yes, it would be merely a string of guilt-by-association arguments. But, lays out specifics for the association, from the subjects themselves. This isn't a claim of a secret plot by powerful individuals. It is an article detailing the public statements and efforts of WMF/Wikipedia executives.

Likewise, citing Soros' open and proud support for wide-scale migration, global connectivity and interdependence, and his well-documented and significant funding of NGOs from across the globe does not make someone a conspiracy theorist. It merely means they did research to find his position on those topics.

One may not agree with the author's views on progressivism or DEI. One may not like that they cited Soros' support for migration and globalism. Neither of those positions have any bearing on the factual reliability of this article, let alone PW writ large. Jcgaylor (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article claimed "falsely", while your links support only a "no evidence" claim, adding that it "would be impossible to make such a determination". Hence using the word "falsely" is factually inaccurate.

4. Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid. None of your sources corroborated the claim of Soros being the biggest donor. Two out of three named S. Donald Sussman as such. Calling Soros the biggest donor is factually inaccurate.

13. With the concept of Knowledge Equity shaping not just Wikipedia but the LLMs that shape our future, there’s little doubt that the Movement Strategy has been a success. Based on the context of that paragraph, I interpret this "success" as an ability to significantly influence the content of Wikipedia articles. I don't believe this is factually accurate in the sense that the content would have been significantly different if the strategy had never been adopted.

In terms of people and funding, the issue is a framing which highlights the connection to Soros and downplays the connection to other people or organizations. For instance, misleadingly implying that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies by donating less than 2% of its total revenue. However, the claim is never made outright so the author maintains plausible deniability. While not outright inaccurate, I don't consider such reporting appropriate for WP:RS. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That is why it is false to for Clinton to claim that Trump is president due to Russian interference. We typically call claims that have no factual support "false".
That isn't right. The second source you cited clearly states that Soros gave me to Clinton and her election efforts than Sussman. $25 million > $13 million.
As I laid out above, the Movement Strategy does and has impact the content included in Wikipedia articles, just not in the way you ascribe only to try to dismantle.

No, the author does not misleadingly imply that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies. The author does state that executives with a financial connection to Soros are driving Wikimedia policies in a direction that mirrors Soros' political ethos, and cites specific quotes, initiatives, and histories to substantiate this claim.

When you take away the strawmen, there is no reason to not support PW as appropriate for WP:RS. Jcgaylor (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As seen by the linked article, Hillary Clinton never "claim[ed] that Trump is president due to Russian interference", she said that there is an "epidemic" of fake news (PirateWires' exact quote of "fake news epidemic" is not found in the article they're citing), referring to an incident involving the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. The way the article presents the matter though misleadingly implies she was referring to election interference, as seen by your assumption that she was.
You are misreading the number from the CNBC article, it says $2.5million, not $25 million .i.e. $2.5 million < $13 million.

Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. I did not "assume" she said that; I know she said that. Clinton has repeatedly claimed that Russian interference, like the server hack, cost her the election. Here is one instance of her making that claim.
Perhaps you need to re-read the article. Here is the exact quote, "Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle." Again, $25 million > $13 million.

Jcgaylor (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of rape; There is a difference between a false report and an unfounded report. A false report refers to someone intentionally making up and reporting an experience of sexual violence ... An unfounded report means that a victim makes a report to a criminal punishment system, yet the system does not find enough evidence to support the claim So the article should have used the word "unfoundedly", not "falsely".
The top five donors together contributed one out of every $17 for her 2016 run: hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman ($20.6 million)[20] and Among Clinton’s most devoted backers, Sussman, who has given $13 million to Clinton’s Priorities USA PAC, according to data from the FEC and tallies from the Center for Responsive Politics, has emerged as perhaps the biggest.[21] Context for the 25M: Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle.[22] So this includes causes other than Clinton's presidential bid. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep to discussing the source and not each other. Unless editors have prove they want to submit to the appropriate venue let's drop the "all these arguments are ideologically motivated" comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing the source, while challenging the asserted arguments against its reliability as ideologically motivated. Jcgaylor (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jcgaylor, this was a reply to my original comment about the general conduct of the RFC. I didn't mean to direct it towards you personally. But I stand by what is said either evidence should be posted at an appropriate forum or such personal comments should dropped, otherwise they could be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: As I said above, I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day (Thank you Kelob2678 for the in-depth analysis). - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the site promotes Soros conspiracy theories or critiques Soros's influence is not an uncontested fact. Please substantiate your claims with an example of the latter if possible from an RS. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having issues finding anyone discussing Pirate Wires at all, besides themselves & a single interview with their founder & editor-in-chief Mike Solana from The Atlantic.

As most reliable sources haven't even acknowledged their existence, let alone analyzed their output, the best we can do is argue over their quality. Arguments for if their coverage of Soros reaches the point of conspiracy theories have already been laid out in detail in this RFC & above, so if you are unconvinced by those, I don't believe further discussion of the matter will be very productive in determining Pirate Wires' reliability. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 There is very little daylight between ownership and editorial and it functions effectively as a personal blog with a small clique of guest authors rather than a news site. It also tends to blend news and opinion freely. In addition to this it's sensationalist trash. I don't think deprecation is necessary but this is a generally unreliable source for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF statements. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to anything to substantiate the claim, "there is very little daylight between ownership and editorial"? Does the fact that it has two staff editors alter that? If not, why not?

The site has staff writers, and a long list of regular contributors. These are the trappings of a news outlet, not a personal blog, as other commenters noted in the above discussion when you brought up this point. Jcgaylor (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 I've no qualms about an organisation being called a 'media company' and there isn't a problem on WIkipedia with news services being owned by billionaires (or we'd have very slim pickings). However, there's no mention I can see of an editor or editorial board, or standards. There's no explanation I can see about how content of Pirate Wires is generated. More so, their terms and conditions scream in capital letters "WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SERVICES' CONTENT" - clearly 'read/use this content at your own risk', Pirate Wires is dodging the responsibility of fact checking. All that being said, their content is clearly followed and reported by undoubtedly reliable news outlets, in which case it's fair enough to use it. Certainly in the Tech for Palestine article there was a tendency towards over-reliance on one Pirate Wires article, which I wouldn't see as balanced coverage. Sionk (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to Pirate Wires the "We make no warranties..." text is standard boiler plate legal text, it just means "You can't see us for being wrong". Most websites have something similar posted somewhere, for instance the disclaimer at the bottom bofnthis page. It doesn't make a source reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Most websites", like Wikipedia, aren't fact checked. Wikipedia is written by any Johnny/Janey-come-lately that fancies editing it. One would expect a journalistic news site to have fact checking and stand by the content ofits articles. Sionk (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AP has the same language in its TOS (§4.4). Like AD said, it is boilerplate language you'll find in most news outlet's TOS and shouldn't be considered in this RFC. Jcgaylor (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to link similar language on nytimes, wapost, etc. Not really enough to dismiss reliability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is at least an Editor-in-Chief and a Lead Editor. The existence of a "Lead Editor" implies that it is highly likely that there are more editors under the "Lead". What, according to you, is necessary for you to understand 'how content of Pirate Wires is generated'?

Do similar norms exist for another site to which we could refer? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1.5/2 The source appears to have the correct parts to be a RS. However, it is also a rather new source so I would be careful how it's used. As a relatively new source we should be cautious about it's use and evaluate things on a case by case basis. In particular we should see if the evidence the source provides supports the claims being made. We should be cautious about conclusions, especially in cases where the presented facts could reasonably support a conclusion that is different than the one claimed in the article. Of course such caution should be used with many sources that include a lot of information interpretation/processing in their reporting vs just the facts news. Also, as a new source we shouldn't declare the site to be "unreliable" simply because we feel there isn't enough evidence or we dislike one of the relatively few articles they have published thus far. It appears it has a small amount of used by others thus is moving in the correct direction to become a RS. But, let's not kid ourselves, it's still a small, new source so it's probably best used as a supporting source or as an acknowledged dissenting view without that view being given Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 per @Tioaeu8943 and @Jcgaylor and for the general reason that some of the complaints seem to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT and less focused on accuracy of the reporting (or simply assert inaccuracy without demonstrating it). Coining (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (preferred) - I'm apprehensive to actually place a label on the site for how new it is, but if we must have a decision, as others have highlighted there are questions around the editorial standard employed, which seem to support what I opened with in that there seems not to have been enough time to see the editorial team it says it has enact any sort of editorial action on its articles. The bias expressed through many of its articles, including what seems to stray way too close to the conspiratorial line, would indicate that any usage with need explicit attribution to the article author.

Now, I originally intended to go with option two, but after a perusal of some of their recent articles, spouting pseudoscientific nonsense such as advocacy for regular non-necessary bloodletting as it's what "men evolved to do in combat", should encourage nothing but derision of the site. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 - Pirate Wires does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS for a reliable source. It operates more like a personal commentary or opinion platform than a traditional journalistic outlet, with limited evidence of editorial oversight, a published corrections policy, or a consistent record of fact-checking. The tone and content sometimes leans toward sensationalism or coverage of fringe topics (including conspiracy theories), which may raise concerns about neutrality and reliability. Additionally, its coverage is primarily amplified by sources that themselves have questionable reliability. Overall, it falls within the scope of WP:GUNREL. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 as just about every argument against reliability does appear to be "motivated by ideological differences" as user:Jcgaylor pointed out in an earlier comment. The factual accuracy and reporting integrity of Pirate Wires appears to be top notch, and has not been questioned by other reliable sources. No evidence has been presented to question this, just aspersions and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. The "Soros conspiracy" claim for instance could not point to any actual evidence of wrongdoing or reported factual inaccuracies on the part of PW, such weak arguments simply attempted (sloppily) to state that this was part of some broader false argument (again with specific evidence against anything specifically claimed by PW). I'd consider possibly requiring attribution, as I don't think there is much harm there, but otherwise as a source generally speaking, PW appears to be exactly in line with any other "Generally reliable" source as listed in the RS/P list. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 for reasons I cited at the noticeboard discussion, which I recapitulate here with adjustments to account for the topic turning to the reliability of Pirate Wires per se rather than the WP:DUE character of its reporting.

Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was extensively cited by reliable sources

The article in question, by Ashley Rindsberg, "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative," 24 Oct 2024, confirmed and expanded reporting from the prior June 26 by Gabby Deutch, "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia" at the *Jewish Insider*.

Since then:

25 Oct 2024: Len Sander, writing for the Berliner Zeitung, cited Rindsberg in "Bericht: So soll Wikipedia von Anti-Israel-Aktivisten unterwandert worden sein."
11 Nov 2024: Rabbi Shraga Simmons, writing for Aish, cited Rindsberg in "Weaponizing Wikipedia against Israel."
4 Dec 2024: Debbie Weiss, writing for The Algemeiner, cited Rindsberg in "Wikipedia’s Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative."
12 Dec 2024: Ohad Merlin, writing for the WP:JERUSALEMPOST, cited Rindsberg in "Wikipedia suspends pro-Palestine editors coordinating efforts behind the scenes."
20 Mar 2025: Aaron Bandler, writing for the Jewish Journal, cited Rindsberg and Deutch in "Gaming the Wiki System."
4 Aug 2025: Eden Cohen, writing for Unpacked, cited Weiss at The Algemeiner in - "Anti-Israel activists are rewriting Jewish history on Wikipedia — here’s why it matters."

No one has contradicted the above or subsequent reporting

While this was going on, Rindsberg produced two related reports at Pirate Wires, "Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” Enforces Sweeping Ban on Pro-Hamas Edit Gang," 27 Jan 2025, and "Portrait of a Digital Propagandist," 26 Feb 2025.

I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting. Not even editors seeking to deem Pirate Wires unreliable seem willing to point to any fault in their reporting on this topic.

Pirate Wires has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past without argument

Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages for Jack Dorsey 512 days ago and Bluesky 318 days ago without apparent contention. The page on Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 302 days ago, also without apparent contention.

Addressing criticisms

The above citations constitute a reputation for accuracy as expected by WP:SOURCE, pace editors insisting that it has not established one.
To the criticism that editors cannot find stated editorial policies, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any case, WP:RSEDITORIAL notes that "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies." The aforementioned citations constitute adequate editorial judgment on their own parts and of Pirate Wires.
The criticisms that Pirate Wires is a personal web page or blog do not comport with WP understanding of what those designations mean. "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors engaged in a wide variety of reporting. Blogs, with respect to WP, are associated with policy regarding WP:SPS. Rindsberg obviously is not publishing himself. Moreover, one of the staff at Pirate Wires is listed as Lead Editor, implying the existence of subordinate editors and an editorial review structure. WP editors can confidently regard Pirate Wires as a news organization.
Several challengers to the reliability of Pirate Wires have invoked its reporting on George Soros, characterizing it as "conspiracy theories." I have three objections to this.

1. The characterization is not convincing. Rind'sberg's reporting on this topic is sourced, credible, and moderate in tone. I might ask for examples of long-form, sourced criticism of Soros's influence that they regard as non-conspiratorial upon which we might base a comparison, except that...

2. The criticism is not salient. One can find examples even among solidly reliable WP:RSPS where editors acted on bad scoops and pushed untenable editorial angles as opinion journalism. Even if the reporting by Pirate Wires on Soros was unsound, and as far as I can tell it's not, I don't see the rationale for dismissing all reporting by any reporter on the site as unreliable as a consequence. I concur with the remark overhead by Jcgaylor that some editors are improperly trying to elevate their opinions about this subject to the level of policy.

3. They are, after all, opinions. It would be another matter if a WP:RS had analyzed Pirate Wires journalism regarding Soros and deemed it conspiratorial. But none exists, so there's nothing to put up against the track record described above except the disputed judgments of these WP editors.

I maintain that Pirate Wires has demonstrated reliability and editors should regard it as WP:RS. It may be a relatively recent project and the editor may not be to everyone's taste, but it exemplifies everything that one would want an independent media company to accomplish. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tioaeu8943, could you please re-format your post to better comply with conventional talk page layout? The pseudo-section headings disrupt the flow of threaded discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to create clarity, not disruption. What formatting changes would you like me to make? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not include any bolded text other than your stated !vote, and would generally follow the format of other editors, who have been much more concise. If you need to make extended arguments, consider summarizing them in your !vote statement, and then either start a Discussion section for more detailed back-and-forth, or utilize {{hat}} templates to collapse details on the page so that the flow of discussion is easier to follow. As a lot of this appears to be re-stating the arguments you presented in the pre-RfC discussion, you could also just point to that section, or link to the diffs where you first presented the arguments. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I unbolded the bolds. I'll study hat templates for use on another occasion; thanks for the reference. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These references all seem to be opinion pieces complaining about Wikipedia's documenting of the genocide in Gaza. None of these speak to Pirate Wires as reliable - merely as ideologically convenient. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wholly incorrect reading of the articles in question. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went and double checked. No. It is not incorrect in the slightest. Some of the editorials are also in contextually non-reliable perennial sources such as the Jerusalem Post. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Contextually non-reliable perennial source" is an interesting way of describing WP:JERUSALEMPOST. Is this one of those contexts? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. Claims about anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia are extraordinary claims about the Israel/Palestine conflict. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. When I said that the Jerusalem Post was contextually unreliable what I meant was that it was unreliable in this context as this context is closely related to IP conflicts. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guidance on WP:JERUSALEMPOST says it "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia is not an extraordinary claim. Just look at what's happening in this RFC to responsible reporting that found it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2.5 Appropriate to directly cite for WP:ABOUTSELF, to cite with attribution for non-extraordinary claims about uncontentious matters that are not BLPs, and to indirectly cite via secondary coverage (for instance, coverage of their interview with Jack Dorsey could be used to the extent that it's covered in a conventional RS).
A Google News search of the phrases "according to Pirate Wires", "Pirate Wires reported" and a few other variations finds limited WP:USEBYOTHERS. A search of Snopes and all the other usual places finds no instances of what it publishes being cited for errors or omissions. It has a one-year or greater publication history, a gatekeeping process, and a physical presence by which it can be held responsible for what it reports. Those three factors would generally put me at about a 2. However, I can't ignore the fact that I've heard (in listening to their podcast) some statements that cause me to question whether their reporters are pursuing unfettered reportage or merely acting as scribes for the site's owner's ideas. Moreover, it practices a novel style of digital gonzo-like journalism that, while fine, may not mesh its output well with the different needs of encyclopedia writing. Chetsford (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per my arguments above. They don't have a published editorial policy, they've published conspiracy-theories and other clearly fringe material, and most importantly, they simply don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They've published only one story that attracted any attention at all, and based on the links above it was only really given credence in WP:BIASED sources, which is not a good way to establish a strong reputation; while biased sources can be used, we have to take their biases into account when considering how much weight to give them. Partisan blogs like this pump out poorly-vetted stories that are then picked up in slightly more reputable press that agrees with their biases; but if all they've managed is one story, and it isn't treated seriously outside of that bubble, that doesn't really speak to enough of a reputation to outweigh their clear limitations. Note that in eg. Bloomberg, the story is given only a brief mention, which clearly treats it as an unsubstantiated allegation that forms part of a back-and-forth partisan allegations from both sides - and crucially, Bloomberg doesn't even credit Pirate Wires as the source, suggesting that Bloomberg doesn't consider it reputable enough to even mention; the story there is that the biased secondary sources picked up on it (and it is still treated as an unsubstantiated allegation.) This isn't how high-quality sources handle a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, even before we get to the fact that source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would presumably have more than one unsubstantiated story to its name. --Aquillion (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/2.5 per Bluethricecreamman and Chetsford. Some reports might be due if enough decent secondary coverage and we don’t have enough RS criticism or failed fact checks to consider it generally unreliable, but it’s a hyperpartisan source that has not established a reputation for fact checking or editorial rigour. I have read the Soros article carefully as someone with some familiarity with the issues discussed there and I see several factual errors and a conspiratorial frame. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been spending a bit more time looking at the PW site. I'm struggling to find much content that might be called news. It's overwhelmingly opinion. On today's front page, looking for some actual piece of information, I see the (false) claim by someone identified as an "editor" that Charlie Kirk's shooter "was a deranged leftist". But everything I can see on the front page is an opinion item, including many reposted from other blogs (e.g. from Matt Orfalea' Substack - Orfalea is a YouTuber who has bylines in Zero Hedge, GlobalResearch and the Lew Rockwell site, and in no legit news sources).

