Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 483

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 480Archive 481Archive 482Archive 483Archive 484Archive 485→Archive 489

RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

Option 2 has the most support, both from editors commenting and from evidence presented and policies cited. This is an advocacy organization on a controversial topic, and should be used with attribution. The organization does appear to gather and responsibly report claims and information gathered directly from primary sources, and is widely used with attribution by reliable news sources. It is most reliable when reporting information directly received. It also expresses opinions and analysis of the larger Israel-Palestine conflict, for which it can be cited as an opinion source; other sources are needed to provide larger context from multiple perspectives.

Taking one example [1] that many editors pointed to, Euro-Med did not clearly say that an Israel Supreme Court decision had legalized organ theft; it said the court had allowed burial of bodies in the "Numbers Cemetery". It does not make clear how this decision relates to other laws passed by the Knesset and which exactly legally authorizes the taking of organs (if that's true). Other sources are available on the legal question and report it in more detail, and these should be consulted and non-advocacy sources preferentially used.

In the same article, Euro-Med has direct testimony from doctors in Gaza who found that some bodies had missing organs. It is careful to say this is not proof of organ theft, because these warzone doctors did not have time to do a full analysis, and some of the bodies had undergone surgical procedures prior to death. If appropriate for article scope, these sorts of facts can be reported with attribution to Euro-Med and - especially given the controversial nature of the topic - with mention of the sources Euro-Med is citing and enough detail for readers to get a fair sense of how conclusive or inconclusive these reports are.

The point of its article is for Euro-Med to express concern about possible organ theft in this instance and to call for an investigation. It also accuses Israel of violating related international laws. If appropriate to the scope of an article, those accusations can be reported in Wikipedia as opinions of Euro-Med, presumably with context and additional sources that give due weight to other points of view. -- Beland (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

What is the reliabilty of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor?


  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Additional considerations
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Deprecate


An RfCbefore can be found here. The source is used 89 times. FortunateSons (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Euro-Med)