Staff writer Riley Nork has never written for any other publication. The editor, Harris Sockel, went from being a Medium blogger to writing three inconsequential pieces for Slate before starting at PW. The idea that it's a news source cannot be based on actually looking at the content. The only staff writer with any real experience is Blake Dodge, who does have previous bylines at Business Insider. But that's it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. After examining USEBYOTHERS, both the links here and in-depth searches online, it's clear to me that PirateWires isn't widely cited by reliable sources, and it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, it's quite the opposite, as the publication is prone to pushing conspiracy theories and is mostly cited by other unreliable sites. I suppose we could use it for ABOUTSELF claims, but we have to seriously consider whether they are DUE. Woodroar (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate which of the sources mentioned including The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, Aish, Jewish Journal, and Unpacked are not WP:RS's? Please also indicate where they are "pushing conspiracy theories"? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to bludgeon. Other editors have indicated at least one article many editors classify as conspiracy theory. Aish is not an RS for news; it’s a Jewish culture site. Re Unpacked: “The organization says its mission is to increase support for Israel and Zionism among the Jewish diaspora and "explore [Zionism's] complex history and achievements so that young people will recognize that Zionism is a story that every Jewish person can proudly embrace and cherish."” So at best a highly partisan source. RSP urges caution re the JP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was only aware of Pirate Wires via their article How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. I don't see the article marked as opinion and yet it seems to be purely conspiratorial/fantastical, alleging without evidence that "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors has worked to delegitimize Israel, present radical Islamist groups in a favorable light, and position fringe academic views on the Israel-Palestine conflict as mainstream". So I'm surprised people are here suggesting it is a reliable source. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, as this seems to be effecivly a WP:BLOG with little obvious "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per others above. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, Pirate Wires is a reliable source per WP:RS and particularly under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which requires an editorial team "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing," which Pirate Wires has.^[1] There are objections on the RFC that say it should not be reliable due to the publication's biased viewpoint and framing (like the Soros piece), however, under WP:BIASED a certain political slant is allowed as long as the publication asserts, "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering," which applies to PW. Therefore, I would say that PW should be generally reliable for non-extraordinary claims and I think it would be reasonable to attribute when their bias comes into play per WP:BIASED but the default assumption should be that they are reliable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/2.5 per above, in particular Bob and Bluethricecreamman. Far too partisan/opinion-based and not enough editorial oversight to be GREL, but seemingly enough USEBYOTHERS/attention to their reports and interviews to not quite be GUNREL. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1/1.5 I am seeing a lot of IDONTLIKEIT here. Its important to be cautious and a little lenient in sources evaluating or criticizing Wikipedia. The Soros article, from what I skimmed, does not strike me as factually incorrect, altho I did not look into each claim. It is somewhat insinuating, but is it wrong to point out that A worked for B and B also contributes money to As new employer? Soros like many wealthy people does do shady stuff, even if it is ostensibly well-intentioned. There are legitimate criticisms of Soros, and there are bat guano insane conspiracy theories of Soros. I find it a bit ironic that there are complaints about a website backed by a billionaire(?) influencing it, which is itself complaining about a website which has received money from another billionaire.

From what I can see, Pirate Wires is not perfect, but they seem to be trying to be an independent outlet for investigative journalism that they feel mainstream media is not covering. This cannot be tucked into SPS, but isnt fully out there yet, which is unfortunate. They have work to do, but I cant entirely dismiss them as unreliable. And given the profile, it seems no RS has contested their work, albeit few have cited it either. But as a comparison, a newspaper in some random country would not be dismissed out of hand unless they have showed a continuous case of being unreliable. RS being evaluated by RS is somewhat circular. Much of their reporting should be attributed, however.

And its worth noting that much of the work in question to be used is that of Ashley Rindsberg, who previously worked for Internet Archive, and seems to be for open information access. He has contributed elsewhere with more clear editorial review, and been more widely cited than Pirate Wires. So he has been subject to editorial boards. He has been taken seriously by a number of sources, altho mostly yellow classed ones. So in that case, I would say his work is 1. Solana and others may be different: looking at the last discussion, the site is all over the place, but impossible to GUNREL. Metallurgist (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mentioned it, I was interested in what he'd done with Internet Archive, but, besides helping build a bookmobile in Egypt (which was great) I'm having issues finding much else. (I'm not saying he hasn't, I'm just curious if you know of a way to see what else he's done for the Archive & when/if he stopped working with them)

All I can find when I search his name on the site is his book, archived appearances of him on a variety of conservative libertarian podcasts (The Rubin Report, The Andrew Klavan Show, & The Libertarian Institute) & a few videos he did with PragerU. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I read he did a little more than just the Alexandria one, but I cant find it now of course. Metallurgist (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 or Option 1.5; it is extremely juvenile to punish sources with derankings for saying we suck. It's obvious that they have an editorial bias, and that they think we suck, and on this basis I would contest them being used to source in-depth analysis in the voice of the encyclopedia. Pirate Wires should not be taken as gospel for everything it says, and its claims (especially if they sound strange) should be verified. But this is a pretty basic part of competent editing; you should be doing this anyway. jp×g 🗯️ 00:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per Aquillion. Like Woodroar I also looked at the sources cited for the use by others claim, and they all fail RS or are very questionable. For example: the Jewish News Syndicate was cited multiple times to argue PW is option 1 or 2, yet JNS is primarily funded by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. Adam Milstein, who is tied to Canary Mission, also funds it, resulting in positive coverage of him in the outlet in an apparent quid pro quo, as noted in that Intercept piece. It also has an exclusive publishing deal w/the Adelson-funded Israel Hayom, which is set up to advance Netanyahu's political interests per RS reporting. Aaron Bandler runs the "Campus Watch" updates at Jewish ~~News~~ Journal which is routinely reposted by the CAMERA Israeli censorship operation, and worked for the far right Tucker Carlson founded Daily Caller and Ben Shapiro founded Daily Wire before he took up this gig. Others that have been for some reason cited to make the use by others claim are all in the same orbit of hawkishly pro-Israeli billionaire funded outlets of dubious reliability. I don't know why other editors are listing these names under the pretence that they are legitimate RS citing and using PW's reporting when that's not the case, and this is not a good basis for a use-by-others case. For that we would require RS reporting from credible RS outlets, and only Bloomberg fits this description, but they only made a vague general reference to Pirate Wires w/o validating its claims. This is clearly a WP:BLOG funded and run by Silicon Valley tech billionaires, and should be deemed GUNREL. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These allegations make the ones by Pirate Wires of Soros look like they came out of Reuters. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re Aaron Bandler runs the "Campus Watch" updates at Jewish News, that’s incorrect. It’s at Jewish Journal. Jewish News is UK-based and very reliable. I also note that the Forward describes JNS as biased but not unreliable. It’s true that much of the use by others mentioned in this thread is week, but don’t need to overegg the pudding. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, inadvertently mixed that up – fixed now. Bandler/Jewish Journal was cited for USEBYOTHERS, and imo it's not overcooking the egg to point out that a person who worked for Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and runs "Campus Watch" is not RS for these purposes. The same for JNS, which again is funded primarily by Trump donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson and has an exclusive deal with Netanyahu's house paper Israel Hayom. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a background in Daily Caller/Daily Wire is an indicator of unreliability. But right-wing, pro-Israel or hawkish funders isn’t necessarily an indicator of unreliability, just of bias, so unless there’s other grounds for dismissing JNS I’m not sure we can. I’m on the same page in that use by others is very thin here, just that we need to not overstate the case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe JNS is reliable source. They state as a fact that Anas Al-Sharif was a "Hamas terror cell leader posing as ‘Al Jazeera’ journalist", based only on the claims of Israeli military. Anas was indisuptably a journalist working for Al Jazeera and there is no evidence he was any sort of "Hamas commander [...] directing rocket attacks on Israel."[23] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opt 1 - quick question - was this forum and/or process for determining what is or isn't a credible/reliable source ever formally adopted by the community? It's possible that I missed out on that discussion, but I think it's important to know, especially now that there are word limits. Link please? Atsme 💬 📧 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC) ^{Apologies, I forgot to iVote before asking my question. Atsme 💬 📧 17:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)}[reply]
Important add-on to my iVote: See The Atlantic endorsement of Pirate Wires: "Mike Solana, a Peter Thiel protégé, has made his Pirate Wires newsletter a must-read among the anti-woke investor class—and a window into what the most powerful people in tech really think. By Christopher Beam Atsme 💬 📧 19:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^^^ This user's comment is out of order. Of course my vote is an iVote. We don't have to keep repeating the same convincing argument. I made my choice. Atsme 💬 📧 00:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for determining whether a source is reliable or unreliable adopted by the community are whatever is written in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources. The primary criteria would be reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with each of those words presumably taking the plain dictionary definition. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question about the criteria laid out in our PAGs, which were properly adopted and accepted by the community. Historically, we had WP:RSN created and maintained per our PAGs for this very purpose. This forum, however, significantly diverges from those policies and, to my knowledge, was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN. The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum effectively empowers a shifting consensus of whoever happens to participate at the time, resulting in the wholesale deprecation of sources at will. The arguments here are based on he said/she said and not rooted in factual, corroborated facts, but on individual opinions, an approach that stands in contrast to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the long-standing principle that reliability must be evaluated with respect to specific content, not by dismissing an entire publication outright. Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility, which inevitably rest on subjective epistemological assumptions, political leanings, and personal beliefs. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the page that you are on is, in fact, RSN, the three letters of which stand for "reliable", "sources" and "noticeboard", and has done so since 2007, I fail to see how the community could adopt its replacement with itself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The header makes clear While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. So if there is disagreement between editors over whether a source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (per policy WP:V) this is one venue that can be used for consensus building. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of the reliable sources guideline, that helps explain the WP:SOURCE part of the verifiability policy. Context matters is an important point, but it doesn't mean any source can be used just because one part of it is doesn't appear to be junk. The point of sources is that we can trust them without double checking their content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the clarification, but WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS require source reliability to be judged in relation to how it is used, not by deprecating entire publications. Consensus discussions are valid, but per WP:CONSENSUS they must remain consistent with policy and cannot substitute for it. Using this forum to eliminate sources wholesale shifts us away from case-by-case evaluation toward blanket bans, which neither policy nor past community practice supports. Atsme 💬 📧 19:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecation has had community support in widely advertised and well attended RFCs. Policy follows practice, if what you say is true then policy needs updating. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template below is included via a redirect (Template:Ctop) that is under discussion. See redirects for discussion to help reach a consensus.›

This isn't an appropriate forum to discuss user behaviour. Collapsing this before it gets out of hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme thinks fascism is left wing and has edited her obscure Wikipedia mirror Justapedia to reflect this belief. There's no point arguing her, it's a complete waste of time debating somone so far divorced from reality, including Wikipedia policy and consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal attack and should be retracted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS Metallurgist (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme may i ask, did you make this reply with an LLM? I know we are not supposed to test texts with gptzero due to the high false positive rate, but this text is unintelligible enough i checked, and its triggering a hit.

per alpha3031, WP:RSN always pointed to here.
this complaint about RSP process being made by shifting community consensus is literally applicable to every process here on wikipedia
" Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility" - what? that sounds like AI.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dignify your question with a response, adding that your talk page and editing patterns ironically resemble the work of earlier stub creating bots and early phases of AI, which speaks volumes to your question. Atsme 💬 📧 13:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop sniping about this. Neither of you appear to be contributing machine generated glurge. Atsme's arguments are incorrect with regard to past practice and deprecation but in a very human way. As far as credibility we have multiple instances of PirateWires engaging in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories (the article originally in question and the Soros dogwhistles). It doesn't take an expert to make a determination that conspiracy theories are not credible. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Simonm223. Let's consider the facts: legacy outlets like the NYTimes & WaPo are known to publish contested narratives, and my comment is supported by this CJR review of Russiagate. If we’re going to downgrade PW for the arguments we're seeing here, that would mean downgrading quite a few legacy outlets as well. Also keep in mind, as WP:Systemic bias points out, narrowing the pool of sources only reinforces bias instead of addressing it. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS call for evaluating reliability in context, not blanket bans. Deprecating an entire source because some editors dislike its coverage goes beyond what our policy allows, yet here we are trying to eliminate yet another source, instead of focusing on content. It speaks volumes. Atsme 💬 📧 19:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also sources should be assessed with total disregard to their political positions, to do otherwise would definitely be against policy. And again deprecation has community backing, if you personally dislike it you should try restarting that discussion separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really the wrong person to suggest that we should use a conspiracy theory rag because sometimes NYT AND WaPo publish "contested narrative" since I'm generally among the harshest critics of use of news media on this platform. All this argument does for me is suggest we should be slower to use news media sources and more careful to ensure factual accuracy before treating them as reliable. It certainly does nothing to suggest we should use this conspiracy blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 made ANI thread for Atsme's AI usage. [24] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe attacking Atsme is inappropriate and believe Atsme's remarks about PAGs are appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this quote The Atlantic is not endorsing Pirate Wires. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Opt 2-3 Where is their editorial oversight? Mike Solana, seems to consistently allow "blogish and sub-stackian" opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments. Are their news reports from accredited journalists, or venture capitalists? There was also some controversy over their reporting on the launch of Trump-Token DJT. Not a great look. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Fwiw the atlantic [25] seems to indicate PirateWires evolved and continues to act as mike solanas personal newsletter. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the piece you just shared from The Atlantic and it says, "[Mike] Solana stresses that the site is separate from the investment firm—[and that, Peter] Thiel has no editorial control". I think if anything, we should consider that Solana pieces might need far more scrutiny. However, other writers for Pirate Wires would appear to be perfectly reliable and we have not seen reliable sources countering that claim. The Atlantic does admittedly question the degree to which editorial independence is entirely happening in the case of Solana, "Whether [Solana's editorial independence is possible] while conducting friendly interviews with allies and taking orders from Thiel by day is an open question." Though again, even then they say "...is an open question", not simply "is not possible" or something more affirmative.

Solana's background in helping Peter Thiel to get his book Zero to One published may show some conflict of interest directly when covering Peter Thiel or Thiel owned companies or ventures (See Palantir at the very least). So I would likely restrict Pirate Wires (Solana or otherwise) from being able to cover those directly, most especially when supporting sources do not exist. Solana does express resistance to the more typical right-wing Trump adulation though, "Solana was never exactly a Trump fan", so I think Pirate Wires just appears to offer a more "Libertarian" flavor of reporting here which, while biased, ought to be welcome and does again seem to be generally reliable when not reporting on Peter Thiel owned businesses or investments.

As for bias in other ways, one factor that might be beneficial is that Pirate Wires does not take advertising dollars. We do not talk about this enough, but what if a source takes a lot of money from a big fossil fuel company for example, might they then go a bit softer when covering some climate change related reporting perhaps? I think it is certainly possible, and worthy of consideration at the very least. In the case of Pirate Wires though, again according to The Atlantic, Solana explained that, "news organizations went from comfortable businesses subsidized by classifieds to click-hungry digital-content machines reliant on display advertising" to far less relevant and even began going out of business or becoming consolidated into central behemoths because, "[social] media companies turned down the traffic spigot". In other words, their distribution channel was cut. Pirate Wires on the other hand has, "Paid subscriptions [which] are $20 a month or $120 annually—fairly steep".

Lastly, "What makes Pirate Wires distinctive, [Solana] says, is its point of view, which leads it to report stories that liberal-leaning outlets might not." I hope we would not label a source less than "Generally Reliable" due simply to bias. That would not be right, nor aligned with the Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective", and I hope that the above demonstrates why at least when not coming directly from Mike Solana, or covering Peter Thiel for the COI reasons already stated, that Pirate Wires is generally reliable as a source. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reliability comes from the editorial structure. there are dozens of NYTimes scandals and misinfo printed, same for any traditional paper with a long enough history. But we say its reliable because it has a well-established editorial structure. When we point out Solana is the editorial structure, we mean there is no real editorial structure, author=editor, suggesting WP:SPS
if PirateWires is biased, its biased. that would probably go into option 2, where we note that they can be biased and piratewires coverage won't determine if it is WP:DUE. If they cover a story/slant nobody else covers, then its probably not due for inclusion in a wikipedia article.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 FYI; Ashley Rindsberg has called me a "pro-Hamas" editor(!) in a Pirate wires article [26]. I have never supported Hamas in my life. I am a non-believer and firm feminist, I find the claim that I am "pro-Hamas" highly libellous, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are personal attacks against Wikipedians a factor for deprecation? Im legit asking, i think i recall someone saying breitbart did similar stuff and i know its deprecated. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely recall reading through the Breitbart stuff at somepoint but IIRC that was due to doxxing an editor, not simply disparaging one. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editors involved in the canvassing effort described by PW have a COI with respect to this RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ludicrous. And suggesting huldra is canvassing is a personal attack Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Huldra is not one of those editors, then no harm done. But she denies that she is pro-Hamas, not that she was involved in the activities described in the link she provided. If that reporting is accurate, then she's not a disinterested commenter in this RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI doesn't forbid participating in RfCs or other behind-the-scenes activities on Wikipedia. In fact, it encourages them: adding suggestions and sources to Talk pages, or using their COI to get quality photos and media. There's nothing wrong with Huldra adding her perspective here, especially since she's mentioned her connection. Woodroar (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a step back, an unsubstantiated attack piece by a third party does not give an editor a COI. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we designated this situation as COI it would be a licence for sources to attack personally editors in order to neutralise their voices in discussions like these. While it is proper to inform the community that they’ve been personally attacked by the source (as Huldra did), we must give them the right to defend themselves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At least they're being very open and honest about it. It's up to the closer how heavily to weight their comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly has not taken part in off-wiki canvassing/TfP, but that article I linked to claim that I do. They have simply looked at how many articles I have edited in common with certain other wiki-editors. But that only shows we are interested in the same field! You could easily contruct similar charts with other groups of editors, say people interested in railways, mushrooms or castles. Or overlap with pro-Israeli editors. In fact, I have a huge overlap with....Icewhiz. Funnily enough, Rindsberg doesn't mention that. Rindsberg makes a lot of serious allegations, but shows absolutely zero proof. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's remarkable that @Tioaeu8943 is able to look at Pirate Wires literally manufacturing a conspiracy theory about our colleagues on Wikipedia and instead of saying "that's pretty clear evidence that Pirate Wires is unreliable" instead tells those people who were subject to this conspiracizing that they should keep their mouths shut. This is clear proof of Pirate Wires' unreliability. This is all that we see here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved. I am not surprised that some editors are now retaliating against being exposed in this way and appear to be trying to silence Pirate Wires reporting through deprecation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved." This isn't true at all. You should probably strike/retract this comment and I'll remind you that competence is required to be editing in this topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there was a lot of bad reporting (as with so much of the reporting about Wikipedia) and hyperbole about the Arbcom case, so there is a lot of misunderstanding about the outcomes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally not advisable to respond to criticism of a conspiracy theory targeting people with whom you might later be collaborating by saying "but it's true!" Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article barely mentions you, only in passing related to Nableezy and Onceinawhile, plus the table. It doesnt accuse you of being pro-Hamas, or even really insinuate it. Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not. If you think Rindsberg libelled you, have you pursued action against him? The article only uses "pro-Hamas" in the headline, while using "pro-Palestin(e/ian)" 13 times, so saying he libelled you as pro-Hamas is quite a stretch. Metallurgist (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It says so in the head-line "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"; and I am not going to violate WP:LEGAL (and earn myself an instant ban). As for "Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not" that is exactly my point! (hence my example that I have a lot of articles in common with Icewhiz). Btw, he calls us the "gang of 40" ..google it (+ wikipedia, pro-Hamas). He writes things like "To evade detection, the group works in pairs or trios, an approach that veils them from detection. They also appear to rotate their groupings for the same reason" Huh?? I think most wikipedia-editors will see it for what it is: people interested in the same field happens to have a lot of overlapping articles. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudonyms are used to protect one's identity. I'm not aware of any libel cases filed by a pseudonym; please enlighten me. This venue is used from time to time to eliminate sources that go against WP's systemic bias, specifically conservative sources, be they on the left or right. All it takes is one article or two to start what I observe to be a logical fallacy downgrade in a forum that was never approved by the community - the proof is in the pudding. All the misinformation published by liberal mainstream media or legacy media is overlooked, like the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. What happened to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Atsme 💬 📧 15:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the headline or body label you as a pro-Hamas editor? WP:LEGAL is about internal threats. How does it prevent you from pursuing an external libel case? Who is "us"? Metallurgist (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. Read WP:LEGAL, it is for any legal threat. And it is clear from the article, that it labels all 40 of us "pro-Hamas editors", and the "gang of 40" has become a fixture among pro-Israeli "twitterati", like Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Lir [27], Huldra (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off topic, @Metallurgist, @Huldra, @Atsme. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my comments are relevant to the discussion on source legitimacy. The core issue is whether this forum’s process for deprecating or downgrading credible sources risks unfairly dismissing them due to a dominant consensus, potentially sidelining valid perspectives. This raises concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and conflicts with our PAGs. I'm focused on how we address this to ensure objectivity in our selection of sources. Atsme 💬 📧 14:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this forum has community consensus, and in particular deprecation has had at least one major RFC if not more. If you have questions about any particular source you can raise them here, but if you have questions about the validity of the noticeboard I would suggest the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. Let's go back to this discussion. Provide the supporting diffs that clearly state WP:RSN is the venue for deprecating and downgraded sources in their entirety when there is no evidence that the use of a particular source that was cited to support material in an article is what is being challenged here now. Show me the article wherein PW was used to cite a particular claim or comment or material? If you cannot provide that information, then this discussion needs to be closed so that we can move on. I'm aware that WP:RSN is the venue for removing content per the consensus model, but unless you have a valid misuse of PW as a source in one of WP's articles, this discussion needs to be closed. I will state that separately rather than make it part of this thread. Atsme 💬 📧 21:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not need to provide diff context is one aspect of RS not it's one absolute defining characteristic, and it doesn't overule what is found in V. That you have a personal distaste for how the community works is obvious, go read the documentation for depreciation it has all the links you require. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry... but you do need to provide the diff, otherwise you're just a talking text message that carries no weight. I have the policies and guidelines backing my comments. You have your opinion. Refresh your memory about the purpose of WP:RSN, and the purpose of citations used to support material; i.e. CONTEXTMATTERS, which is not about deprecating or downgraded entire sources just because the prevailing consensus at the time doesn't agree with a particular position, or what that source has published that was cited in an article – and that is exactly what this RSN is supposed to be about - not whether or not the majority likes it as a reliable source. There's no article in question here - this discussion is personal - and it has to stop. Atsme 💬 📧 22:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know full well how consensus works, and your IDHT about context matters won't change that all of this has community support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it off topic to ask for evidence of a claim made by a !voter? I dont see how one can read that article and conclude that Huldra is labelled as a pro-Hamas editor, rather than mentioned in passing, as any editor could have, which Huldra even reiterates (eg Icewhiz, etc).

@Huldra WP:LEGAL says "that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself". How does this apply to pursuing action against a non-editor who you believe has defamed you? And again, who is all "40 of us"? You seem to be collectivizing 40 editors while denying that they should be collectivized? Which is it? Metallurgist (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Metallurgist: I am just quoting what off-wiki sources say, "Pirate Wires' article, How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative, named 40 pro-Hamas editors." [28]. Or Wiki Wars" I identified a network of more than three dozen editors—whom I dubbed the “Gang of 40”".

Rindsberg named us "pro-Hamas" and "Gang of 40", on the basis of having edited the same articles. To repeat: I have equally large overlap with some pro-Israeli editors, but Pirate Wires just doesn't mention that. Huldra (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to tag Shlomit Lir if you're bringing her up, as she as an en Wikipedia account, and actively edits in this area. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isnt that bordering on canvassing? Metallurgist (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Had to look them up. They arent related to piratewires at all? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, did Pirate Wires ever contact you for comment before publishing "How Wikipedia's Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"? — Newslinger talk 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger Of course not: And the "sneaky" thing Rindsberg does, is that he

A: list the most active "non-Israel-friendly" editors he can find, and how's that we edit lots of the same articles (so does a lot of "Israel-friendly" editors, but he doesn't list those), And since most of us have edited for years -we have lots of edits.

B: list the off-site collusion by "Tech For Palestine" (TfP)

C: combines A +B to make it appear as if there is a massive off-site collusion. But, as their own "investigation" showed, on p. 3 (out of 244): "The current conservative edit impact estimate for the group (based on available evidence) is 260 edits on 114 articles.(link) (bolding in the original)

The simple, boring truth is that there is no major "off-site collusion" to edit wikipedia in an "anti Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" way. The one exception is TfP, and they managed a whopping 260 edits, before they were all banned, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:QUACK Iljhgtn (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors must assume good faith from others." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 (2nd choice Option 2, 3rd choice Option 4); with no evident editorial policy, a lack of sources discussing the reliability of its output as a whole, and an apparent willingness to publish conspiracy theories and inflammatory accusations with little evidence, Pirate Wires falls squarely into the generally unreliable category. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2.5 - they're clearly biased but at the same time seem to be doing relatively serious journalism on some topics. But they're mostly a magazine of opinion articles, the closest example on the Left I can think of would be something like Current Affairs, so I'm not really sure how much they could be used in an actual article. Ideally Wikipedia would have some sort of proper policy on these sorts of things, because it feels like the real question about them is "are their views notable", and their reliability isn't really relevant.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am disinclined to consider valid an RFC the preceeding discussion(s) of which fail to provide the context required by the editnotice, more specifically, the part where it says and the claim it supports. That said, in general, we require positive evidence of both structural elements (non-SPS) and reputational elements, rather than the lack of evidence to the contrary, and in quick overview said evidence seems singularly unimpressive. For example, one article referenced above says the following: The existence of the TFP channel has previously been reported by Jewish Insider (JI), "The Wikipedia Flood" blog and a Pirate Wires piece that went viral. The publication is placed in the same sentence as a news organisation. It is also placed in the same sentence as a blog. Unfortunately not being psychic, I cannot say for certain why the Journal chooses to mention PW, the simplest reading in my opinion would indicate the 4 words following that mention give a clue. There are plenty of news organisations that mention subreddits with posts that go viral, I hope those proposing a GENREL RSP entry do not suggest that is the standard for "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" we adopt. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 PW functions more as a pro-tech, anti-establishment opinion platform than a neutral news source. Its coverage often targets high-profile figures and institutions, often in inflammatory terms, framing its mission as a rebuke to "modern publishing giants" and what it portrays as ideological conformity in legacy journalism.[29] The outlet began as a Substack newsletter before becoming a venture-backed site with a small staff. Editorially, it remains centered on Mike Solana, who has no background in journalism or editing yet retains near-total control. A Founders Fund partner has said the site largely mirrors Solana's personal views, with its content described as like "being inside [his] brain". Editorial independence seems minimal.[30] Instead of following conventional reporting standards, PW tends to push narratives opposing regulation, progressive movements, and liberal institutions. The Guardian has referred to it as a "conservative newsletter".[31] Media Bias / Fact Check rates its factual reporting as "mixed", citing reliance on opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments instead of consistently well-sourced journalism.[32] PW drew scrutiny last year when it published an unverified claim that the Trump campaign was launching a cryptocurrency. This was posted directly to social media, included a contract address and was presented as a scoop but lacked corroboration. No RS confirmed the story, and PW offered no sourcing transparency. Solana later admitted that he had not spoken to anyone in the Trump campaign and characterized the post as merely sharing information "via sources". This kind of reporting falls well short of basic journalistic standards.[33] As for Ashley Rindsberg, the author of several cited pieces, he also fails to meet RS standards. His claims about a supposed "Hamas network" running Reddit and Wikipedia are demonstrably false, as are many others across his blogging output. He has repeatedly pushed fringe narratives, including far-right talking points on COVID-19 and its origins, and has amplified anti-vaccine rhetoric.[34][35][36] He is also closely tied to PragerU and other fringe right-wing outlets. Combined with his frequent use of culture-war terms like "woke", his work clearly lacks journalistic objectivity. Neither PW nor Rindsberg should be treated as reliable, with the exception of WP:ABOUTSELF. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me the RS which supports this? Since it is 'demonstrably' false? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Mediabias report you quoted the PW have had no failed fact checks in the last 5 years [37], their criticism has to do with bias which should be irrelevant.

As to Rindberg's supposed anti-vaccine rhetoric, I didn't see vaccines mentioned in the 3 pieces you linked. The lab leak hypothesis is hardly fringe, considering that even the head of WHO called for further investigations into it [38]. Being right-wing is again a matter of bias and nor reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 20:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Primarily due to WP:USEBYOTHERS (Berliner Zeitung, TechCrunch, NDTV, Gizmodo). A lot of !votes above do not mention any inaccuracies and imo should simply be dismissed. I've carefully reviewed the list of issues u:Kelob2678 posted above but I find u:Jcgaylor's arguments convincing. Note that the (rather unsympathetic to the Pirate Wires) Atlantic article does not accuse them of publishing falsehoods. It's definitely biased but I found no reasons to doubt its reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 11:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The conspiracizing about a "gang of 40" is obviously false reporting on its face. Not only would the inclusion of this as a source be repeating such falsehoods, it would be enshrining, in our articles, WP:ABF statements about other Wikipedia editors in good standing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to this investigation which has been mentioned in other sources that I linked. Which part of it is a lie and what makes you think so? Alaexis_¿question? 12:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:ABF, how is it relevant? Are you suggesting that our sources should abide by Wikipedia guidelines? Alaexis_¿question? 12:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration process exonerated many editors on that list of the collaboration and collusion that PirateWires accuses them of. WP:ABF is relevant because we would have to both assume that Arbcom got it wrong and we would have to be assuming bad faith in our colleagues in order to treat the assertions made by piratewires as factually correct. We have competing sets of facts. It ultimately comes down to a matter of trust. I trust my peers on Wikipedia more than I trust Ashley Rindberg. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbcom, as a subset of Wikipedia, is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Even if it were, it didn't (and couldn't) "exonerate" anyone. The lack of evidence and the evidence of absence are different things. Alaexis_¿question? 13:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's no evidence of "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" other then editors existing that the author ideologically opposes. While sources don't have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, you certainly do. So regardless of your personal opinions, I hope you can at least WP:AGF & give fellow editors the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence exists. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I give my fellow editors the benefit of the doubt and follow WP:AGF. However this is WP:RSN and not AN and the idea that our assessment of sources should depend on what they wrote about Wikipedia strikes me as unserious. Alaexis_¿question? 20:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing that we should dismiss sources because they're critical of Wikipedia/its editors, but their coverage should be accurate & well supported.

The claim of "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" is simply not true, their assertions are built entirely of the fallacious idea of "correlation = causation". An investigation without proper evidence to support their conclusion is nothing but an accusation, something unbecoming of supposedly reliable sources.

So we return to @Simonm223's point above, PirateWires accused these editors of conspiracy without actual evidence, but you are defending the article's accuracy. I'm having issues parsing the idea that you can give editors the benefit of the doubt, while also defending an article that attacks those same editors authenticity with unsubstantiated claims. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"is simply not true" is your personal opinion. The evidence is certainly not strong enough for Arbcom sanctions but it's not zero either.

By way of analogy, if an editor adds promotional material to a company article I assume good faith in my interaction with them, explain the policy, etc. However I do keep in mind the possibility that they have a CoI based only on correlation.

Considering the 1000-word limit I don't think there is a point in continuing this thread. Alaexis_¿question? 20:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited as many articles together with User:Icewhiz, User:Davidbena, User:NoCal100, User:Tombah, and User:Gilabrand, and their socks, as I have edited articles together with most of the "gang of 40". Would you also say ... "The evidence is [] it's not zero either" that I have off-site collusion with any of them? Huldra (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: when I mention "and their socks", that does not include User:Davidbena, (who I have never suspected of socking), but all the others are notorious "sockers".Huldra (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you're not colluding with any of them. Alaexis_¿question? 07:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you. But the "evidence" that I colluded with all of them, is as "strong" as the "evidence" that I colluded with any of the other members of the "gang of 40". So why do you say the evidence there "isn't zero"? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I also don't find their correlation analysis particularly convincing (which is the same thing as saying that the evidence is not strong). However, this is irrelevant. I disagree with and can find flaws in many articles published by RS but it doesn't mean they are not reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 09:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the "not convincing evidence" → reliable? I don't understand your logic here, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1.5: Reporting is cited by multiple WP:RSPS per WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is a newer source and should be diligently monitored, and Solana's eidtorials treated with caution, but its other writers are not WP:SPS. A public statement of editorial policy is not required per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Remarks about Soros do not rise to the level of WP:FRINGE. We should of course do our due diligence with individual cases of proposed use of this source, but I see nothing here to convince me that any kind of blanket warning is warranted. Marquardtika (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: This is a blog that as others have noted has only been cited by other fringe outlets in the heavily partisan pro-Israel camp misrepresented by those going for option 1 as being legitimate to argue WP:USEBYOTHERS. What makes it all the more egregious is that they have published supposed "reporting" by an author who made videos for Prager U accusing editors in good standing here of being associated with Hamas and spreading their agenda, and that is the content editors want to cite it for on various pages here.--Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: Per Aquillion and Smallangryplanet, who put it better than I could. Parabolist (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4: Per the many users pointing out conspiratorial content (Soros! Hamas!). Inflammatory, incoherent, non-journalistic blog. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:USEBYOTHERS is a pretty relevant piece of policy here. The reporting conducted by Pirate Wires has been covered by The Atlantic^[2] (multiple times),^[3] The Jerusalem Post,^[4]^[5]^[6] The Times of Israel,^[7] JNS,^[8]^[9]^[10] The Jewish Press,^[11] The Free Press,^[12] The Times of India,^[13] and more. If anyone says that the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, or any other Israeli based reliable publication that is covering this should not be included because it pertains to an "Israel Palestine topic," this is not a standard that would be upheld in any other context. Even if the only reliable coverage of Pirate Wires came from a single nation, which is not the case, it would be unreasonable to dismiss that reporting merely because the outlets are based in a country involved in conflict. Reliable Ukrainian sources are not rejected for covering a war zone, and the same principle applies here: the fact that much of the coverage is from Israeli publications does not undercut the applicability of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Some editors have suggested that WP:USEBYOTHERS carries less weight here because much of the secondary coverage is ideologically aligned or quotes Pirate Wires only to note its claims. Those points don't negate the policy. What matters is if the other reliable sources reporting on PW's work express doubt of PW's reliability or bolster it's reliability. In all of the reporting I found, even the ones not ideologically aligned with Pirate Wires, the reliability of PWs is not put into serious doubt. Reliability is what is at the heart of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Absent clear evidence of fabrication or systemic inaccuracy, these objections do not override the policy. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something, the two Atlantic articles presented aren't "using" or relying on the reporting of PW, but are mentioning/commenting on PW's reporting. For example "Pirate Wires, a publication popular among the tech right, has published at least eight stories blasting Wikipedia [...]" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a few of the use by others examples in this thread are more just examples of PW being mentioned rather than used. Musk responded to their “report” making it noteworthy, so RSs summarised its contents, but that doesn’t mean they back its reliability, hence they use words like “the report alleged” (Times of India) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: It's a blog. Nothing has been presented to show how it's any more reliable than any other blog. That its reporting panders to what some people want to believe is true does not miraculously make it less unreliable. And there is considerable irony inherent in calling out perceived anti-semitism in criticism of the IDF or Likud while simaltaneously indulging in George Soros conspiracy theories. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3: Pirate Wires is more of a well funded blog than a proper newspaper. Although it has an 'editor-in-chief' and also an 'editor', PW is very informal, click-baity and pushes its ideology with no pretence at balance or fact-checking. While it is fun to read, in no way is it a reliable source in the way that a proper newspaper with proper journalists would be. Dualpendel (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 - Per WP:BLOGS the following are identified as forms of blogs: personal webpage, self published book, claims of being an expert, patents and newsletters. One can see that Pirate Wires is discernibly none of the above. It is ludicrous to call it a blog when it so obviously shares no characteristic features of one.

Besides their writers have a hierarchical structure, they are divided into 'editor in chief', 'editor at large' and 'writers'. What blog has a full-on editorial team as described above? Does WordPress? Medium? Any number of individually-written blogs?