The case for a strong bias, particularly against Israel, is clear. On personnel, with neither of those being conclusive but both being strongly indicative in my opinion, Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews and Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas.[4] While we don't depreciate sources for the views and actions of their high-level staff, I consider it to be strongly indicative, in line with the consideration of Greenblatt's statements for the ADL's reliability.
On specifics, there are repeated cases of statements and insinuations not in alignment with reliable sources, for which use should be avoided; prototypically, the case of alleged organ harvesting is most obvious: claims regarding organ harvesting, considered by the ADL to be reminiscent of blood libel (GUNREL; but rather detailed in this case, therefore useful), are not supported by evidence or reliable sources. In general, they regularly do not retract statements if no later evidence is found: for example, they still claim that there is no evidence of armed groups using hospitals, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as shown in our article Al-Shifa Hospital siege, which only shows a dispute about scope, not use. FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Israel has actually, in the past, taken Palestinian organs without their families' permission[5]. In the current conflict, it is also a fact that certain Gaza officials have stated[6] that organs were missing in Palestinian corpses (whether these statements are true is unknown). EuroMed's organ claims have been mentioned in RS[7]. Likewise Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital shows there is disagreement in RS over whether Israeli claims regarding the hospital are true or false.VR (Please ping on reply) 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@Vice regent Regarding the organs, yes, that is largely covered in the ADL-link I provided. Dubious information being picked up by one (or a small number of) RS doesn’t make it non-dubious, and most of the coverage of those claims has been in low-quality sources for good reason. Particularly, one cannot use an article referring to the same allegation as the claim being broadly made, the issue is that it’s them, a few officials and no-one else (the New Arab source).
For al-Shifa: there is a dispute about scope, but no serious dispute about use, and EMHRM says In a new statement released today, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called for an independent international investigation into Israel’s absurd claims that Palestinian groups were using Al-Shifa Medical Complex and other hospitals in the Gaza Strip for military purposes. Do you believe, based on RS, that the claim of military purposes (not: command centers) is “absurd”? FortunateSons (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Re: organ theft. First, can you kindly strike out the blood libel comment? Second, its not just EMRHM. It's also Euro News[8], Wafa[9], New Arab[10], Palestine Chronicle[11], Middle East Eye[12] who have covered allegations of missing organs.
Re: Al-Shifa. You're taking that out of context. That particular EMHRM article says "publishing three-dimensional maps of massive headquarters inside and beneath Al-Shifa Medical Complex...the Israeli army has been unable to produce any solid evidence to support its claims, said Euro-Med Monitor". It does acknowledge that "a few rifles and other armaments" were found in the hospital. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@Vice regent the ADL described it as Longstanding accusations of Israeli organ harvesting have reemerged in the aftermath of the October 7 massacres. This conspiracy theory plays on the blood libel trope, which dates to the Middle Ages and alleges that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake their Passover bread, and I attributed it to them as reminiscent of blood libel, which I think is an accurate summary. Can you elaborate on why you want me to strike that?
For the sources, the only clearly high-quality source is Euronews, which adds no new content, as far as I can tell. The others rely on the same two source (officials & EMHRM), have significant bias, disputed reliability, or a mix of those.
Regarding Al-Shifa, allow me to ask the following question: do you believe their article (which is not retracted) to contain no significant statements that are either wrong or likely to be misunderstood by the average reader? FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Responded here. Keep in mind EMHRM's Al-Shifa article was published on Nov 17, 2023 and evidence Israel has presented has only been made public after that, not before. Even then, evidence presented by Israel about Al-Shifa has been doubted by Al-Jazeera and Forensic Architecture. I don't find EMHRM's article "significantly wrong" when read entirely given public knowledge on Nov 17.VR (Please ping on reply) 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I understand that view, but considering the statements (again, about military use, not command centers) were (at least almost) conclusively proven wrong within the next 3 days (not even including historical alleged use), and is phrased in an inflammatory manner, it seems like a reliable source should have issued a correction at the very least, particularly when considering the arguments (made by others, not you specifically, just to be clear) that led to the reduction of the reliability for the ADL, whose errors I found to be significantly less egregious (and some of which were factually incorrect). FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews: Richard Falk himself is Jewish, so if you're trying to suggest that he's antisemitic, you're going to have to show some very strong evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
In general, Jews can be antisemitic. I‘m not making a statement in my own voice, but our own article includes pretty significant accusations (not even including the dog incident). For Israel, the sections are extensive enough not to require further elaboration, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
It's an extraordinary claim to call a Jewish person antisemitic, and you should only make that claim if you have very strong evidence, which you don't. This just looks like character assassination to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Again, I‘m not saying he‘s antisemitic, and the claim I actually did make is factually accurate, but allow me to elaborate: a) Falk has made highly contentious statements about Israel and Jews/Jewish Orgs, b) and some of those claims have been referred to as antisemitic, covered by RS enough that they are in our article about him. Do you disagree with either of those points? FortunateSons (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
This is becoming off topic. Also please be wary of bludgeoning, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Respectfully, responding only to people who directly challenge different parts of my argument, as I have done here, is generally not considered bludgeoning, particularly when considering my relative share of comments (9/36 and 6/27 in the survey section), which are less than the indicative 1/3. However, I agree that we’re moving off-topic, and appreciate the reminder! FortunateSons (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The dogs claim is not extraordinary, we know that trained dogs are used by Israel to torture detainees, and we know that Israelis soldiers frequently rape and sexually assault detainees, especially but not exclusively male ones. There is nothing particularly extraordinary about reporting detainee testimony that combines these two features.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS, nor has a compelling argument been made to suggest that such falsehoods are inherently linked to the way Euro-Med HRM operates. The assertion that it is only cited by highly partisan sources, and therefore unreliable, is inaccurate. It has been cited by various high quality RS, such as ABC, Amnesty International, AP News, BBC, CNN, The Telegraph, Deutsche Welle, The Guardian, The Hill, The Independent, The Intercept, MSNBC, National Post, NBC News, PBS, Reuters, South China Morning Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, and Times of Israel, just to mention a few. Its reports are based on witness interviews, video and photo evidence, field investigations, and official data. They are also regularly cited by the UN. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clear: widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability.Lf8u2 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
    For example : On June 27, 2024, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera and repeated by LFI MEP Rima Hassan) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
    You need to provide sources for such statements. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
    Here Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians. This is just one example — FortunateSons has provided much more extensive reasoning as to why it falls short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia’s standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    Do you have sources showing that this is a rumour? The use of dogs has been covered by other outlets - while not all carry the sexual assault line, the Euro Med article's core claim: that released prisoners are saying that this happens, and that they are in one way or another being brutalised by dogs, is covered in other RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    You are mixing up several topics, you are using sources that use EMHRM as a source to prove it is EMHRM is right, it is a circular reporting. This is exactly how a rumor is launched. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean. The Middle East Monitor piece mentions that there was prior reporting but includes new testimony. It builds on existing reporting that the EMHRM did. The other three sources don't mention it at all. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    If the statement hasn't been debunked or refuted then how does it affect their reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    Is there any RS showing that the accusation is incorrect? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    The fact that a claim has not been refuted does not make it reliable. This is a classic argument from ignorance — assuming something is credible merely because no one has disproven it.
    Extraordinary accusations — such as the IDF using dogs to commit sexual violence — require strong support from high-quality, independent sources (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). If such a claim is not corroborated by major human rights organizations or reputable media, then its inclusion — and the reliability of the source making it — must be seriously questioned.
    A source that publishes such extreme and unsupported allegations cannot meet the standards of WP:RS, particularly on contentious topics. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    That a source's reporting has not been corroborated does not "raise serious concerns about its reliability as a source."
    And neither is it an extrordinary claim. It's well documented in RS that the Israeli military has sexually assaulted Palestinians and that they have used dogs to attack Palestinians as well. The idea that they used dogs to sexually assault Palestinians is therefore hardly extraordinary. Additionally, as SmallAngryPlanet showed above, the RS 972mag has reported that "a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed [...] cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[15] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed, the central allegation in the one (1) piece @Boutboul is talking about is that the Israeli military uses dogs to "attack" prisoners, something that has been cited in RS going back at least a decade or more. One surprising claim in an article (sourced to named individuals, no less) does not make a source non-RS – if that were so I'm not sure which sources we'd be able to use. To use a famous example: the New York Times once ran the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, which turned out to be false on multiple fronts, but I still see them cited up and down wikipedia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    The comparison with The New York Times is flawed for one crucial reason: the NYT later retracted and critically reviewed its reporting on WMDs, acknowledging its failure — a key indicator of editorial accountability. By contrast, Euro-Med Monitor has never retracted, corrected, or clarified its extraordinary claim that the IDF used dogs to sexually assault Palestinian civilians.
    This is not just a fringe detail — it is a serious allegation, unsupported by independent, high-quality sources, and remains uncorrected. That directly reflects on editorial standards, which are a core component of WP:RS. A source's reliability depends on editorial oversight, fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Unlike the NYT, Euro-Med Monitor does not demonstrate these safeguards, and this example is symptomatic of a broader lack of editorial rigor. That’s why its use as a reliable source on contentious topics is problematic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
    Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
    Just earlier in this discussion, you yourself asked for evidence that Euro-Med Monitor had made this claim — which clearly indicates that you found the assertion extraordinary enough to require verification. That alone supports the application of WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
    Now that the claim is confirmed, you're arguing that it is not extraordinary. That’s inconsistent. The fact remains: Claiming that a state military used dogs to sexually assault civilians is extraordinary by any reasonable editorial standard and demands strong, independent corroboration — not a single partisan source, not one anecdotal testimony. Euro-Med Monitor does not meet the reliability criteria outlined in WP:RS, and this kind of sensational, unverified allegation is exactly the type of content WP:FRINGE warns against promoting without robust sourcing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Right now, leaning toward Option 1 per the evidence of use by RS presented by @Lf8u2. I'm open to Option 2 if more evidence is presented that the source is being used detrimentally on-wiki. As with any advocacy org, it is best practice to triangulate Euro-Med's claims with what reliable news orgs are saying and treat claims outside of consensus with more skepticism. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 As I'd say for most reputable advocacy groups we should not assume general reliability, should be careful to attribute statements, etc. However we absolutely should not be treating a reputable advocacy group as generally unreliable solely on the basis of a perceived bias. As other editors have said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is well fulfilled. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Agree it is biased and we should be careful and attribute statements. It seems to work above board though so I'm happy with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per NadVolum ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2: EMHRM has an on-the-ground network of sources that provide information, which other news outlets rely on, as other editors have shown above. The only reason I'm not saying Option 1 is because all sources (even the saint New York Times) have to be considered in context. Disregarding EMHRM for the Israeli-Palestinian subject area would be absurd, given that that's precisely the area where EMHRM is strongest and where it provides novel information that other reliable sources quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - There is no pattern of verifiable (using other RS) falsehoods from Euro-Med as has been alleged. Nor has it been shown that there is a systemic reason – for example through the lack of rigorous editorial and investigatory standards – for these falsehoods to be produced in the first place. EuroMed is a reputable human rights organisation that works with bodies like the UN and European parliament, is cited by other reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty[16], as well as being cited in a diverse array of top-notch RS as noted by @Lf8u2, a list to which I can also add the New York Times ([17], [18], [19], [20]).
I'm legitimately astounded by how Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is being described by some editors here. Blood libel, Hamas front, a blog, worthless, random opinions, constant falsehoods… what are we doing here? I did a search to see where all this might be coming from and found a "fact sheet" about it on the first page of Google results from a group called "NGO Monitor" that contains all of these things, including the stuff about Richard Falk who is chairman of the board of trustees of EuroMed. He also happens to be an esteemed Jewish scholar, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Princeton, UPenn Bsc, Yale LLb, Harvard SJD. But he had the misfortune of being appointed in 2008 by the UN Human Rights Council to be the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, and as has been the case with everyone who has held that position – including the current person, Francesca Albanese – he was subject to a vicious smear campaign by pro-Israeli groups.
This includes "NGO Monitor", which RS describe as a right-wing Israeli propaganda front [21][22][23][24] whose job it is to make these kinds of "fact sheets" that unfortunately end up being used as fodder to dismiss reputable human rights NGOs like Euro-Med. They have also been accused of spreading misinformation and having a politically motivated agenda. The Al-Shifa hospital and organ harvesting points are also on their "fact sheet"; in fact the first two listed in their "activities" section, and I can't see how this could possibly be relevant. What Euro-Med said about Al-Shifa is entirely in line with RS as we ourselves show in the article on the topic. NGO monitor's piece is an article from November 2023 when the Israeli government and military claimed it had uncovered a vast Hamas underground network under Al-Shifa Hospital. Euro-Med said that the Israeli govt had failed to provide solid evidence for this claim and called on independent bodies to investigate it. (link). The govt's claim turned out to be inaccurate as established by RS. Again, citing our article on it to suggest otherwise is strange as we currently refer to Hamas military use of the hospital as "allegations" and cite RS that say no solid proof has been provided for the claim. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31].
The organ harvesting article cites testimonies from doctors in Gaza who examined corpses and relayed it to the Euro-Med investigators. It then uses those allegations as the basis for calling for an investigation to verify them, as any human rights group routinely does. It also refers to reports and laws such as the Supreme Court ruling of 2019 allowing the holding of bodies – all of this is verifiable by RS. In fact, here are some sources for that from RS: [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I found some of this very persuasive until we got to the organ harvesting topic, which I have read a lot about over the years. Specifically, none of the reliable sources listed at the end of the comment actually support the extraordinary claims made by Euromed, but rather mostly relate to much older scandals in which individual medical researchers used organs (of Israelis and Palestinians) for illegitimate purposes, and have no bearing on the 2020s.
Euromed says “According to the human rights group [i.e itself], Israel has recently made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs. One such decision is the 2019 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that permits the military ruler to temporarily bury the bodies in what is known as the “Numbers Cemetery”.” Compare this to the report by B’Tselem (a partisan but very reliable human rights organisation) or Middle East Eye (an anti-Israel weakly reliable source), which report the Supreme Court judgement accurately, with no mention of “organs”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Simonm223's explanation of WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is reliable for Statements of fact (e.g. "Juan purchased a coal-powered car yesterday"); statements of analysis (e.g. "Juan's purchase of a coal-powered car contributed to climate change") and statements of opinion (e.g. "Juan should never have purchased a coal-powered car") may be problematic and should either not be sourced from it or should be used with attribution. Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Attribution should always be considered, extreme caution should be taken in verifying information, and use of the source must not be undue. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 for everything related to the I/P conflict. See the discussion for an example of content unsupported by reliable sources. They exhibit heavy bias, their founder and chairman used to lobby for Hamas [44] and was elated after October 7 attacks). Option 2 for everything else. If their reports are sometimes used by reliable sources, we can quote those. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis¿question? 08:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
    As far as I can see, this link does not lead to anything linking EuroMed to Hamas. Did you intend to post a different link? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
    See here [45]for example Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
    NGO Monitor is not a reliable source and nor on this topic is Israel. What is the evidence of any connection to Hamas, apart from appearing on a 2013 Israeli list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient? Otherwise do you accept the site Conspiracy Watch as a reliable source? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? If you click through to the source of the image it says it's from a delegation visiting Gaza. At the time Haniyeh was arguably the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, so there's plenty of legitimate reasons for international figures to meet with him. It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    It is clear that working in Gaza requires some level of interaction with Hamas, but not to this extent. Other leaders of respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Oxfam, and CARE have never had any public contact with Ismail Haniyeh.
    Unlike major humanitarian NGOs, Euro-Med Monitor does not have the same level of international recognition, transparency, or external oversight. Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas—an organization designated as terrorist by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Egypt, and Paraguay—can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    The terrorist designation is a non-sequitur. How is appearing in a photo with a leader of Gaza's civil government somehow worse than the fact that the vast majority of Israeli journalists served in the IDF? Barak Ravid quit his military position only months before beginning work at Axios. Journalists are in pictures with political leaders all the time, it does not remotely suggest a conflict of interest. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    I did some digging and found this summary of the delegation's activity. They also met with Save the Children (!) and the United Nations (and several other UN agencies). It sounds like Haniyeh gave a speech and held a discussion about the situation in the Gaza at the time. These are perfectly ordinary things for a group of NGO leaders to do, and does not suggest anything untoward. At any rate, we're here to discuss if this source should be considered reliable, and I can't think of any other source we deprecate solely because the person who founded it met with a person one time. (If that alone is disqualifying, it is time to disqualify the vast majority of reliable sources!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    @Bobfrombrockley, the link I've posted establishes the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. He was a senior leader in an organisation described by The Independent as a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government. I don't know whether EMHRM are in any way connected to Hamas and I didn't claim it. For me it's just one more indication of their extreme bias. Alaexis¿question? 22:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
    @Alaexis that article does not establish[es] the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. Shin Bet makes a claim that there is a connection between the two, but the organisation says it plans to take legal action to show that it is an independent organisation. The Independent only provides Israeli intelligence agency sourcing for this claim, which as you might imagine is hardly WP:DUE for allegations of this nature. (Hamas is a proscribed organisation in the UK, so if Shin Bet's claims were true, Clare Short could in theory be at risk of legal consequences in the UK, let alone Israel.) Not only that but Ramy himself is not mentioned in the article. Did you mean to send a different link? (We can also talk about how NGOs work with agencies and governments on the ground – even the UK government's proscribed organisation laws include legal comments suggesting that 'genuinely benign' meetings may be allowed.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think you're interpreting the text of the article correctly. It says "Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations." The part between dashes is not attributed to Moshe Yaalon, it's the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis¿question? 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    In that case I'm not sure how we can possibly come to any conclusions - let alone deprecate a source - because of an unsourced and unverified comment! Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 There is no way to restore NPOV with this steady push to deprecate center-right/right sources and keep far-left, hyper-politicized sources like Euro-Med HRM. Also: these discussions should seek to draw in editors who have not dominated the I/P space. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
ADL is cited more frequently than EMHRM, but it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, citation frequency does not equate to reliability. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm curious how you can square Option 1 for an advocacy group, when you've previously said option 3 for a WP:NEWSORG solely because of bias. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Samuelshraga Aplogies for the late reply, I typically forget to check replies unless pinged, but the reason is mainly because:
1. Its unclear what makes Euro-Med unreliable
2. Its unclear when they reported something that was false
3. Very reputable orgs cite them like AI, and they work together with the UN and the EU which suggests legitimacy. The same cannot be said for the JC Genabab (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Genabab, I think the organ theft claim is pretty clearly false, and the total lack of any hint of editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering (just the things we're supposed to look for when evaluating a Wikipedia:PARTISAN source) are a case for unreliability - but that aside, I was just curious how you squared a GUNREL !vote where the only argument you cited was bias, with a GREL vote for a self-evidently biased source.
I also don't think that working with the UN or MEPs confers a lot of legitimacy on the best of days, but given that the MEP in question is Marc Tarabella (one of the Qatargate ones), I think it might do the opposite. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Euro-Med reports on Israeli human rights abuses, just as they do for other countries too. So I don't think bias applies here. As others have said, human rights group's like reporting on violations they gather from their teams, and then call for investigations on that basis. I don't think anyone's demonstrated that Euro-Med is biased or unreliable or actively lies or anything like that. You mention reports on organ harvesting but other sources have also reported this (As noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Vice_regent-20250320214400-FortunateSons-20250320173400), so I don't agree that it is "very clearly false" at all.
JC on the other hand is a different story. There we saw that they deliberately falsified reporting to push a narrative that was in favor of Israel, as seen in the linked sources below. Hence why I voted against JC. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/14/crisis-at-jewish-chronicle-as-stories-are-withdrawn https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/world/europe/jewish-chronicle-uk-fabricated-stories-owner.html Genabab (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
If you don't think that Euro-Med has bias, I don't think we are capable of conducting a conversation. The fact that it does not confine its reportage solely to Israel/Palestine is a non sequitur of an explanation for this view. And by the way, there are GREL-listed outlets on RSP who have notes that there is a consensus that they are a biased source. I strongly believe bias is not a problem for reliability, I only noted it here because of the inconsistency in your arguments.
Secondly, on organ theft. Re: your reference to VR's "evidence" on this, I will note that I don't think that contains any reference to RS making a claim of organ theft, and are mostly unreliable sources attributing that claim to variously the Gazan authorities (a certain Hamas if I recall) and Euro-Med, so the argument is pretty circular. More importantly, the organ theft claim I'm referring to is not the bog standard "Israelis steal organs" blood libel, it's the claim by Euro-Med that the Israeli supreme court legalised organ theft. That's the demonstrably false and extraordinary claim that I find most concerning.
As for the JC, I'm not here to relitigate that RfC, but if you had written there that your reasoning was that they had published false stories, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You exclusively cited bias. Still, I don't think we're getting anywhere here so I don't mind leaving it at that. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC) edited Samuelshraga (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
Everyone has bias in the general sense. Be that bias like labelling sourced reporting as "blood libel". What matters more is the question of whether the natural bias turns the source from reliable to unreliable. My primary concern is if they publish false stories as determined to be so by RS. No one has brought up an instance of that for Euro-Med. The only example that came close was on the legalisation claim. Which was attributed in the link to "Israeli doctor Meira Weiss [in] her book Over Their Dead Bodies" and "Yehuda Hess, the former director of Israel’s Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine" which demonstrates that it is not "demonstrably false".
Furthermore, I question your scepticism towards VR's sources. If a bunch of paramedics in Gaza are saying "Its possible that Israel did organ theft" then that does indeed bolster Euro-Meds claim. Alternatively if a source works for the government in Gaza that does not mean everything they say can immediately be assumed to be false. After all WHO (or at least I think it was WHO) judges the Hamas government's estimates of casualties to be reliable, so there's precedence here.
And since we're talking about double standards, I did a check for your votes and saw you voted option 1 for The Jerusalem Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_459#c-Samuelshraga-20241120070200-Slatersteven-20241028135900). JP has repeatedly published false stories like about beheaded babies, still published now (https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-767951). This does show a "total lack of any hint of editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". If a source that claimed to have verified photos of beheaded babies can get a "Reliable" vote from you, I'm not sure what standard you're using to justify "Generally Unreliable" here or anywhere else. Genabab (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
First of all, the claim that the Israeli supreme court recently legalised organ theft is not attributed to Euro-Med in the source I linked to, to either Meira Weiss or Yehuda Hess. A claim about the historic unlawful use of organs is attributed to them, not the claim to which I clearly referred.
Secondly, VR's sources:
  • the first attributes the claim to Euro-Med, meaning that your use of it in this case is circular.
  • The second doesn't actually make the claim (it talks about medical teams having suspicions).
  • The third attributes the claim to variously: "local authorities in Gaza" (read: Hamas), the Quds News Network (read: Hamas) and - Euro-Med.
  • The fourth cited "the government media office in Gaza" (pretty sure I know who that is).
  • The fifth is a live news update feed and attributes the claim to the second source anyway.
I don't know that any of the linked outlets are reliable. Some, like Palestine Chronicle, I would suspect are definitely not. I see no completed RfCs or listings for any of them. But even if they were all green - these outlets don't make the claim that you're saying they do, which itself is not the one that I referenced in the first place. A source not being reliable does not mean everything they say is false, that's ludicrous. A source being unreliable means we can't rely on it to be true.
Re: my !vote on the Jerusalem Post, the point that you made was in fact made by the proposer of that RfC I was !voting in. I stated in my !vote my agreement with what Chess had written, which included a response to that point. In fact the discussion was explicitly closed as an endorsement of Chess' position. In any case, The Jerusalem Post clearly shows editorial practices like issuing retractions and corrections, has named writers and editors, and separating commentary from news. These are important to my evaluation of what is a reliable source, so I'm not sure what double standard you're pointing to, other than you disagree with me on that RfC and you disagree with me here. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 as my usual response that as policy is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it depends on the specific edit proposed and the specific cite, there is no 'this source is always right' or 'this source is always wrong'. I add the obvious limit of this source does not have much WP:WEIGHT of coverage, so other sources are more likely useful. And this source is an advocacy group and like all such may be usable as RS of the WP:BIASED kind as a POV but not as objective fact -- use in-text attribution on anything from here, not WP:WIKIVOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2, which Mark outlined the reasoning for above nicely. Regardless of how they describe themselves, they're essentially an advocacy organization and should not be cited without in-text attribution. I do not think other editors have outlined an actual pattern of falsehoods or deception, however, and other editors have noted their use among other RS. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 16:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Euro-Med is an extremely partisan advocacy group in the I/P space. This would put it in the same categroy as CAMERA, NGO Monitor and others. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli NGOs of this type easily fulfil WP:USEBYOTHERS in that they are frequently cited in RS, typically by RS with a bias towards "their" side. However Wikipedia should never take the claims made by such groups and put them into its own voice, and should wait for those claims to be filtered through RS before repeating them with attribution. Given that this source makes extraordinary claims for which it seems to be the only source (e.g. claiming that Israel recently legalised organ theft from Palestinians), and that no one seems to have pointed to any clear editorial processes or history of retraction, I am shocked that anyone is advocating Option 1. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4, or Option 3, first choice would be Option 4, but Option 3 would be a decent minimum place to start if Option 4 does not have clear consensus. I agree with the reasoning for why provided by FortunateSons. This source has no proximity to reliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I'd just point out that this !vote has no argument and lacks any basis in out policies.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Iljhgtn said that they agree with the reasoning provided by FortunateSons above. It seems quite aggressive to go sniping at !votes for the crime of directing people to the argument that swayed them, rather than restating it. Not to mention that it's a recipe for bloat and bludgeoning if people have to repeat the same argument every time. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. @Boynamedsue should strikethrough their disrespectful comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1, as Lf8u2, Genabab, and Smallangryplanet stated, Euro Med is used by many reputable sources and works with many international bodies & human rights group like Amnesty International and the United Nations. No evidence has actually been presented to prove they spew false information, they're simply gathering testimonies of abuse and advocate for investigations (in many countries such as Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc., not just Israel). I would believe anything other than Option 1 sets a bad precedent. Geo (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
    Please note that this user has been banned by ArbCom for Canvassing and off-wiki coordination FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3. Israel training police dogs to rape Palestinians is a bizarre and obvious conspiracy theory. I am surprised that editors here are defending it as truth. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    Just because you personally don't believe a source, that doesn't make it unreliable. (Argument from incredulity)
    This is also hardly an extraordinary claim. Confer this Oct 2024 Al Jazeera documentary at time 1:04:20 where the allegation is made by a Fadi Bakr of Gaza, who per the CBC was "a law graduate from the University of Palestine, was searching for food for his wife and kids in Khan Younis on Jan. 5 when he was caught in the crossfires of fighting between Hamas militants and the IDF. He was shot and took refuge in a nearby building, [...] Then, he was arrested."
    This allegation/testimony was also reported by +972 Magazine: "Multiple media outlets, including CNN and the New York Times, have reported on instances of rape and sexual assault at Sde Teiman. In a video circulating on social media earlier this week, a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed multiple rapes, and cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[46] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim. He's the same person cited by Euro-Med Monitor and all of the other sources.
    Going from a single prisoner saying he witnessed individual Israeli soldiers using dogs to sexually assault Palestinians to Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians is the problem with that source. Most sources do not take a single individual's testimony and use their own voice to say the Zionists are training rape dogs to abuse Palestinians. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
    You apparently haven't read the source, which says "Euro-Med Monitor received horrific testimonies from recently released detainees confirming the brutal and inhumane use of Israeli police dogs to rape prisoners and detainees". Fadi Saif al-Din Bakr is the only named witness. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
    @IOHANNVSVERVS: I did read that. No other news outlet has been able to interview someone other than Fadi Bakr, and Euro-Med Monitor doesn't provide any other testimony from other detainees. The closest is this:

    Thirty-six-year-old Hassan Abu Raida, another released detainee, stated: “They moved me and the other detainees to a prison. They threw us to the ground and made the dogs urinate on us [as we lay there]. In addition, one of the soldiers struck my right knee with an iron pipe, and I am still recovering from that injury.”