No source has labeled them a "blog nor have they referred to themselves as such. Insisting on the descriptor "blog" seems to be a misguided effort aimed to discredit Pirate Wires and/or undermine the legitimacy of their content without reason. Kvinnen (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1/Option 2 Per the Atlantic article on Pirate Wires, The Atlantic mentions that journalists read the publication saying in the piece: "It has become a must-read among Silicon Valley’s anti-woke crowd, including some of tech’s most influential figures, and a grudging should-read for journalists and some on the left." The fact that journalists read Pirate Wires regularly makes the website more prestigious than that of a blog. In addition Solana has said his explicit goal is to report the news, once again per the Atlantic article: "Pirate Wires itself is a mix of opinion essays by Solana and others, interviews with major tech figures such as Jack Dorsey and Palmer Luckey, and reporting on tech and San Francisco politics largely from a left-critical perspective." While I do think anything Solana writes about Peter Thiel should be treated skeptically, I do not think every article Pirate Wires produces should be tarred with the same brush. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Pirate Wires)

Notice: This discussion is covered by the 1000 word limit on formal discussion in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. If you're at or near that limit then you're done.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Is that per RFC discussion, or per comment? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that as of this comment, the participant word counts for the RfC are as follows:

Bluethricecreamman 110 words Y
Jcgaylor 1942 words N
ActivelyDisinterested 541 words Y
Kelob2678 ~~1014 words~~ Revised down to 996 words Y
Butterscotch Beluga 150 words Y
Simonm223 67 words Y
Sionk 155 words Y
Iljhgtn 157 words (excluding procedural question to SFR) Y
Tioaeu8943 850 words (excluding procedural responses to my formatting suggestions) Y
Chetsford 119 words Y
Aquillion 266 words Y

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revised count for Kelob2678 given their amendment. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcgaylor, you may want to trim your comments then down to 1,000 words or less in order to be in compliance with this, also I'm assuming this comment in its entirety is not counting for me towards my own 1k word limit? And any questions that are purely seeking clarification etc? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, somewhat bizarre question, but I think that Jcgaylor made some great points. Given that I made only 157 words of argument, in essence I have 843 words "left", could I "gift" him some of my "words" to be able to use towards the limit so that he does not need to cut back as much or anything depending? Otherwise, in theory, I could copy and past his replies in some cases, and just give him credit for the point, and effectively get to a similar result anyway, but I just wanted to see what the best course of action is in that case. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that most of Jcgaylor's comments have already been responded to and that they are significantly past the word limit, I would suggest that trying to cut them down at this point would do more harm than good and Jcgaylor should just step back from this discussion. The closer may choose to address this discrepancy of one editor having been afforded the opportunity to speak more than the rest however they see fit.

The question of gifting word count to another editor should probably be addressed to ARBCOM as an amendment/clarification of the word limit restriction. My gut inclination is that we probably don't want to go down this road as a community: having participated in formal debates outside Wikipedia where this was allowed, it introduces a lot more bureaucratic overhead, drama and gamesmanship, which I think would be counterproductive to the original intent of the word limit, which is to keep discussions focused and to the point. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, it had honestly not occurred to me until now, so I thought it would be prudent to ask. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, realizing I hadn't answered your other question: As for word count methodology, I've been excluding signatures and procedural questions. That having been said, I'm not aware of any ARBCOM- or community-mandated methodology, so I can't make promises about how other admins (or ARBCOM) will review counts when asked, although I expect that most of us will look to the spirit of the sanction rather than bean-counting words over the line (and this has essentially been the existing practice for AE word limits: no one gets sanctioned for going a bit over the line, but repeatedly and/or excessively going over the line does become evidence of a pattern of disruption if together with other problematic behavior). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine especially after having been warned or notified. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current word counts for Tioaeu8943 and Iljhgtn? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ignoring the procedural responses, Tioaeu8943 is at ~1002 words.
Iljhgtn is at ~796 words. using the "~" because the word counter is slightly off and might be slightly overestimating based on formatting

admins likely won't care about going slightly over, but will get pissed off if there is a 500 word response that goes way overboard. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

out of date, see below

hacking convenient discussions and a word counter extension on this diff [39] (I dont know how to point it a a level 3 subheading), here are word counts it spits out.
Jcgaylor: 2,048 words, 13 comments
Tioaeu8943: 1,004 words, 9 comments
Kelob2678: 981 words, 3 comments
Atsme: 917 words, 10 comments
ActivelyDisinterested: 869 words, 15 comments
Iljhgtn: 804 words, 7 comments
Butterscotch Beluga: 678 words, 7 comments
Metallurgist: 504 words, 5 comments
Huldra: 485 words, 5 comments
Simonm223: 451 words, 9 comments
Bluethricecreamman: 446 words, 10 comments
Alaexis: 358 words, 7 comments
Paprikaiser: 349 words, 1 comment
Alpha3031: 287 words, 3 comments
Smallangryplanet: 273 words, 1 comment
Aquillion: 265 words, 1 comment
Bobfrombrockley: 238 words, 4 comments
Springee: 210 words, 1 comment
Gjb0zWxOb: 202 words, 2 comments
IOHANNVSVERVS: 199 words, 6 comments
Chetsford: 197 words, 1 comment
Sionk: 189 words, 2 comments
Rosguill: 132 words, 2 comments
Woodroar: 125 words, 2 comments
Eldomtom2: 93 words, 1 comment
JPxG: 91 words, 1 comment
Raskolnikov.Rev: 91 words, 1 comment
Marquardtika: 88 words, 1 comment
Hemiauchenia: 62 words, 2 comments
The Kip: 57 words, 2 comments
Darknipples: 52 words, 1 comment
Hatman31: 51 words, 1 comment
Cakelot1: 21 words, 1 comment
Newslinger: 19 words, 1 commentBluethricecreamman (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

word count in the poll as of sept 24th.
Jcgaylor: 2,048 words, 13 comments
ActivelyDisinterested: 1,160 words, 21 comments
Tioaeu8943: 1,037 words, 10 comments
Atsme: 1,035 words, 14 comments
Iljhgtn: 998 words, 12 comments
Kelob2678: 981 words, 3 comments
Bluethricecreamman: 788 words, 15 comments
Butterscotch Beluga: 713 words, 10 comments
Huldra: 640 words, 8 comments
Metallurgist: 637 words, 8 comments
Bobfrombrockley: 535 words, 7 comments
Simonm223: 530 words, 10 comments
Rosguill: 491 words, 6 comments
Gjb0zWxOb: 471 words, 3 comments
Alaexis: 358 words, 7 comments
Smallangryplanet: 349 words, 2 comments
Paprikaiser: 349 words, 1 comment
IOHANNVSVERVS: 312 words, 10 comments
Alpha3031: 286 words, 3 comments
Aquillion: 265 words, 1 comment
Chetsford: 215 words, 2 comments
Springee: 210 words, 1 comment
Sionk: 189 words, 2 comments
Woodroar: 125 words, 2 comments
Eldomtom2: 93 words, 1 comment
JPxG: 91 words, 1 comment
Raskolnikov.Rev: 91 words, 1 comment
Marquardtika: 88 words, 1 comment
Hemiauchenia: 62 words, 2 comments
The Kip: 57 words, 2 comments
Darknipples: 52 words, 1 comment
Hatman31: 51 words, 1 comment
Coining: 36 words, 1 comment
NotJamestack: 32 words, 2 comments
ScottishFinnishRadish: 30 words, 2 comments
Cdjp1: 25 words, 1 comment
Cakelot1: 21 words, 1 comment
Newslinger: 19 words, 1 comment
Gamaliel: 16 words, 1 comment
Peter Gulutzan: 14 words, 1 comment
Parabolist: 13 words, 1 comment
Visite fortuitement prolongée: 10 words, 1 comment User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deduct 186 words from what you calculated as my word count. I was falsely accused of using AI & had to respond, & someone tried to cancel my iVote and I had to respond. These BS kid games are making me weary. Atsme 💬 📧 23:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im copying and pasting from the word count tool, im not enforcing anything or trying any count correction like that.

also doubt admins care unless its clearly hundreds over limit User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this tool? I'd like to try it too. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SFR showed it to me. User:L235/wordCountsByEditor.js

it took me a while to figure out how it works and i dont think it does sections that well, which is why i use my sandboxes talkpage to paste the blob of text i actually wanna analyze User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a novel idea, keep a word count for the initial statement in the iVote section, but create a talk page for editors to actually collegially debate the issues for a set time frame rather than silencing productive discussion. Imagine that! Atsme 💬 📧 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to take it up with ArbCom as they placed the restriction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but do you have a link to the 1,000-word cap policy so I can read up on it? I don't see it at WP:ARBPIA. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Word limits (1,000 words) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bank my remaining ~800 and exchange them for the gift card, if no one minds. Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word counts are explained by Brandolini's Law. Atsme 💬 📧 15:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a general note for those who failed to read the header, "While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy." This is a noticeboard for third opinion and advice, but it might also be used as a place to form a consensus and WP:CONSENSUS is policy. That could be done here, on the village pump, or as a subpage of WP:RFC the location is unimportant. As to the perennial source list it also isn't a policy or guideline, the WP:RSP is an information page - a log of prior discussions and any consensus that came from them (and again where a consensus is formed is irrelevant because WP:CONSENSUS is policy). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's important for editors who wish to "teach" others about our PAGs to actually become well acquainted with them. For example, there are levels of consensus, and the location is important, so please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels_of_consensus. The seriousness of RSP and RSN making local consensus determination to deprecate or downgrade entire sources requires a much higher level of consensus. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well attended and widely advertised RFCs are not local consensus, (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If you believe the entire way that the community finds consensus about source reliability is wrong you should raise it on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local vs WP:Village pump (policy) – see Wikipedia:CONLEVEL. Atsme 💬 📧 19:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! yes the many places that CONLEVEL mentions the village pump. If you think that this community practice that thousands of editors, if not the majority of active editors, have taken part in over the last decade doesn't have community support you can raise it at the village pump, you should have no difficulty convincing other with your arguments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to say I wish these were structured like AFDs, which are probably the best and most streamlined system for community input. Metallurgist (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any discussions on Pirate Wires before the above one? If not, this is a bad RfC. NotJamestack (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Pirate Wires?" - Discussion from earlier this year. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this would constitute “frequently discussed” if it’s only two discussions. NotJamestack (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their reliability was also a subject of conversation in WP:ARBPIA5. Edit: Actually, as you aren't EC, you should probably opine from this discussion.Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NotJamestack, for any discussion broadly construed as israel palestine you need WP:XC (gave the prereq ctop alert just now but also this seems like a good faith enough comment)

personally did not care to start this rfc but the discussions beforehand kept alluding to needing an rfc.

Kinda doubt rfc is heading towards a conclusive consensus either tbh, good luck to whoever closes User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry NotJamestack I've removed you comment from the survey, as Bluethricecreamman said discussions relating to certain topics areas require extended confirmed rights (automatically obtained by an account being over 30 days old and having 500 edits). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References (Pirate Wires)

References

RfC: Popular Mechanics (online) for flying saucers

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Maths, science, and technology

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In relation to flying saucers (sometimes also called "UFOs", "UAPs", "USOs", etc.) are online-only (versus print) articles by Popular Mechanics:

Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (PopMech)

Option 3 Online-only articles by Popular Mechanics should never be used to positively reference articles about flying saucers due to its tendency to use clickbait headlines and its penchant for sourcing material from fringe figures it falsely promotes as mainstream experts. Print issue articles don't appear to suffer this same issue and both print and online coverage could be used for critical reporting of the topic.
Popular Mechanics promotes WP:FRINGE topics by selective contextualization in which the most outlandish claims of their interview subjects are omitted as a means of legitimizing their supposed expertise. Once they've legitimized their interview subjects in an article, they then repeat the claims of those subjects as fact.

In an August 2025 article, writer Stav Dimitropoulos provides extensive, uncritical quotation of the UFO theories of Tim Gallaudet, a retired NOAA Corps admiral. Dimitropoulous never notes that Gallaudet also famously claims his daughter is a powerful wizard who can talk to ghosts and ethereal spirits from beyond the grave (see an interview with him here [40]).
Just two months earlier a different writer, Elizabeth Rayne, pulled the same stunt with Gallaudet [41], burnishing him as a sober and skeptical naval officer who reluctantly came to the topic of flying saucers.
Eight paragraphs of John Scott Lewinski's November 2024 article on UFOs is an extensive, flowing quotation of a guy with a master of arts degree who consulted for Star Trek (which is, apparently, a sci-fi TV show of some kind). This then seamlessly flows into an analysis of theoretical physics based on the ideas of the MA degree guy. [42]
John Scott Lewinski's March 2025 article has the clickbait headline "Copying Alien Tech Would Be a Mind-Boggling Reverse Engineering Project. ‘The Physics Get Weird,’ Experts Say." [43] but 90% of the article talks about more conventional reverse engineering of mundane, human technology.
Elana Spivack's January 2025 report uses the clickbait headline "Aliens From a Parallel Universe May Be All Around Us—And We Don’t Even Know It, Study Suggests" [44] to report on a relatively sober and interesting [45] thought experiment, but one that makes no claim anywhere within the same universe as what the headline suggests.

A Google News search suggests Popular Mechanics has published at least 40 articles on flying saucers just in the last 12 months [46]. Unfortunately, I can't describe each of these due to practical considerations of brevity, except to say they're all absolute bonkers insanity. Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 Popular Mechanics should be sent away to outer space. It is just insane as Chetsford noted. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 In relation to UFOs, UAPs, USOs, supposed alien technology, etc. the magazine has been pushing fringe nonsense in recent years as noted by Skeptical Inquirer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per Chetsford.—Alalch E. 15:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 0 -- this is a goofy premise for an RfC. The fact that they run eye-catching headlines isn't relevant to anything: headlines are already not citable as sources (even from RS). The rest of the complaint basically adds up to them publishing stuff about UFOs where the reporter doesn't turn to the camera at the end and say a big walltext disclaimer that they aren't real. I don't think sources are obliged to do this. It is hard to imagine any outrage at a magazine for, say, writing an article about some hypothetical event and then not explicitly spelling out huge caveats:

"Could World War 3 Be On The Horizon?"
"Expert Says Mars Travel Could Be Coming Soon"
"New Drug Could Cure Parkinson's"

These are all the sort of thing you see all the time, and in none of them would we require an outlet to stop and say "By the way most miracle drugs that work in mice never do anything in humans". The answer is, as always, that we have to use some basic amount of intelligence and wisdom when we write articles. jp×g 🗯️ 19:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, PopMech is a cutesy pop-science publication, and I think this type of source is basically the lowest rung already: if you have the option to cite a paper or a book, for some scientific or technological fact, you should always prefer that over "I Freaking Love Science". The main scenario where they are useful is when they are, say, interviewing some inventor, or talking about some thing that was just released, or covering some event that occurred -- not to establish basic facts like how a combustion engine works or whether we have established contact with aliens. jp×g 🗯️ 19:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 This magazine has become a platform for sensational, pro-fringe, evidence-free material on UFOs, and as such does not qualify as a reliable source in that topic area. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. The examples given are mostly WP:RSHEADLINE issues. Yes, many articles are decorated with stock illustrations of vintage or speculative UFO art, but the actual article content is not much different than what's found in typical popular science articles in LiveScience or newspapers. Some interesting and cutting edge research may be fringe, but the articles seem to give adequate contextualization of such. We don't need to treat Popular Mech different merely because we don't like how they cover issues. Whether a given article, or interview subject, is cited in Wikipedia should be context dependent and decided on a case-by-case basis. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 until I see some evidence they publish falsehoods. Popular Mechanics has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and is relied on as a source in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Popular Mechanics is a reputable, mainstream popular science magazine, and I think that outweighs the occasional eye-catching headline. Beyond the speculative framing, I see no evidence that they fabricated anything in their coverage of UFOs. Deprecation is extreme. We're not citing headlines here. ~ HAL333 00:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Anne drew and HAL333. Popular Mechanics is a reputable, mainstream popular science magazine. GretLomborg (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (PopMech)

The reliability of Popular Mechanics has been extensively discussed at RSN and, specifically, in relation to its flying saucer reporting here [47], and other places. It is extensively cited across the project for general reporting and flying saucer-specific reporting. In the case of WP:UFONATION we've previously retained some reliability for News Nation while preferencing against their flying saucer reporting. Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: headlines, clickbait or not, should not be used to assess reliability, per WP:RSHEADLINES. We already don't regard headlines as reliable themselves, regardless of the outlet. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good and valuable reminder. Chetsford (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would deprecating, an edit filter that prevents you from citing it anywhere, work restricted to one topic? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would. That's the only thing keeping my !vote at 3 instead of 4. Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie @Yesterday, all my dreams... you have both voted 4. How do you expect/want an edit filter that removes all mentions to work restricted to this one topic? Because we cannot deprecate the source for one topic without impacting its use on all other topics, which is not in the scooe of this RfC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The preface of the RfC stated topic specificity followed by all 4 options, but I understand the practicalities, so I'll change to Option 3. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I voted 4 because thers was no option 5. I think all material from that should be ignored. Can I vote 6, or 7? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanna toss this RfC out and have a general RfC on the past 120 years of Popular Mechanics, sure. But an RfC for one topic cannot be used to ban its usage on all others because the RfC did not cover that. And if we're having an RfC on all of Popular Mechanics, I would vote generally reliable for that, because this topic area ignored this is an established magazine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out a legitimate UFO-related use of a print Popular Mechanics article from 1965 [48] in The Spooklight. It's my understanding that this RFC is very targeted and applies to online-only, contemporary, UFO-related articles on popularmechanics.com, and that this RfC won't have any bearing on Gannon's article. Geogene (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Geogene, I agree that's an excellent point. And I think it's worth underscoring for the benefit of the closer that the RfC -- as constructed -- does not weigh in any way on the reliability of content that has ever appeared, or might ever appear, in print issues of Popular Mechanics, including the Spooklight article. And, if at some point in the future, it's worthwhile revisiting those limitations we should do so in a time-defined RfC. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of WION

This is a source that we're using on a thousand articles; it came to my attention when someone tried to use it to argue that Antifa was responsible for the killing of Charlie Kirk. Looking at their Wikipedia article, they mostly seem known for misinformation regarding COVID-19 and for briefly being blocked by YouTube over misinformation related to the Russia / Ukraine war. I wouldn't usually go to RSN so quickly but at a glance this looks like a source that actively promotes misinformation, which we're citing on an alarming number of articles. --Aquillion (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an easy 3-4. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bit shocked it's so heavily used. Definitely 3+. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Mildly/notionally shocked (not really). Certainly alarming. 3+—Alalch E. 23:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its been discussed before... Probably does need to be discussed again... For a minute there they looked to be getting better but the last year or so theres definitely been some backsliding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do other sources say about them? Iljhgtn (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It gets complicated because journalists at other sources have on occasion issues both with WION's factuality and with WION's leadership on issues which are not strictly related to factuality [49][50] are definitely within the overall perception of peers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely a 3 at least. Wouldn't be entirely shocked if common use is due to being mistaken for an American local news station, given the 4-letter abbreviation beginning with W (ex. WTOP). The Kip ^(contribs) 03:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with classifying it as unreliable based on the evidence provided so far. I think we are often too quick at classifying non-Western media as unreliable.

The reason they were blocked by Youtube was that they broadcasted a speech by Sergey Lavrov. This in no way indicates their unreliability, especially considering that they were unblocked in 4 days.

As to the antifa being responsible for Charlie Kirk's death, their article simply doesn't say it (While no evidence has yet linked Robinson to any formal Antifa group, the symbolism he adopted underscores the movement’s cultural resonance, particularly among younger activists who borrow from its history, slogans, and aesthetics. The problem was with the editor who used the source improperly. Alaexis_¿question? 05:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After looking closer at the source, it's possible it may be closer to a 2 in as far as non-Western sources, I will keep tabs on this thread to see if I feel the need to change my previous rating. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this very quote is incredibly weasel-y, and definitely goes straight into misinformation territory. They create a completely artificial link throughout this article, very clearly trying to demonstrate an already chosen outcome to verify an editorial stance. The most charitable interpretation of such an article would be considering that this outlet dropped the ball on this article specifically, but since we have more than this I do not see how we could classify it as better than a 3; I do not argue for 4 outright though. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're setting a very high bar here. A lot of other media outlets, including the greenest of the green, have their editorial stance which determine what they report and how. Alaexis_¿question? 12:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it's hard to ascertain what's going on with WION editorially, the site has been indispensable for English-language reporting on non-US topics; see, for instance, current events in Nepal. Might be a site that ranges from 1 to 3 depending on topic. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an RfC below, so make sure to add your input if you want to do so. NotJamestack (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: WION

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How reliable is the highly referenced, highly discussed WION?

Option 1: Generally Reliable
Option 2: Additional Considerations Needed
Option 3: Generally Unreliable
Option 4: Must be Deprecated

NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (WION)

Option 4. Considering the amount misinformation given by WION during the COVID-19 Pandemic, it's safe to say that I wouldn't be surprised if this was immediately deprecated. NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not generally unreliable. I don't think the COVID coverage issue is severe enough to make the source wholly unreliable. One fact-checked article was revised to repeat the statement from Portuguese health ministry that “no evidence of a causal relationship between her death and the vaccine she received.”, and clarified that the COVID vaccine was not linked to the death. (compare old version and new version) A news outlet responding to fact-checkers is sign of reliability. Some of its wordings like the antifa example above should be less wishy-washy, but that is not sufficient sign of general unreliability. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, which option? NotJamestack (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with this source so I don't have a specific stance. But I am unconvinced by the evidence given. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:12, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. As I noted above, I've relied on WION for English-language news about Asia, which is often superior to Western reporting on the same topics. It's a new discovery for me and I can't speak to past misdeeds, but everything I've read has been solid and corroborated. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some examples in a reply to Bobfrombrockley. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: I am not super familiar with this source, so wouldn't want my !vote to be too heavily weighted but it seems to me to be primarily a clickbait/churnalism site, that scrapes "news" from agencies and the web to generate as much content as possible and therefore engagement and ad revenue. I don't think it is an active disinformation site (which would merit option 4) but occasionally indulges in misinformation due to sloppiness and engagement farming. It was listed as one of the "Modi-aligned" media platforms accused of amplifying biased narratives in Canadian domestic politics in 2024, but with no details and no specific evidence of actual disinformation as opposed to partisanship. There are the various COVID sensationalist stories it has published discussed above: the Hantavirus sensationalism factchecked by AFP, the Portuguese vaccine story and another dodgy vaccine story. This is enough for us to consider it not generally reliable, and probably enough to consider it generally unreliable, but not enough for deprecation. On non-Indian topics, I see absolultely no reason to use it when anything it reports will have a better source. Why I'm hesitant to make a stronger case for a stringent 3 is that I don't know enough about Indian matters to know whether it might be usable for domestic Indian stories. I notice that many of our uses of it are for topics that aren't Indian-specific, and shockingly even include the COVID-19 pandemic article, where it is used to make a claim about an Indian contact tracing app, so I think it would be good to systematically flag its uses with better source tags. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley thanks for providing specific examples. I read the AFP report but I'm not sure I agree with it. Their debunk the claim that Hantavirus is a new virus, but in the WION video they refer to the host said that the virus is new but then in the next sentence said that the virus itself is old but the scare is new (it's in the first 15 seconds of the video). Or have I missed something in the video? Alaexis_¿question? 18:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 or 2. I'm judging based on the evidence provided in this thread and the Wikipedia article. There are indeed some sensationalist pieces but no evidence of deliberate lying. Adding corrections/clarifications is a positive sign. I'm open to changing my !vote if more evidence is presented. Alaexis_¿question? 18:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 — Bobfrombrockley said it well: low quality, high volume churnalism that is not concerned with quality as much as with engagement, leading to all the obvious consequences. While I have been familiar with WION for some time, I had not considered that it might help fill a vacuum for some South Asia specific news; however better source tags would indeed be welcome in this context. I would support getting rid of the source for everything else (option 4 being a step too far, but still preferable to option 2 in my opinion). Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 19:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration:

This is some of the best analysis on these topics I've seen. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah those are not bad. Maybe I was too harsh. They’re not typical though. Maybe articles by sub-editors are higher quality? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it, I don't see the pattern, and some of this stuff is really good. It would be a shame to see it 3ed or 4ed out of usability because they blew some other reporting. Unless it was obvious that they were on a campaign of malfeasance, I'm inclined to weigh the above more heavily than their mistakes, particularly if they corrected them. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 as there were corrections issued and this is usually one of the single strongest signs of reliability on Wikipedia. No one says that a source must always get all the facts right, but what we do say is that you must correct for them when you get them wrong. This is the core tenet of reliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2, echoing the points made by Bobfrombrockley and Choucas0. While I oppose the deprecation of this source, as some of the reporting presented does appear to be of good quality, I find option 1 unacceptable given the medical misinformation and high output/seemingly lax editorial standards. While I am seeing some good reporting on their website, I am also seeing no small amount of churnalism. It's not that everything coming out of WION is bad or unreliable, but rather, that I don't feel we can rely on their editorial team to ensure the reliability of everything they're putting out. It seems to me that they employ some very skilled and hard-working journalists, but are also perfectly content to churn out low-quality clickbait, and that's my concern.

Something I personally check for when looking at the reliability of Indian sources is how they report on Hindu nationalism, conflicts between Indian Hindus and Muslims, etc - WION does not appear to be overtly partisan in this regard, but some of the reporting I would consider somewhat lacking in merely parroting the statements of nationalist officials without any critical analysis. Note this article on Modi's praise of Mohan Bhagwat, the current leader of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a paramilitary organisation that Modi himself was once a part of that is credibly accused of anti-Muslim terror attacks. While the article is short and fairly straightforward in discussing Modi's statements, it does not mention Modi's affiliation with the group or anything about the RSS's long and ugly history. This may be due to a presumption of knowledge on the part of the reader, or intentional omission. This article, by comparison, is longer and lists some criticism of Hindu nationalism. I also found two articles discussing demographic change in India, with the first simply reporting on statements by an official with no discussion or analysis, while the second fact-checks a statement by politician Yogi Adityanath. From the research I've done over the past half hour or so I don't believe that the editorial team at WION is necessarily particularly biased or attempting to control the narrative, but their standards aren't high enough for me to consider WION generally reliable at this stage. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing here sounds like neutrality. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. The coverage above simply does not support the idea that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And the arguments made in its defense aren't really policy-based; "well I rely on it" or "looks fine to me" or "I think these article are really cool" aren't how we assess the reliability of sources. We assess reliability based on reputation, and those arguments don't touch on its clearly poor reputation. Likewise, the argument that they're not deliberately publishing falsifications isn't an argument for their reliability - deliberately publishing falsifications would of course require full deprecation; but if the best that one can say in their defense is that they're not doing that, then that's damning them with faint praise, because their reputation is still not what we'd expect for a WP:RS. And while it's good for a source to issue corrections, that can't cure the fact that they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see reputation documented? Iljhgtn (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (WION)

This news source has been discussed multiple times. If you take a look at the noticeboard archive, you can see a lot of discussions talking about WION, so I don't think this will be considered a bad RfC. NotJamestack (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillion, Bobfrombrockley, Alalch E., Horse Eye's Back, Iljhgtn, The Kip, Alaexis, Darknipples, Choucas0, Tioaeu8943, Newslinger. Pinging participants from the discussion before the RFC was started, as many had already expressed opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems rather quick to open an rfc right when someone brings this up.

I get that its used 1k+, but is there a repeated pattern of it having been brought to discussion and editors disagreeing ? At the very least would have made sense to see where this discussion was heading and if rfc was necessary User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been repeated discussions in the archives, including a prior RFC that wasn't closed, and editors had already started to make numbered comments. So I just made sure it was formated correctly and past participants were aware, no person opinion on the RFC itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Bluethricecreamman. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still leaning close to 3 at the moment. I'm keeping an eye out for more details and or links to the alleged corrections this source has made in relation to Russia / Ukraine, COVID-19, vaccines etc...Cheers. DN (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t see any particular slant on Russia/ukraine. They got kicked off YouTube for platforming Lavrov, so I assumed they’d be pro-Russian, but their current reporting seems neutral. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The White House

I feel this has been overdue for a bit, but I think the reliability of the White House, specifically the second Trump presidency should be questioned. The thing that did it for me was the whole transgender rat thing that got reported a while back. Just want other editors opinions on this. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The White House will always self promote, regardless of who the occupant is, and it should not be considered RS except maybe for press releases of appointments and such. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Was there ever a time when white house wasnt strictly political?

the real question is other orgs under the executive branch, esp. under the current presidency Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have we been using the White House as a reliable source for anything that isn't WP:ABOUTSELF? If not, we do need to generate a solution to a lack of a problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there is a WP: on it somewhere that its only usable for ABOUTSELF. Metallurgist (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Governments are generally only usable as WP:PRIMARY sources for their own statements and positions anyway. That's not something unique to this administration or government - they're simply not structured like a RS due to the lack of editorial controls and fact-checking, and none of them can really be said to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In some cases individual parts of a government might be reputable if they have clear independence and a reputation themselves, but because governments change hands frequently even that is a fragile thing - any hint that a new administration is doing things that would threaten their independence or change the core policies that earned them their reputation would prompt a re-assessment. But a government itself? It's not a RS and isn't generally even attempting to be. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone on Wikipedia attempting to use WH statements as RS? Cortador (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, e.g. for List of presidents of the United States, West Wing, Macon Phillips, and various articles about who's in what office. In general I'd regard it as a bad idea to declare a source questionable because of its publisher, that's only one possible evaluation factor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, attempts have been made to use questionable statements as facts using the WH as a source. An example is stating that antifa is officially declared a domestic terrorist organization. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Honestly we need to be treating the White House as WP:GUNREL. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan International

I'm currently doubting that whether we should trust this source, even though located in UK (Remember: We have The Sun listed in RSP as deprecated), there are some doubts on whether they could really describe facts on e.g. [51], where probably misreaded the UN documents which generally use "postpone" instead of "rejected". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the UN uses postponed, it's true to say that the Taliban say asked for the credentials to be transferred three times and three time the UN hasn't granted that request. The more common way of saying that is that rejected the request, the UN is using diplomatic language but that doesn't mean that reporting on the events has to use that exact same language.
They appear to be a standard WP:NEWSORG owned by Volant Media[52] who also owns Iran International. They're reported as having Saudi backing[53] and are less than friendly towards Iran, but biased doesn't mean unreliable (see WP:RSBIAS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested How does this situation be different from applying US visas? For every US visa applicants, they're actually rejected after interviews when they got 214(b) or even 212(a) notes, but when they got 221(g), are they rejected? Really no, they are refused, but not rejected, they still have chances to successfully got visa after sending additional materials to embassy/consulate's e-mail, or probably they just need another interview. Another likely situation is just for our WMF, which applied WIPO observer status every year since 2020, still not successful, but did WIPO rejected WMF? I see nothing to support calling so: A/61/10, which didn't really say WMF has been "rejected" but rather "decision had been postponed..." WMF still have chances as per se.

From my first-hand view of this site, the Afintl looks like a word playing institution on reporting intergovernmental relationships, here's another example: China on Friday urged respect for Afghanistan’s sovereignty... But when reading MFA's conference remarks, neither Chinese nor English explicitly said "urged", they just said that China respects Afghanistan’s ... sovereignty and... Most likely, China eventually don't have interests on how other countries should respect those or not. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News media summarises what they're reporting on, they do not have to quote everything. Afintl choice to frame it as rejection is biased, but not unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree ActivelyDisinterested's view on the news site - biased doesn't mean unreliable. While their words seem misleading (assuming that it is true), I haven't seen other signs of media manipulation exist, such as clickbait. I think the "word playing" issue can be explained by their media bias. Saimmx (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimmx So, add this source to RSP as No consensus? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RSP has a set of inclusion criteria, see WP:RSPCRITERIA, I doubt this source would meet those guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:RSPCRITERIA is the case, then I agree not adding Afghanistan International to RSP. Saimmx (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for a record, I need to express my comment after seeing that the author suggested that the media is unreliable: I think Afghanistan International is generally reliable, since it fits "a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team". I don't think Afghanistan International is WP:QUESTIONABLE just because of the wording issue as the author suggested: So far, most editors agreed their use of "rejected" is appropriate, at least not inaccurate. Saimmx (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seven News Australia (7NEWS)

Hi,

I wanted to double check 7NEWS and realized that despite a well crafted article that states they're the highest rated show in Australia, there have been no discussions about them as a source. Based on what I can see, they appear to be generally reliable, but could some editors weigh in as to their assesment? Especially Australian editors?

Thanks! Crs5827 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being highly rated doesn't necessarily equate to being reliable. I use them sometimes, but if there are better sources available (e.g., ABC News (Australia), The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald) I use them. TarnishedPath^talk 22:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I asked! It might be correlated, but also might not. And I can't find much available that discusses 7news's reliability in either direction. I just included that they're highly rated because it was surprising to me that the highest rated channel in AUS hasn't been discussed at all. Crs5827 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crs5827, in additon to what @Boynamedsue discussed below. There was also a situation, in which Seven taking part in the culture wars, championed the cause of alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann by having a feature interview with him; paying him for the interview, including by provision of cocaine and hookers and then lied about paying him. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-05/lehrmann-defamation-seven-network-spotlight-reputation-damage/103667290 for an example of the blowout. TarnishedPath^talk 08:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll give this a read. Crs5827 (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7News didn't cover itself in glory during the African gangs moral panic, I would use with care on that topic. That goes for most Australian media though...Boynamedsue (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to give more context about a specific incident, they framed a meeting of far right extremists setting up a vigilante group (my bolding) “They have come together to help average Australians deal with what they are calling an immigrant crime crisis,” the report said. “They’re hoping to create a kind of neighbourhood watch.” and then when challenged on this stated Seven News has reported on many meetings in the past couple of weeks held to discuss the African gang violence crisis, including governments, community leaders and police. Sunday’s meeting was newsworthy, so it was reported.

Reliable sources (and sources like the Victorian Police force) are exceptionally clear that no "African gang violence crisis" has ever existed in Australia. Given this extreme bias and anti-factual statement, they should be treated as unreliable for race and crime in Victoria between 2016-2018 and should be used with care on race and crime in general.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is good to know. Thank you! Are you aware of any fact checks published by other outlets you could include here? Crs5827 (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot about this specific incident, some of it in academic sources, for example this one. This one is more general on the panic and mentions Channel 7, but it's paywalled and I don't have access so can't vouch for it.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. That's quite disturbing, but not surprising unfortunately. I appreciate you sharing it. Crs5827 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, like I say though, it does not discount it as a source. But for older stuff, we should be looking for non-news sources in any case, and for newer stuff, per @TarnishedPath:, we need to be careful on culture war type articles. I've also seen criticism of its coverage of trans issues, but that was from an advocacy organisation. Even so, it would suggest the existence of a POV (which in itself does not disqualify, but needs to be considered). I think attribution in these controversial areas is going to be a minimum.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general I avoid usage unless there are no other sources. TarnishedPath^talk 08:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second one via Informit is from Green Left and is therefore also available online: Crnogorcevic, Leo (27 July 2018). "African gangs scare campaign: there must be an election coming". Green Left. No. 1189. ISSN 1445-4556. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Crs5827 (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical about the statement 'no "African gang violence crisis" has ever existed in Australia' as an argument against a media outlet. A "crisis" is just a label, it's in the eye of the beholder. Alaexis_¿question? 14:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the concerned state and there was no crisis, only a moral panic driven by certain media outlets. TarnishedPath^talk 22:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Not an Aussie but down the road a bit). Just from their web site and a few sample articles, they look resoundingly average. Is there anything in particular that it's being used for that raises questions? Daveosaurus (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they seem average. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something? And was surprised they hadn't been discussed. I've come across them a number of times in a few articles i'm working on. I realized I knew nothing about them so searched the board and saw they've never been discussed on RS, and thought it might be good to rectify that.

Thanks for taking a look! Crs5827 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if it's a news organisation we can treat it under the general guidance for that type of source (WP:NEWSORG). Time to publication is a factor, breaking-news is less accepted, exceptional claims would require exceptional evidence, and editors should take care to separate fact, opinion and analysis. I don't think this noticeboard would want to discuss every possible source out there, so there's not to much point unless there is a dispute on some specific claim or the usual practice of evaluating each source critically with consideration given to the more general guidance is clearly deficient in some respect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an old saying on Wall Street: You never see one cockroach. If News7 has faked one story, they have probably done so a few times and may do again. I would banish them for good. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on this. They seem to vary significantly from the consensus so far at least, so it would be helpful if you could add more detail, and provide some clarity on which story you allege that they faked. Crs5827 (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They paid for an interview, then said they had not. So they have no problem in lying through their teeth. That is enough for me. End of discussion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here, but my sense is that if you want an outlet to be banned as a reliable source, it's going to take more than that.