    That's not rape. It's wrong and is prisoner abuse, but I think Euro-Med Monitor is stretching the definition of "rape" (which usually requires penetration) here to fit their POV instead of presenting the facts accurately, because implying penetration by dogs is much more scandalous than urination by dogs. Similar to how Israeli civilians being mutilated was exaggerated into beheaded babies by ZAKA, which also isn't reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
    @Chess you are misrepresenting the source. This is now the second time I have seen you do this in a short period of time, as you did with the Bloomberg article here. This assertion was initially made by Boutboul, who also claimed that Euro-Med Monitor reported Israel was "systematically" training dogs to rape Palestinians. Euro-Med Monitor has not stated anywhere that Israel is systematically training or using police dogs to rape Palestinians. The actual report explicitly states that Israel is systematically using dogs to attack Palestinian civilians—not to rape—and bases this on cited testimonies, with the specification of "at least one reported rape". Not systematic rape by dogs, not training dogs to rape, but at least one reported case of rape, and then they cite the testimony for that which other RS have also cited as @IOHANNVSVERVS and myself have noted.
    Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim - no he is not. Here is another testimony saying he witnessed the use of dogs to rape prisoners. Not only that, but EMHRM does not treat this claim as verified but calls for an investigation.
    Criticising a human rights organisation for documenting and reporting victim testimony of alleged abuses—and for urging further investigation—is certainly an interesting position to hold. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    “Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians”: I didn’t make it up — that’s the actual title of the article. And I completely agree with you that it’s absurd, which is precisely why this source isn’t reliable. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    That's not what the article says, though. WP:HEADLINES makes it clear we should look at what the body of the source text says. Palestinian Territory – The Israeli military is using police dogs to systematically attack Palestinian civilians during military operations in the Gaza Strip. The dogs are also used to intimidate, beat, and sexually assault prisoners and detainees in Israeli detention facilities. (Emphasis mine.) I do not think we should deprecate or downgrade a source because of a poorly deployed comma splice in a headline on a single article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    That's a big move of the goalposts. You said "not stated anywhere", now it's "stated in the headline, but that doesn't count". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    Goalposts remain firmly in place, because the headline has been updated, to a version which reads Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack Palestinian civilians, with at least one reported rape. The archival version of the piece that @Boutboul is citing was taken on 28 Jun 2024 05:38:44 UTC. The updated version was itself first archived roughly 9 hours later, at 28 Jun 2024 14:30:44 UTC. So not only did they have accurate content in the body from the get-go, but they very quickly moved to update to a more precise headline that same day. The updated version is still live to this day. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
    Pick one argument. At the start of this discussion, you said Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Now you're saying that it has been repudiated, but EMHRM corrected it.
    So, what factual position are you currently endorsing?
    1. Israel systemically uses dogs to rape Palestinians
    2. Israel has raped one person with a dog
    3. One detainee said they saw another detainee be raped by a dog, but it's unconfirmed whether that is true
    I think 3. is a correct assessment of the situation. EMHRM said 1. initially, then silently changed it to 2 without a public correction. The vast majority of sources that do cover the alleged canine molestations go with option 3: quoting Fadi Bakr but without endorsing his claims as true. However, EMHRM says they "confirmed" this based on one person's uncorroborated testimony. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    Repudiation is "the act of refusing to accept something or someone as true, good, or reasonable". There has been no repudiation here, just a routine editorial improvement of a headline to better align it with the content of the article. The original headline could have been read in 2 different ways and now it is clearer. Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    Agree with @Isoceles-sai on repudiation. I am not endorsing any factual position, other than that I am correctly interpreting an old initial headline. None of the three options you listed, @Chess, are correct interpretations of the headline. The original title does not make the claim that dogs are being trained to systematically rape Palestinians. They put attack, rape. If they had been making the claim that position (1) is correct, then they would have said "attack and rape." In any case, it was quickly clarified and, again, WP:HEADLINES. The content of the article reports what EMHRM has been told (testimonies...confirming... is a standard formulation used by plenty of RS for all manner of things) and then they call for an investigation, which is perfectly reasonable. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
    https://archive.is/OkJE8 Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Advocacy. Can be used with in text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - should be attributed, but its well cited and their reports are cited by reliable sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see what the fuss is about with PIA topic area? If the only reason we are knitpicking supposed errors (that some of their reports weren't reposted by other groups) is because a human rights org is saying there are human rights violations in Gaza, some of these votes should be considered in that context. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or if necessary Option 2 - In practice, labeling a source as 'advocacy' is too often misused to selectively cast doubt on that source. The line between advocacy and journalism is much, much too blurry to be a convenient pass/fail test for Wikipedia editors. As for the "police dog" issue, the article itself is somewhat ambiguous about what exactly happened, because the testimony it discusses is somewhat ambiguous. Per the source Israeli attack dogs were used against Palestinian civilians. This doesn't qualify as an extraordinary claim. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
    What about the claim that the Israeli supreme court legalised organ theft from Palestinians? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Highly partisan advocacy group that we should not use without attribution. Use by RSs with attribution suggests it is a source we can cite, but at least one egregious example of highly inaccurate reporting on an inflammatory topic (organ traffic, where they eg made a false claim about an Israeli court decision, documented above) indicates we should not cite it without extreme care and caveats. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or at least Option 2, since they regularly published unverified reports (i.e. 1) as news reports. See 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. At the very least, we need a strong distinction between news and opinion, as most articles on the site fall squarely into the latter. --FeldBum (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 The source is largely reliable but relies heavily on the testimony of detainees and residents of Gaza which cannot, at this minute, be verified for obvious reasons. This means that we should often be careful to attribute both to EuroMed and to the source of the testimony. (i.e. EuroMedMonitor has reported that released detainees describe...). It is also occasionally careless with wording, it did actually state in a single sentence that the Israeli supreme court had made organ-harvesting legal, even though it was clear from the text of the report in which this claim appears that this was not correct. But this one error/false claim is not enough to allow us to discard the wealth of information the source brings given its access to Gaza. Far worse errors have been made by mainstream sources we accept as reliable, for example uncorrected parroting of the 40 beheaded babies claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2, all these interested parties have an axe to grind and should be looked at critically but I've not seen anything particularly bad compared to all the Israeli ones, and I get the feeling it is more reliable and does more fact checking than the Telegraph which just spews out misinformation, how that gets to be generally reliable I don't know. NadVolum (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC) I'd already !voted a while ago and completely forgot! -this RfC has been around so long. At least it looks like I've been consistent onoption 2. NadVolum (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per WP:USEBYOTHERS. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
    "{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}}"
    WP:USEBYOTHERS does not support an Option 1 !vote, but could well support an Option 2 or Option 3. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 due to extreme bias (its founder's closeness with Hamas leadership and its outright refusal to report on Palestinian war crimes against Israelis despite styling itself as a human rights monitor. Its refusal to self-correct, its promotion of the systemic canine rape conspiracy theory based on one unverified testimony where one incident was alleged and its canvassing operation on Wikipedia are also hallmarks of an GUNREL source. I would say Option 2 outside of Israel-Palestine, because the problems, besides their canvassing operation, are confined to Israel-Palestine affairs and not other theatres of its work. However, they are an advocacy group and considering their sloppy coverage of Israel-Palestine and their canvassing operation, more reputable human rights groups (like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) are preferable. Closetside (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
    A further problem is that it claims that only 6,204 non-civilians (i.e. militants) were killed during the war. However, a Hamas official acknowledged 6,000 operatives in February 2024, 4 months into the war. The notion that only 204 other operatives were killed, whether Hamas operatives after February 2024 or operatives of other militant groups since the war's beginning is ludicrous. As late as December 2024, it | claimed that less than 6,000 militants were killed despite the official's admission. While Hamas denied the official's claim, there is no reason to doubt the official's credibility and every reason to suspect Hamas officially denied the claim to avoid a morale loss among its forces, similar to its denial of Mohammed Deif's killing. Closetside (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 They appear to hold a clear bias and have repeatedly published unverified information, potentially even misinformation, about Gaza, despite being based in Europe. --Bruebach (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Usable with attribution. It would be have been better if there were any journalists from reliable sources operating in Gaza but due to the circumstances an advocacy group is one of the few voices that remain. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I came across this discussion while looking into the reliability of the source before using it. From what I've seen so far, and also based on what other editors have pointed out, it seems to be cited fairly often by reliable sources. Personally, I don't find the accusations of "extreme bias" very convincing. It is a human rights organization, and by nature such groups can be seen as controversial, depending on whom they are criticising or perhaps whom they are not. If it is used with proper attribution that should be sufficient. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Euro-Med)

They published it in November 2023. It's hard to prove that this didn't take place but we can check whether anyone else has reported on this ever since. Amnesty International said nothing about summary executions of the wounded in their piece about the Al-Shifa raid, which is otherwise quite critical of Israel's actions. I searched for other reports and found none.
It's possible that their reliability varies and sometimes their bias doesn't prevent them from publishing valuable information that is then re-published by reliable sources, as demonstrated by some editors. In that case we should use those reliable sources. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis¿question? 08:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"It's hard to prove that this didn't take place" - then this is in no way "a good example of their lack of reliability". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
A source making an exceptional claim that no other reliable source corroborates does have negative indications for notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
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.

The article Attempt (German penal code) is exclusively cited to Gesetzeskommentare, which are works written by academics about specific laws. While their reliability is not disputed, there seems to be some uncertainty about whether or not they are a primary or secondary source.

I consider them to be secondary, and they are described as such at page 14 and page 3 here. @Gatoclass wasn’t sure about that and pulled it from the dyk prep area, and we’re looking for some additional input. FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Example (print edition of Fn. 1) FortunateSons (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
They're analysis and evaluation of a primary topic (the laws) so would seem a classic example of a secondary source. I posted a notification on WT:V to see if anyone else has an opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
w:de:Versuch (StGB-D), which has an interlanguage link to Attempt, has 116 sources. Maybe sidestep the question by seeing if any of the other sources there could be added? I would not be surprised if the real concern is a lot closer to {{one source}} than to "technically, this is primary/secondary/tertiary".
And, yes, when you take a pre-existing publication (e.g., the German criminal code) and add analytical commentary, the result is a classic secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that’s a good point, and I plan to add more in the article over the next few months, I just want to make sure it a) passes DYK and b) that I can write articles on more obscure topics while exclusively relying on that type of literature. FortunateSons (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

UK Companies House database

Is the UK Companies House database considered reliable source, following previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408#Trans Safety Network that mentioned in find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13739860. Absolutiva (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

its a primary source, as the information is submitted by companies. As such it could be used for non-controversial information about a company. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
It can be used for biographies of living persons as a source? Absolutiva (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Well as information about things like CEO's is subject to laws about falsification of records, more or less. I would need to see what is being added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 10:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
No it absolutely should not be used for 'information about things like CEO's', per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Source mentioned that https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/4DBvt2wmNyuKDBIIOV8E5JkLeoQ/appointments is considered WP:BLPPRIMARY from Talk:Qigang Chen#Requested move 21 June 2025. Absolutiva (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
Absolutiva in that instance you're confusing WP:BLPSELFPUB (also see WP:ABOUTSELF) and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Primary sources from the subject of a BLP article are acceptable in a limited way, see the policies links for details. The restriction on primary sources in BLPs is about sources not from the subject themselves. So as an example a Facebook post from the subject is ok, but the companies house database is not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The Wiki page for Companies House states "almost 4,000 of the names on the Companies House register of directors were on international watchlists of alleged fraudsters". Given that fact, does anyone suggest that there is anything WP:RS here? No way. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that this factoid has no bearing on reliability. A fraudster listed as the director of a company with Companies House absolutely is the director of that company. A name appearing as a director on Companies House website does not in anyway serve as a recommendation of that company.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Companies House is a primary source with legal weight. This means we can say things like "Josiah Bloggs is listed with companies house as a director of International People Exportation Limited", on the page of International People Exportation Limited. However, we are very frequently going to be limited as to whether we can link this entry to a specific Josiah Bloggs, as that would be WP:OR. I have frequently used Companies House to research people for a variety of reasons, and have almost always found enough information to be sure of exactly who the person concerned is. However, I have rarely been so sure that I would add it to the BLP of a named individual.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This is another good example of where the question "is 'x' a reliable source" makes no sense, until qualified with what is being cited and in what context. As Boynamedsue says, it can be used to say "Acme Widgets is a British widgetmaker established in 2015" but not much else. So while it may be reliable for basic facts, I can't see any practical use for it, as for genuinely notable and encyclopedic topics, there will usually be a better secondary source available to pull the information from. I definitely can't see a reason for using it in a BLP, per AndyTheGrump's reasoning. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