I don't agree with you or disagree with you. I'm just trying to get assesments on this source as I couldn't find much in my quick search prior to posting this. Crs5827 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crs5827, we do have RFCs to determine consensus sometimes after a source has been discussed a number of times. However, underlying any assessment of consensus is our guideline on reliable source which states that [a]rticles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

A source which pays for interviews, including by way of provision of hookers and blow, and then lies about it strikes me as antithetical to a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". TarnishedPath^talk 22:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's good to know. I am, again, not advocating one way or the other. However if you and/or @Yesterday, all my dreams... wanted to begin an RFC I wouldn't want to get in the way, of course.

My comment was only meant to state that it seemed @Yesterday, all my dreams...'s comment was insufficient to create a policy of not using 7News as a source, not that I disagree (or agree) with the comment. Crs5827 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Crs5827, running an RFC on this page is generally frowned upon until a source has been discussed at least three times. Otherwise discussions here are general feedback on whether particular sources are reliable for specific usages. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the English National Ballet site appropriate for Featured content?

Hello! I've been working on Manon Lescaut and Adaptations of Manon Lescaut, both of which currently cite some info from this article by the English National Ballet. I've been asked to get some consensus about whether this is an appropriate source for FA or FL. They've collected a lot of details on different adaptations; it would be possible but kind of annoying to re-source it all individually. This is my first time posing this kind of question at RSN so let me know if I'm doing anything wrong.

To carry over some of the discussion that already occurred at the Peer Review: the main concern raised is that the url marks it as a "blog" post, and it's not a recognized publication venue. Personally, I don't feel like it's exactly a blog in the WP:UGC sense: it's published by the professional media team of the English National Ballet, and they appear to often write about dance/performance history in their "news" when they promote related productions (like this article about Giselle). Since the ENB is a non-profit cultural institution, I'm willing to consider them subject experts. I'd feel even better about it if it had a byline, but that's the case I'd make for it, anyway.

Since they are typically promoting their own performances, I'm not asking if this would contribute to notability, just whether it's sufficiently factually reliable to be a high-quality source for FAs or FLs. Thoughts? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're obviously not independent, but I don't see why anyone should doubt their reliability. I don't believe these are blogs in the meaning of WP:BLOGS, these are articles by ENB. I think the 'blog' in the url is just how the website is structured, rather than showing these are blogs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

dailynk.com

This source is used 393 times on Wikipedia. According to them, they are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Another link. They post only negative news about North Korea and are clearly used as a propaganda tool of the United States and South Korea.

The source came to my attention because of a recent news story they published, where they wrote that North Koreans aren't allowed to say "I love you" to each other.

I don't think this source is suitable for use on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 02:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any specific evidence of unreliable reporting? Also, the article you cited does not actually state what you claim. - Amigao (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes:

DailyNK, the Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG), and the South Korean government all fraudulently claimed the law allowed executions of consumers of forbidden media. The Diplomat (this source actually lists several examples of DailyNK not being factual, I just chose one)

and

We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of anonymous sources and information that cannot be verified. Media Bias / Fact Check

Also, the article you cite does not actually state what you claim.

Which one? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 03:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MBFC is already a WP:GUNREL source and does not fly for establishing unreliability. We also need something a bit stronger than just an opinion piece published in The Diplomat for evidence of unreliable reporting. - Amigao (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUNREL applies to sources used in articles, it doesn't apply to talk page discussions.

We also need something a bit stronger than just an opinion piece

Two things: 1) Are you disputing the author and saying that the law in question does in fact allow executions for consuming media? Because that is what this is about, whether the DailyNK is factual. You're attempting to move the goalposts.

2) What do you mean by "a bit stronger"? Be precise so that you can't move the goalposts again. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 23:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, can you provide WP:RS-based evidence (preferably from WP:GREL or even academic WP:BESTSOURCES) that address the reliability, or lack thereof, of said source? For instance, it is worth mentioning that DailyNK has been used by others for many years by WP:GREL sources such as WP:REUTERS, WP:NYTIMES, WP:THEECONOMIST, and WP:WAPO for their reporting on certain North Korean issues (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).- Amigao (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide WP:RS-based evidence (preferably from WP:GREL or even academic WP:BESTSOURCES) that address the reliability

The Diplomat is listed at WP:RSP as GREL.

DailyNK has been used by others

Remember that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, because WP:UBO says: For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. (emphasis mine) DailyNK is always used with attribution and sometimes with a comment that the claims can't be verified:

1: The surge in rice prices, cited by DailyNK, a North Korean defector website (www.dailynk.com), ... This report also could not be independently verified.

2: This one only mentions DailyNK as a defector outlet, it doesn't actually cite it for any information or facts: Other information comes from defectors and refugees who have left the country, outlets like DailyNK with contacts inside the country and public statements by relatives abroad

3: In this article DailyNK is used with attribution and its claim is immediately disputed.

4: According to The Daily NK ... The Daily NK site said.

5: This article attributes statements to individual people: says Lee Kwang-baek, the head of DailyNK and of UMG. ... As Lee Chae Eun, a North Korean escapee journalist at DailyNK, puts it ... According to DailyNK... says Ha Yuna, DailyNK’s editor-in-chief

6: ...according to DailyNK,

7: DailyNK, an investigative website, estimates...

8: ...says DailyNK, a news outlet with informants there.

9: DailyNK, a Seoul-based news outlet, reported...

10: This one doesn't mention DailyNK.

11: according to DailyNK

12: DailyNK published an article Thursday that claimed...

Thank you for finding those links, because they show that in every single case where DailyNK is used it is used with attribution. This means that the RSes who use them are not sure that what DailyNK is saying is factual.

Furthermore, North and South Korea are technically at war. We wouldn't use Russian sources on internal matters in Ukraine, we wouldn't use Indian sources on internal affairs in Pakistan, so why is it acceptable to use South Korean sources on North Korean matters? DailyNK is specifically an anti-NK and pro-SK source. While bias is allowed, we should be aware that DailyNK exists only to report on North Korea, so it isn't biased in the same way that the Jacobin is, for example. At the very least, if DailyNK is to be cited on Wikipedia, its claims should always be attributed, and extra care should be taken when it is being used for claims about North Korea that no other outlet is reporting independently. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 02:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would we know if they were using it if they weren't attributing it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is how they are used: every single claim is attributed, the claims are not central to the article, sometimes the source comments that the claims could not be verified. Can you tell me why you think DailyNK is factual?

In the previous RfC most editors commented that DailyNK is not reliable and that additional considerations apply, I am not sure why it was closed as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" when there's a consensus that claims should be attributed to them, at least.

I think it is time for a new RfC. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if they were being used in any other way, we would have no idea. If they hadn't attributed it, we would not know, because we are not psychic. If the NYT looked at them for some mundane detail about NK and didn't attribute it, we would not know! How would we show use by others WITHOUT attribution?

There really are no generally reliable sources on North Korea. In an ecosystem where you can be imprisoned for speaking out, you cannot use freely spoken sources, which makes all originally reporting sources about NK marginally reliable by default. However, I do not think this is worse than the rest.

The last RfC had few comments and weighing the actually comprehensive ones it comes out to about even I think it's an accurate reading of the discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There really are no generally reliable sources on North Korea. In an ecosystem where you can be imprisoned for speaking out, you cannot use freely spoken sources, which makes all originally reporting sources about NK marginally reliable by default. However, I do not think this is worse than the rest.

We shouldn't be adding unreliable and poorly sourced information to Wikipedia, full stop. Just because "there are no good sources" that doesn't mean that dubious claims get to be included.

think it's an accurate reading of the discussion.

OK, so we at least agree that claims from DailyNK should be attributed, per the RfC? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's generally unreliable. I think it is perfectly fine to use in many cases.

If it's anything contentious, sure. If it's like "NK built bridge" or "NK built a park" (see below example), probably not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Capital punishment in North Korea Daily NK is used as a source for the alleged executions of a number of "unnamed men and women".
In Dog meat it is used (with attribution) to say that the North Korean government fixed the price of dog meat.
In Pyongyang it is used (without attribution) to say that supporters of Kim Jong Il said that Seoul should be called "Kim Il Sung City" and Pyongyang should be called "Kim Jong Il City".
It is pretty much the only source cited in the section Human torpedo#North Korea, without attribution. The other source (used once) is the Chosun Daily, which cites a blog written by a defector.

A lot of the times the Daily NK is used for uncontroversial statements or it is cited alongside another source, but some of the time it is used for claims that no other source is reporting on. This is why I think it should be a "considerations apply" source, with special attention to be paid to whether they're the only ones reporting/claiming something, and to make sure the source is attributed when used. I think that is reasonable and in line with how we handle sources of similar quality/reliability. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 08:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is how journalism works; it's not like Wikipedia or textbooks, where sources are shown using footnotes, or papers where you might use parenthetical references. This means they nearly always use "According to X source", "Y said", "Z wrote A; A has not been independently verified" to cite where they got their material. I haven't looked into the actual source (Not my area, though I tend to trust Parakanyaa's judgement) but this line of argument is a non-starter. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 00:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't always attribute a claim, not when the news article treats the claim as fact. Only opinions are attributed. Take for example this paragraph from a Guardian article:

The rioting was as surprising as it was appalling. It was mostly carried out by local people who were not members of formal far-right organisations. Some rejected the far-right label, carrying banners that read: “We’re not far-right, we’re just right.”

Notice how the fact that they were not members of any formal far-right organisations is underlined with a link to the source? They didn't write "according to Hope Not Hate" because they believe they are relaying a fact, and not an opinion. That is called saying it in their own voice.

On Wikipedia, we distinguish between attributed claims and claims in one's own voice, both when analysing what a source says and when writing Wikipedia articles. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 02:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article on the homepage seems pretty positive to me. Of course given the reliance on anonymous (by necessity) sources, editors should be cautious for using it for controversial statements. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with North Korea is that generally recent news/information only goes to the outside world if the government publishes it, or through anonymous sources/defectors. There is no way to independently verify unless you just so happen to have another anonymous source that also happened to be there. And articles that rely on a anonymous source are more likely to have errors.

That being said, I think with care it can be used with attribution simply because its the best we will get. As others mentioned, care should be taken with controversial statements, and editors should be careful to avoid taking one off incidents and conflating it to a country wide policy (ex. the I love you article only cites a single incident. There is nothing else to support that it is a nationwide crackdown and not the officials at the factory having some unrelated beef with the victim) Jumpytoo Talk 05:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting in North Korea is always going to be difficult, due to the near impossibility of confirming anything. Socialist critique of capitalist commercialisation of love is a real thing, and youth groups in cults of personality are usually the most ardent. So is it believable that something like this could happen, maybe, but as Jumpytoo even if this is actually true it's one event in one factory.
Other reliable sources use DailyNK as a source, but usually do so with attribution again likely due to how difficult it is to confirm events from with North Korea. Caution and attribution of anything contentious is probably the best idea, and when it comes to minor events just because something is reported doesn't mean it has to be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hypebeast as a scource

Is this article from Hypebeast (company) an RS for Mia Lee.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From searching the archives, this publisher was previously discussed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#hypebeast.com. Left guide (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interview, so not independent but reliable for her replies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Reporter

The Tokyo Reporter is used 136 times on Wikipedia, mostly about pornography and crime. The site's info page states that it offers "salacious news bites on crime and culture from Japan." I didn't find a staff page on the site but it appears to be run by a single person. He has written for other reliable sources, but I think this site falls under WP:SPS. मल्ल (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloid journalism falls under WP:TABLOID, so it would make sense for sources based on such reporting to be treated similarly unless they show evidence of doing additional fact checking on the original reporting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a self published source.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japans-most-salacious-crime-news--and-the-american-who-publishes-it/2016/04/21/150720b2-0740-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html

Washington post wrote about it.

Tokyo Reporter#The Tokyo Reporter

The journalist who runs it also writes for New York Times.

It seems to not have any unverified events at least. 61.45.122.36 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Post article (archive for anyone needing it) makes it clear that it is self published. "He trawls through Japan’s weekly tabloids in search of juicy tales about the Japanese mafia, its roaring porn industry and steady stream of macabre murder cases. Then he translates the stories and posts them on his site."
If the site is posting translations of other sources I would suggest just using the original source, sources don't have to be in English. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but some japanese sites have locks on their archive and require subscriptions to reach archived news, so this might be ok to use in special cases if the Japanese original news is behind a paywall? 61.45.122.36 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming a few recent articles I would say no, the articles only cite the publisher and not the specific article, it would not be appropriate to use them as a translation or mirror source. Jumpytoo Talk 04:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PAYWALL, one should not reject a source because it is behind a paywall. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know if Tokyo Reporter has permission to publish translations of these paywalled articles? It would seem rather strange for companies to paywall articles and then let a third party translate and publish them for free. Unless we know that they have permission to do so we should probably not link to them at all, per WP:COPYVIOEL. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Warrior Workouts

Celtic Warrior Workouts is a YouTube channel with over 1 million subscribers, owned by Sheamus. Does it pass as a notable media for Filmography section of articles? This specific IP user has added it to several articles; e.g. [54][55][56][57][58]. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asking whether Celtic Warrior Workouts should be included in the filmography sections of the Wikipedia articles of those involved. That is a completely different question than whether Celtic Warrior Workouts is a reliable source, which is really the only thing this noticeboard is designed to handle. Left guide (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable only for the opinion of its creator. So if the creator says "the druids used to do Tai Chi", we can say "Shaymus of the youtube channel Celtic Warrior Workouts believes the druids did Tai Chi." but not "The druids did Tai Chi". However, the opinion of Shaymus is unlikely to be WP:DUE for any article as Shaymus is not an established expert on any particular topic, and his channel is not a reliable source. I would delete the additions, and open a discussion on the discussion pages of the relevant articles to see whether any independent sources have included mention of the relevant fitness instructors taking part in this youtube channel.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of pornography

This is about [59]. Are these WP:MEDRS? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Effects_of_pornography#Can_be_healthy you say “To be more explicit, WP:MEDRS bans WP:PRIMARY studies from making medical claims (all medical claims have to rely upon WP:SECONDARYor WP:TERTIARY studies). It does not ban "single studies", whatever that means.”, and I don’t really see these additions as making medical claims or violating WP:MEDRS, which contains the text: “Any text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal weight, only describe conclusions made by the source, and describe these findings so clearly that any editor can check the sourcing without the need for specialist knowledge. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis).” I’m fairly new to wikipedia but this is what I’ve read so far.2601:282:8903:D810:BD84:55B5:5EEB:C13A (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:PRIMARY studies is a way of WP:GAME. Because those are too many, and contradict each other all over the place. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn’t the article been full of primary studies before the recent additions? For 1 example, I just scrolled to a random spot and found this: “According to a 2022 study among German medical students, "Male students who did not experience a sexual transmitted disease (82.9%) and did not cheat on their partner (68.0%) consumed pornography more frequently". The study concludes "the results of this analysis show that the consumption of pornographic material is highly common among young German medical students" (meaning both male and female)”.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9252028

What determines if a primary source meets the bar for inclusion and dueness? 2601:282:8903:D810:9901:AEC2:38E1:DDBF (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that I have reported such a problem, but in the end I got tired of fighting against editors who inserted primary studies inside the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MEDRS a primary source shouldn't be used to support a biomedical information claim. This includes epidemiological claims like the example you gave and which should be removed from the article ເສລີພາບ (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect – primary science papers are allowed, though WP:MEDRS heavily discourages them. There are exceptions, for example if you look here you can see I recently suggested a couple of primary papers be incorporated in one of our medical FAs, and leading MEDs editors agreed.
— User:FeydHuxtable

That is, that source isn't completely banned, but I complied with your request. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In general, there is a high bar for inclusion for any primary source and deep questions of WP:DUEness User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replications in social psychology usually produce weaker or contradictory evidence to the original primary study. Letting editors use primary sources opens the door to cherry picking and misleading readers. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not WP:MEDRS, as they are primary sources, not review articles or another kind of secondary source. And (regardless of MEDRS), they shouldn't be used when there are better quality review articles that could be used on that article. Tristario (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions linked in the first comment are a violation of WP:MEDSAY. I suspect that it would be easier to identify the problems in the article if someone tried to copyedit for MEDSAY purposes first. Instead of 138 words about study design on solitary vs partnered use of pornography, it should be maybe about 20 words communicating the basic conclusion.

Editors who want to keep that kind of content should also be advised to look for review articles and books that cite their favored sources (e.g., this list for the first source, leading to sources such as this one). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure: I liked the message of at least two of those sources. But I saw a deeper problem with citing primary studies. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also [60]. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is BNamericas a reliable source?

BNamericas seems to be used as a sources in about 247 articles in Wikipedia [61], including some high level entries like the articles El Salvador, Venezuela, Belize, Nicaragua, Tijuana, Brasilia etc. BNamericas has news and content in English, Portuguese and Spanish.

From what I have read (Spanish and English) BNamericas provide reliable information and I have not detected any bias other than the slight business-positivity found in most outlets that are not aligned with left-wing or green politics. My impression is that BNamericas operates similar to Wood Mackenzie but with a geographically-limited scope rather than an industry-limited scope.

That is my impression, but it would be good to have others opinions/evaluation on the matter. Ingminatacam (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any current disagreement about the source? It should be reliable in it's area, that's to say business and economics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ca rejected Draft:Grupo_Minero_Las_Cenizas writing this "More in-depth sources are needed. Additionally, bnamericas does not seem reliable.". Ingminatacam (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ca what's your thoughts on bnamerica? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

bnamerica seems to be one of one of those company directory websites which pull their data from who-knows-where. In any case it is of limited use to the draft article as it is a simply a company directory service, with no in-depth coverage of the company. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ca, have you actually read the articles of BNamericas? It contains both basic information about companies as well as more in depth analysis on current business developments. Just because an user does not know where they collect they data from ("which pull their data from who-knows-where") does not mean its not reliable. Seems like a classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ingminatacam (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a deeper look into the source, and I should not have dismissed it so quickly, given that it seems to have long history and produces more than just company directories. That said, I would say knowing "where they collect they data from" is quite important. If they are simply pulling data from official websites, it is of no use citing BN americas instead of directly citing official websites. I did not really see any WP:NEWSORGs citing the platform. THe best I could find is mining.com. In any case, the page only has one paragraph of coverage on Grupo Minero Las Cenizas. It could be easily replaced. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic News Agency

This venue or source was vetted for its potential usability in this discussion, which accomodated it unproblematically with attribution. Its use has however now been contested at the Charlie Kirk page, here. The contested edit was as follows:

According to Bishop Joseph Brennan of Fresno a week before Kirk's assassination, Kirk had met him, and spoke about attending mass with his Catholic wife and children. In Brennan's view, Kirk was very close to converting to Catholicism. (Catholic News Agency article)

It is immaterial to me whether one wishes to accept Brennan's remarks in toto. What emerged from the discussion is that a majority of editors approve removing data that state (a) his wife was a Catholic (b) that Kirk occasionally attended Catholic masses (c) any mention that Kirk might have considered converting. (a) and (b) are commonplaces, and easily referenced from other RS. (c) Is what apparently annoys as a BLP violation from 'questionable' RS, mainly because the authority is a bishop cited by his brother, and another Catholic newspaper reporter. But the consensus is to throw everything out (a) and (b), even truisms, on the grounds (c) is unacceptable as either a BLP violation or unreliably sourced. (c) however is corroborated in part by Kirk's own words in an interview in 2021.

“Some of my greatest friends in the world are Catholic…I go to Catholic Mass every once in a while. I don’t take the Eucharist, don’t worry you don’t have to report me…The joke is that serious evangelicals become Catholic. And I’ve seen that happen. I’m open-minded, but I’m not there yet.” Jessica Kramer, Conservatism’s Inevitable Conversion to Catholicism, [62], at Crisis Magazine 16 June 2021)

I am asking for independent input on whether or not the Catholic News Agency is still reliable for such issues, as an earlier discussion suggested it was, with attribution. And whether Crisis Magazine itself may be used to the same end. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. As written yes (in other words an attbuted claim) as a fact no. I think we can take it as read that the CNA will quote a Bishop accurately. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems with attributing it to Bishop Brennan. Though I wonder what arguments "the majority of editors" have against it. Alaexis_¿question? 14:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It struck me as more of an wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, not that, for the article is full of his attitudes to Islam, Evangelicalism, Protestantism and Judaism. My point is, why is a single reference to a Catholic nexus, his wife's Catholicism, his occasional attendance at mass etc, wiped out as 'trivia'?Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really the place for this discussion, but I will give an answer. Because this is one Bishop's opinion of what Kirk might have done. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, as one of those suggesting that Kirk's passing comment to the Bishop was trivia, and undue, at no point did I "approve removing data that state (a) his wife was a Catholic [or] (b) that Kirk occasionally attended Catholic masses", and I would appreciate it if Nishidani stopped insinuating that everyone disagreeing with him over this is a part of some great anti-Catholic conspiracy. I made a comment on this particular content alone, as it happened to come up on my watchlist.

In my opinion, since by consensus WP:BLP policy also applied to the recently deceased, it is improper to take such a passing comment and present it as if it was evidence that Kirk intended to convert. Maybe he did, but until he had stated so directly, this looks far too much like an exercise in mind-reading, in a context where it might have been little more than politeness, or just musing about a possibility. In matters of faith, we require direct attribution to the subject, not inference from comments about things that might happen in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They would be reliable for Brennan's words, whether that is due in the article will depend on how widely they were reported and how they were received. If this is the only source or other sources believe Brennan to be wrong, then the content may not be due. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is, as usual, a due weight issue and not a WP:RS issue. That said, I would say that it is undue here - WP:BIASED sources are usable but we need to take their biases into account in weighing them; if we give heavy weight something that is significant only to a deeply Catholic source, but not significant to other sources, we risk giving too much weight to that viewpoint. There's no particular reason why that viewpoint should be given so much weight on that article, so I would wait and see if the quote is picked up by other sources. A source affiliated with eg. Team Purple publishing a quote that says Team Purple is Awesome and Everyone Is About to Join It is inherently less weighty than it being posted by anyone else, because their bias naturally lowers their threshold of what it takes to make such quotes significant. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific article fails WP:IIS because of conflicts of interest. CNA reports that a column was published by the LA archdiocese newspaper and provides a summary of it. It’s a generally reliable summary of what the column says, but the column itself is not notable because it is not independent. The column was written by a family member of the bishop. The family member author is involved per their own account as presented in the column: “To this day, I experience a special kind of joy when I learn of someone deciding to become Catholic, whether they be a celebrity or someone I know personally.” Mikewem (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that in this case the question is more one of due weight/independence than notability... CNA is an EWTN publication and therefore is only marginally reliable... EWTN is a weird beast because they publish news but using a idiosyncratic biblical standard of truth rather than the sort of truth/factuality standard we normally encounter with news organizations, this will often lead to EWTN publications saying things that are bizarre and/or objectively untrue from a journalistic/scientific/medical perspective but are true in a theological sense if you subscribe to a particular brand of Catholic doctrine (even among catholics EWTN is rather fringe and controversial). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet RSN approved of using it in the one discussion we had, but that was long before the Charlie Kirk hysteria hit the fan.

I cannot see how WP:Undue applies, nor see the cogency of WP:fringe. Kirk was an outstanding promoter of fringe views and gave freely of his time to such networks. The core remark contested here was first alluded to by him in an interview he gave to the lunatic Church Militant in 2021.

To a text running to 10060 words I added a further 37 , i.e. 0.36%. Undue??

They spoke of something never mentioned in the text, his relations to Catholicism, as opposed to the two other branches of the Abrahamic religions. We have entire sections on his views re Islam and Jews Evangelicals

Of three items, two are indisputable, per multiple RS. That (a) his wife was a devout Catholic, and (b) he occasionally would attend Catholic masses. Trivia?

On the basis of the presence of a third item, his putative possible conversion, the whole text was wiped out.

That was very careless editing, because a tweak could easily have retained the 11 words on his wife's religion and his desultory attendance at mass. It is otiose to revert a complete edit when what you don't dispute can be conserved.

I am in principle opposed to conspiracy theories, Actively Disinterested. My mention of the anomaly of large space given to his views on his own faith brand, and Islam and Jews, versus the immediate expunging of that Catholic element, broke NPOV, apart from erasing mention of two issues he deemed important. Given my background (expelled for promoting 'atheism') it makes me laugh to have imputed to me a belief in an anti-Catholic conspiracy on wikipedia, or anywhere else.

Why is BLP invoked? Is it offensive to Kirk's reputation and memory to note his Catholic connections, as he himself did while alive. Bewildering.

Aquillon. Kirk was interviewed by a far right Catholic newspaper, and reported by Crisis Magazine in 2021 for this very content of his closeness to Catholicism. For all I know that kind of statement, as often, might be just politics, but his remarks stand. Many of Kirk's views are sourced to very biased outlets, as the page shows. I have deep respect for the several experienced editors contradicting me, but I don't think they are responding to the gravamen of my points, Alas. Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But "he has a lot of Catholic friends" is very very far from "a Bishop believes he was about to convert to Catholicism." If the latter is WP:DUE, there will be more sources covering it than just Catholic ones; given the large amount of coverage Kirk has gotten in the wake of his death, a member of team XYZ saying "actually I think he was about to join my team" obviously requires a lot of WP:INDEPENDENT secondary coverage to be WP:DUE. If you want to write a more andodyne statement that he has praised Catholicism, find broader, more neutral sources and do that; the statement you are trying to add is much more specific and exceptional and therefore requires wider sourcing than seems to exist. It's not really that complicated - you clearly think the specific opinion expressed by Bishop Brennan is a big deal, which means you presumably believe it will eventually get more widespread coverage; if it does, that will make it obvious how due it really is. Set a news alert for Bishop Joseph Brennan and Charlie Kirk, and wait until that coverage appears, then add it to the article using that. You object to the large amount of text we give to his own faith and his views on Islam and Judaism -- but coverage for those things is broad (ie. we're not just relying on sources from within his own faith or from within Islam and Judaism), independent (ie. not written by a family member of the person whose statement is being highlighted), and WP:SUSTAINED, all of which establishes that due weight for them is high. Once sourcing like that covers this statement, it can be included. You say that you're only trying to add a brief sentence - but coverage of Kirk recently has been overwhelming; huge swaths of people have weighed in saying "actually Kirk totally supported whatever I care about." If we added every single such comment the article would be an unreadable mess. So we should wait for broad, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY coverage from high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: The 2020 consensus appears to have been additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts, I don't see any change there... Its still additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts. You seem to be ignoring the vast majority of that discussion and cherry picking only the one piece that slightly supports your argument... And then casting the aspersion that "but that was long before the Charlie Kirk hysteria hit the fan." as if everyone is actively changing their opinions about CNA because of what they said about Kirk... Completely inappropriate and you should strike. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:'CNA is an EWTN publication and therefore is only marginally reliable. The 2020 consensus appears to have been additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts, I don't see any change there.'

[63] Catholic News Agency to be used for David Haas. Hass is a Catholic, and CNA reported in detail on him. It reported the embarrassing facts after EWIn purchased it, re Hass's predatory character, and outlined punitive measures adopted by the Church authorities.

I think this falls into the “best used with in text attribution” category. Reporting won’t be inaccurate, but it may be one sided. Blueboar

I would say it is probably reliable for fact. Buidhe

I would say reliable with attribution for statements by Catholic figures, handle with care for anything else,Guy

That was 2020. And that was what I checked before posting my edit on the Charlie Kirk page. CNA suddenly became totally unacceptable and unreliable. No nuanced reading and evaluation in 2020.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

casting the aspersion that "but that was long before the Charlie Kirk hysteria hit the fan." as if everyone is actively changing their opinions about CNA because of what they said about Kirk... Completely inappropriate and you should strike.

Stet. That's not an aspersion. An aspersion is a remark that damages another person's reputation. The hysteria around Charlie Kirk refers to the mediatic hullabaloo occasioned by his death, a fair description, and in no way can be construed as a reference to editors here. I don-t know how one comes up with things like the innuendo I am fighting an anti-Catholic conspiracy, or that I am smearing editors because I think the uproar over Kirk's death, like Diana's, is hysterical (not in the dialect sense of that adjective)Such misprisions are far too frequent in what should be closely parsed arguments on wikipedia, alas, in lieu of which bickering is baited. I'm no gudgeon.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then what does "Yet RSN approved of using it in the one discussion we had, but that was long before the Charlie Kirk hysteria hit the fan." mean? Your use of "yet" and "but" seem to be suggesting things you now say they do not so lets get some clarity on this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of "yet" and "but" seem (sic) to be suggesting things you now say they do not so lets get some clarity on this

Your sentence is completely obscure, since I don't know what is putatively being suggested. I can't be expected to provide clarity for a remark by another editor that lacks it. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm something may have been lost in translation... Lets just circle back to the main point, the 2020 consensus appears to have been additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts and its still additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts unless I'm missing something... Consensus seems to be consistent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Nishidani you've lost me, I don't see how my comment in anyway connects with conspiracy theories. Have you mixed up my comment with someone else? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize where I am the culprit. Mea culpa. I addressed you and alluded to the strange between=the-lines interpretations being given to my comments, such as AndyThe Grump's remark above:'I would appreciate it if Nishidani stopped insinuating that everyone disagreeing with him over this is a part of some great anti-Catholic conspiracy.' My apologies for creating your perplexity.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone contest that the bishop has stated this? Because that's really all the source is claiming. Cortador (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNA is part of the "Eternally Confused Network". At times they have argued that the world is 4,000 years old from what I recall. There should be no confusion about their lack of reliability on factual matters. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aquillon.

A final note before falling silent again.

But I am not trying to add the Brennan quote. On the talk page and here I stated that the revert was flawed because, regardless of that anecdote (which began in 2021, not with Brennan's remark), he had a connection to Catholicism via his wife and his attendance of mass, in his own words. I again don't object to extensive mention of Islam, Judaism and Evangelism, but to rejecting an innocuous several words on his Catholic wife and mass attendance. That interests Catholics, and was repeatedly carried in their press, but that press is not 'mainstream, nor is 12% of the sourcing.

So we should wait for broad, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY coverage from high-quality sources

That is theory, not practice on wikipedia. The Charlie Kirk page has a large number ofsources that fail these criteria (Deseret News twice), The Arizona Republic 5 times, the large scale use of obscurer regional news outlets reporting details never taken up by the mainstream), and not a few are confessional, as is this Catholic source. But, back to the real world. cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue of WP:DUE (also WP:MINORASPECT and WP:VNOT), not of reliability. End of discussion. Not everything credibly reported needs to be shoved into a Wikipedia article. We don't need to vent our personal feelings about religious or conservative sources: that only gives more fuel to critics of Wikipedia looking for bias among editors. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Cover Museum

Hi all,
This is my first time using this noticeboard, so apologies if this is the wrong place for this question.
I recently stumbled across the Naval Cover Museum while conducting research for USCGC Dione. I was interested to know if the website would be considered reliable or not. I've found this list of contributors who seem to largely have some form of qualifications. I'm most interested in Greg Ciesielski, as he wrote the website's entry for Dione.
I am mostly interested in its note that Dione was awarded the American Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. I cannot seem to find this information elsewhere on the internet. I know other ships that participated in World War II received awards including the two mentioned above, but again, I cannot find any other mention of Dione receiving the two awards on the internet.
Would this website be considered a reliable source, especially for a piece of information that I cannot find anywhere else? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is theweek.in a reliable source?

I saw this page being used for budget estimation of that film. Is it reliable enough? Babin Mew (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a notification on WT:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force to see if they have any opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No Indian website is entirely reliable, especially regarding fiscal information. Except Box Office India, but their coverage is limited to North Indian films. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genuine question, why is no Indian website considered reliable other than the one you mentioned? (Arachnid's userpage | what did I do now) 08:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORGINDIA is likely something to keep in mind. - Amigao (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArachnidInner, because a lot of them have conflicting/contradictory information. Also, many cite Sacnilk, a non-reliable site per WP:FRUIT. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment request: ettoday.net

Unless someone provides evidence against ETtoday's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it should be considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.

— @Newslinger, on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#ettoday.net

There are serious issues of fact-checking and accuracy among most Taiwanese media organisations. Therefore, in Chinese Wikipedia, Taiwanese media organisations are marginally reliable by default, unless someone proves otherwise.

In Chinese Wikipedia, on a discussion of news.ebc.net.tw in 2024, a Eastern Broadcasting Company media, someone has cited their violations of journalism ethics, escapeilly on living persons. Other people also discuss their tendency towards sensational reporting (which is common among Taiwanese media organisations). News from Eastern Broadcasting Company is, therefore, marginally reliable in Chinese Wikipedia.

However, on Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide#Taiwan, news from Eastern Broadcasting Company is reliable per a discussion in 2020, causing my confusion on enwp's assessment under the influence of Cite Unseen. I, therefore, request a reassessment of news from the Eastern Broadcasting Company.

I would also like to ping @JzG, Feminist, and Newslinger: who has discussed ETtoday before, and @SuperGrey: who maintains Meta:Cite Unseen (a gadget that performs reliability of various sources), and is active on zhwp and enwp both. Saimmx (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Taiwanese mass media you link to doesn't mention fact-checking anywhere. It mainly discusses how public trust in media is low in Taiwan, which by itself doesn't have anything to do with reliability. Half of that section is also missing sources. And even if this was all true, making a blanket assessment that one source is unreliable because others from the same country are unreliable isn't helpful.

The discussion on Chinese Wikipedia you link to has screenshots of comments section, which isn't good enough for a fact check. The RfC was apparently about Afghanistan (linked by OP), and the article link is dead. I found an archive link, and the article is about a bridge collapse in Italy. I don't see the connection, or what the issue with that article was. Cortador (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in explicit fact-checking issues among mass media in Taiwan, you may want to read zh:臺灣媒體亂象 (lit, "chaotic appearance among Taiwanese media") in Chinese Wikipedia, escapeilly the "未經查證" (lit, "failed to verify"), "涉嫌扭曲原意" (lit, "accusions of distorting original meanings"), and "造謠爭議" (lit, "fake rumour controversies") sections. Of course, there are some issues with the entry, but it's a good start.

---

Take the "accusions of distorting original meanings" for example, the United Daily News titled "美智庫學者：下任台灣總統須接受九二共識" ("The next Taiwanese President need to accept 1992 Consensus, said a scholar from American think tank") when reporting a video. The "scholar" here refers to Bonnie S. Glaser, who responsed, "How do I get UDN to retract the story? Which idiot wrote it?", for its misleading nature (In the original video, Glaser guessed that Xi Jinping would like to ask the next Taiwanese President to accept the Consensus).

The screenshots of the comments section are people who complained about something similar to what Dr Glaser has faced - This rider was charged 239 NTD (100 NTD as tips included) in 600 metres when riding taxi. When the rider complained about it to the taxi driver, the driver then reported to the EBC, and they "report" that the rider refused to pay the taxi fee. And this one, the news "reported" that a factory creating counterfeit products - the fact is, actually, the two companies have a dispute on trademark rights, but the news failed to verify it (and it leads to another issue of mass media - unbalanced report).

These incidents are only a tip of the iceberg. Such misleading reporting is common in mass media in Taiwan. Or even, outright fake stories by news media is not unheard of (zh:腳尾飯事件). Saimmx (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in the discussion, there's a "news" about "earthquake prediction" from an "expert", and the expert denied the report with anger. Saimmx (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does the reliability of United Daily News have anything to do with the reliability of ETtoday, an entirely separate source under separate ownership? feminist🩸 (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the reliablity of mass media in Taiwan in general. Saimmx (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep linking to Wikipedia article again and again here, which we cannot use as a basis to determine the reliability of sources. At most, we can use the sources they cite, provided they are themselves reliable and assess the reliability of ETtoday.

If you want a blanket downgrade of sources from Taiwan in general, which is quite the ask for any country that doesn't have fully state-controlled media, you need to make a really good case for it. Cortador (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the connection, or what the issue with that article was.

It is, yes, unrelated to Italy or Afghanistan - the OP is reporting another incident. The OP was watching ETToday news of a politician dressing in swinsuits from her Instagram feed, and the OP questioned ETToday's professionalism and taste of reporting. While others didn't see the connection as well, they cited many other issues from the Taiwanese media. Saimmx (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does this effect reliability? Cortador (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me think about it - when reading how editors disscuss about reliability of mass media in Taiwan, an editor has addressed similiar issue like you, while another editor addressed issues on fabrications.

It is hard to make a balance, but I think sensationalism and bias among mass media in Taiwan should be noticed, and the inconsistent reliability on ettoday.net of enwp and zhwp is another point I am currently concerned about. Saimmx (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question: how does this affect reliability?