OurCampaigns.com again

I noticed today that a user (@ZackCarns:) is citing OurCampaigns.com in multiple articles. The site is, at least in part, user generated.[49] An RfC here 4 years ago (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC - ourcampaigns.com) found ourcampaigns.com to be generally unreliable. Before I start dealing with those citations, does the community still consider the site generally unreliable, and if so, what would the appropriate response to its use in a large number of articles. Donald Albury 22:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that it's user generated, even if it's slightly restrictive other who can edit. The best response is explanation of why a source should be used, and invitations to discuss the matter. Unfortunately the re-addition of unreliable sources is a perennial issue with no easy solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I did invite ZackCarns to participate here. His initial response to my request to stop using the site as a source was that it does cite its sources. Donald Albury 17:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the 2021 consensus. This may be a useful website for those with a deep interest in elections, but the content is user generated and therefore does not meet our strict reliability standards for use as a reference on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
It is user generated, but as far as I can remember, each election, at least US-related, has a link to the original source that was used. ZackCarns (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
If those sources are reliable, then you should be using them. Just because a site cites reliable sources does not mean that it is itself reliable. Donald Albury 17:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia cites reliable sources, but it's still user generated and so inappropriate as a source for referencing. If they link reliable sources then use those sources instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Google Drive

Someone asked me a question about a source used at Advanced Media Broadcasting System. In this case, it are references to Google Drive, as shown here. I really have no idea if this constitutes reliable sources but gives me enough itches to ask here. The Banner talk 11:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Google Drive isn't a source at all, in the sense that WP:RS uses the term. It is a file-hosting service. About the only time it would ever be legitimate to cite anything there would be if it could be proven to have been placed there by someone meeting WP:RS criteria for the subject in question. Even then it would be self-published and should only be used with caution, see WP:SPS. Copyright violation can be a concern too - if something looks copyrightable, and the uploader is unknown, it probably shouldn't even be linked.
With regard to the particular document you link, we'd need evidence that it was actually placed there by the Philippines National Telecommunications Commission. Was it linked from their website say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I checked whether the organization listed at the top of documents might be using Google Drive to host things they are providing links to on their web server -- not unthinkable, since it's really just easily accessible storage space, and if they were linked to by the issuing organization, that would indicate proper sourcing. They're not...but their version of the documents are all from July 2024, so older than the Google Drive copies. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I have requested input from the editor who added these documents as sources. The Banner talk 12:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Since an officially-published version exists, we should just cite that one, even if it slightly less up-to-date than this Google Drive version. The bigger issue is that as far as I can tell neither the official document nor the Google Drive document contain any information supporting the claim they being cited for. -- LWG talk 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Islamic University of Gaza Journal of Islamic Studies

On Iblis, this source, a paper in the IUG Journal of Islamic Studies, is used to support the claim that the majority opinion among Arab scholars is that Iblis's personal name was ʿAzāzīl. This is troublesome to me, because Iblis does not actually exist, so it's unclear to me how we can talk about Iblis's personal name. I checked out the source and it is very religious in tone—the paper begins All praise be to Allah, whom we seek for help. He whom Allah guides aright, there is none to mislead him, and he whom Allah leads astray, there is none to guide him. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, who has no partners, and that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is His slave and Messenger.

The paper itself actually doesn't make the claim it's supposed to support, about majority opinion among Arab scholars, at all—it just plainly declares the view attributed in the Wikipedia article to most Arab scholars. I tagged it as failing verification, but I have broader concerns about this source. I know that religious scholarship is sometimes written in religious tones that should be avoided on Wikipedia while still being legitimate scholarly sources, but in my experience editing about Hinduism, Judaism, and early Christianity, I haven't come across a source like this being used. It seems to be a prescriptive religious text, warning about the dangers of hypocrisy and starting rumors. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a different "Journal of Islamic Studies" separate from "IUG Journal of Islamic Studies", which makes investigation somewhat difficult. The use in Iblis appears to be the only time the journal is used in any article[50].
I've notified WP:WikiProject Islam[51] to see if anyone has heard of the journal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Why is such a reference tolerated on Wikipedia and why has it not been removed?

The Qur'an makes many references to al-Munafiqin, or "the Hypocrites," including the title of a surah (number sixty-three). The term has become prominent in Islamist extremist discourses...The designation of "hypocrites" is commonly used by extremists to refer to any professing Muslims who do not advocate Islamist extremism, even other Islamists who might support political pacifism or compromise with existing state regimes...the Hypocrites master narrative and the imposter archetype have proven to have wide applicability and deep resonance among Islamist extremists, particularly when they speak out against "apostate regimes," as well as when they wish to persuade listeners to their mode of thought.

— Halverson, J.R.; Goodall, H.L.; Corman, S.R. (2011). "The Hypocrites". Master Narratives of Islamist Extremism. Palgrave Macmillan.

From the paper:

Hypocrites today may not conceal disbelief, but they share interests with the occupier and other enemies of our nation; the nation of Islam. These are now called the fifth column.

...and take a look courses the author teaches. VenusFeuerFalle, why did you cite this source? fiveby(zero) 17:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

How reliable is Mic.com in terms of Internet phenomena?

Article in question: Demi Lovato Twin Sister Theory: Mystery "Poot Lovato" Has Sparked Hilarious Memes Online

Page in question: Poot Lovato. TheGoofWasHere (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I like that you asked "how reliable" instead of phrasing it yes/no. That is definitely the issue with this gray-area source. My biggest concern is that the Mic.com article is partially about the Wikipedia article on the subject. I'd want to beware WP:CITOGENESIS. Given that Mic.com does have editorial oversight, I'd say it's reliable enough to be quoted in its own voice and for noncontroversial facts. Upon viewing the article, I notice that the Mic.com source is only being used for material for which we also have other sources, such as The Guardian. I don't think we have a problem with using Mic.com in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

'Iceland Review' Reliability

I have some info that comes from the magazine Iceland review (The article in question) it would be used on the page for Christopher Nolans upcoming film The Odyssey to cite that production has moved to the region. As far as I can tell the publication is a long running general interest magazine but i'm unsure of its reliability, thus i'm eager to hear the thoughts of some more experienced users. Travelling Nomad (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The kicker is whether IR has editorial review. The website clearly lists the editorial team on the "About Us" page, so I'm leaning yes even though I don't see anyone listed as "Editor." I see that the editorial team is listed separately from the sales and finance teams. I see that Iceland Review has multiple components, a news area, a magazine area, and so on, so as long as this source is from the news section of the organization and not from the commercial or travel areas, it should be good to go.
While Iceland Review does not look like the New York Times to me, the single-word piece of information in question, including "Iceland" on the list of countries in which the film is being made, does not seem unduly self-serving or implausible. It also seems like the sort of thing that will eventually be corroborated by other sources that talk about the movie's production history. So even if IR doesn't feel great to any party working on the Wikipedia article, said feelings are very likely to be temporary. IR is good enough, and we can reasonably expect better in due time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Have you tried searching in Icelandic via translation? You will probably have coverage for stuff like that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla

Hey, can someone please guide me if these sites can be considered reliable in context of a TV show, all three are Indian originated sites covering a Pakistani television serial. Can these be considered Wikipedia:Reliable sources to establish notability?

  1. [52]
  2. [53]
  3. [54]

Reshmaaaa (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No, not remotely useful for establishing notability. Almost certainly paid-for promotional content: see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
It's being discussed right now. TurboSuperA+(connect) 12:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump@TurboSuperA+much appreciated for the support, will follow up on the discussion taking place. Thanks. Reshmaaaa (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
Pinkvilla is currently listed as a reliable source at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Updating the table would be helpful for new editors. Epicion (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

How reliable is the New York Sun?

I've noticed that we have quite a few citations to the New York Sun. The New York Sun is a very clearly conservative paper, as evidenced by its own website. This is not necessarily evidence of unreliability: after all, there are two other major conservative papers in New York, and one (the Wall Street Journal) is clearly reliable, while the other (the New York Post) is clearly not. But it does give me some pause that we're significantly relying on a biased source, enough that I figure we should at least consider the question of how reliable it is.

We don't have any other RSN discussions on the topic, or even really significant mentions, and there's no NY Sun entry at RSP. (There is for the UK Sun but as far as I can tell they have nothing to do with each other.) Again, I feel like a source with 500+ cites should have at least some discussion about whether it's reliable. But I don't live in New York, while most of the time it's cited it's about local issues, so I'm not the most qualified to figure out if it's reliable.

The most concerning cites I've found so far are that we use it to cite Harald Malmgren's claims about UFOs and that we use it to cite what appears to be a pretty weak study about the effect of TikTok on antisemitism. Loki (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in our article New York Sun looks especially concerning. The Harald Malmgren use looks fine: it's used to support the fact that Malmgren claimed to have been briefed on alien tech, and the Sun is careful to be clear that these are indeed Malmgren's claims. As far as I can tell the Sun aims to be more focused on local issues than the NYT or WSJ, so it's probably most reliable for those, but I'm not seeing any major reason to think it's particularly less reliable than other newspapers Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Follow up on archived thread

Hi, the previous thread dealing with this was archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_482#When exactly is something political?. Two other editors chipped in briefly but it did not seem like it entirely solved the issue, especially since this page itself says The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. The claim it supports has since been expanded upon as well here by Samboy. This article doesn't have a lot of page watchers and I don't have much experience on the particulars on when/how much you can cite generally unreliable sources like Fox News. I really just want more eyes to make sure that this is within acceptable norms of how this usually works. There is also the related matter of the unreliability of Fox News being compared to Refinery29, but I don't really see these situations as being equal. I don't think this discussion sets in stone a "marginally reliable" status (that was one editor's conclusion), simply that it made a factual error once. Lots of generally reliable sources have done that too. So I'd like some thoughts on that part as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't see how that's not political. Have you tried notifying WP:WikiProject Feminism, given the content it would seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I haven't but I have no objections if you choose to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I don’t see how a discussion about travel is a political discussion? This is expanding the definition of “political” to mean something it doesn’t mean. As per The American Heritage dictionary “political” means “Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.”, Relating to, involving, or characteristic of political parties or politicians”, or “Interested or active in politics”. It’s not about voting, it’s not about who the leader of a given country is, it’s about traveling, and why some men choose to travel. Not political at all. Samboy (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
"political" also has another meaning: "relating to the things people do to gain or keep power or an advantage within a group, organization, etc." (Britannica). That's why you encounter phrases like "office politics." If, for example, a man thinks that men should have more power than women, and seeks out women in countries where women have less power, the travel has a political element to it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Is that what we consider “political” in the previous discussions where there is no consensus on whether Fox News is reliable (or unreliable) with non-political topics? I would consider Passport bro a cultural phenomenon much more than a political one. Samboy (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
I've done so[55]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree that saying Fox News said something is okay, but looking at what's cited I don't see where it says there was an interview of a "professor". Presumably this refers to Dr. James Braham, but Google tells me there's more than one James Braham and I can't tell which one is a university/college professor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I mentioned this on the talk page yesterday. I think the person they're trying to attribute the statement to is the one referred to as a "researcher" in the source. That term is pretty vague though and does not nessecarily mean professor. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
I did see the previous attempt but didn't comment in time, so good to see this here again. I would say "political" should be broadly construed the same way our CTOPs and bans are, which means that culture wars-y statements like many individuals prefer the values are well within what we should consider political, notwithstanding the euphemistic way that it is phrased (presumably the same way the source does, I'm not saying editors inserted that). I'm not saying it can't be used, for attributed opinion we can consider even GUNREL sources given due weight but anything that borders on politics should receive additional scrutiny.
As for MREL vs MREL, yes, occasionally participating in disinformation campaigns (maybe for other topics) is certainly a different level of MREL to being gossipy junk without much substance most of the time. We shouldn't automatically assign two MREL sources the same weight without considering why they got those destinations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Is Google Trends a reliable source to determine nomenclature (either MAGA or Trumpism) in the article Donald Trump? As I see it, Google Trends comparing use of MAGA and Trumpism is acceptable under WP:CALC. If I'm reading correctly, the only thread in your archive called Google Trends unreliable because its interpretation is original research; one editor suggested Wikipedia's citations be switched from Google Trends to Google Year in Search. (They seem to me to be the same thing.) In this case, I don't wish to cite Google Trends, I only would like to choose the correct name per WP:COMMONNAME. (discussion.) Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It might be reliable for which was trending during a particular period (e.g. "Google trends shows that MAGA is more regularly used than Trumpism"), but I think you looking to use it for the purpose of which term should be used rather than to support a particular statement. That should be determined by a talk page discussion and Google translate could be used as part of an argument to which should be used, but other arguments could be made. I can also see the argument that the terms don't equate, there is no Trumpism movement but equally there is no MAGAist political doctrine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
Great response. Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. Very helpful. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Actively. Just remember that the term "trend" has an inherent time-based nature, just like fashion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Afropami

Hello, I was looking over edits for the Sneako article when I noticed a link by Afropami, with a brief autobiography of the streamer. This looks generally unreliable, but since Afropami's never been discussed before, I thought I should post here for confirmation. Carlinal (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not an autobiography. It's a bio. The author is listed as Rebecca Aande. The first two sources in our Sneako article are The New York Times and Mother Jones, so we don't have a case of an article that needs to be deleted because it only uses questionable sources.
Here is Afropami's about us page. I can't seem to find an editor listed, but they seem legit as any other news source on the surface. What we can say is that Afropami does not claim to be about anything but entertainment news. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
The about us page also says "Afropami.com also serves as a promotional platform for both industry experts and younglings, ...". They are reliable for African music, news and such, but the bios they also publish of US streamers and influencers are promo. It's very common in the market, see WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA as an example. That's not to say that the details won't be reliable, just not independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Excellent point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I should note I've been editing the article for about a day now, and I know it just got published with enough good sources then. But thanks for the terminology, and I'll consider Afropami again for use. Carlinal (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Note the "Age, Biography, Career and Net Worth" at the top of the page and the "age-biography-career-and-net-worth" part of the URL - a surefire sign of content farms full of entirely unreliable AI slop. Usually these sites contain countless of these auto-generated biographies for minor "celebrities" and internet personalities. They should never be trusted and removed on sight. --2003:E1:174F:CF2C:B8DA:B579:8CFE:7BAB (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The State Hornet and Compass News

Context: This is for a new source assessment I created: Wikipedia:Source assessment/ENA (series). I've only found 3 sources, one of which (Medium) is unreliable due to it being a self-published source. What are the reliability of the other two sources (The State Hornet and Compass News) in this context?

I have linked the sources here for convenience, but they can also be found in the assessment linked above.

1isall (talk/contribs) 14:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

If both of these sources are reliable, then maybe the topic can qualify for a (most likely) permanent stub. If only one or neither of them are, then no. 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested 1isall (talk/contribs) 23:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I looked at doing an ENA article all the way back in 2022 and couldn't find anything more than those two sources you listed. FYI, both of these sources are student-run media. We have a guideline on how to treat such sources. I don't think a permastub that is unlikely to be expanded after 3 years of no coverage whatsoever serves our readers, though. wizzito | say hello! 02:08, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Okay, then. Feel free to update the source assessment with this information. 1isall (talk/contribs) 02:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC: The Debrief

DEPRECATION
The discussion concerning the reliability of The Debrief, and it's author Micah Hanks, received clear consensus that the source is generally unreliable (GUNREL). The remaining consensus to decipher was whether or not it should additionally be deprecated and thus generally prohibited.

Editors successfully argued the outlet is a WP:FRINGE source with better sources elsewhere (WP:FRIND); otherwise blog-like, with no fact-checking or editorial oversight. The limited support to avoid categorization as GUNREL was based on reliability excluding fringe, that exceptions apply, and that context matters, and to quote an editor, that the outlet engages in "fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correcting". There was however lack of examples to substantiate such claims, aside from a reference to editorial guidelines, hence the arguments were unconvincing as well as under-supported. These !votes were additionally countered with arguments refuting claims of fact-checking or editorial oversight, with very limited pushback from opposing votes.

Some editors argued it is marginally or generally unreliable, while the majority believed in deprecation, but this is not a simple vote. Despite straightforward consensus that the outlet is generally unreliable, the weight of such arguments for or against deprecation is what matters. Fundamentally there were limited arguments against deprecation specifically (only one editor who !voted GUNREL explicitly opposed such a measure), with the few who !voted for MREL exclusively not actively arguing against this specific option either, even if this was implied. Thus the strength of consensus based on weight of !votes for deprecation is marginally less than the overwhelming consensus for generally unreliable, but still adequate to confirm consensus nonetheless. CNC (talk) 11:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

What is the reliability of the The Debrief [56]?

Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Survey (The Debrief)

  • Option 3 (generally unreliable). The Debrief is the new(ish) blog of paranormal podcaster Micah Hanks (host of "The Graelian Report" - an apparent portmanteau of "grey alien" ... one of the alien species flying saucer believers think are battling the Galactic Federation of Light led by the "good" Pleiadians). With The Debrief, he appears to be trying to edge into the mainstream by branding it as "science and tech" and mixing summaries of mainstream science news with the usual cruft (there's an entire section on flying saucers [57]).
    Hanks has written and spoken in a variety of media about ghosts, ESP, "lost" civilization, flying saucers, Bigfoot, etc. (see: [58], [59], etc.) These reports appear largely uncritical and seem to originate at a starting point which presumes veracity of the paranormal. He also frequents the paranormal lecture circuit (here he is at "East Coast Paracon" on a "remote viewing" panel [60]). He is also a guest talking about flying saucers on News Nation [61] which we previously determined was unreliable per WP:UFONATION. Insofar as WP:USEBYOTHERS it was widely cited around one event, the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, based apparently on the exclusivity of its access to Grusch or those who know him. I can find no other instances of USEBYOTHERS. Chetsford (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Addendum: I'm also fine with Option 4 if needed to attain a consensus, though, I share the concern of Chess that it might not be used with enough frequency to make it worthwhile adding it to the edit filter. Chetsford (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Difficult to forget about anything that contributes to dramah... and disruption. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Well, we can always hope that the domain name The Debrief will be abducted by some UFO people and will disappear from the internet. Would that be nice? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
With the requisite probing that comes with it perhaps​...?  ;) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation. It seems to be a mixture of FRINGE and reposts of articles available elsewhere. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
    Is this frequently used enough onwiki to be worth adding to the edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (additional considerations). It's used in 50+ articles, it requires care but it's of great utility and we wouldn't want to wholesale purge it. Obviously, it a pro-UFO outlet, so it's not reliable for extraordinary claims about alternate worldviews. But ASIDE from FRINGE claims, it meets RS in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correcting. When it makes uncontroversial claims about living people (Person X has joined Organization Y), it seems generally reliable. Feoffer (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4. It's WP:FRINGE material from a WP:TABLOID, non-RS blog. No reason to entertain it, plenty of reason to remove. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3. Generally unreliable for claims about UFOs etc since it represents a fringe view on the subject. Claims of that nature sourced to The Debrief should be removed. But there is no need to exclude its use for uncontroversial claims and reporting about the activities and persons involved in the fringe UFO community. -- LWG talk 18:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Micah Hanks is obviously unreliable and so is his blog. Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Unreliable misinforming trash - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3, possibly Option 4. Micah Hanks is reason enough to define The Debrief as unreliable, but that it claims to have a "reputation as an unbiased source of news" and yet typically publishes material like this...that's a hard NO. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
    Why do you object to that article of all articles?! it debunks a legend, concluding "there is nothing in the official records to suggest that any sort of UFO or other anomalous activity was involved.... The tragic event seems to have been the result of poor decisions made by the pilot." Feoffer (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Simply not a basis for decent encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Not a WP:FRIND or reliable source for UFOs, conspiracy theories, paranormal, occult, etc. For citing uncontroversial information or general facts, there are likely much higher quality sources available, so why use The Debrief? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
    My own involvement began as a side discussion on the "Sol Foundation" AFD. 21st century stuff is not my forte, but my thinking is that while their beliefs are no doubt fringe, it is not a fringe claim for us to report that various notable fringe promoters have allied under a common name, which is all the source in question was being used for. Seems like the project is better off if we can tell readers "who" the "Sol Foundation" actually is, so they can read our articles on the members, rather than just send them back to the wilds of the internet Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I hear you. I haven't followed that discussion. Could you give an example of data you'd want to extract from The Debrief? The Debrief articles I see about Sol read like propaganda written by a PR person. I think it would be difficult for casual editors to discern how to apply an exception to an otherwise deprecated source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't actually know if we need to cite Debrief in the article, but it's coverage of the controversial group of notable people does count toward notability, at least according to my thinking. To complicate matters, the group is at least partially religious in nature, getting coverage in Catholic press as well as UFO press, both of which are fringe worldviews but still count towards notability (in my eyes). But admittedly, about 50 years outside my expertise, I can't keep straight who is who in the 2020s ufo world. Feoffer (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4. It has no real fact checking or editorial oversight. Their non-UFO reporting isn't any better. - MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Usable depending on context. Decide on a case-by-case basis. Visiting the site, which is clearly not a blog as is being exaggerated here, the articles look and read like straight reporting in the majority of instances. 5Q5|✉ 12:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4. This is a science clickbait website. As others noted, anything that might be worth it can be found in better sources.-Bruebach (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Feoffer. Shouldn't be used to push that agenda but seems fine to support inter-UFO community stuff when that would be appropriate in context. There is not, in fact, "likely" better sourcing for a lot of this kind of thing. The debunking/skeptic sources cover it from that angle, which is fine, but will often leave out basic facts irrelevant to their point that are helpful for encyclopedic article writing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3. As 5Q5 has pointed out, this is not a blog, but a quasi-journalistic outfit with editorial guidelines [62]. Per Feoffer and PARAKANYAA, this source still seems usable for uncontroversial claims like group membership; banning it outright is a step too far. It is obviously not FRIND, but that doesn't make it unreliable for details unrelated to the fringe theories themselves. Toadspike [Talk] 15:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3. I don't believe in deprecation. I looked at multiple articles and compared some of them against their scientific sources. There is nothing here that cannot be found in better sources. Zerotalk 09:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (The Debrief)

  • I see an analogy with the publications associated with minority worldviews. Ensign (LDS magazine) isn't a RS in the same way NYTs is; we're not citing it to prove the Golden Plates existed. But Ensign is generally reliable, when properly used. Feoffer (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm with Feoffer here: it's unreliable (or at least undue) when used as a source for subject areas where it's at odds with the preponderance of more reliable sources. But there's no reason we can't cite Ensign (LDS magazine) for a claim like "so-and-so is a LDS theologian whose writings focus on [topic]" and I think The Debrief is acceptable for similar purposes. This far I haven't seen any case made against The Debrief besides "it publishes the writings of people with factually-incorrect beliefs about UFOs" which is an argument that would seem to apply to any publication aligned with a minority worldview. -- LWG talk 18:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Media Bias/Fact Check rates The Debrief as "High Credibility" and "Mostly Factual" while still note the unsubstantiated UFO claims. I don't know how much weight we give MBFC ratings, but at minimum the rating demonstates Debrief is a media source, not 'just a blog'. Feoffer (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    MFBC and other such sites don't base there analysis on Wikipedie's policies and guidelines. They might be useful for further research of a source, but I wouldn't give their conclusions any weight. This isn't a comment on if Debrief is a blog, or whether it's reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    That's fair -- we shouldn't cede our editorial judgement to something like MFBC. But some arguments above really did suggest it's not a media site, so that narrow argument does seem refuted. Feoffer (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    MBFC have a report of Science-Based Medicine using the same kind of language[63], however per WP:SBM it should at least be considered partially self-published. Again such decisions should be based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines rather than an external source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
    By way of comparison, MBFC also rates PoliticusUSA as "highly credible" for factual reporting. Chetsford (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
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.

Daily Boulder (dailyboulder.com)

The Daily Boulder is a political news source that is currently very popular on Reddit, but is only cited in two WP articles (Executive Order 14172 and Special master) as of writing this. I figured I would bring it up here as it has not been discussed before and its current popularity on social media may lead to more mentions of it in articles.

I know we don't exactly consider Media Bias/Fact Check to be a reliable source, but they do note a lack of transparency. They failed two fact checks related to U.S. politics in 2020: once about "coronavirus coins" and another about mail-in ballots. I'm unaware of any recent failed checks. wizzito | say hello! 02:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll list some more left-leaning political sources that are also popular on Reddit, but currently have no WP citations:
wizzito | say hello! 02:40, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
Other than being popular on Reddit is there a particular point to discuss, some disagreement with the two citation that are currently in use? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

AI?: https://entomologist.net/ & https://blog.entomologist.net/

AI-generated? Used in Ten-lined June beetle (courtesy mention: User:Spectruminferno).

https://blog.entomologist.net/are-june-beetles-noisy.html and https://blog.entomologist.net/are-june-beetles-with-ten-lines-toxic.html pack many vaguely related headers into one article and repeat statements. It also links to "What Is A Softwareor Hardwar Companys Can Us?" in the footer.

https://entomologist.net/beetles/92-polyphylla-decemlineata.html has inappropriately flowery language.

Fish bowl (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

There about us page[64] says they are run by entomologists and educators, but most of the articles say they are written by David Grimaldi. I can't link the two together but there is David Grimaldi (entomologist) a respected entomologist. I very much doubt someone such as that wrote the "What Is A Softwareor Hardwar Companys Can Us?" article though, even as again it's listed as being written by David Grimaldi.
This appears to be an AI generated website trading of someone's else's name. I would avoid it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
To answer your question, yes, this site and the other two below are 100% AI SEO garbage, absolutely not appropriate for WP in any way, shape, or form.
However, this isn't really the correct venue to raise such a concern, at least not at this stage. I would just remove the citation from the article, leave a note that it's AI slop and not appropriate, and if anyone gives you grief about it (unlikely), then point them toward WP:RSML. If they fight back, then you can maybe take it here, but my experience has usually been people citing AI sources don't know or care enough to fight (if they did, they wouldn't be citing AI). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a very good point. The first check of a source should be editors own good judgement, you don't need approval to remove an obviously bad source. Be WP:BOLD and if anyone disagrees follow standard WP:CONSENSUS building. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

AI?: https://a-z-animals.com/

AI-generated? Used in Ten-lined June beetle.

https://a-z-animals.com/animals/ten-lined-june-beetle/ introduces other species in the article and has an unimpressive "Sources" section (someone's blog / encyclopedia.com / Wikipedia / "Fun Ten-lined June Beetle Facts For Kids") hidden away at the very end.

The website itself has a suspicious amount of articles, with topics such as

Fish bowl (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems slightly better than the last one. It does have a team and editorial guideline[65], and is part of Flywheel Publishing. Their content model appears to be to create asuch as possible to host adds and affiliate links, I wouldn't say they are a content farm but I wouldn't say they are the most reliable model either. I'm less certain this is AI content but a lot of it does appear to be scrapping some other data sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm striking my comment above about this one also being AI. I did a little searching and at least some of the authors appear to be real people (with verifiable credentials and photos on other sites). I still would not cite this one for anything, though. It's a flood of listicle-ish articles of low quality, and some of the images are definitely AI-generated. A content farm, basically, as the last user said. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Screen Rant

OPTION 2: ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
The general sentiment is that the source remains marginally reliable, as described by it's current RSP entry. There is general agreement that it's use in WP:BLP articles should be limited per the recommendations of WP:VALNET, and that it's articles count for little in terms of notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

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.

There was a previous discussion of this source here in 2021. At WP:VG (Here and here)

Use of source: This source is used on over 7,000 articles (per WmCloud). This ranges from media and pop culture (comic books, video games, film, music, television, etc.) and is cited clearly popular and important seen articles like Quentin Tarantino, Malcolm X and Kylie Minogue.

Why is it relevant? There was a discussion at WP:FILM (within the past year, and for clarification, started by myself) which took take a deeper look at the content of it and other sites owned by it and ValNet. The conclusion of the discussion led to the creation of WP:RSP/VALNET suggesting we limit the content used by these sites to reviews clearly labeled as reviews and direct interviews, as the sites were shown to have poorly researched historical articles on film, attributing material to social media sites (reddit, letterboxd, etc.), and when used by others, it was in terms of interviews conducted by the site itself and direct reviews of films. While editors have brought up that the reading should have only been used for screen rant material after the ValNet purchase, this was only done after the discussion was agreed upon by other editors and no editor or material has been shown to suggest it was ever following its own policy. I bring this up, as the last big application by WP:FILM does not coincide that the site is reliable for for entertainment subjects as it stated at WP:RSP.

RFC: What should Screenrant.com be designated as?

Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Option 2. This is one I've gone back and forth on, but I think the status quo at WP:RSP and WP:VALNET is reasonable for Screen Rant under Valnet (2015–present). It's acceptable for basic pop culture facts but is not "high quality" as defined by WP:FACR. It should not be used for claims outside of pop culture, and it should be immediately removed from BLP claims per WP:BLPSOURCE. It also should not be used as evidence of notability or to indicate that something is WP:DUE in an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1, at least for modern pop-culture stuff. Of course, some of its articles are of little use (articles focused purely on plot, random "best of" lists, etc), but it's up to the Wikipedia writer to separate the wheat from the chaff. But those problematic articles are only a problem because of their format, not their actual content. Making things up, repeating conspiracy theories, attacking people, and the usual stuff that would lead to consider a site unreliable as a whole, do not apply to Screenrant. I have not worked with historical film articles, but the main focus of the page seems to be on modern pop culture anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
    Comment: Just to clarify, they definitely write about material related to historical content such as 12 articles related to John Wayne in the past month. Not to mention the articles I mentioned, they are obviously used in articles about real people. I'd be happy to point out basic errors, but I think this requires more clarification on what you mean by being acceptable for "basic pop culture stuff" perhaps with some examples. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2. Could be reliable for direct quotations from interviews, but should not be used in BLPs or counted towards notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (Summoned by bot) I agree mostly with Thebiguglyalien above. Per WP:VALNET their properties are considered borderline - and that should continue for this specific property unless there is specific evidence that it is not subject to the same control as the other properties they own. It is obviously not a high quality source for FAC purposes, but it should not be problematic to source uncontroversial information to it - in fact, it may be the best source for some of the uncontroversial information it includes. I do think it should be limited to sourcing entertainment (film/video gaming) related content, and should not be used to source anything remotely controversial about BLPs. And as always, with less-than-ideal sources, if there is better sourcing available, it should be preferred.
    But I disagree with the OP here about how we determine the reliability of a source. Specifically, User:Andrzejbanas seems to claim that if Screen Rant uses, say, Reddit to get leads on information, it is inherently unreliable. That's not how reliable sources work. A reliable source can certainly get its information from unreliable sources. The question we must ask here is what the "reliable source" (that got its information from an unreliable source) did to verify the information it got. If we prohibited all information that has any origin on social media from being here, we'd have no reliable sources whatsoever. Even the most reliable sources like the New York Times get some of their leads from social media, for example. And no evidence has been presented that I can see that Screen Rant doesn't attempt to verify (or at least qualify as from social media) the information it gets.
    Lastly, the discussion on WP:FILM isn't actually linked. I spent about 5 minutes trying to find it in the archives (searching on WT:FILM for "Screen Rant" and "screenrant" to try to find it) and I couldn't find it. I would appreciate if that discussion itself could be directly linked since it's being used to justify this discussion here - and if it can be linked here I'd appreciate a ping so I can review it fully and revisit this comment if necessary. But as of right now, I see no reason to move it from "borderline" or "more considerations needed". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    To clarify, @Berchanhimez: the use of social media is tricky. Using to consider "reception" would be weak. The discussion and my points made are still on the main talk page of WP:FILM. You can see them here. I've provided several sources from ValNet sites discussing how they misrepresent their sources, contradict themselves in their own articles, and such. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    That explains why I couldn't find it in the history - when you said "within the past year" I assumed that meant within the past year (and also not currently on the page). My fault. Perusing that discussion, I would be okay with adding a qualification based on this comment you made. Specifically that they are of "questionable reliability" and that they may operate as "content farms". I do, however, still take issue with your attempt to "dig deep". We don't question our sources on their sources. If they verify the reliability of the information they include from, say, Reddit (or other social media), then that's their right. Our concern is their editorial processes as a whole - not where they get information (or leads). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    Apologies, I just couldn't remember if the conversation stated earlier this year, or later last year. (is it nearly May already?) While I understand that other sources could be questioned, I have yet to see the same situations on the ValNet pages and while it could be addressed, things like Variety seem to pass the WP:USEDBYOTHERS regularly in academic journals and published books and other news agencies. When trying to find it for sites like screen rant, I only found them used by others in a serious manner I'd they may have some exclusive interviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 - I actually think what's currently on the Reliable sources list is a good spot for it to be. There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. 🥑GUACPOCALYPSE🥑 22:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Could you clarify? The current listing would be option 2, as it has additional considerations about the source and directly mentions that it's a marginal. Option 1 would be that it is reliable for controversial statements about living people etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3-4 It's churnalism and we should not be depending on it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    Especially as Screen Rant, in particular is known to use "AI" automated text generators for their churn of pop-culture articles. For a recent example: [66] was at least partially drafted with AI as confirmed both by human senses and validated by multiple Chat GPT checking programs. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per User:Simonm223. I don't think it is quite at the level of being worthy of deprecation, but I started a discussion about one of its sites a year back here, and these sites absolutely qualify as churnalism. At best, Option 2 in line with dubious but still relatively innocuous online tabloids (cf. WP:DEXERTO). JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for general articles, Option 3-4 for list articles. I was going to say that it's not necessarily unreliable - certainly is churnalism, low-grade soft media - but... considering the commonality of its list articles, those are bogus as citable sources. They're opinion pieces that are generated as click-bait. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2 Agree with GUACPOCALYPSE above that the current description ("marginally reliable source") works well. While the previous consensus seems to be that Screen Rant is not high quality and should be exchanged when there are better sources available, no one has listed a bunch of examples of factual errors or writers making things up. It's mostly up to wiki editors to be discerning (such as listicles don't count toward notability but some of their actual reviews can be useful). In terms of niche fields (TTRPGs, comic books, etc), there has been shrinkage in terms of outlets that cover this area on a regular basis which means sometimes Screen Rant is the best source for details (interviews, product release dates, gameplay description, etc) that help round out an article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1-2. Generally reliable for entertainment media information. AI-assisted writing reviewed by a human writer is not the same as AI slop. The question about list articles should solely be whether the information in this is, in fact, erroneous. If an editor is looking for a source in support of a clearly factual assertion (e.g., that Hulk fought Thor on Sakaar), then a Screen Rant list of MCU fights is no less reliable for this than anything else. If Screen Rant starts coming out with claims that, e.g., Hulk fought Kurse in the MCU (which has not actually happened), then reliability would be suspect. BD2412 T 21:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 for me if we'd still allow Screen Rant to be used, but I'd still be cautious about its AI-generated content (in any form). I'd be also cautious about using it to verify info about living persons especially involved in the entertainment circle. No offense, but I question the "option 1–2" votes. If Screen Rant is generally reliable, then why be more considerate, especially about living persons? Even if the consensus cannot agree on the source's reliability, I'm... kinda hesitant to go for options 3 or 4... unless the source itself is proven "generally unreliable". George Ho (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
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.

AI?: https://beetleidentifications.com/

AI-generated? Used in Ten-lined June beetle.

https://beetleidentifications.com/ten-lined-june-beetle/ unnaturally credits "inaturalist-open-data.s3.amazonaws.com" instead of iNaturalist and the photographer, and The eggs have a creamy, oval appearance, growing to 27 mm (1.06 inches) long. seems to be an incoherent regurgitation of Eggs: The eggs are oval, dull, and creamy. They are about 1/16 of an inch long..

https://beetleidentifications.com/about/ is blank.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish bowl (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's crediting inaturalist-open-data.s3.amazonaws.com because it's built by scrapping inaturalist.org using the "database + LLM = article" model. WP:INATURALIST isn't considered a reliable source, so a different website built on iNaturalist isn't reliable eother. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
ActivelyDisinterested is right. The rule covering a site like iNaturalist (which I like and use, just not as a WP source), is WP:USERGENERATED. Even if this were one of those times when a user-generated source would be okay, the Wikieditor would follow the link back to the iNaturalist entry itself and cite that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

PhillyVoice

Followup to Vibe.com, see there for why I'm questioning it. Its been used on multiple articles before, such as Joey Merlino and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, and Biasly gives it "average" reliablity. Roast (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Would seem ok for Philadelphia news, I not so sure about reporting beyond their normal remit. However they do advertorials and disclosure isn't very clear. On their Advertise page[67] they list some prior sponsored content, but if you look at the articles that they are sponsored isn't very clear[68]. It's seems that links to the sponsored articles are more clearly shown as sponsored on the website, but if you access the article directly it's not so clear. Articles that appear promotional of the subject should be handled with care.
They also do healthcare news, which may not be ok per WP:MEDRS depending on the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

baronage.com

Article Baronage of Scotland presents a long list of supposed holders of Scottish baronage titles. The list previously used WP:BURKES and WP:DEBRETTS to establish who holds a certain title, both of which are perennial RS. However, beginning in April, these sources were removed from the table almost entirely, and instead baronage.com and more specifically the "Authoritative Roll of Barons" (the Roll) are now used.

Since this falls under WP:BLP, I have concerns about the Roll as a source. This has been discussed extensively on the talk page without a clear resolution; I would appreciate community input. For the record, my concerns stem from:

  • The owners of the page and the administrators of the Roll (i.e. those who are in charge of making or checking the entries) are unknown and not given on the website.
  • No information about the entity who runs the site is known since they are neither a registered company nor a registered charity.
  • The Roll includes both supposedly "verified" and "unverified" information. It is not clear how both are distinguished, who's doing the distinguishing, or why "unverified" information is included in the first place.
  • Most significantly, the source has not been referenced or used by any independent sources outside of Wikipedia. Searching "Authoritative Roll of Barons" produces 4 results - the site itself is the first, and Baronage of Scotland is the second.

— Arcaist (contr—talk) 13:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

They're a private group who maintains a list, as per their about us page[69] "Since 2004, there has been no legal requirement to record baronies in Scotland". It seems there main things is being against the sale of titles, but the have no jurisdiction or authority in the matter beyond saying that they do.
If other sources treat them as the official list then so should Wikipedia, but they have no standing to just say so themselves (or at least no more than any other private group). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
no, it doesn't seem that anyone outside certain editors on Wikipedia "treat them as an official list". A search finds the only links to this "roll" or mentions of it are on Wikipedia and the website itself. Nayyn (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Maybe that wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that they should be treated as official. I left the other half unsaid, If there aren't sources treating them as the official list then Wikipedia shouldn't treat them as the official list either. My point was it would depend on how other sources treated them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Since 2004, Scottish baronies are no longer attached to real estate and transfers are therefore no longer publicly recorded. The Scottish Barony Register records transfers since 2004, but its information is private and it does not guarantee completeness.
I would just use Debretts or Burkes and mention the information was correct at the date of last transfer. TFD (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
As I have mentioned on the talk page of the Baronage article, this publication seems to me to be an acceptable WP:RS. It has transparent inclusion criteria and there is no indication of self-promotion or bias. The critique seems to be based on (1) that it includes some entries marked as unverified, and (2) that we don't have independent proof that they follow their published verification process.
As to the first point, the site obviously cannot be used as a source for any entries they themselves mark as having failed verification. This really goes without saying and is unproblematic to handle from a WP:RS perspective.
As to the second point, this is very much the case for the majority of secondary sources on WP. As primary sources are generally not accepted, we must rely on secondary sources having processed these. For a secondary source with a published editorial standard, such as this site, the presumption should generally be that they adhere to these until there are any indications to the contrary.
In the case of this site, no one has yet actually managed to point to any mistakes or erroneous listings. Given this, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and consider it a WP:RS until I see any proof that the data is not reliable.
That being said, just because it is a WP:RS does not make it an authoritative source. It should be weighed and checked against other sources, such as Burke's and Debrett's. If these sources do not concur, further investigation is probably required, and if facts can't be properly verified, the information should be left off WP. Charliez (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
It's a members club that reports on the details of it's members, so it's a primary source. It also has, as has been previously noted, no WP:USEBYOTHERS. If other reliable sources disagree with it, those other sources should be used. It has no authority to define baronages beyond details of it's membership. No entry in the article should be marked as {{failed verification}} because of anything on this site, especially if it's involves living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I don’t agree it’s a primary source. Any source compiling data from other sources would be a secondary (or tertiary) source. I think you’re misreading their website when you say it’s a members’ club. They have published a set of criteria for verification (just like the Roll of the Baronetage), but I cannot see that membership is required for inclusion on the Roll.
As to “failed verification”, no entry should ever be marked like that. It’s absurd, and I have repeatedly said so on the relevant talk page. I’d welcome your support there. This discussion is about the baronage.com website as a WP:RS, though, and I think it meets those requirements (but in no way at the exclusion of other sources). Charliez (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
By what measure is it a reliable source, what can you show that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Thier method of verification seems to disagree with what baronages may actually be legally because of limitations they believe in.
If you read their inclusion guidelines[70] it's very clear that inclusion in the list only happens if a claimant send them details and agrees to their principles, so not being on the list is meaningless as it's possible whoever claims a particular baronage just doesn't want to deal with their group. Also in their guidelines are a load of requirements about inheritance that have no relation to the laws about who owns a particular title. So they may say that a person isn't the a baron, but that person my legally be a baron. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
I agree; perhaps I was unclear. Not being on the list (or being on the list as “unverified”) is not a meaningful indicator. But if we believe their published inclusion criteria, being on the list is. As such, it is a useful positive indicator. A source doesn’t have to be complete to be a WP:RS. Not every famous footballer has an article in The Times, but if a footballer does, it’s a “strong positive” and a useful source for WP editors. Charliez (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
After looking into it further, to me it seems like a decent source for basic facts about Scottish baronial titles, especially when more established sources like WP:BURKES or WP:DEBRETTS don’t cover something. As others have noted, it's a private initiative which has clear inclusion rules and a "Governing Council", so there’s at least some editorial oversight going on. It probably fits under WP:BLPSELFPUB, and I think it can work for non-controversial and minor claims.
Since there's been no central registry since 2004 and Scottish Barony Register isn't made public, the Roll helps fill that gap a bit as it seems pretty upfront about what’s verified and what isn’t, which is comparable to similar directories out there. It’s fine to use it as a source, just be cautious and back it up with other references when possible. It's main strength is covering stuff that doesn’t get much attention elsewhere. Daniel Plumber (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
My main concern remains their 'converting titles to true inheritance status' bit. It has no legal standing, so someone could get this status for a baronage but then sell the title anyway. That would lead to one person being having the title, but baronage.com claiming it was someone else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a very valid point. The way I read their inclusion criteria it is “and” not “or”, so an individual would not be recognised if he or she no longer own the dignity, but this would need to be confirmed before it is used as a source. Charliez (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Interestingly, I noticed that their page under the subsection "Hereditary title conversion" does actually state that if a barony is sold, it will be removed, viz. "lose recognition" on the Roll, so I doubt this will be an issue. I still think that it seems a decent additional source for baronies that have actually been "verified". Daniel Plumber (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
You say that they have a governing council but there is no transparency whatsoever regarding who they are beyond "distinguished, voluntary members who
are entrusted with the leadership and strategic
direction of our noble institution. These individuals
bring a wealth of experience, dedication, and a deep
commitment to the values and traditions of the
Scottish baronage. Together, they ensure that our
mission of service, empowerment, and heritage
preservation is upheld and advanced." According to whom? A site on the Internet. Anyone could make this page. We cannot believe everything just because it has a website that says nice things and take their word for it. Anyone could have made this site. Someone could make a mirror of it, without the AI generated images, would that be more authoritative?
They are not a registered business and have no accountability. Unless you know something else about this source offline that you are not telling that gives you such confidence of what they say is true. Nayyn (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
To refute a recurring claim already discussed on the Talk page: non-profit associations in Scotland are not required to register with Companies House unless incorporated. The absence of a company number is not unusual for civic or voluntary bodies. The site itself notes that a Scottish registered charity is launching as a separate entity in September.
The page says it's member owned and the leadership was commented on earlier the page says The elected Governing Council and Chancellor for biannual term will be voted in at September Edinburgh members meeting; interim leader is hereditary peer The Rt Hon The Lord Teynham. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you to all who have contributed. Just to clarify a few points raised:
  • I am not opposed to citing Burke’s, Debrett’s, or the Registry of Scots Nobility. I would support their sourcing with consensus.
  • I believe the Roll of the Baronage has been supported by editors and myself because, at present, it is the only baronage reference that:
    • Distinguishes clearly between “verified” and “unverified” entries
    • Publicly timestamps changes
    • Is non-profit free to access (not paywalled)
    • As @Daniel Plumber commented above, I see the governance structure has recently been expanded to quote:

      An honourable body owned by the members as a not for profit

      The Baronage of Scotland Association (membership body), The Roll (non-membership title record) and the Scottish Charity in liaison with all baronage stakeholders (being set up) are THREE separate entities.

      We, as custodians of The Roll, do not wish to own or control this entity, we plan to eventually transfer its oversight to government supervisors to ensure proper checks and balances into the future (once agreed with officials).

      The elected Governing Council and Chancellor for biannual term will be voted in at September Edinburgh members meeting; interim leader is hereditary peer The Rt Hon The Lord Teynham.
  • The Roll does not, in my view, present itself as flawless or exclusive — quite the opposite. Its stated aim is to collect and organise all baronial title data transparently from all sources, including historical records and directories. The “unverified” entries are explicitly labelled as such.
  • A prior consenus was reached on the Baronage of Scotland talk page to retain the Roll with those labels, until a wider discussion could be had. This RfC was opened after one editor disagreed with that consensus, which is absolutely their right — but the context may help others understand how we arrived here.
  • Regarding WP:BLP the unverified entries were clearly marked with explanatory notes and a colour key, and explanatory notes linking to the unverified entry on the Roll (the colour coding has been there for at least 1 year), these unverified entries are not fakes as they can be sourced else where on commercial directories that were deemed through previous consensus not to be reliable. That aligns with WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLPSTYLE, even if editors may now feel a better approach is needed. This morning, another editor deleted half the barons from the page and has now filed at AfD against me (and I would welcome comments there), despite this RfC being open. I strongly believe no major content changes Baronage of Scotland page should occur before the RfC concludes.
The concern that the Roll lacks official status is valid but not disqualifying under WP:RS. Like Burke’s or Debrett’s, it is a private body publishing baronage information. It does not claim legal authority, only transparent editorial method. This is consistent with how many secondary sources function on Wikipedia. It's homepage mentioned it's mission statement is to become the official Roll of Baronage, I guess like the (official) Roll of Baronetage or Roll of Peerage.
On that point, I support what @Charliez wrote: "If we believe their published inclusion criteria, being on the list is a useful positive indicator. A source doesn't have to be complete to be reliable."
Other useful distinctions is it does not label people as having "failed verification" — rather, entries are labelled as "unverified" when documentation hasn’t been received or confirmed. That is a transparent, neutral indicator, not a defamatory judgement.
In summary, I support including a range of reputable sources, with transparent tagging and sourcing throughout. I also support retaining The Roll as a valuable source. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Abaronage.com interesting link for referencing independent sources outside Wikipedia comment Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
The "link:" operator has been deprecated since 2017: [71] You're just finding other pages that include the word "baronage". — Arcaist (contr—talk) 15:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
That the baronage.com hasn't verified something is entirely meaningless, and has no place in the encyclopedia. They have no legal status, so that someone hasn't verified their baronage with baronage.com just means they don't want to use the organisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested You're correct there is no legal status to baronage.com, and they don't claim one. Their About page states that "Non-recognition of unverified titles is fundamental", and that cooperating organisations and barons on the Roll agree not to recognise unverified holders. They recommend that organisations do not recognise a title unless it’s been verified on the Roll. It's a voluntary verification model — not unlike the early days of the Official Roll of the Baronetage.
In the 19th century, confusion around baronet claims led to the creation of a Roll, which eventually received a Royal Warrant in 1910. Before that, there was no definitive list, and many claims were uncertain or conflicting. A similar principle applies to the Roll of the Peerage, which was introduced only in 2004. That Roll is now the government's formal list of who holds a legally recognised peerage.
However, inclusion on the Roll of the Peerage is not what confers the legal title. A hereditary peer still owns the dignity of their title under common law and remains "Lord X" regardless of Roll inclusion. In fact many hereditary peers are not on it, particularly in well established families.The UK passport office still allows use of peerage titles — being on the peerage Roll is not a requirement. That said, a peer not on the Roll may not be formally recognised by the UK government for official purposes, which doesn't mean much these days as most hereditary peers are now private individuals. This includes:
  • Precedence at state and ceremonial events (e.g. coronations, official banquets)
  • Appointments to ceremonial roles involving peers (e.g. Lords Lieutenant, certain House of Lords considerations)
  • Formal correspondence with departments that require peerage authentication
  • Recognition within the Order of Precedence
So the Roll matters for government and ceremonial recognition, but it doesn’t affect legal ownership of the title and passport legal name. The same applies, more strictly, to the Baronetage — where the Royal Warrant of 1910 requires registration on the Roll for official recognition.
In that context, baronage.com’s voluntary Roll may not be official, but its structure follows a recognisable historical precedent — creating a framework that could, in time, build credibility and institutional recognition, just as past Rolls have. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
"creating a framework that could, in time, build credibility and institutional recognition" but Wikipedia isn't here to help them. There a private group that's keeping a list of things that, as you say, don't have legal recognition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Sure — but this is exactly why the Roll of Baronage is useful to Wikipedia. There’s currently no single comprehensive directory of Scottish baronial titles. Information is scattered across Burke’s, Debrett’s, the Armorial Register, the Scottish Register of Tartans, and other niche sources — many of them commercial or incomplete.
The Roll helps consolidate this information in one place. It’s non-commercial, narrowly focused, and cites its sources. It doesn’t claim legal authority — just documented attribution. That’s a valid secondary source in Wikipedia’s terms, and arguably helps strengthen coverage in an otherwise under-sourced area. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, can it please be made clear that when a living person's claim to a title is marked as "unverified" on the site, then this doesn't satisfy WP:BLP and this entry on the roll is not good enough to include such a claim? E.g. when you search for "balmachreuchie" on the roll, you get a name, but the information is "unverified HOLDER of barony. title not recognised" which is a reason to exclude such information, not include (absent better sources that do verify it of course). I personally have my doubts whether this source should be considered a WP:RS, it is very unclear who is behind it or whether it is independent or not. The "we indicate publicly whether you paid to our charity or not" (sorry, I mean "promised tithe") on the list gives bad vibes to me. Fram (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we think there has been enough discussion here to submit baronage.com, registryofscotsnobility.com/baronage, etc to a RfC? There is a precedent from two 2020 RfCs that self reported peerage sites are considered unreliable. I think there's an argument to make for the roll, etc. so this conversation doesn't keep coming up again. Nayyn (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
I am not well-versed in RFC process, so will defer to others; there has certainly been plenty of discussion. I do wonder whether it's worth waiting until September to see if the teased "big reveal" from baronage.com helps us one way or the other. To avoid having an RFC now and potentially another one three months hence. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)


From what I've read so far, I understand that the contention by its proponents is that the roll.baronage.com website is reliable for verifying both that (a) a specific baronage title exists, and (b) a living person holds that title. And that that reliability comes from the website's assertion that the keepers of the Roll verify documents pertaining to those claims, for example communications from the Scottish Barony Register.

Having inspected the site, there are things that make me dubious.

  • No names are given for the governing council (composed of distinguished, voluntary members who are entrusted with the leadership and strategic direction of our noble institution. ... Together, they ensure that our mission of service, empowerment, and heritage preservation is upheld and advanced. Honestly, that is just so much corporate blether.
  • Likewise, no names are given for the keepers of the Roll, just that they include a small team of researchers, genealogists and scholars. Knowing the pedigree of that team would help give me confidence in the rigour of the checks that are carried out.
  • Although much is made of the free service of getting verified and listed, I strongly suspect that membership (three levels of it) will be a paid for endeavour. Maybe I am just a cynical old git.
  • I am exceptionally suspicious of this particular service for members: White-Glove Online Notability: Enhance your digital presence, ensuring your title and achievements are accurately represented online. That could easily encompass COI editing of Wikipedia.
  • As others have noted, the list of "unverified" barons is just weird: where does that all come from?

In short, there is much that makes me unconfident about this website, principally the lack of specific, corroborated detail about who undertakes the work of confirming baronage claims, and how that happens. The website alludes to some future announcements about the charity etc. to be made in September 2025, so maybe those will dispel some of the murk. Until that happens, I'd suggest that it should not be considered reliable, and certainly not used in lieu of perennial sources in this area like WP:DEBRETTS and WP:BURKES. Or indeed, normal WP:SIGCOV in decent sources.

Finally - and I don't think anyone has claimed this, so it's just a cautionary note - even if the site were to be considered reliable, it is to barons as Soccerway is to football players - an indiscriminate database source - and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Just chiming in with a quick take — the phrase White-Glove Online Notability caught my attention too. A quick Google site operator search shows this rather interesting page [72], which has a decent amount of genealogical work on it. That said, the phrase's wording is a bit vague in my opinion. It doesn’t explicitly reference Wikipedia and may instead refers to dedicated profile pages like that page aimed at boosting their own online visibility. The phrase's rather broad encompassment prompts my inclination to assume good faith, as it’s possible they haven’t been editing here directly, which means we probably can't assume a conflict of interest unless something more concrete emerges.
Regarding transparency, I noticed the site has a section mentioning that the interim leader is Baron Teynham, which provides at least a hint of transparency. However, I’ll leave it to others to assess how meaningful that really is. I do lean towards retaining the Roll as a WP:RS source for "verified" entries — especially where neither WP:DEBRETTS nor WP:BURKES have coverage. The site might fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB since it appears that the “verified” entries are submitted for "verification" by the barons themselves. Daniel Plumber (talk) Choisir d'avancer 09:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
The current Baron Teynham is David Roper-Curzon. Transparency perhaps, but it doesn't really give much confidence[73]. Fram (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Debrett’s and Burke’s also accept entries submitted by barons themselves — as does Wikipedia. If you check the Baronage of Scotland talk page, a baron submitted their title for inclusion just yesterday, and it was approved by another editor.
Thanks for sharing those links, @Fram on reading them, they seem to focus on tabloid sensationalism relating to Lord Teynham, rather than The Roll as a source.
According to the site, Lord Teynham is listed as interim chair pending elections at the next members’ meeting, and the project does state a commitment to governance transparency. These tabloids appear unrelated to the editorial content of the site itself — perhaps it’s more relevant to consider the site’s editorial standards when assessing WP:RS. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
You are being slightly disingenuous, @Kellycrak88. Yes, an anonymous IP made a request, but it was only added after another editor had found a reliable source to include it. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Apologies if that came across the wrong way — I assumed that providing a reliable source was obvious and went without saying. Same applies when a baron submits to Debrett’s, Burke’s, or The Roll: they need to show credible proof they hold the barony (e.g., court recognition, Lord Lyon letters patent, Scottish Barony Register certificate, etc.) for it to be accepted. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

There is baronage.com, but there is also scotsbarons.org and baronage.scot. (Not to mention "The Scottish Barony Register" and the "Registry of Scots Nobility") What reason would there be to consider any of these three as reliable and/or authoritative. Specifically for baronage.com as the topic of this section, we know nothing about who is behind it. The only reason people consider it "reliable" seems to be that it is useful to do so, and the website seems prefessionally made somewhat. Anything else? Is it referenced regularly by authorities, is there another reason to elevate it beyond the status of a random private website? Fram (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Those other sites are membership bodies. @Fram — I agree this is a difficult area for sourcing. The issue is that Burke’s, Debretts, and even other registers only cover a small portion of barons — probably who submit details directly, but it’s unclear without published inclusion guidelines.
What makes The Roll potentially useful is that it attempts to list all known titles, distinguishing clearly between verified and unverified entries. Verified ones go through a formal submission and review process with The Roll, which gives some editorial structure.
If we dismiss all sources in this space, we risk having no citations at all — which makes maintaining a verifiable list even harder. That’s why some editors, myself included, have found The Roll helpful in filling those gaps, especially when used with care and transparency. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
The issue with baronage.com is that for all these claims, we only have their word. We have no indication of sources using the Roll as a reliable source, we have no idea who is behind the baroonage.com except for one name of an English baron with credibility issues, we have nothing to base the conclusion that they are a WP:RS on.
From WP:RS: "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Baronage.com is hardly independent, but more importantly the only reason some people believe they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is that the site itself claims this. That is no sufficient at all. See WP:UBO, another section of the RS page. Do we have anything like this for baronage.com? Fram (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I have not found anything. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
If we dismiss all sources in this space, we risk having no citations at all — which makes maintaining a verifiable list even harder. This is going beyond this specific discussion, but if there are no reliable sources, then we should not have a list! For me, Debretts and Burkes are perennial sources for which there is well-established consensus that they're reliable. The same is not true for roll.baronage.com, in my opinion. I would be happy to revisit that opinion if anything useful comes of the September announcements. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
if there are no reliable sources, then we should not have a list!
Hear, hear!
This is the policy on BLPs on this site. This shouldn't be up for debate. Nayyn (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
"If we dismiss all sources in this space, we risk having no citations at all — which makes maintaining a verifiable list even harder" You have the purpose of Wikipedia back to front, if there are no reliable sources to verify the content then the content doesn't belong in the list. If not using an unreliable sources means entries are removed, that is a good thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Those sites seem completely unrelated, so I'm not sure it's helpful to lump them together in one discussion. Scotsbarons.org is the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland, which is an old and pretty well-established organisation with (what seems to be) some international standing. Baronage.scot is the Forum for the Scottish Baronage, which seems very careful in how they present information and shows no real indication that they're trying to self-promote individuals. It is also a registered not-for-profit (SC703925). None of those sites really presents individual barons, and they seem pretty legitimate to me.
baronage.com seems an altogether different creature. It appears to attempt to list all Scottish barons on a roll. That may be a very good initiative if done properly. Before 2004 details about Scottish barons were available through the Scottish Land Registry (Sasines) and personally I think information about nobility, regardless of how minor, is of public interest and should be publicly available.
BUT my really big issue with the site is not the site itself, but how it has been used on Wikipedia by some editors. It claims to list all barons, but then marks a large number as unverified. I guess this is a consequence of trying to list all: there will be many they cannot verify, given the detailed verification criteria they list. Yet on Wikipedia, it has been used to support listing barons even when baronage.com marks them as "unverified", which is obviously absurd. If a source can't verify the data, then obviously it can't be cited as a source. (Then, on top of this pretty obvious breakdown in basic logic, some editors started marking entries on Wikipedia as "unverified" too, which is even more absurd—but that is a different discussion.)
While it should NEVER be used reversely (to justify that someone is not a title holder), I don't really see why baronage.com shouldn't be used as a source for those they claim to have verified. I'm not saying it is a strong source, and it probably should be used in conjunction with other sources, such as Debrett's and Burke's. But I have seen no reason to presume it is biased or opinionated, no one has pointed to any mistakes in their data, and it does not seem to be self-promoting. I think it would be wrong to dismiss it out of hand. Charliez (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't really see why baronage.com shouldn't be used as a source for those they claim to have verified
Are the concerns raised by other editors here re baronage.com's unclear editorial standard not enough of a reason? It doesn't matter how this page claims to verify people. It is not transparent. The BLP standards are pretty clear as to why this source is dubious. Nayyn (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
The debate here about the relevance of The Roll is really laughable. Do you really believe that if a goat writes that it doesn't have horns, that it really doesn't have horns? I wouldn't bet a penny on it.
The Roll is claiming a right that no one has given him (yet). Proclaiming ‘unverified’ status is a coercive means of getting the barons to join in. And the outcome of verification is dependent on payment of a membership fee and a promise of some sort of charity (as far as I know Roll is not a charity in the sense of the law, but there's some talk of September, so maybe it will be by then). The oath ensuring heredity is probably even illegal.
By simply preferring Roll, you are jumping on the marketing bandwagon of a new organisation. Which may turn out to be interesting, but for now it certainly has no authority to claim anyone as an "unproven" baron. Maybe she could say she's a "Roll organization failed to verify baronetcy", but such information is sort of useless... 2A02:8308:315:600:B95A:2EA2:2D3C:B27 (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Unreliable. It's clear that this site has no extrinsic authority. The editors are unknown and unaccountable, as is the editorial process. Using it on Wikipedia lends our authority and general reliability to them, not the other way around. I would discourage editors from citing it at all for any purpose. To a large degree, I can't even believe that there is a question of using this site at all. Jahaza (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
    Jahaza’s concerns appear to be based on some incorrect assumptions and do not reflect the facts we know about the organization. Inclusion guidelines are published on their site, that verification is free for life, and the non-profit governance structure — including The Rt Hon Lord Teynham as interim chair pending elections — is publicly listed.
    As to editorial authority: the site’s Mission Statement mentions “signing memorandums of understanding with the Convention, Forum, Registry of Scots Nobility, Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, as well as other noble associations on the continent,” lobbying Prince William to become patron and aspires to become “the official Roll of Baronage” through royal warrant.
    Whatever one’s opinion of its status, these are not the hallmarks of a random or opaque source. It is not self-published personal project (like thepeerage.com) and it's more of a specialized secondary directory, like Burke's, it's not promoting a single author’s genealogical research or views. The editorial structure has demonstrably contributed useful sourcing to Wikipedia in areas where no equivalent source exists, it would be a loss to WP blacklisting this useful source.
    Given this, and that accepted sources like Burke’s and Debrett's operate similarly, I view the Roll as a usable source for “verified” baronage entries, especially where other sources offer no coverage. 185.63.220.39 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
    The reliability of Burke's and Debrett's comes from how other secondary sources view them, but the only source backing up baronage.com is baronage.com themselves. If they become "the official Roll of Baronage" then they would absolutely be reliable, but no reason other than they own say so has been given to why they should be considered so before hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
    exactly. Those who are promoting the "roll" as some sort of reliable source, are doing so against all of Wikipedia's policies. Thus it does give some reason to suspect that those promoting the roll have some sort of personal interest in doing so. There is a lot of COI tainted pages across the whole "Baronage of Scotland" . Nayyn (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Sorry if I missed this, but has anyone found any actual, verifiable errors affecting any living person? Or are we just worrying that there might be BLP errors even though nobody has found any? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
It's a pretty long threads, and requires reading the talk page as well, but yes that's the whole point. It was being used to say certain claims were unverified because they haven't been verified by baronage.com even though other reliable sources backed the claims, and some of those claims were about living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The News Journal

Followup to vibe.com, see there for why I’m questioning notability. The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware) is rated as having "high" factual reporting on Media Bias/Fact Check. Roast (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll reply here to all of your posts on this one point (I'll check into and add comments relevant to each). Baisly and MBFC ratings aren't based on Wikipedie's policy or guidelines, they can be helpful as a starting place when investigating a source but otherwise their input is of little worth (*full disclosure some editors disagree on this). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I couldn't find any prior discussions in the archives on Vibe, PhillyVoice, or The News Journal/Delaware online, so there's no prior comments to draw upon. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
The News Journal/Delaware online will again be most reliable the more local the news is, it's always good to be cautious of a local source reporting on a non-local events when countrywide or global sources don't or in ways that countrywide / global don't. They are part of the USA Today network, which has a very clear editorial guideline[74]. It looks like a good source, I'd rather it higher than PhillyVoice.
They also do sponsored content but it's all found in its own 'contributor content' section, and has 'contributor-content' in the url, such articles wouldn't be reliable unless in the most basic WP:PRIMARY way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Vibe.com

I have had no issue citing this music site in the past, but I recently got a draft declined for its sources, so I’m unsure. Again, its had no issue in my past articles (unsure about other people), and Biasly gives it "average" reliability. Roast (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a reliable lifestyle magazine, I would be careful of tattle being reported but generally usable.
If this is in relation to Draft:Gillie da Kid are you sure the issue is the site and not the specific article, you use it afterentioning his birthdate, that he was previously known as Gillie Da King, or he was a member of Major Figgas from 1999 to 2003. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
I mention the draft details, as a source being generally reliable isn't the same as a particular source being reliable in a particular context. It's difficult to know exactly what the reviewer meant or what their possible objections are, you could try discussing it with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Survivors' Secretariat

Recently at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites a representative of the advocacy group Survivors' Secretariat reached out to request inclusion of information regarding an investigation they are undertaking regarding human remains that may be associated with the Mohawk Institute residential school. I reviewed their website and would describe them as a political advocacy group. As such my feeling is that we could probably include some attributed statements from their material; however I will admit to being rather sympathetic to their cause and so am second-guessing myself somewhat. Before beginning looking at how to appropriately include their information I thought it would be prudent to get a sounding here regarding their website as a possible RS. Simonm223 (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood their request, the information already appears in the article. They just want to change "Kimberly Murray" to "Laura Arndt" in the content that already exists in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
Yeah I did misunderstand that. Been under a bit of stress lately. Trout me I guess. Simonm223 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
A huge trout hug maybe. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

BWARS for ants, bees and wasps

I'm writing an article on a very under-researched species of ant named Stenamma westwoodii. Currently I'm citing a variety of sources, though I will be finding the specific books and journals from AntWeb and GBIF. My question is whether or not BWARS should be counted as a reliable source. On the website I can't find any mentions for the source of the statements made, though I have read through a few books where their name has been mentioned with the authors implying it can be used reliably. Some help would be appreciated.

Source in question: Stenamma westwoodii BWARS

My draft: here FranticSpud (talk) 08:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

The main organisers behind the scheme (Mike Edwards and Stuart Roberts) are both experts in the field, and although field recordering may be done by any member the pages themselves can't be edited by anyone (it's not user generated). I can't see why it wouldn't be reliable for its topic area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)


Photos in articles about Israel-Iran war

There are currently numerous public and private agencies and individuals who make and publish photos concerning the Israel-Iran war. Higher scrutiny should be placed on the sources which publish these photos, and some may need to be subject to external verification by a reliable source. We all know how fake and manipulated images can proliferate quickly. The following is a list of frequent publishers of photographs under free licenses who, in my opinion, should be scrutinized:

If I have missed any, please inform me.

My question is: which of the above sources should have their photos verified by a reliable source before placing it on a Wikipedia article related to the Israel-Iran war? ―Howard • 🌽33 19:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason photos are inherently untrustworthy from government sources? Can you provide sourcing for why they are wrong?
They could of course be biased, but unless they are doctored, AI-generated, or framed, I don't think we can exclude them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Unsure about the US military, but the IDF twitter account has received a fact-check for a misleading video during the war, mentioned in passing by the BBC. ―Howard • 🌽33 19:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Is that all? ONE video? Then we'll just ignore that one video, and go on with our lives. To deprecate a whole source we need evidence of an ongoing pattern of misdeeds, not just a single case. Cambalachero (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I can't find any other videos by the IDF which have been subjected to such a fact-check before. If no other fact-checks exist, then should their photos and videos be considered authentic until specifically fact-checked? ―Howard • 🌽33 19:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I think you should quote the whole passage
Considering that the unrelated footage (first 6 seconds of the shared video) is of earlier Iranian strikes in 2024 it's unfortunate that they've made this mistake but it can't be compared with publishing fake footage and AI-generated images. Alaexis¿question? 10:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes. The very reason we have the concept of a "reliable source" to begin with is to avoid the need to require such checks over everthing we add. If we did, our work would be basicaĺly imposible. Cambalachero (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Note that what I said is about the IDF as an image source in general. If a certain image is appropiate or not for a given article and section, that's a whole different story. Cambalachero (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we should be using photos from any Iranian or Israeli government sources to illustrate the Iran-Israel war, as they are belligerent parties and it would violate NPOV. Additionally, all the Iranian sources here have a track record of disinformation, particularly Tasnim and Mehr which we have deprecated, so shouldn't be used in any articles. IDF has used images and videos dishonestly enough times that we can't see them as a reliable source for images we use either in relation to any topics to do with conflicts they're involved in. The only exceptions I can think of would be really uncontroversial stuff like what a specific Iranian uniform looks like, but if it's illustrating an aspect of the war just remove it.
US I'm not sure about. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources with different info

Hi, I'm working on Chung Yong-ji. Forbes reports he attended Texas State University while WSJ and Korea's Business Post report University of Texas San Antonio. A little conflicted on which one I can reliably include. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I come accoss this stuff from time to time. I think in this case you should include all 3 sources (however include the WSJ and KBP first since 2 sources vs 1) but make a note
example:
he attened University of Texas San Antonio (other sources say Texas State University) Timur9008 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
 Done CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Done a slight fix. (needed to add the notelist section and efn) Timur9008 (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Green Prophet

Could not find a previous discussion on Green Prophet, and due to it being used as a source a good amount, I think it would be helpful to assess its reliability. It seems like a niche source, and while it is used in general/miscellanious articles (Electronic skin, De-extinction, Goldfish, Colonization of Antarctica), it seems particularly used on:

Seeing how it is used so often, I went ahead myself and recently cited this article from the source to the Mikayla Raines biography, but figured it would be helpful to have us assess it here. Soulbust (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

You can use "insource:" in your search with "greenprophet.com', it does a better job of excluding false positives and find uses that are other concealed. See these search results. 169 results is next to nothing, not that it matters.
They seem somewhat established, but reading through some of their articles a few seem a bit promotional. At least marginally reliable, but I would be cautious of their use of flowery language. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate the insource info. Thanks Soulbust (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
There's a whole load of different terms you can use to improve your search, most of it is beyond me. See Help:Searching/Regex. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_483&oldid=1303709516"