The links you provide don't mention ETtoday. If they do, please point out where. Cortador (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enwp and zhwp have different reliability standards. While sometimes the enwp is stricter (e.g., pen name = unreliable), sometimes it’s the reverse. I would recommend you focus on ETtoday and its reliability, instead of asking enwp to accept this generalized “default to marginal reliability” rating. SuperGrey (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And since you mentioned Cite Unseen — Cite Unseen can display reliability ratings from zhwp when there isn’t a enwp rating. Therefore, if you use Cite Unseen to check their reliabilities, you don’t need to bring them up here. Only the enwp-rated sources need “re-evaluation.” SuperGrey (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I get it, thanks for explaintion. I feel that the discussion is going to some weird directions. But now it makes sense because of different reliability standards among two communities. Saimmx (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia community generally does not make a determination about the reliability of all sources in a geographic area at once. According to the World Press Freedom Index's 2025 rankings, Taiwan is ranked #24 with a score of 77.04, which shows a higher level of press freedom than many other countries with mainstream news organizations that are considered generally reliable per the news organizations guideline, including the United States, which is ranked #57 with a score of 65.49. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to consider Taiwanese sources (as a class) to be more prone to sensationalism than, for example, American sources (as a class). If there is a specific article on the English Wikipedia for which a citation to ETtoday is being discussed or disputed, we could make a more exact determination about reliability for that particular use case. — Newslinger talk 06:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I think I paid too much attention to poor quality among mass media without considering other factors such as their different views on different communities. Maybe it is best to discuss media case by case on the English Wikipedia, as you suggested. Saimmx (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: UFO content creators as RS for UFO topics

I'm self-aborting this RfC prior to significant other editor participation to workshop and reintroduce based on early feedback from PARAKANYAA. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Q1:Under WP:FRIND, is material from UFO content creators a reliable source for UFOs and adjacent topics including physics, aviation, armed forces, engineering, astronomy, government secrecy, and the paranormal?
With respect to UFOs and adjacent topics (including astronomy, engineering, physics, and political science) are UFO content creators covered by WP:FRIND and should they be used only to the extent they "have been noticed and given proper context in mainstream sources"?

Yes
No

For operationalization of this RfC, "UFO content creator" means a person principally known for appearances in UFO-themed podcasts/documentaries/broadcasting; speaking at UFO conventions; or writing popular texts on UFOs. It does not include persons writing on the topic of UFO belief or its history, distinct from UFOs as an alleged physical occurrence. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC); edited 02:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q2: Is Nick Pope a UFO content creator within the meaning of Q1?

Yes
No

Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q3: Is Richard Dolan a UFO content creator within the meaning of Q1?

Yes
No

Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (UFO topics)

On Q1 Yes ~~Option 3~~.

On Q2 Yes. Nick Pope is best known for dozens of appearances in UFO documentary-style films,[64] as emcee of "Ancient Aliens: LIVE on Tour!" (part of the Ancient Aliens entertainment franchise),[65] his numerous quotes in tabloids commenting on UFOs, and his non-critical, popular texts on UFOs (see Amazon author page: [66]).

On Q3 Yes. Dolan has appeared dozens of times on Coast to Coast AM, [67] has written numerous non-scientific books exclusively about UFOs,[68] and appears at UFO festivals like Contact in the Desert. [69] Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC); edited 02:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Q1 - oppose the question itself. This is impossible to give a "generally reliable answer" to by its nature, or any universal judgement here. We cannot ~~deprecate~~ declare generally unreliable all people who have ever written in a topic area by the same brush. People in any field have dramatically different reliabilities and usabilities, and the phrasing here is not clear. Some write for university presses, some self publish, some may be widely cited by others, and some are not. "Principally known" is not helpful; if someone is notable for say, being a physics professor, but does alien stuff on the side, which is mentioned in no RS, are they "principally known" for aliens? I would say no, but you might say yes. It is not clear cut at all to say "persons writing on the topic of UFO belief or its history" because in many cases these are heavily connected or synonymous with the history topic; how would you cover the history without it? I really don't see how we would separate them, and anyone could quite easily wikilawyer this to say anyone the arguer doesn't like falls under this. Are skeptics not also "UFO content creators"? Why is appearance on a podcast our reliability metric? How many times do they have to appear on the podcast before their reliability takes a hit? The other two questions I haven't looked into and do not care what the result is as I have never seen them used. From what I know probably not great sources. All of the examples below of Pope being cited are very easy to remove (stuff like him including something in a top 10 listicle or Nick Pope Says this) PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We cannot deprecate" Just in point of clarification, deprecation is not an option presented here as there's no technical way to add individual authors to the edit filter.
"I would say no, but you might say yes." Yeah, that's pretty much how WP works. Disagreements are discussed until consensus is revealed. The RfC merely asks the question if our existing FRIND guideline applies to UFO content creators, and its passing would have the very modest effect of simply affirming they don't exist in some evolutionary mainstream category of "edge science". As to who is a UFO content creator, that will still have to be decided on an individual basis (through Talk pages, etc.) as the situation warrants. Indeed, this may be the most modest RfC presented here in recent memory as Q1 has will have no immediate effect of RSPing any actual source. Chetsford (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it in the generally accepted sense, not the Wikipedia sense... which was probably not a great decision on the Wikipedia board where that term is most relevant. Lol my bad.

That is not what the RFC is asking; it is asking if this extremely broad swathe of sources, of widely varying reliability and acceptance, are generally reliable, unclear/additional considerations, or unreliable. Your definition of "UFO content creator" in determining this is not useful. We should be worried about whether the writer has a reputation for fact checking, acceptance by others, and accuracy; from what little I know of Pope, I would say he does not. Why bother with a whole other kind of source classification specific to UFO writers, if we are still going to do it 1-by-1 on who is reliable or not? What does this RfC solve? An "economization" of RfC time is not always good - every case is going to be different. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Good questions, moving my response to Discussion so I don't bludgeon this space.) Chetsford (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the updated version of the RfC: I do not think the classification of someone as a "UFO content creator" results in increased clarity on their reliability, so I still oppose the question.

Do they promote WP:FRINGE theories on UFOs, especially if they lack other signs of reliability? If so, they should not generally be cited for that material. As for the question of if these specific two writers are reliable, from what I know (very little outside what has been presented in this RfC), the case for their reliability here seems to be poor. But whether they are arbitrarily defined as a "UFO content creator" may correlate with unreliability but it is not how we should be deciding who to cite. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (UFO topics)

This RfC attempts to economize RSN time by aggregating decision-making related to voluminous, running discussions about individual UFO content creators and intense disagreements as to whether they're subject-matter experts or not. Insofar as the two mentioned here go: we have previously and extensively discussed Nick Pope (e.g. [70] [71] etc.) and his various writings and other commentary are currently used as a source across the project (e.g. Ilkley Moor UFO incident, Ilkley Moor, Flying Saucer Working Party, Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, Narrative of the abduction phenomenon, Time-traveler UFO hypothesis, etc.). Richard Dolan has been less extensively discussed [72]but his writings are also cited occasionally across the project. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In resp to PARAKANYAA, "What does this RfC solve?" Excising even one of these sources that currently infect our encyclopedia prompts immediate objection and, often, weeks of drawn-out, emotive fights that are then ginned-up into elaborate, albeit hamfisted, off-WP canvassing efforts. As one of many examples, we currently cite Richard Dolan as the sole source for the claim that Philip Klass defamed Stanton Friedman. My recent attempt to remove that resulted in a prompt objection and I self-reverted. There exists a belief by some of our fellow editors that ufology has evolved into a mainstream subject of scientific inquiry uncovered by FRIND and people like Dolan and Pope are SMEs. While the very modest construction of this RfC may seem too understated for what we typically do at RSN, simply affirming that UFO content creators are covered by FRIND (leaving open the question of "who is") will be a minor help. No, it's not a fix-all so, for editors who want silver bullets or nothing, it may not be satisfying. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but I don't think this will help the problem. This will result in just as long out and dramatic fights over whether someone fits these bizarre criteria, focusing on issues that really aren't of much importance or carry weight when evaluating reliability, like podcast or TV appearances, rather than the important criteria, whether someone has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. These also seem very easy to wikilawyer into both supporting inclusion of bad sources (hey, the man who thinks the US government is being controlled by The Greys has never been on a ufo podcast/tv show, he's reliable) and excluding decent sources (writer who is published by a university press, is widely cited and doesn't promote the subject matter appeared as a guest on some garbage history channel show in 2005, he isn't) - principally known is one of those phrases that can be wikilawyered into oblivion. And something like writing a "popular text" on the subject matter as a strike against it is just baffling to me.

Also every single example you gave of Pope being cited is him being cited a single time, except for the "narrative" article, where Pope is cited a total of 3 times for minor, easily removable statements, and the FSWP, in which he is cited twice for opinions that shouldn't even be there and seems obviously removable. While I assume there are more, the citing of this man for such surface level statements does not strike me as a dire problem; should it be removed? Yes, But I don't see this as enough of an issue to form a whole new category of source evaluation.

About the Philip Klass claim: this is one paragraph, in a very large section mostly cited to other sources, cited to a dead link from a publisher that does not seem great. I can't see where the objection was, but I don't think the dispute over a single author's usage on one paragraph is worth this extremely complicated categorization system. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a Yes/No as to whether UFO content creators are covered by our existing FRIND guideline constitutes an "extremely complicated categorization system" but this may be a question on which we'll have to agree to disagree.
"to form a whole new category of source evaluation" There may be some confusion here. The RfC simply asks formal community affirmation that UFO enthusiasts are covered by our existing FRIND guideline. No "new category of source evaluation" is being proferred. However, out of a preponderance of caution and to eliminate any ambiguity, I've modified the construction of the RfC since we're the only two !voters thus far. Chetsford (talk)
Not addressing the new phrasing (I need to think on it for a bit), but as for the old phrasing, my issue was that wasn't this RfC was asking. The RfC asked if the entire kind of this source fell into a binary set of categories which FRIND did not mention, based on the classification of the writer being a "UFO content creator". New phrasing does not seem on the surface to have this problem so I will think on that for a bit before perhaps modifying my response. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DragTimes for car acceleration figures

For List of fastest production cars by acceleration, the use of DragTimes as a source has been debated. YouTube itself is considered generally unreliable aside from official accounts of otherwise reliable sources, but in this case I feel it is short on peer review, and the channel itself states "Videos on this channel are for entertainment purposes only and do not necessarily reflect real world performance". Additions to the page using this source often get reverted, then reverted back because the source already exists in other entries. As I've discussed in the past, like at Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration/Archive 3#765 LT new fastest car?, I'd like clarity on whether this source should exist on the page at all. --Vossanova ^o< 01:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "entertainment purposes only" is probably just a legal cover-your-butt type thing in case somebody sues them because they bought a car based on their review and it went slightly slower. Otherwise they do seem to do things in a professional manner. They also show the official time slips, which adds a lot of credibility.

On the other hand, they don't say whether the cars are 100% stock or if they have any modifications (especially tyres and fuel) or if they have been lightened (eg removing spare tyre, removing passenger seats). Stepho talk 23:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think that the "entertainment purposes" disclaimer speaks for itself, regardless of what the reasoning behind it may be.

And more broadly, anything on YouTube is inherently a self-published source, so unless it's posted by an established organization (MotorWeek, Car & Driver, etc.) it doesn't meet Wikipedia's overall guidelines.

Given that, I'd say DragTimes shouldn't be used on the page at all. --Sable232 (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADL removing content, following criticism on social media

[73] (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is about them specifically deleting their glossary [74], which being honest, was not very good and was, as they say, very often out of date. They were generally all really short (a paragraph at most) with no author, date, citations, or update history indicated and so were not very useful sources, so... can't say I'm sad to see it go. The ADL has a lot of good source stuff but this was always on the lower rung. We have 20 citations to it and all seem very replaceable. For an example, see this deleted glossary [75], versus the still-live backgrounder on the same topic [76]. The ADL also loves to randomly delete or "archive" (delete) stuff on their website, as does the SPLC, so at least they announced it this time.

Though the fact that this was all because of Kirk and because most people don't know what Christian Identity is... PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A glossary is an index of words/terms regarding a topic with explanations. I don't think how the explanations being "a paragraph at most" is valid criticism here. Cortador (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reliable sources board for Wikipedia, where we are supposed to evaluate the reliableness of sources for our purposes, and their uncited, never-updated, undated and unattributed glossary entries were one of the least reliable or useful things they put out. It was the worst part of their website bar none and the fact that it is gone raises my opinion of their reliability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what relevance does the length of the entries have? Cortador (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence they were not useful sources and so this isn't them deleting information that has much impact on us. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It remains frustrating to see a once-valuable anti-hate org just torch their entire reputation. Simonm223 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does a glossary update equate to torching their reputation? Does leaving the outdated version somehow make it more reliable? DN (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the glossary apparently debuted in 2022 according to link from buidhe. its hard to believe the claim it is outdated in 2.5 years. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find it hard to believe. I looked at it quite a bit since I like to edit about far-righters. Its inclusions were very bizarre and iirc it included a some groups that were defunct prior to 2022 with little updates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

other info:
A) Current consensus about the glossary was "In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the ADL's hate symbol database is reliable for identifying the existence of a symbol and for straightforward descriptive facts, but not for more complex details such as a symbol's history. In such cases, in-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable."
B) we basically replicate that database here List_of_symbols_designated_by_the_Anti-Defamation_League_as_hate_symbols

to confirm, are these the same thing as the glossary mentioned here?

EDIT: Nope, I was wrong, this is the hate symbol database, which appears to still be up User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. The hate symbol database still stands. The glossary was fairly recent, started in 2022, and was just textual entries on a variety of things, including racist murderers, racist groups, random concepts, etc. The glossary had most of the same problems that led to us declaring the hate symbol database questionable (unmarked dates, no sourcing/no listed authors, no proof it was ever updated, often wrong), but we did not discuss it there I don't think. IMO it was even worse because the hate symbol database was at least a kind of classification, provided some kind of visual evidence of its usage, and was more detailed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral order of service

A date of death for Ricky Hatton, of 14 September 2025, has been sourced to this story at BBC News, which shows an image of his funeral order of service showing the dates "6th October 1978 - 14th September 2025". The BBC report itself does not give a definite date, but says only "The former world champion was found dead at his home in Hyde, Greater Manchester, at the age of 46 earlier this month." BBC News is obviously a reliable source, but is the image itself, attributed to "Frank Massey & Son Ltd" (presumably the family's funeral directors), also a WP:RS? I would argue that the image is either a self-published source and/or an unreliable source and that publication by BBC News does not confer any degree of reliability. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in this kind of thing, but it's my opinion that it should matter whether controversy is reasonably expected. In controversial cases where a person's exact date of death has significant consequences, I think it ought to be "ironclad third-party references or nothing". But I don't think every case is like that. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. But do you think an Order of Service, printed by a funeral director, is a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a self-published primary source. Self-published primary sources can be reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, they "can be reliable"? Is this one reliable? How can we tell? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider it reliable for the date of death. Go with what the reliable source (the BBC report itself) says. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. The Ricky Hatton article still boldly shows 14 September as a definite date, even without a supporting statement in the main body where the source is. I have deliberately withdrawn from the relevant discussion threads at both Talk:Ricky Hatton#Ricky did on Died 14th September 2025 and Talk:Deaths in 2025#Ricky Hatton, as I was being repeatedly accused of calling the family liars. So I am rather reluctant to make any more edits on this topic. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

I am currently reviewing the article English claims to the French throne, which cites several books that are obviously reliable sources. However, I have doubts about four specific books:

Heath, Richard (2023). Henry VIII and Charles V: Rival Monarchs, Uneasy Allies. Pen & Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-3990-8458-1.
Mortimer, Ian (2008). The Perfect King: The Life of Edward III. Random House. ISBN 978-1-4070-6642-4.
Mortimer, Ian (2010a). 1415: Henry V's Year of Glory. Random House. ISBN 978-1-84595-097-2.
Mortimer, Ian (2010b). Medieval Intrigue: Decoding Royal Conspiracies. Continuum (Bloomsbury Academic). ISBN 978-1-84706-589-6.
Mortimer, Ian (2013). The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King. Random House. ISBN 978-1-4070-6633-2.

As far as I know, these publishing houses do not employ a peer-review process, so I am unsure whether the above books should be regarded as reliable sources. I would be grateful for your comments on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortimer does seem to count as a subject-matter expert on English royal history for the purposes of WP:SPS; see examples like here or here, so whether the sources are actually peer-reviewed doesn't matter; we can count them as self-published. The Fears of Henry IV for instance returns 82 cites on Google Scholar, while The Perfect King returns 97. The Mortimer sources all seem fine at a GA level.

Heath on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. Google scholar returns 0 cites, neither monarchs' articles cite it, and there's plenty of scholarly sources available about both of them that could substitute. I would take issue with that one if I was doing a GAN review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely publication by Random House doesn't mean WP:SPS applies? It's one of the "Big 5"? DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bloomsbury Academic (an imprint of which publishes Medieval Intrigue) says it's books are peer reviewed on its website here. DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Music Week considered reliable?

I read this page reporting about Lil' Wayne and YouTuber/musician CG5 having their songs available for game developers during the Game Developers Conference. Is this reliable or unreliable? Jibblesnark86 (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music Week is IPSO-regulated (according to their site), names all their writers and editors, and the information in that article isn't anything particularly outrages. Seems fine to me. Cortador (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Writers | Pirate Wires".

[2] ttps://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/02/elon-musk-wikipedia/681577/

[3] ttps://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/mike-solana-pirate-wires/680355/

[4] ttps://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-827351#google_vignette

[5] ttps://www.jpost.com/international/article-852583

[6] ttps://www.jpost.com/business-and-innovation/article-833180

[7] ttps://www.timesofisrael.com/adl-anti-israel-wikipedia-editors-colluding-in-anti-israel-bias-on-site/

[8] ttps://www.jns.org/wikipedias-anti-israel-propaganda-mocks-objectivity-and-destroys-its-credibility/

[9] ttps://www.jns.org/wikipedia-editors-colluded-to-delegitimize-israel/

[10] ttps://www.jns.org/wikipedia-bans-8-editors-6-of-them-anti-israel/

[11] ttps://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/antisemitism-news/wikipedia-bans-eight-editors-six-of-them-anti-israel/2025/01/28/

[12] ttps://www.thefp.com/p/how-wikipedia-became-propaganda-site

[13] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/wikipedia-controlled-by-far-left-why-elon-musk-wants-people-to-stop-donating-to-platform/articleshow/114614574.cms

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards