Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 489

Archive 485

←

Archive 487

Archive 488

Archive 489

Archive 490

RfC: Rzeczpospolita

Hello, I am from Polish Wikipedia and I would like to request an RfC discussion on Rzeczpospolita, a centre-right Polish newspaper and its website. Unlike its liberal rival Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita has not been discussed among perennial sources on English Wikipedia (AFAIK), yet it has similar popularity in Poland.

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

Ironupiwada (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I have always thought of it as generally reliable. Is that in doubt? What claim is it making? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I meant no offence. I also consider Rzeczpospolita to be a reliable source, but from what I can see, there hasn't been any discussion on this topic (perhaps there shouldn't have been?). It might be worth providing some context. Between 2006 and 2011, the newspaper's editor-in-chief was Paweł Lisicki, who is the current editor-in-chief of Do Rzeczy, a publication widely considered to be unreliable. In 2012, a significant part of the editorial team (led by Tomasz Wróblewski, who is also a current columnist for Do Rzeczy) was dismissed following the publication of an article by Cezary Gmyz, which put forward the theory that the Smolensk air disaster was caused by a TNT explosion. The Rzeczpospolita newspaper is reliable now, but that wasn't always the case. Ironupiwada (talk) 09:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCBEFORE I don't think we need an RfC at this moment. Alaexis_¿question? 15:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It hasnt been done if it hasnt been an issue. How often has this even been cited here? Metallurgist (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

What article is this even used on? Is there a dispute over this source? Not sure if there is a basis for discussing it, without such context. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Guinness Book of Records as a source for its own records

The GBR already has an entry on the list of perennial sources, with the consensus being that it is not suitable to establish subject notability. However, outside of that, I frequently see (supposed) world records being mentioned in articles that use the GBR as their sole source. I think records should only be mentioned if another source deems them worth noting, especially considering that the GBR primarily exists to make its publisher money, and does not represent a serious effort to document actual records.

What are everyone's thoughts on this? Cortador (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Even press coverage on a record will have been prompted by the Guinness Book of Records. I think it is okay as a source on the Guinness Book of Records, though.Secretlondon (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

My main thought is that its more of a due weight question than anything else... If Guinness Records is the only one who mentions the record I don't see why it would be due... So overall I agree that "records should only be mentioned if another source deems them worth noting." Unless its incidental to something else (say a controversy about the mayor of a municipality who organized a record setting) or the event being otherwise covered by RS it seems like trivia... But that seems more or less moot because we wouldn't be using the Guinness Book of Records as anything other than a supplementary source in those contexts because we'd have actual RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: Actually this is another great topic to discusses the same question I asked on the IAEA thread above. If no independent sources discuss certain Guinness records (or IAEA reports) then it seems undue to include them Czarking0 (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I would slam the breaks on... IAEA =/= Guinness Book of Records... Guinness records =/= IAEA reports. Its not a good analogy in any way shape or form, IAEA reports are in general going to be much more due than Guinness records. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I will not concede that point. Answering these questions require context and nuance. Yes, you're right in most instances. But there will be exceptions. ElKevbo (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Encyclopedic and other sources

A recent edit at the lede for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist organization in India, removes Encyclopædia Britannica [1] and Treccani [2] as sources for a minor verification of a basic statement of fact ["right-wing"], something we have stated in the article for a long time. Also removed were Tanika Sarkar/Orient Longman. The rationale provided being that "These are not reliable sources".

From what I remember the article itself was based on Britannica [as a lot of our other enwiki articles] and other academic sources and from where the lede wording has always been maintained from multiple previous discussions. A multitude of secondary sources (acad journals/books) can be adduced for verifying the same thing, but I used these particular sources [another editor had pointed the lack of direct inline refs] as they were either already being used in the article [lede/body]. I find the rationale as such, which hasn't been detailed any further, to be entirely unfounded per RS, RSP and otherwise. Gotitbro (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, claiming that Britannica and especially Treccani and Sarkar are specifically unreliable is laughable to the point of being a competence issue, and I shall revert it with a request for the editor to explain themselves. Britannica is yellow-flagged at WP:RSP, though (although I don't see an issue with this particular entry) so it might be better to use another source to save any issues further down the line. Edit: I have fixed the duplicate citing. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The Colorado Sun

This article in The Colorado Sun is about Waymo. While it is an opinion piece, there's so much misinformation here it's not even funny.

• "Waymo has reassured us that the technology for these vehicles is fifth or sixth generation. Which is like your teenager telling you that, after his fifth or sixth wreck, he's finally got the kinks worked out." Actually, these upgrades happened after millions of miles of simulation, closed-course, and safety-driver testing, all with the government watching them like a hawk; while there were accidents in-between, it was over a far greater distance than the average teenage driver drives. Also, teenagers don't have to be trained from scratch on how to recognize objects.
  • Waymo's generations of software are comparable to a human driver learning to drive in empty parking lots, then driving around the neighborhood, then across town, and finally on freeways.
• "E. Ohio and I-25 and good luck with that". The only streets in the Denver metro area named E Ohio are two small residential streets, one in Aurora and one just east of Glendale. Neither of them are major thoroughfares intersecting I-25, and the intersection in the picture doesn't match any I-25 intersections. Also, Waymo routinely handles complex intersections like that, e.g. at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport.
• "When the robo-taxi takes you to La Junta, CO., by mistake. Sry." Out of Waymo's 100M+ miles driven with passengers so far, the worst navigation-related incident has been driving in circles in a parking lot for five minutes, which Waymo (claims to have) fixed immediately. Nothing even remotely close to driving 2 hours out of the way has happened. Even if this did happen, the rider can pull over at any time.
• "You should probably keep an eye on the road, in case the robo-driver doesn't spot a potential hazard (a nun in the crosswalk, children playing in your front yard)." Are we ignoring the 91% reduction in injury-causing pedestrian crashes compared to human drivers?
• "Robots may experience road-rage, just like you do." ... I'm not even sure where to start with this one.

Numberguy6 (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Opinion pieces by their very nature have no connection to reliability of the source. They are the opinion of the author and can be as outlandish and ridiculous as they author likes without affecting any of the actual news from the source. Plenty of gold standard sources, including WaPo and the NYT have produced massively wrong opinion pieces or outright fringe nonsense ones. But that has nothing to do with the rest of those papers. Silverseren^C 00:15, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION covers pretty much all you need to know about this particular instance of an outspoken, quippy author being whack. Well, IDK if reputable folks like WSJ and LA Times do fact-checking on their opinion pieces, but yeah let's case-by-case basis say NO to using this piece of evidently zero encyclopedia value. BarntToust 02:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

it seems satirical commentary. the writer lists his profession as Cartoonist/Columnist, which seems like this op.ed. is pure opinion.

like barnttoust says below, only useful for statements by the author. likely not useable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The Feminisms of Our Mothers., Zubaan, 2024.

• The Feminisms of Our Mothers., Zubaan, 2024. ( Google Books Link: 1, 2 )

Editor: Daanika Kamal Dr Lecturer in Law, Department of Law and Criminology, Royal Holloway University of London.

Publication: Zubaan Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

WP articles: Feminism in Pakistan

All the authors including the editor seem to be from Pakistan (their profiles are at the end of the book) but publication Zubaan Publishers Pvt. Ltd. seem to be from New Delhi, India.

Just wish to confirm there are no specific concerns regarding the publication or that the publication being from India for Pakistan's authors.

Bookku (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Our article on the publisher: Zubaan Books. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for the WP link to the publisher. The founder of Zubaan Books, Urvashi Butalia before starting own publication house seems to have had started her career with Oxford University Press. Editor Daanika Kamal next book seem to be published by OUP so I suppose this work works. Bookku (talk) 04:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear an authors nationality is irrelevant to their reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, at times real experiences are so polarized such guiding comments are quite helpful. Bookku (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Eastern Herald

Anyone ever heard of The Eastern Herald? The UI alone gives of scammy vibes, the tagline Reshaping Perspectives and Catalyzing Diplomatic Evolution sounds like baloney, and I can't find much info on it.

This edit led me to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Ben-Menashe&diff=1304694036&oldid=1301283680

But it looks like there are a number of citations from this source on wikipedia so it might be good to evaluate it more broadly, if that's possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=%22eastern+herald%22&searchToken=f11821slgd7jqvekqvkreakph Crs5827 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it looks like baloney. The author of that article is also the editor-in-chief, and we tend to treat sources like that as self-published. Woodroar (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Would that suggest I should remove the information attributed to that source? Crs5827 (talk) 05:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

&Asian as a source?

Hey, I'm asking this again because I really want to prepare "Lagi" for a GA review soon, as I've discussed with other WP editors. But one of the major sources for the song's composition is &Asian and I still haven't gotten clear answers on whether or not articles from that site can be used as a source. On a previous GA review, another editor told me that they didn't think &Asian was a reliable source because they didn't mention their editorial team anywhere on the site itself.
However, other WP editors seem to deem the site an acceptable source, maybe because the South China Morning Post article about its co-founder Aimee Kwan gave it some legitimacy in their eyes? And one of the site's writers, Julienne Loreto, has written for various reliable sources like the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and their work is cited in numerous articles (including GA-status ones). Their site also mentions that they comply with the Editors' Code of Practice enforced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation.
One of Loreto's articles for &Asian is being heavily used as a source for the song's musical composition, but if it's not acceptable, I can try to use another article from this author for Positively Filipino. It says similar things, but in far less detail. The lack of detail would be a bummer but I just don't want to run into the same problem that I did with my previous GA review (with another editor telling me that &Asian might be unreliable, so I had to heavily rewrite/restructure the page). Bloomagiliw (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreliable, but I'm not sure I would use it for anything contentious especially in regard to a living person. &Asian redirects to a one line entry on List of magazines in the United Kingdom, and I'm not surprised as I could find very little reporting on them in other sources. Even the SCMP article about Aimee Kwan[3] only has a single sentence on the website. The website's aboutus page[4] gives very little insight, they have no published editorial practice, and no clear indication of editorial or writing staff.
However most of what it's appear to be used for is opinion, and it's reliable for it's own opinion. Whether it's opinion is due for inclusion in any particular article isn't a reliability question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright, so OK for music but it-depends for BLPs? Zeen (a Filipino media outlet — zeenmedia.com) seems similar to &Asian. They both have pretty polished-looking sites and have access to exclusives (interviews and press stuff). But Zeen also has no editorial staff listed. Other WP editors (not me) have used Zeen for BLP articles — should I remove those and only use Zeen for non-BLP?

The use of &Asian to source Taneo Sebastian's role in Ang Mutya ng Section E season 2, that kind of stuff is okay too?(It's BLP but connected to a TV role. That's not contentious, right?) Bloomagiliw (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the context (for both sites), whether someone had a role in a TV show should be fine but I wouldn't use them as a source for criminal allegations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The about page [5] does state that We are committed to abiding by the Independent Press Standards Organisation rules and regulations, and the Editors’ Code of Practice as enforced by the IPSO. Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This is significantly better than some sources that are being heatedly discussed on this noticeboard for much more consequential reasons. I'd say safe to use as an RS about music. Simonm223 (talk) 11:30, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both. Bloomagiliw (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I also think it's fine for pop culture content. Anything else should at minimum be attributed. Cortador (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

WIRED admitting to publishing stories without fact checking them, knowingly doesn't publish a retraction until outed months after the fact

This May WIRED published an AI-generated article by a fictitious journalist about the rise of virtual weddings in the post-COVID era featuring 5 named people, all of whom were fake. Despite being non-existent WIRED reported direct quotes that they were told by them:

• “We’d log on almost every day after school,” Nguyen tells WIRED.

• One couple, who met in a Discord server dedicated to indie game development, tells WIRED ...

One of the non-existent people claimed a prominent online presence which would have been easy to verify:

• JESSICA HU, 34, an ordained officiant based in Chicago, has made a name for herself as a “digital celebrant,” specializing in ceremonies across Twitch, Discord, and VRChat. Since launching her virtual wedding services in 2020, she has officiated over 40 ceremonies in online spaces.

This article bypassed WIRED's entire vetting process and was published for 9 days until they tried to pay its pseudonymous author, but couldn't because they weren't using a real name. During this time other sites wrote stories about the people WIRED said it interviewed.

A reliable source, once realizing it had published misinformation, would correct it and not let others keep repeating it. Instead WIRED just quietly took down the article and issued a vague statement that:

• “After an additional review of the article, ‘They Fell in Love Playing Minecraft. Then the Game Became Their Wedding Venue,’ Wired editorial leadership has determined this article does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed.”

This statement does not clarify to everyone who copied the story that WIRED did not actually interview these people.

It wasn't until 3 months later when Press Gazette published on article about it being AI-generated that WIRED finally published a retraction verifying that the story was written by AI and admitting "This story did not go through a proper fact-check process or get a top edit from a more senior editor."

A source that publishes an article without fact-checking, and once realizing its error tries to hide it instead of publishing a retraction and setting the record straight, cannot be relied on. At minimum WIRED should not be considered reliable for statements that it is the only one that has published them and which are disputed by others. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The process that they followed seems to be how a work that had editorial controls would go about identifying an article that slipped through the cracks and are working to resolve that. Unless we know they have allowed multiple articles to slip through, this seems like a good corrective action by an RS. Masem (t) 02:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Saying that you interviewed people that you did not, and not correcting that until another news source outs the interview as AI-generated 3 months later is not "good corrective action". ເສລີພາບ (talk) 03:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

What, exactly, do you think a retraction is? Replacing an entire article with After an additional review of the article … Wired editorial leadership has determined this article does not meet our editorial standards is a retraction. They did that within weeks, not months later. It attracted little attention until the Press Gazette drew attention to it months later because the article itself had little impact (partially because they were so quick to act and retracted it so rapidly), but that's a good thing, not a bad thing. But beyond that, reliability is about a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For an established source, one incident is only going to change how we view them if there's an indication that it has actually impacted their reputation in the long-term. If you look at eg. the Guardian coverage of the incident, it doesn't have the same breathless framing you use here, and broadly treats the way Wired handled it afterwards as appropriate. If anything, Wired, who retracted the story relatively quickly, comes across better than Business Insider, who didn't discover the issue or retract it until they were informed by someone else. But either way the question from our perspective is whether it impacted their overall reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how WIRED being fooled into publishing an AI generated article by a pseudonymous trickster could invalidate the entire corpus of work published by them. I would need to see evidence of repeated or systemic failures to vet submitted content to agree that this is a reflection on the outlet's overall reliability. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Being "fooled" by an article that a simple Google search can disprove is a red flag. More so because an unknown "journalist" should be even more heavily scrutinized. Regardless, an honest publisher, when they realized they've been fooled, posts a retraction stating which parts of the article are not true and which parts they are unable to verify. WIRED chose to hide their mistake until they were outed by another publication. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't really agree with this approach to source evaluation in general. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Echoing the others. It's a regretful one time incident, but they reviewed and offered a retraction. And it's not enough to change the standing of a long-term usable source. Sergecross73 msg me 04:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The mistake is to assume anyone is pristine, they all have incidents. The question is trends and reputations and quantity and quality of the problems. You can't determine that from one incident. -- GreenC 04:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Even we are failing with artificial intelligence content detection (artificial intelligence in Wikimedia projects), the thing that matters is that they issued a quick and clear retraction. Unless it has become an entrenched problem, we should be fine. Gotitbro (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The reality is a lot of media nowadays have the unfortunate habit of editing and pulling stories without bothering to properly note why they did what they did. We still use many of these sources. So if they at least replaced it with "After an additional review of the article .... Wired editorial leadership has determined this article does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed." that's actually better than many sources we use. Could it have been better? Sure but at least it's a retraction. Nil Einne (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

WIRED confirms it does not generally fact-check its online content

Per Columbia Journalism Review "Magazines find there’s little time to fact-check online" (archive)

Wired, another publication with a storied reputation for fastidious fact-checking, has a similar strategy for checking stories in print, says Deputy Managing Editor Joanna Pearlstein. “It’s important to us that we back up every assertion that we make with a source and that we feel good about that source.” The reporters Wired hires as fact-checkers go over each story line by line, underlining and verifying facts with the use of transcripts, recordings, data, and other primary sources, and watching for errors of interpretation and missed lines of inquiry. “It’s definitely a re-reporting process,” she says.

But original content posted online generally isn’t fact-checked. “We don’t have the staff for that, and we operate usually very quickly on the web—you know, stories that are pitched in a meeting this morning will be live by this afternoon or tomorrow morning, which is very different than working on the print magazine,” Pearlstein says. The only exceptions are online stories that might be legally sensitive, which are given “not a fact-check per se, but a review for accuracy.”

ເສລີພາບ (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You left out some parts:

At Wired, online stories are mainly written by trained fact-checkers who have “a natural attention to detail,” Pearlstein says. In other words, triage systems offer some protections from errors on magazines’ websites.

That Wired has professional fact checkers writing stories puts them above the crowd in this space, even if still not high enough. It reinforces what we already know, print media is typically more reliable than online-only media. -- GreenC 04:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The "triage systems" comment inclusively refers to the entire paragraph preceding the one line about WIRED. This also means that the articles that WIRED accepts from outside sources (like the phony AI writer) are not generally fact-checked. The article even ends with:

• Editors generally agree that the best corrections practice is transparency: Correct the mistake, and append a time-stamped explanation.

Which WIRED does not do when they make retractions. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) magazine presents this as an industry-wide pattern: "But what happens online, where there’s no time for this process? In our conversations with research editors at more than a dozen award-winning national and regional magazines, we found this same pattern: Print gets the full-on fact-checking process; online content gets at most a spot-check. (Editor’s note: CJR follows a similar model, with extensive fact-checks for print stories and spot checks for digital.)" It's not clear to me why you are targeting Wired specifically instead of magazines as a class.

After arguing with a CNET employee on this noticeboard about the unreliability of their sponsored content less than two months ago, just to see their parent company lay off 15% of their employees less than two weeks later, I can discern that Wired is a couple of echelons higher in terms of reliability than the average technology publication, despite the entire industry slipping due to economic pressures that affect journalism as a whole. — Newslinger talk 10:59, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Our standards at WP is the overall editorial process. That they fact-check what they can ahead of time, and make timely corrections/retractions if they learn of a problem of an existing article. Those all contribute towards strong editorial control. To contrast, we consider Forbes Contributors as unreliable because Forbes does no fact checking and minimal oversight before those are posted.

Wired, like most other sources, are not going to review every fact line by line due to the speed at which things have to go out the door, but they do quickly admit to faults. And that's what we want to see. Masem (t) 12:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The only thing about this that worries me even a little bit is that it's apparently news to some Wikipedia editors that fact checking is not a common thing. So, once again, from the top:

• Reputable news outlets normally engage in post-publication fact-checking. Post-publication fact-checking looks like a "Corrections" department for a print-only publication, or a note on an webpage saying that they've corrected the spelling of someone's name (one of the most common errors), or removing an article from their website. It does not usually look like self-flagellation or providing a detailed analysis of all the ways the article was screwed up.
• Most sources don't get any pre-publication fact-checking. When pre-publication fact-checking happens, it's usually for a small portion of an article (e.g., to make sure they got a technical description correct; to make sure the shocking thing the politician said is quoted accurately). The method is usually just a magazine/newspaper editor saying "Let me see the e-mail message the spokesperson sent you" or "You've got a recording of him saying that?" The use of a professional fact checker is uncommon, and even then, the fact checker may not need to contact anyone directly.
• Peer review does no fact-checking. The peer reviewers are looking for whether the study seems sensible and replicable; they're not looking for proof that you did the work that you claim to have done, aren't outright fabricating your data, plagiarizing Wikipedia, etc.
• Book publishers, including textbooks, do very little fact-checking, and AIUI most of that is aimed at risk management (i.e., you hire a fact checker if you think the person you're writing about might sue for defamation).

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This seemingly goes against Wired's Deputy Managing Editor stating that their print articles have fact-checkers going over them line-by-line and backing up every assertion with a source. There seems to be a chasm of difference in how much fact-checking is done depending on the source, and which presently isn't appreciated.

Many newspapers that conduct investigative journalism have internal legal teams that review articles for defamation concerns (the bulk of which aren't from the main subject of the article, but from random side-characters who are mentioned in a single passing line). But editors misassume that Wired does this too.

The biggest problem with retractions though is the misconception that such a process is quick. A Rape on Campus by Rolling Stone took 5 months to be retracted. Even after the Washington Post largely debunked much of the story, it took over 2 weeks for Rolling Stone to post a note online stating "there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account" and saying that it will continue investigating the events that took place. It takes a long time to investigate serious defamation claims, editors shouldn't expect an immediate retraction. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This: Many newspapers that conduct investigative journalism have internal legal teams that review articles for defamation concerns is just the thing that I'm talking about. First, there simply aren't Many newspapers that conduct investigative journalism regularly; the majority of newspapers do this only occasionally, so whatever's true for that minority is irrelevant for most newspapers. Secondly, most of that minority don't have internal legal teams that review articles; they have a contract with an outside agency that they can pay to use when they need it. Thirdly, reviewing articles for defamation concerns isn't fact-checking.

Statements from their Deputy Editor aside, most fact-checking is a triage process: The editor decides which things need official fact checking (as opposed to doing it themselves, or not doing it at all). If the fact checker sees it at all, then the next question is how much time to spend on it. The fact checker will read the whole article line-by-line, but after reading it, they may propose only to check a couple of assertions – and that "check" might be as minor as checking the spelling of someone's name against their social media accounts, or reading the e-mail message the reporter received. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand how you are trying to define "regularly". Periodicals that conduct investigative journalism "regularly enough" have their own internal legal teams to review articles (like the NY Post does).

Reviewing an article for defamation requires fact-checking claims that could be defamatory if untrue.

Wired admitted the AI-generated article wasn't looked at by a senior editor, despite their internal standards generally calling for submissions from new submitters to get such a review. There's no evidence that this article was ever looked at by anyone before publication other than its author and whoever at Wired decided to publish it. And its author has no idea how to read a contract, and has deleted her social media posts where she posted excerpts from the contracts that she thought proved her article true, but which actually contradicted it. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

List of poorly researched online WIRED articles

I will be growing this list tomorrow, feel free anyone to add to it.

• 2024 Techdirt Has Wired Given Up On Fact Checking? Publishes Facts-Optional Screed Against Section 230 That Gets Almost Everything Wrong. The author, Mike Masnick describes WIRED as publishing a binge of poor articles on Section 230, and states in his 25 years of writing about this issue that "this may be the worst piece we’ve ever seen on this topic"

What is going on at Wired Magazine? A few years ago, the magazine went on a bit of a binge with some articles that completely misrepresented Section 230. While I felt those articles were extraordinarily misleading, at least they seemed to mostly live in the world of facts.

Its latest piece goes so far beyond all facts that it’s on another plane of existence, where facts don’t exist and vibes rule the world. Wired has published an article that either wasn’t fact-checked or edited, or if it was, whoever is responsible failed at their job

• 2023 WIRED publishes an article stating Google replaces search terms with commercialized versions. The article was written by the former CEO of Duck Duck Go (a competitor of Google) who has previously battled against Google, and the heart of the entire piece rests around his claim that Google takes terms like “children's clothing” and replaces them with terms like “Nikolia kidswear”. However this is just a simple mistake as he read a slide from Google's trial backwards (it takes commercial terms and searches include more broad terms as well).

Writer for The Atlantic Charlie Warzel Spoke to Google and the author, and confirmed the issue at the heart is false and contacted WIRED, but WIRED did not reply and took down the article with no correction. WIRED's article rapidly spread across the internet and they give no explanation to anyone looking for one about why they removed the article or what the mistake was.

ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:40, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The impact of Section 230 on contemporary online platforms and whether the legislation should be amended have been widely debated in the past decade, and Wired's reporting on the topic is within the Overton window of mainstream views. Techdirt is an opinionated self-published blog that strongly supports digital rights and, consequently, advocates for the preservation of Section 230 in its existing state, which allows online platforms (including Wikipedia) to be immune from liability for their user-generated content under certain conditions. As such, Techdirt also expresses a mainstream view in its criticism of some of Wired's reporting on this topic. I do not see Techdirt's disagreement with the views published in Wired as a good reason to consider Wired unreliable, as the mainstream discourse around Section 230 accommodates more than just Techdirt's positions.

The DuckDuckGo/Google op-ed was clearly retracted with the message "Editor’s Note 10/6/2023: After careful review of the op-ed, 'How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet,' and relevant material provided to us following its publication, WIRED editorial leadership has determined that the story does not meet our editorial standards. It has been removed." While it would have been better if Wired did not publish the op-ed in the first place, its retraction was properly communicated. — Newslinger talk 09:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You can't have a discussion with someone without establishing basic facts first. Techdirt is an award winning blog which specializes on the legal side of technology and is published by an established expert in the field.

Mike Masnick correctly points out that WIRED is factually wrong throughout its piece. It is a fact that:

• Section 230 does not treat websites as common carriers. It’s literally the opposite of that. It’s saying (correctly) that they’re not common carriers

When you respond here with baseless claims that factually incorrect information is "within the Overton window" then it makes it impossible to have a discussion with you. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The Wired article in question actually says, "Section 230 perpetuates an illusion that today's social media companies are common carriers like the phone companies that preceded them, but they are not". This Wired article and the Techdirt response article are both opinionated analysis pieces, and we don't consider sources unreliable solely because they take a stance that you don't like. (I don't like it, either, but that's beside the point.) — Newslinger talk 18:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You didn't need to look up the WIRED article: Techdirt quoted that exact quote before responding to it. Section 230 gives websites the ability to moderate user-content which is the opposite of common carriers like phones which can't moderate your speech. Nobody outside of this WIRED article argues that "Section 230 perpetuates an illusion that today's social media companies are common carriers". It is the opposite: people oppose or support Section 230 because it stops websites from being treated as common carriers.

• "Even when data ought to be protected or prohibited by copyright or some other method, Section 230 often effectively places the onus on the violated party through the requirement of takedown notices"

Section 230 explicitly states that it does not cover IP claims (including copyright). As Techdirt correctly points out " This is the sort of thing that a fact checker would normally catch." The entire article is just a rambling on things the author doesn't like about the internet somehow attributed to Section 230 even when its completely unrelated. This isn't part of the "Overtone Window". ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

That's why it's an opinion piece and should only be used for attributed statement, not in wiki voice facts. Opinion pieces for most RSes embrace hyperbole and exaggeration to make their point, that doesn't make the work unreliable. Masem (t) 19:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess the problem that I have is "in theory" WP:RS states that the reliability of a work is dependent on the claim it is being used to support, but in practice people simply determine that a source is reliable and ask that you come here to prove otherwise.

Wired recently underwent a large expansion into covering politics. An online Wired political article written by an outside party should not be treated the same as a technology Wired print article, but in practice I don't see how you can differentiate them unless you specifically qualify what they are reliable for.

As stated in my original post I don't think such an article should be considered reliable for statements that it is the only one that has published and which are disputed by others, but this discussion has only drifted into a discussion of general reliability which cannot be settled as its reliability is conditional. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Technology is a very wide field that covers online platform regulations (such as Section 230) and social media influencer campaigns (such as the Sixteen Thirty Fund's Chorus Creator Incubator Program). This discussion is only a general reliability discussion because your original comment was phrased as a question about Wired's general reliability. If you want to discuss the reliability of the article "A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers", then you need to ask that explicitly. — Newslinger talk 20:20, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I see, that is my misunderstanding then. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Without getting too far into details, one may note that "being within the Overton window" in the year 2025 does not really do a lot to prove a statement's correctness or sanity. jp×g🗯️ 00:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, based on the discussion at Talk:Sixteen Thirty Fund § Removing misinformation, wait for facts to emerge before writing further on this, is your dispute with Wired as a whole, or just one particular article? I'm asking because this entire discussion so far does not even mention the one article related to the edit you proposed. — Newslinger talk 11:48, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

To me, its starting to look more like someone has an axe to grind with Wired... Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes. This editor signed up a few days ago on August 28 with only a handful of edits, mostly attacking Wired or editing Sixteen Thirty Fund, a controversial political lobbying group. I think they should do something else for a while, give this a rest, or it will come across as COI/SPA/Bludgeoning/Disruption. It is certainly not a Wikipedia newbie. — GreenC 17:55, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

It is much more time-consuming removing technical misinformation that has lingered on this site for years than it is to make minor formatting changes.

My edits on the Wired article have only inflated due to the discussion occurring on them, no one has replied to any of my talk page comments on the non-political articles (except for at Positron emission tomography. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Comments about other edits don't belong here.

No duh, the account that started this is SPA! Someone else pointed this out days ago, "ເສລີພາບ" is an obvious sockpuppet or troll account. Rosguill decided to harass that user for some reason but the facts are clear, it's a WP:SPA trolling with an axe to grind wasting everyone's time with misrepresentations and over-the-top distortions here. 73.115.149.253 (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I can find no connection between Rosguill or myself or this discussion. It is so easy to just throw out baseless accusations, and so much harder for people to clear up the misunderstandings they cause. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

"A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers"

Is the Wired article "A Dark Money Group Is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers", authored by Taylor Lorenz, reliable for the information it is used for in the Sixteen Thirty Fund article, including the 2025 spending section? — Newslinger talk 20:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Sixteen Thirty Fund. — Newslinger talk 20:32, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion the article is not reliable.

There are multiple contradictions in the article itself:

1. Lorenz writes that the contract forbids creators from independently working with lawmakers or political leaders, but at the same time says they’re required to notify Chorus about such independently arranged events. How can both statements be true at the same time?

2. An anonymous creator says his lawyer wasn’t allowed to red-line the contract, yet the article begins with several creators discussing red-lining their contracts. Why were they allowed, but the one anonymous creator wasn't?

3. There’s a quote from Elizabeth Dubois suggesting groups as Chorus can be used to bypass individual spending limits for creators, but the article also states that program funds can’t be used to support or oppose political candidates. That restriction seems designed to prevent exactly what Dubois is concerned about.

In addition to the contradictions Taylor Lorenz walked back several of her claims in multiple interviews:

1. Her original claim in the article was According to copies of the contract viewed by WIRED, creators in the program must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and political leaders through Chorus. In the interview on Destiny's channel she said that creators had to only "loop in" Chorus for bookings with political leaders (around 1:45:00 in the video).

2. Another claim in the article was Creators in the program are not allowed to use any funds or resources that they receive as part of the program to make content that supports or opposes any political candidate or campaign without express authorization from Chorus in advance and in writing, per the contract.. Same claim on content restrictions is made in the subtitle of the article "All they have to do is keep it secret—and agree to restrictions on their content." In the same interview with Destiny she admits that creators were not given specific talking points and were not prevented from producing content on any specific topic (around 2:59:00 in the video).

3. The subtitle of the article "An initiative aimed at boosting Democrats online offers influencers up to $8,000 a month to push the party line." implies a connection to the Democratic Party. However, both in the interview on Destiny's channel and in another interview with Glenn Greenwald Lorenz explicitly acknowledges that Chorus is not linked to the DNC.

Further claims of the article were disputed by participants of the program:

e.g. subtitle of the article "All they have to do is keep it secret—and agree to restrictions on their content." claims that creators have to keep their relationship with Chorus a secret. However, multiple content creators have publicly disclosed their affiliation with Chorus prior to the publication of the article:

- Chorus Newsroom event on Instagram tagging BTC, PoliticsGirl, Bookersquared, thezactivist and Adam Mockler

- Bookersquared has "CHORUS" listed on her linktree (can't link, since linktree is on Wikipedia's blacklist)

- Chorus forum on YouTube featuring PoliticsGirl, Adam Mockler, BTC, Bookersquared and others

Given these inconsistencies and the fact that key claims were walked back or reframed in her interviews, I don’t think this article should be treated as a solid or reliable source on its own.

References

Fennecfoxxx (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Sad to see the conversation has diverted from discussing the article to discussing the character of Lorenz. I would prefer to focus on the article itself, but if her general credibility and reliability as a source is under discussion, there are several points that raise concerns as well:

1. Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Glenn Greenwald described Lorenz as a "journalistic tattletale" and a liar. Lorenz publicly accused Marc Andreessen of using the r-slur in a Clubhouse discussion. Multiple participants, including the moderator, stated this was false. Lorenz deleted her posts but did not acknowledge or correct the accusation.

2. What she sends in her private Instagram is a private matter, I agree, however as it was reported the matter became public and her public response is relevant for the assessment of her credibility. Lorenz initially claimed that her post had been altered, which was later shown to be untrue. Journalist Jon Levine (New York Post, CNN, The Atlantic) called her out and stated that she has a long history of lying about things like this.

3. Following the Biden picture controversy The Washington Post conducted an internal review of her work for bias following the controversy. Even though the outcome was not made public, Lorenz did not publish further at the paper. Journalist Dylan Byers (Politico, CNN, Adweek) reported that The Washington Post determined Lorenz violated the paper’s standards and had no desire to continue employing her.

4. On top of that, her own public comments don’t exactly scream impartiality. She posted about Biden’s health saying Hopefully he rots in hell and rests in piss, and called Luigi Mangione, a morally good man. Comments like that have been widely criticized and makes it hard to see her as a neutral or reliable source especially if it comes to reporting on her political enemies.

Overall, she’s left multiple major outlets under controversy, has been called a liar (sic!) by well-known journalists, and has a track record of inflammatory attacks on Democrats. That makes it hard to take her reporting on Democrat-leaning influencers at face value.

References

Fennecfoxxx (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Although I do share some awkwardness around the idea of an RSP discussion examining an individual reporter's biases, here it does actually seem at least somewhat germane to note Lorenz's tendencies toward this sort of thing. I do remember when this Marc Andreessen thing happened, and it was very silly -- I think that, in general, maybe we ought to have some general principle that news media reporting in close proximity to Twitter beef among individual reporters should be taken with a grain of salt. jp×g🗯️ 18:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Note: this article is being used in a section titled "2025 spending", however, the Sixteen Thirty Fund rejects any spending on Chorus. Lawyer and content creator associated with Chorus Elizabeth Booker Houston has said the Sixteen Thirty Fund doesn't fund Chorus, but is their "fiscal sponsor", arguing Lorenz misunderstood what that meant and has blocked her on social media from replying. Separate from its lobbying, 16-30 runs a program where they act as fiscal sponsors, allowing groups to function as non-profits within their framework to rapidly launch without having to wait potentially months/years for IRS approval. The programs 16-30 is a fiscal sponsor for source their own funding, with donations only passing through 16-30, but 16-30 does not spend its own money on them.

But no mainstream source has picked up Lorenz's story (which content creators are talking to lawyers about launching a defamation suit against), leaving only tabloids like the NYPost covering 16-30's statements:

• The Sixteen Thirty Fund told The Post that it is a “fiscal sponsor” of Chorus and that the group “receives donations on Chorus’s behalf and provides operational and administrative support for Chorus” — though it states it is “not the original source of financing.”

The current text (and its placement) make it appear as though it is a given that 16-30 funds Chorus, and that WIRED's article is making claims about how the funds are used. However, the 90-something content creators across social media reject that they receive money from 16-30, and believe this is being used as a smear attempt against them by Lorenz who is more far-left than them to depict moderate liberal content creators as backed by dark money.

Fundamentally, Chorus states it is grassroots-funded by 5,000 individuals while Lorenz states they are funded by 16-30's dark money pool. For this reason I believe Lorenz's article is not reliable to state, as fact, that Chorus is funded by 16-30, and the article should make it explicit that the claim that 16-30 is funding Chorus is a claim by Lorenz. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

• I believe that the August 28 Taylor Lorenz article in Wired is reliable for our purposes in building content based on it in the Sixteen Thirty Fund article, such as in the 2025 spending section. There has been some back-and-forth on the Sixteen Thirty Fund talk page about whether our summary of the Lorenz article was spot on or not, as there should be. But her article (and her journalistic bona fides such as her lengthy history of work at the NYT and the WashPost) are more than adequately reliable.Novellasyes (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  From NPR

  • Lorenz’s professional fate at the paper was in doubt even prior to her announcement
  • Three people at the Post with knowledge of events tell NPR that Lorenz lost the trust of the newsroom’s leadership both by posting that selfie with the caption about Biden and then by willfully misleading editors in claiming that she had not done so.
  • After NPR verified the post was authentic, Lorenz changed her account of what happened, acknowledging to editors she had shared the image.

  • The Post kicked off a formal review

  As NPR describes, following the posting incident: "Lorenz, a frequent and often divisive presence online, never wrote for the paper again."

  Lorenz has a reputation as a provocateur, and left her last journalism job at the Washington Post following an ethics scandal before the formal review against her ended. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

  The reliable sources guideline does not disqualify journalists for what they say in "a private social media post" that was sent to "friends". Taylor Lorenz labelling Joe Biden a "war criminal" in a photo that she sent to her friends a year ago, regardless of whether she was serious or joking, does not reduce the reliability or the due weight of her article for Wired, as this noticeboard is not a human resources department that patrols what journalists say in their private lives. — Newslinger talk 12:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's not about what she said privately. It's about how when the NYPOst shared screenshots of her post she publicly replied “You people will fall for any dumbass edit someone makes.” and told editors that someone else had added the caption to the photo. Only after NPR confirmed they were real did she admit she posted them. This wasn't an HR department issue, she lost the trust of the editorial staff for "willfully misleading editors" about posting it. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter if the  New York Post (RSP entry) publishes Lorenz's private social media photos, or if Lorenz defends herself in public afterward. The reliable sources guideline does not require a journalist to be on good terms with a former employer. — Newslinger talk 14:20, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  NPR says she lost the trust of her editorial staff, that is obviously relevant to her reliability. While we're on the subject of journalistic integrity, while at the Post, Lorenz had one of her articles retracted after it said two Youtubers she wrote about had been contacted but did not respond (they had not been contacted). The New York Times reported that she tweeted out that the line was a result of a miscommunication with the editor, but NYT reports that 3 sources at the Post confirmed she had discussed and agreed with the editors before publication, and that she was being criticized for trying to pass the buck. NYT reports after this incident she had to have all of her articles reviewed by her senior managing editor.

  This is directly related to her Wired article because the article states Elizabeth Booker Houston had been contacted for comment, but hadn't responded. However, Houston states that although she has previously communicated with Lorenz, and that Lorenz has her phone number, that the only attempt to contact her that Lorenz made was a DM to her public Instagram account (half a million followers) where it got buried under the high volume of DMs from the public it receives. Standard journalistic practice is to attempt to contact someone multiple ways, especially if you have previous lines of access to someone and direct access to their phone which you can text. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  Your comment (diff) is a misleading representation of the New York Times article, which actually said, "Taylor Lorenz, a technology reporter lured to The Post from The New York Times this year, had tweeted that a miscommunication with her editor led to an inaccurate line in an article. The tweets were discussed and agreed on by Ms. Lorenz and multiple editors before she posted, said three people with knowledge of the discussions. The tweets prompted an outcry from critics on Twitter who accused her of passing the buck." The reliable sources guideline does not judge journalists based on what people on social media say about them, or whether the people they used to work with think less of them after they defend themselves in response to a tabloid publishing their private photos.

  The Wired article that is supposed to be the subject of discussion is not retracted, and is now supported by additional reliable sources, including "How the Democrats keep copying the MAGA influencer playbook (and failing)" from  The Verge (RSP entry), "A Small Army of Overpaid TikTokers Is Not Going to Save the Democratic Party" from  Gizmodo (RSP entry), and "Inside Dem Dark Money Behemoth Arabella Advisors' Failed Attempt To Create an Astroturf Influencer Army" from  The Washington Free Beacon (RSP entry), adding a significant amount of due weight to the original Wired article (which is also reliable). Any differences between the content of these reliable articles can be explained in the Wikipedia article they are cited in with in-text attribution. — Newslinger talk 16:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  What is misleading is characterizing "willfully misleading editors" as "defending herself", and describing sources as "reliable" when they are specifically stated to be reliable for technology (and other non-political content).

  The discussion surrounding the Washington Beacon appears to be mostly about their original reporting with many editors finding them unreliable. I do not think a hyper partisan site like this which vilifies Democrats as the "enemies of freedom" and seemingly rehashes volumes of negative content about them as adding much weight. It is also dubious how you just argued back in May that "I have a hard time considering the Washington Free Beacon generally reliable" but are now citing it as a reliable source. I understand that is what the "consensus" says, but it is clear its use should be considered on a case-by-case. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't care if Lorenz denied to the editors who work for her former employers that she shared private photos with political messaging to her friends after a tabloid published them, as it is not related to her actual reporting. I treat it no differently than someone saying they are not accountable for any other kind of personal matter. We are not evaluating Lorenz's suitability as a job candidate for a newspaper company, or as a politician. I still stand by my critical comments in the Washington Free Beacon RfC, but the consensus of the discussion differed from my view, and editors tend to respect and apply the existing consensus until it changes. — Newslinger talk 12:38, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  Is there any original reporting in the sources you listed or are they just quoting Lorenz's article? If latter is the case I don't see how it helps our discussion. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

  I feel it is somewhat 🚨corrosive to the conversation to 🛑sprinkle our 🚫posts with ❌emojis next to ⛔the names of media outlets (essentially, the kind of 🚨reductionist pigeonholing that RSP tells us 🛑not to do). jp×g🗯️ 18:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's a concise way to convey the information I wanted to show in my comment. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. — Newslinger talk 21:41, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• Like a lot of such things, this is probably more a due weight issue than an RS issue. We're devoting a lot of text (an entire fairly large paragraph, making up most of the section) to that one source, with the only other source being a WP:MREL source cited for a brief denial. If no other sources have picked up on this, I would suggest trimming it down to a single sentence. Although, the entire article could use more sources. --Aquillion (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  That section is barely larger than the 2022 and 2023 sections which are also sourced to only one source. Seeing as the Wired piece came out only about a week ago, it will take time for other newspapers to do their own investigations and publish something if that is in process. ---Avatar317^(talk) 01:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

  The other sources are about who they fund though. 16-30 is primarily known for the hundreds of millions of dollars they pump into groups, we only have a single sentence on their fiscal sponsorship program, and we don't mention a single other group they fiscally sponsor but Chorus. This shouldn't even be in the 16-30 article because it is barely relevant to what they do, they just give Chorus their non-profit status. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the Taylor Lorenz article in Wired is reliable for use at Sixteen Thirty Fund. She's an established journalist and Wired has always been considered "generally reliable" and I see no reason why this article should be treated any differently than other articles from the publication. ເສລີພາບ is a new account who seems to really not what the info from the Wired article to appear anywhere on Wikipedia and seems to be using a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach to having it removed. Marquardtika (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Avoid addressing the NPR article I linked about how she left her last journalism job following an ethics scandal and attack me instead.

WP:perennial sources also only states Wired is generally reliable "for science and technology". They only created a political column in 2023, and just expanded it following the election. She's a freelance contributor with a checkered history to an online version of the politics section of a source not known for politics, that's why it shouldn't be treated the same as all of their other articles. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Referring to the circumstances that led to Taylor Lorenz leaving the Washington Post with the WP:Label "ethics scandal" is not supported by WP:RS. I'd appreciate it if you stopped doing that, considering WP:BLP. She violated that newspaper's social media posting policies by posting the Joe Biden war criminal selfie. Reporters can violate the social media posting policies of their employers without this calling into question the reliability of their reporting. Novellasyes (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

NPR is an WP:RS, and confirms that she lost the trust of her editorial staff for telling them she didn't add the caption to the post and publicly stating it was an obvious fake before NPR confirmed they weren't fake. Frankly, you are simply making up that she "violated that newspaper's social media posting policies" and describing this as an issue with HR when her editorial staff launched a formal review against her for "willfully misleading" them, “Our executive editor and senior editors take alleged violations of our standards seriously" . ເສລີພາບ (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Rather than questioning the motives of the editor and age of their account, I think it’s better to look at the arguments. Fennecfoxxx (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

If it takes time for the story to gain traction we can update the article whenever the story becomes due. There is no need to do it right now it it’s not due Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't Sixteen Thirty Fund acting as a "fiscal sponsor" a big part of what concerns people about them? They've been set up a way the enables them to take money and find political causes with little to no disclosure of who is funding any particular cause. Causes may or may not share funders I don’t think that's the big concern, instead it's the intentional lack of transparency. There may very well be 5000 "grass root donors" but no one can verify much or any of that because of their set-up. Perhaps 4999 of them are middle or working people who rarely give to political causes and 1 person gives 99% of the money and also donates to a lot of causes (whether Sixteen Thirty or something else) or perhaps all 5000 people are middle or working class who don't donate much, no one can verify any of it. This may be legal but since the American left has been rallying against the American right for doing it for many years it's only reasonable that some question on the left question those on their siteside embracing the same tactics. Even more so if they're pretending it's not what they're doing rather than at least acknowledging it (whether they say it's necessary because of how things are in the US or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2025 (UTC) 12:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I would add that since I'm not an American, I'm not intimately familiar with their politics but Brian Taylor Cohen and David Pakman are two people who's content I watch and find useful so technically I might be biased. But it doesn't stop me seeing there might be reasons why others might be concerned with what Chorus and Sixteen Thirty Fund are doing. I do agree with Aquillion that with only one source we should limit what we say per WP:UNDUE, but since it's still fairly early, the story might develop and I don't see any reason to consider the source a non RS at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed regarding RS status - nothing here indicates she's unreliable for her comments in that article. Simonm223 (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on skimming the article rather than a close read, there are two things that I question:

• It's unclear whether she got a copy of the final version of the contract or only (an) earlier version(s) while the contract wording was still being negotiated. She didn't make this clear.
• The Chorus FAQ says "creators are free to post what they want, when they want. This includes their affiliation with Chorus," contrary to her claim that the contract prevents disclosuring the affiliation.

Ultimately we have no way to judge the reliability of most of the article itself, only of Wired and Lorenz. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

"Isn't Sixteen Thirty Fund acting as a "fiscal sponsor" a big part of what concerns people about them?"

No, and this is why the article is misleading. No one criticizing Chorus mentions them being fiscally sponsored, and instead just assumes they are being funded by 16-30. 16-30 is famous for receiving hundreds of millions from anonymous (and self-disclosed) donors and pouring them into groups, but this is separate from their barely talked about incubator program that requires groups they fiscally sponsor to source funding for themselves. It is true that like virtually all non-profits (like the ACLU), Chorus does not disclose the identities of their donors, but there is no indication that Chorus has any large donors (once they've filed their first reports to the IRS you'll be able to see how large their donations are even if they are anonymous). Wired stating that 16-30 funds Chorus, however, is fueling rampant speculation about how the big donors to 16-30 are influencing the content creators associated with Chorus under the mistaken assumption that Chorus is funded by 16-30's dark money pool. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I question your claim the distinction is what matters to those concern. E.g.

After decrying big-money Republican donors over the last decade, as well as the Supreme Court rulings that flooded politics with more cash, Democrats now benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars of undisclosed donations as well." According to Politico, the Sixteen Thirty Fund's activities are "a sign that Democrats and allies have embraced the methods of groups they decried as 'dark money' earlier this decade, when they were under attack from the money machines built by conservatives including the Kochs". Because it is a nonprofit, the Sixteen Thirty Fund is not required to disclose its donors, even though it spends significant amounts on politics.

This is using sources from 2019 and 2021 so well before the current kerfuffle. What it talks about is how Democrats are taking advantage of Supreme Court rulings to flood Democrat and allies politics with anonymous cash. It doesn't talk or concern itself whether it's one big pool of money or lots of individual causes each technically funded separately. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

More evidence the claim is questionable. [6]

Tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pam, disclosed earlier this year that they were responsible for the $45 million gift, which went to Civic Action Fund, a fiscally sponsored project of the Sixteen Thirty Fund.

and

Yet more money flowed directly through the fiscally sponsored programs housed within Sixteen Thirty Fund. Demand Justice, one of the most high-profile, has spun off into its own distinct organization, Kurtz wrote in her Medium post. But others, like Paid Leave for All Action, have been actively campaigning for policy changes and conducting issue advocacy. Sixteen Thirty Fund’s tax filing does not break out how much each fiscally sponsored group spent.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing here contradicts me. Money that the programs 16-30 fiscally sponsor they source themselves. People donate specifically to those programs, the donations are only passed through 16-30. This is separate from the money 16-30 raises on its own and spends on groups of their choice.

Your own quote even showcases the point of their incubator program

Demand Justice, one of the most high-profile, has spun off into its own distinct organization

It's a program for non-profits to rapidly begin under 16-30 while waiting for IRS approval and establishing their own structure (or for short-lived programs that only exist for a brief election cycle, for instance).

I will show you what a nothing burger your Omidyar quote is:

Tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar and his wife, Pam, disclosed earlier this year that they were responsible for the $45 million gift, which went to Civic Action Fund

Chorus gives creators $250-$8,000 a month for a 6-month cohort.

Omidyar's Reporters in Residence gives reporters $8,000 a month (and $2,000 travel expenses) for a 6-month cohort. Taylor Lorenz is currently in that program. Her program is funded entirely via the Omidyar Network foundation and LLC. The LLC can also receive donations that it does not disclose (although it is primarily funded by Omidyar's family).

Yes, the Omidyar who donated to the Civic Action Fund (which went through 16-30) also created the program that financially sponsors Lorenz in an almost identical manner to Chorus. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with those saying that this is more a due weight issue than anything else... The view is signficant even if mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is reliable. I believe the "fiscal sponsor" vs "funder" distinction is not very relevant, because it doesn't change the underlying issue of dark money. Sixteen Thirty Fund is a 501(c)(4) so does not have to publicly disclose its donors. Similarly, any groups that they fiscally sponsor (like Chorus), do not have to disclose their donors. – gRegor (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The core of her report is that the content creators are being influenced by the same big donors who donate to 16-30, arguing that the creators must be getting influenced to spout DNC talking points because they are funded by the people who bankroll many DNC candidates. Look at this hyperpartisan conservative site talking about 16-30s biggest donors: Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, George Soros, etc., in relation to Chorus.

But there's no connection. As for the Wikipedia article Sixteen Thirty Fund, it only has one sentence about their fiscal sponsorship program (because it is so irrelevant). 16-30 has fiscally sponsored over 100 projects and we don't mention any of them because 16-30 letting a small group act as a non-profit under them is largely irrelevant. Every section is about the 100s of millions they spend on different groups, and Chorus currently makes up the entirety of their 2025 Spending section despite the fact they receive no money from them. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how fiscal sponsorships work, and I don't believe you have any special or reliable insight into whether the money that flows through to Chorus from 1630 does or doesn't come from billionaires who are known to give money to 1630. But it doesn't matter what I think because, like you, I am just a WP peon and not a WP:RS. Before long, if your beliefs are correct, the many, many influential people who surround or are in the orbit of 1630 and Chorus will get a WP:RS like the New York Times or the Atlantic to advance a different way of thinking about what happened here. Novellasyes (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Taylor Lorenz wrote an article about Chorus five months ago where she depicts them as a floundering startup which exploits its content creators, providing "little to no support" and expecting content in exchange for travel fee reimbursements to minimally planned public events.

Despite being around since November they've only managed to host (from what I've seen) two events, and it wasn't until now they raised enough money for this 6 month funding of their creators. Despite the contracts requiring creators to participate in bimonthly Chorus Newsroom events, they haven't held a single one, seemingly due to lack of funding.

You can say what you want about the anonymity of their donors, but at the very least I am sure they don't have any billionaire backers. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable. Wired is a RS whose tech reporting is still good when extended to political matters as seen through their DOGE reporting. It's the type of outfit where pieces like this would have legal review. The sources found by Newslinger show that other RS took this story at face value (WP:USEBYOTHERS) and that inclusion wouldn't be WP:UNDUE. The criticisms seem like nitpicking that don't challenge the core revelations of the article (e.g. the distinction between 1630 funding Chorus vs. Chorus receiving funds through the opaque financing structure of 1630, creators not being allowed to publicize vs. disclose the funding because the contract defines "disclose" in a particular way). If someone without privileged knowledge of the subject can determine that the reporting is so obviously untrue that it should be removed for WP:BLP considerations, one would expect that it would have already been reported upon given that it has already been over a week and a half since the report. If those sources do show up, they should of course be used. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's the type of outfit where pieces like this would have legal review.

  The problem with this discussion is it is filled with people making presumptions about things that simply aren't true or have no basis.

  Wired has no lawyers or internal legal division. Wired outsources its legal matters to its parent company's centralized internal legal department, which handles legal matters as they arise to their 20+ magazines (Vogue, Vanity Fair, Glamor, etc.). The only magazine they have (that I can see) which has its own internal legal department is The New Yorker. It is easy to find past and present counsel job openings at The New Yorker ([7], [8]). There's a general counsel of The New Yorker magazine: Fabio Bertoni. You'll find no such job offerings or positions at Wired, despite both magazines sharing the same parent company. The New Yorker regularly breaks stories and has to deal with issues related to privacy laws and defamation, so it makes since they have an internal legal department. Wired does not.

  As I pointed out earlier, Wired already confirmed back in 2017 that the online articles they publish aren't generally fact-checked, and that even online stories that might be legally sensitive are given “not a fact-check per se, but a review for accuracy.” And there is nothing to indicate things have gotten better, things have gotten worse for many online publications due to competition with alternative media outlets.

  one would expect that it would have already been reported upon given that it has already been over a week and a half since the report

  This is another presumption that lacks grounding. Houston's attorney sent a letter to Wired's parent company demanding a retraction on September 2 outlining roughly 15 acts of defamation. That's about a 1 week time-frame of the article being published and Houston securing a defamation attorney, and researching and collecting evidence to build a letter to send. Wired's parent company has zero reason to issue a correction right now. There's no reason they won't spend at least two weeks researching the claims of defamation, determining what they think is defamation or not, and then responding.

  Houston says she has texts messages with Lorenz that show Lorenz knew she was part of Chorus. Lorenz's article says she contacted Houston for comment before publishing it, but the only proof she has since offered is that she sent a message to her public (half million follower) Instagram account where it got buried under a sea of messages, instead of sending a text to Houston's cell phone as they have previously communicated. (and Lorenz has a history of publishing articles claiming she contacted people discussed but that she didn't)

  No mainstream publisher is going to touch this story until the facts become made clear which will likely be in a few weeks, which is why it is so dubious that a tertiary source like Wikipedia is treating this article as reliable and covering on it. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:V means that Wikipedia presumes reliable sources to act in the ways that make them reliable. In this case, it doesn't particularly matter if Wired uses its own lawyers or those of its parent company. If Conde Nast allows Wired to run political articles that are obvious potential defamation magnets without any legal oversight, that's an extraordinary claim that shouldn't be presumed. I'm also not sure a source from 2017 when the online site was very different (a politics section doesn't even exist and many of the articles are obviously fluffier) about material that "might be legally sensitive" is particularly relevant to a 2025 article that is clearly legally sensitive in a time when it has done extensive political investigative reporting (i.e. DOGE).

  As for the stuff about Houston, my point was that if the alleged inaccuracies in a RS are so complicated that it has to be litigated as opposed to being plain and obvious (I'll note that the article has still not been further updated or retracted), we're not under any WP:BLP obligations to remove the content as long as it is attributed (WP:INTEXT) and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines are met (e.g. WP:UNDUE). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:51, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Hey @ເສລີພາບ: you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. You're WP:BLUDGEONING, taking pages to say what you should have only said in a few sentences, and you're an obvious WP:SPA or someone's WP:SOCKPUPPET. 73.115.149.253 (talk) 04:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  DROPTHESTICK is such a strange thing to link to someone who hasn't posted here in nearly a week. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Major Concern

Off-topic The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This looks like a troll, weirdly using a Laotian-language username (ເສລີພາບ = "seliphab" = "freedom). They only created the account on August 28th with a few perfunctory edits on weird spaces like Greek Cypriot name, Meixian, Meizhou and Concubinage. Then they jumped STRAIGHT to Sixteen Thirty Fund and Talk:David Pakman pushing American right-wing talking points before tracking from Sixteen Thirty Fund trying to get Wired removed as a source. Why is this clearly bad-faith behavior being taken seriously and wasting time on Wikipedia??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.64.185 (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This board only deals with the reliability of sources. If you have any concerns about an editors behaviour you need WP:ANI, but I would suggest reading the header instructions before doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I see you are banned and cannot reply. Nonetheless I am glad my name got you to look up the Laotian-language. While you're at it you are invited to read a bit of Laotian history. Maybe if people are exposed more to Laos then they won't find it so weird. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Is a Wayback Machine Archive of Chumbawamba's official website a reliable source?

This is part of a broader disagreement I am having with another user over the article Her Majesty (song). Is the following, at face value, (that is, setting aside other discussions of original research, primary vs secondary sources) a reliable source? https://web.archive.org/web/20020609144951/http://chumba.com/_download.htm Is there any basis for not considering it a reliable source?

Context of the disagreement:

Talk:Her Majesty (song)#Chumbawumba cover

User talk:Shama From MySpace#Her Majesty (song)

Thank you in advance for your time and input. Shama From MySpace (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems like it's covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. Like I was going to say that the website doesn't really say much at all. But it certainly does confirm that the cover exists and that it was modified to contain an anti-monarchist message. It is WP:SPS but we can't doubt that Chumbawamba's website did say those things. We regularly use Archive.org links to preserve versions of pages that might subsequently change. Simonm223 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! Shama From MySpace (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Archived links are as reliable as the original source, that it's been archived doesn't change anything.
Looking at the discussion it would be reliable to say it was given away free to "celebrate" the Golden Jubilee, but you'll need a different source to say anymore. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a halfway decent secondary source (but I am unsure of this) describing the Chumbawamba cover as "notorious", in reference to Pearl Jam's cover in honor of the Queen's death. I guess if I'm being honest, "Chumbawamba made a cover that was anti-monarchist" seems more straightforward to me for the average reader than "Chumbawamba released a notorious cover 'celebrating' the Queen's Jubilee", but in general its better to air on the side of caution. Shama From MySpace (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• I will repeat what I stated at the NOR noticeboard about the same issue…Primary sources can be used to establish existance, but for analysis we need secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. A band covering a song and giving it away is a nothingburger, absolutely unworthy of mention unless covered by reliable, secondary sources. It doesn't matter if the original source was archived or not. Woodroar (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough but if the primary source establishes existence then the Wayback Machine link to the website should be used to note the Chumbawamba cover's existence, not Genius.com etc. (Unless the very existence of the cover itself is determined to be non-notable.) Leaving the article as is doesn't seem to be improving it either. My mild frustration with this situation is I don't think my claim itself is exceptional. Shama From MySpace (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Are IAEA publications primary sources on the topic of IAEA

Basically title. I think anything directly published by the IAEA should be considered a primary source for the article on the IAEA. However, this position has been disputed on the article talk page and no consensus has been reached. An admin recomend opening a discussion here as well. Czarking0 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

IAEA reports are a primary source for the IAEA. If no secondary sources bother to themselves write about a given report, the report isn't notable and its content not due for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What about IAEA publications on the history of the IAEA? Czarking0 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Same story: if no secondary sources covers a particular bit of IAEA history, it's not due for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not a decision or judgment that can be made without a lot more context. ElKevbo (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

What sort of context would make you think that material not covered by any independent sources is due for inclusion? Czarking0 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Reading the discussion, while there are probably cases where the distinction between a WP:COISOURCE and a WP:PRIMARY source (and independent vs secondary) is important, and if you ever decide to tag issues you should probably try to chose the right one between {{3pi}} and {{psi}} but "I think this gives undue prominence to favourable viewpoints" is certainly one that is valid to raise for COISOURCEs. Probably makes more sense than raising it for a PRIMARY source actually, that's more of a "don't do synth or OR" issue, so while NPguy is technically correct on terminology, I'm not really sure that using the wrong term really makes that much of a difference here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This seems like a perverse conclusion. The IAEA is an intergovernmental organization that has strong incentives to be accurate and authoritative. The actual sources cited in the article are ones that governments, experts, and news organizations rely on every day. NPguy (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Alpha's conclusion that the IAEA has a conflict of interest for information about the IAEA. I think you should retract "perverse" Czarking0 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

If experts and news organisation rely on these reports, then we should cite said experts and news organisations (secondary sources) and not the actual reports (primary sources). Cortador (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Czarking0 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The IAEA may well have an incentive to be accurate, but people and organisations rarely have only one motivation, and accuracy is not the primary issue editors opposing inclusion are concerned about here, as best as I could tell. It's possible to unduly emphasise both positive or negative aspects of a topic without publishing anything untrue, or even fully omitting anything true, by giving those aspects differing levels of prominence, or even merely through tone. In general, we do tend to expect documents published by the subject to have an incentive to present things in a way that is favourable to themselves, which is actual issue here rather than any issue of factual reliability. (Though, this does make this noticeboard perhaps less relevant than say, WP:NPOVN) Given one of the portions under dispute was the mission statement, I think WP:MISSION also helps explain the specific concerns involved (and how to include them if it is appropriate). The general expectation is that the article overall does not deviate from what independent third-party sources found important to note, and self-sourced statements may need to be attributed. If the IAEA's own publications go into much more detail about their own activities than what independent sources have noted, then consideration must be given to whether it is DUE. That is not to say we can't include the best of such publications, say, in the further reading section, the same way we commonly include the official website of a subject as an external link. If something is covered by both independent and non-independent sources, there's no reason why you can't cite both, I don't think people would complain about clutter unless you have three or more footnotes in the same place, or if you're citing the same source multiple times a paragraph (in which case just do it once at the end instead). Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

100% agree and said much better than I could have. Thank you and I hope this helps resolve dispute. Regarding venue, this dispute has changed venue like 5 times each time at the suggestion of an admin. If you think it wise I will open another thread at WP:NPOVN. Czarking0 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Alpha3031 is on the right track: Whether a particular source is primary, secondary, or tertiary often isn't very important. Typically, it's better to ask if the source is reliable and if the information is due. Sometimes, it's helpful to ask if the source is independent (which is different from asking if the source is primary).

For what it's worth, I disagree with the assertion that any document published by an organization with information about that organization is a primary source. For example, a self-published history will likely rely on historical materials and in that case the synthetic history would be a secondary source relying on primary, historical sources. And in the absence of additional context we have no idea if the synthetic history document is reliable or if any information in it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

This is good insight. I have been applying primary too broadly. Just to be clear about "I disagree with the assertion that any document published by an organization with information about that organization is a primary source" if the question was shifted to independence would you agree that: Any document published by an organization with information about that organization is not an independent source for the organization? Czarking0 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

World of Reel

This website currently appears only occasionally yet is actually rather routinely cited in film-related articles, being frequently removed or replaced. As suggested by Trailblazer101 at User_talk:PepGuardi#World_of_Reel, "we ought to have a more introspective look into the source and its history of credibility before saying if it is definitively reliable or not". There was a previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_83#World_of_Reel by MikeAllen, who has thankfully removed the site from several articles:

This site World of Reel is being used as a source for budget figures (the original source appears to have originated from here in July 2023; who got the budget for Beau Is Afraid wrong). The website is owned by Jordan Ruimy and the about me page says he has written for The Playlist (last post in 2020), Awards Daily (2018), IndieWire (2019), and The Film Stage (2017?). This site seems similar to WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED, which they have also written for. What are other editors thoughts on this website being a reliable source (and even for reviews)?

Having regrettably cited this source myself on more than one occasion, I agree that a proper RSN discussion is needed. I now recognise that World of Reel is a blog that functions primarily as a rumor mill, frequently posting unconfirmed reports or early scoops without clear sourcing or attribution. It is cited when covering rumors surrounding a film's pre-production, production, and post-production. The site's coverage features rumored production dates[9], rumored castings,[10] questionable budget figures,[11][12][13] industry rumors,[14] festival rumors,[15][16] supposed runtimes,[17] early reactions,[18][19][20][21] awards speculation,[22] blather[23], and rumors rumors rumors[24][25][26][27][28][29]. Maybe someone else can help post more examples, but I vaguely remember several of Ruimy's scoops had later been proven inaccurate (or at least unverifiable), which is precisely why I personally chose to disregard the source altogether. Previous uses of the site as a source on Wiki have raised flags on talk pages, often being removed or challenged under WP:RS, WP:BLP, and WP:FRINGE concerns.

The one example I can remember is for Liarmouth, for which World of Reel extrapolated rumors of very very tentative plans. The Guardian picked up this World of Reel rumor, but later deleted their article. This was even reported by the BBC[30] Plans for the film were never solid:

The filmmaker John Waters issued a statement Wednesday quashing recent rumors about a film project being developed based on his 2022 novel, “Liarmouth: A Feel Bad Romance.”

In the past 24 hours, several news outlets picked up an unattributed article posted Tuesday on the online film website, World of Reel, stating that actress and comedian Aubrey Plaza is scheduled to star as the novel’s protagonist, Marsha Sprinkles. The website also reported that filming would begin this summer in Baltimore, where parts of the novel are set. Not so fast, according to the filmmaker. “While I am thrilled and excited at the idea of Aubrey Plaza starring in my new movie ‘Liarmouth’, the announcement that the film is ready to go in Baltimore, which was printed in an article in World of Reel and then the Guardian, is pure speculation,” Waters wrote in a statement. “Neither writer talked to me or anyone officially involved in developing this movie. We have no start date or green light to begin production but are working to, hopefully, make that happen.” Waters told The Sun that he would love to work with Plaza, who starred in the NBC sitcom “Parks and Recreation” and more recently, in HBO’s “The White Lotus,” but that any talk of casting is premature.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/02/28/shut-your-liarmouth-john-waters-quashes-those-rumors-about-his-new-movie/

Given how frequently I now see this site's reporting touted around both on and off Wikipedia, I think it is overdue we make a wider ruling on its usage. I have no doubt about the connections Ruimy has and he is certainly not 100% incorrect, but you can only traffic in rumors and leaks for so long and still remain a credible source. Sorry, but the guy's an inveterate grifter and bullshitter. Fun to read I suppose, but not a serious RS for Wikipedia.

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2025/5/28/alfonso-cuarn-no-longer-directing-bond-26

• "im hearing its not happening"
• "not sure exactly why, --maybe a deal fell through."

Seriously, is this what passes for journalism nowadays?

And apparently he is a Reddit plagiarist as well?[31] Οἶδα (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Glad to see a full discussion has been started on this matter. Expanding upon my earlier comments, as the OP mentioned, Jordan Ruimy and World of Reel fall under WP:SPS as his site is a blog with no editorial oversight aside from Ruimy himself. For transparency, I do follow his posts and he did address and link to my own (since defunct) self-published Substack newsletter in at least one of his blog posts, though I was admittedly surprised by this because I am by no means a reliable source for information myself and that did raise some eyebrows for me. Most of Ruimy's blog posts are more speculative or unconfirmed details and nothing that meets the criteria of an established news organization or a trade reporting website. I tend to remove Wold of Reel information added to articles because they have been covering unconfirmed rumors or just reiterate what other reports have said (WP:FRUIT). These appear to be the main focal point of the blog's posts. Being an SPS would be an automatic flag as being a generally unreliable source. While Ruimy has written for some more reputable websites, his track record is not as reliable as others. Referring to the mention of my suggestion for a wider discussion on the use and application of Ruimy and World of Reel, that stemmed from an erroneous budget report by Ruimy claiming the latest Captain America film would cost over $300 million due to reshoots, which clearly was not the case considering most reliable sources accept that film's budget as $180 million, per sources at the Captain America: Brave New World article. That, alongside the Beau Is Afraid budget report (which traced to another SPS WP:JEFFSNEIDER), Ruimy and World of Reel show a clear track record of reporting on more rumor mill territory. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 04:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for opening the discussion. I routinely replace his blog with either the original source or if no source is available, it's removed. I think most of the editors add it in good faith (his site is the top results in Google most of the time, sigh), so a clear consensus is needed. Mike Allen 11:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. I figured the issue could be ignored but it seems that sometime between 2022 and 2025 the site gained massive traction. Especially after all the recent Superman coverage. The site is often the first source publicizing what was normally left on social media platforms like Reddit or Twitter. Οἶδα (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

In the vein of what Trailblazer101 wrote above—SPS stuff requires a pretty high-standard establishment of the author in prior work via reputable publications, or agreement of their merits in coverage by reputable publications, to be considered reliable under SPS guidelines. From a editorial/content perspective, World of Reel has always read to me as being somewhere along the standards of DiscussingFilm or Pop Crave, if not a rung higher on the ladder of standards. I would not consider their reporting generally of the merit for use on Wikipedia.

In a world where looking up film topics fills half of the first page of Google with iffy Valnet sources, I generalize that World of Reel tends to show up on page 2 or 3, maybe page 1, depending on how covered a given subject is in other better sources. If something is really worth covering on Wikipedia, a source with clear merit will have done so. I would probably not characterize World of Reel as wholly 'unreliable', but would question the inherent value of their content that is on the mark standards-wise. BarntToust 05:11, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I largely agree. I was curious what the WP:USEBYOTHERS was for World of Reel, and it appears that it is mostly contained to more direct information like quotations from interviews[32][33][34][35] rather than repeating coverage of their rumors. Though the site has recently been cited for early reactions to Wuthering Heights.[36][37][38]

But I still see no use for World of Reel as a source for claims that are not echoed by more traditional outlets. The site's coverage too often plays out like this:

• Edgar Wright in Talks to Direct ‘The Black Hole’ Remake With Joe Cornish Co-Writing
• Edgar Wright is Not Directing ‘The Black Hole’ Remake [Updated]

or

• Julius Onah Replaced as Director of ‘Captain America: Brave New World'
• UPDATE: Julius Onah & ‘Captain America: Brave New World': "A source close to the production negates my report"

or

• New David Lynch to World Premiere at Cannes?
• David Lynch Confirmed For Cannes
• David Lynch Denies He’s Going to Cannes
• How the “David Lynch at Cannes” Rumors Started

or

• Has Brian De Palma Retired?
• Brian De Palma Says He's Making One More Film

or

• ‘Euphoria' Season 3 Cancelled
• ‘Euphoria' Season 3 “Dead" at HBO
• HBO Sets ‘Euphoria' Premiere Date For 2026
• First Look ‘Euphoria' Season 3

or sagas like this:

• Rumor: Christopher Nolan Directing Next James Bond?
• Report: Christopher Nolan Might Not Be “Extremely Interested” After All [Updated]
• Christopher Nolan Denies He’s Directing the Next James Bond
• Alfonso Cuarón Turned Down Offer to Direct James Bond
• Report: Christopher Nolan Wanted to Direct James Bond 26 After ‘Tenet'
• Alfonso Cuarón Met With Amazon/MGM to Direct Bond 26
• Alfonso Cuaron Seemingly Confirms He’s Directing Next James Bond
• Report: Christopher Nolan & Amazon Have “Strong Mutual Desire" to Make Next James Bond
• Rumor: Alfonso Cuarón Eyed to Direct Bond 26
• Alfonso Cuarón No Longer Directing Bond 26?
• Bond 26 to Shoot Next Year — Still No Director Attached
• Bond 26 Shortlist Includes Denis Villeneuve, Edward Berger, Edgar Wright, Paul King and Jonathan Nolan
• OFFICIAL: Denis Villeneuve Directing Next James Bond!

Now, are these maybe an accurate reflection of the state of flux that is film & tv production? Maybe so. But it all still amounts of gossip, rumors, leaks etc and there's a reason the trade publications do not traffic in this type of journalism. They have their own reports for sure, but I have never seen so much "getting it wrong" from what I'm afraid most people now seem to be convinced is a reliable publication. I am sure all of this gets clicks and the site has clearly done something "right" to drive in so many readers. But that should have no bearing on its use on Wikipedia. Almost as inappropriate as citing Twitter rumors. And I'm not seeing any use for his other content (reviews, commentary etc), especially given the above evidence showing him literally plagiarizing Reddit comments lol. Sheesh journalism. Οἶδα (talk) 04:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Haaretz, Jerusalem Post for claim that Ramy Abdu is Hamas affiliated

There's been somewhat recent edit warring over the last two months at Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor about whether claims that founder Ramy Abdu is Hamas affiliated based on assertions of Israeli intelligence services should be included in the article. I've looked the claim up, and aside from a couple of examples, most mainstream media does not mention this claim when talking about Abdu. Sources that I found mentioning the claim were mostly strongly partisan pro-Israel advocacy sources such as NGO Monitor, UN Watch, Honest Reporting, etc, which I don't think are usable. The two exceptions that people have cited are pieces in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post Personally, I'm somewhat leery about the Jerusalem Post, WP:JERUSALEMPOST says that it should only be used for basic facts regarding the conflict, which I don't this claim is. With the Haaretz source, I am unclear whether Haaretz is objective stating that Abdu is affiliated with Hamas, or merely stating that is what Shin Bet have stated to them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that this is a BLP and the claims are that the subject is affiliated with an organisation regarded as a terrorist one by many countries, I would be very reluctant to include that information based on only Israeli-based media, regardless of how reliable they may be considered (which, in this case is effectively only Haaretz). At the very least it should be attributed (and I suspect it should be attributed to Shin Bet, with a note). Black Kite (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think Ha’aretz being Israeli-based should trump its reliability. Ha’aretz is known for independence, for not accepting the Israeli government line. We can’t not use it simply because of its nationality. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

agreed. if haartez says it, its probably enough to say he is hamas affiliated

someone points out the originator of the claim is Shin Bet, and that Haaretz attributes the claim. we should attribute it to shin bet if we include it as well Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

But then the claim is not being made by any of those sources, but by the Israeli intelligence, right? A page that points that is merely reporting other's assertions, not making their own. Cambalachero (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Israeli newspapers being vague about when they're reporting what Israeli intelligence told them vs when they're reporting reality is basically just any given Tuesday. I agree with Black Kite that, as he's a BLP we should be very cautious about including unfounded accusations of terrorism on his biography. And, frankly, I would not consider Israeli news media sources alone sufficient for inclusion here. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

"X is a member of Hamas" is not an opinion, but a disputed fact (either he is or he isn't). If newspapers cite it as a fact it would be just because they consider the Israeli intelligence to be authoritative enough to settle that, I don't see anything wrong there.

And what about Abdu? Does he deny being a member of Hamas as reported by the Israeli intelligence, or is he just silent over it? Cambalachero (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

News sources cite lots of things said by governments and organisations as facts when they aren't, which is sometimes why we deprecate them. But in this case at the least we should not be taking anyone else's word that Israeli intelligence is telling the truth. Per BLP, we say "According to news source X, Israeli intelligence claims that Y is associated with Hamas". Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Remember that Wikipedia is after Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Cambalachero (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes precisely, we can verify that "news source X says that Israeli intelligence claims that Y is associated with Hamas". What can we verify further than that? Black Kite (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Black Kite. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You should be the one to answer that. You said, and I quote, "News sources cite lots of things said by governments and organisations as facts when they aren't". And how do you know what is and what isn't a "fact", if not by trusting in reliable sources? Wikipedia may question the methods of a source and then decide that it is not reliable, but that train of thought, "X is the absolute truth, and sources that refuse the truth can not be considered reliable" is original research of the highest magnitude... regardless of X being actually true or not. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that Haaretz is stating it as fact; I think they're attributing it to Shin Bet. Note that this secondary source summarizes them in that way (ie. they attribute to Haaretz and say that Haaretz is attributing to Shin Bet.) I think it's reasonable for us to follow that in its entirety, ie. report it as something that Haaretz says is the conclusion of Shin Bet or something along those lines. But there's also a potential WP:SYNTH issue (see below.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the Jerusalem Post source as quoted states it as fact without any reference to Israeli intelligence. The problem with the Haaretz source is that there appears to be a typographical error, if you look at the original source [39] in the relevant section it says The Shin Bet security services replied that CEPR has in fact recently been declared an illegal organization, in light of the fact that it is Hamas’ leading organization in Europe, which carries out its activity under cover of being a pro-Palestinian organization. The organization is headed by senior Hamas activists, including Arafat Shoukri and Rami Abdo." there appears to be a closing quotation mark but not an opening one. The obvious intepretation is to take the part beginning with CEPR has in fact... as the beginning of the quote, but I'm not sure if that would be considered WP:OR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

There are more sources that mention Abdu's connections with Hamas. Abdu used to head the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) which The Independent described as a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government. Abdu is mentioned in the article too as "Rami Abdo." Alaexis_¿question? 19:40, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Even if true, an organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Gazan government is not necessarily run by members of Hamas. So again, not the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

at best maybe we can attribute claims of connection Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I would be cautious even with this. I mean Jerusalem Post said that having a conscience was Hamas. Should we be putting that attributed claim under Conscience? I'm being a little facetious here, but only a little. I have absolutely no trust in the Israeli state nor its sympathetic press to make true statements regarding any advocate for Palestinians.War propaganda is a helluva drug and it makes for an inaccurate encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I’d hardly call Haaretz “sympathetic press” for the Israeli government. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I was clearly and explicitly referring to Jerusalem Post thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Didn’t seem particularly clear to me given the context, but you do you. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite, you're right. My point was that it's not a particularly far-fetched claim. Even if he isn't a card-carrying member he's been associated with Hamas. Alaexis_¿question? 14:04, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I’d personally hold off on using JPost per previous discussions here that they’re not the best for contentious claims, but Haaretz seems fair to quote, albeit as mentioned above it’s not entirely clear whether they’re attributing it or putting it in their own voice. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:42, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Both seem to be attributing. Haaretz neglected to put an open quote mark, but put a close quote after the attribution to Shin Bet. JPost also sounds like it is attributing to an Israeli government source. They are also using activist and operative respectively, which seems less closely affiliated than a member. What is reliable for establishing affiliation? Does Hamas even exist or is it Israeli imagination? Metallurgist (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• If it were just The Jerusalem Post, it is probably not usable for BLP-sensitive things related to the I/P conflict (the RSP entry says It should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited.) Haaretz, though, is usable, if potentially WP:BIASED, so it could be used with attribution... my reading is the same as Metallurgist's, though, that they are quoting the Shin Bet security services in that paragraph but neglected an open-quote (that is a pretty serious typographical error!) Possibly this source might be worth using / following; note that they attribute to Haaretz and say that Haaretz attributes to Shin Bet. There's another potential problem here, though - this discussion seems to be talking about how it should be covered at Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, and Haaretz (and that other source I noted) doesn't actually make that connection, so relying on that source would potentially be WP:SYNTH. If the Jerusalem Post is the only one making the connection then we should probably hold off and see if any other sources pick up on it. --Aquillion (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ive seen articles have such types of connections, but others there was more pushback. Probably all correlated with BLP and contentiousness. I think its preferable to have sources mention both topics in question, but if they are both independently established, it can be ok. I mean generally, not just this. Dont have another example on hand. Metallurgist (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The only source for this claim is indeed the Shin Bet, and as @Aquillion and others have correctly noted this is stated in the source (The Independent). The piece repeats the allegation while also including its denial by the CPFR. I see that @Alaexis was the one one who added this allegation to Ramy Abdu's page and in a way that leaves out this context and sourcing, imo falsely attributing to The Independent a verification of Abdu's affiliation by cherry-picking a single line from it and ignoring the context provided. Why did he not also include the denial of the allegation by the CPFR leadership in a way that disregards BLP and NPOV? A single throwaway line in an article repeating an intelligence service's allegation (unverified, not followed up) is far from sufficient for a BLP and I have removed it. Alaexis has long been trying to deprecate the EMHRM, so as my parents used to tell me, I'm not surprised but I am disappointed. I also agree with Aquillion that the claim fails WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH and should not be included in the Euro-Med article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That's simply not true. The Independent did not repeat "an intelligence service allegation" but characterised CERP as a "a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government" in their own voice. There are no quotation marks.[40] Alaexis_¿question? 21:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I've read this article already, no need to be snide. Especially when you're selectively taking a quote from the lead of the article while ignoring the body of the story where they explain their sourcing. The Independent did not independently verify these allegations, they say it comes from Shin Bet via Haaretz, which also states the sourcing. Not only that, but the head of the org disputed it which you left out as well (not very WP:DUE), seemingly to tie someone to Hamas based solely on Shin Bet allegations, misrepresenting it as well by attributing to The Independent. IMO that's not appropriate for a BLP and it should be removed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This discussion would appear to be ongoing, so before major reversions are made of the version prior to this discussion starting (or not notifying those involved? I am not sure), we should establish a firm consensus for why these sourced pieces of content should absolutely not stand, or not even in the body (if not in the lead). Iljhgtn (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Your edit in the Euro-Med article restored recently added content that has been challenged by another editor and myself, and that I reverted. This ignores WP:BRD, which should be followed especially re BLP content. I was restoring the stable version of the article. The edit also includes a serious BLP standard violation that would need consensus before it could be included. Please do not restore it again until there is consensus for this change.

I also see now that you separately tried to include (in the lead of the article) not once but twice the allegation that Ramy Abdu is linked to Hamas, not even bothering to say alleged, and citing a clearly non-RS source. You were rightly reverted for that, but I have to ask: why are you adding non-RS BLP violating content to this article, and then violating BRD to have the same claim restored? Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Alleged would have been a better term, do you want to add it back with the sources in the body? Iljhgtn (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Would belong in a bio of Abdu, not necessarily in the article like that Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if it belongs anywhere, it's in Abdu's article. As I already noted this allegation carries significant BLP concerns given the lack of quality sourcing and its sole attribution being the Shin Bet with no independent verification by RS. This is, imo, very very far from being sufficient to meet BLP standards to be included there, but if editors want to argue the case, they can do that in the talk there with a formal RfC. I will oppose. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Given the resolution of the main question, shouldnt this be back on whatever article talk page? Metallurgist (talk) 05:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

References

References

Clubic

Clubic [41] is a French news website that I couldn't find any previous discussion for, even on the French-language Wikipedia. Their editorial staff can be found here. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS I've found plenty of peer-reviewed journals and WP:RS that have cited this website:

• Ferrier, Laurent; Ibrahim, Hussein; Issa, Mohamad; Ilinca, Adrian (28 April 2021). "State of the Art of Telecommunication Systems in Isolated and Constrained Areas". Sensors. 21 (9): 3073. Bibcode:2021Senso..21.3073F. doi:10.3390/s21093073. PMID 33925150.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link): ISS Aerospace Dévoile un Drone à Hydrogène Pour la Surveillance Environnementale. Available online: https://www.clubic.com/drone/actualite-869274-iss-aerospace-drone-hydrogene-surveillance-environnementale.html (accessed on 23 April 2021).
• Dawarka, Viraj; Bekaroo, Girish (6–7 December 2018). Cloud Robotics Platforms: Review and Comparative Analysis. 2018 International Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications (ICONIC). Mon Tresor, Mauritius: IEEE. doi:10.1109/ICONIC.2018.8601220.{{cite conference}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link): R. Heuillard, “Gostai: la robotique et la téléprésence abordables,” Clubic Tech, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://www.clubic.com/actualite-251396-gostainet-robotique-personnelle-telepresence.html. [Accessed 7 May 2018].
• Capital [42]: (translated) This is notably the case of Tesla, which is now rolling out a version of its presence detection technology in Europe, reports Clubic.
• El País [43]: (translated) Although everyone is waiting with bated breath to see what Sony will present to us in two days at the IFA 2015 fair, where the arrival of the new Xperia Z5 is expected, accompanied by two more versions, the Xperia Z5 Compact and Xperia Z5 Premium, now a video has been leaked showing the new device on the French site Clubic.
• HuffPost [44]: (translated) The Commandant du Combat Futur (CCF) clarified the AI's contribution to the device and the outlines of its future visor, according to French media outlet Clubic.

Thoughts on this website as a reliable source? I think this can safely be considered reliable per above, but I'd like to get thoughts from others too. –GM 03:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If used to support notability I'd have some concerns re. affiliate links and and making sure the specific article meets WP:PRODUCTREV but otherwise, it's reasonably well established and has clear evidence of an editorial process, so I see no reason to treat it any differently from any other mid-tier WP:NEWSORG. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Winsipedia

How reliable is the widely used sports database, Winsipedia?

*Option 1: Generally Reliable

• Option 2: Additional Considerations Necessary
• Option 3: Generally Unreliable
• Option 4: Must be Depricated

NotJamestack (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Winsipedia)

Option 2. I'm not saying that Winsipedia is bad, but I do think that it should cite where it's information comes from in order to be more reliable. Sure, Winsipedia is generally correct, but there are some disputes with websites that only show records up to a certain point, and that's the problem. Winsipedia needs to give us their sources so there isn't confusion. That's just my reasoning, of course. NotJamestack (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RFC per the noticeboard header and edit notice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Winsipedia)

Has there been any prior discussions to show why there should be a RFC on Winsipedia? If not this should just be a normal discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I found one here. It talks about why the person thinks that others should refrain from using Winsipedia as a source. NotJamestack (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

So no, the website hasn't been 'repeatedly discussed', making an RfC inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I still think this should be brought up as Winsipedia has been referenced in hundreds of pages, and there is no doubt that is has been used as a source thousands of times if we take into account the pages with multiple winsipedia refs. NotJamestack (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this a bad RfC - it should just be a regular discussion. In the spirit of regular discussion and without casting a !vote in the section above, I observe that Winsipedia looks a lot like UGC. Their Terms of Use talks about users uploading content which the owners do not filter or moderate. If I'm right about that, we should probably treat it similar to WP:IMDB - which is to say, it's generally unreliable, and would be an easy way for a sneaky vandal to support hoax content about smaller sports teams/events that perhaps don't get much in the way of user moderation over there. Girth Summit _(blether) 02:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I saw that, but I suspect the relevant Terms of Use clauses relate to their forum, rather than the database. I think instead (unless we have more in the way of evidence regarding the use of UGC) we should look at what WP:RS says: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Is there evidence of such a 'reputation'? More specifically, do other sources (meeting WP:RS standards themselves) regularly cite Winsipedia? That is the appropriate criteria, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I think I misinterpreted the edit notice. Could you please close/archive this RfC, then message me on my talk page when you do? NotJamestack (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

We have started a discussion on the merits of Winsipedia as a source. You don't get to arbitrarily close it because you made a mistake. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No no, I was talking about the RfC. We can move this discussion to another place. NotJamestack (talk) 10:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This thread is no longer labelled an RfC. The options have been struck out. The purpose of WP:RSN is to discuss the reliability of sources. You started the discussion. Pleas continue to do so, here in this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I was just trying to help out here. The move idea was just a thought. Moving on... NotJamestack (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The New World (British newspaper)

What are editors opinions on this publication? Halbared (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware, this was formerly the New European.

Id say it was mostly opinion pieces, and as such best used with caution, and attributed. Beyond that, as per the notice at the top of this page, it depends on context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It does look like mostly opinion pieces and commentary on political topics. As always it depends on how you use it. Secretlondon (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both, I ought to have mentioned it's former title. I was going to mention it with refence to brexit/Farage/reform topics, but didn't wish to preload the answers. But really it's using it in reference to the above area of UK politics.Halbared (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

A standard WP:NEWSORG, has an obvious WP:RSBIAS in relation to the UK's relation with the EU. WP:RSOPINION should be attributed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Reliable if somewhat biased. Mostly opinion but its news content is high quality and the opinions it publishes are noteworthy. In particular, its writing and editorial teams are made up of highly respected journalists with track records with notable reliable media outlets. Despite its newspaper format, it’s probably better thought of as comparable to current affairs magazines like New Statesman or Prospect than to an actual newspaper. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

A reminder that being 'biased' isn't in of itself a reason to rule out a source. All sources have biases, and particularly when citing sources for opinion, we are expected to cite broadly, in proportion to the range of opinions in valid sources generally. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems reliable. What their opinion pieces/editorials state doesn't matter all that much; we have specific policies for that anyway. Cortador (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Channel NewsAsia (CNA) and other Mediacorp-affiliated media

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Option 1 was very clearly favored over the other offered options. It's unclear to me there were any procedural problems that should invalidate this clear consensus. -- Beland (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Channel NewsAsia (CNA) is one of two major news outlets in Singapore, the other being The Straits Times. How should we consider its reliability?

channelnewsasia.com  

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

ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Survey (CNA)

• Option 1: Given some growing consensus to elevate The Straits Times to WP:GREL similar to how WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are treated, I will consider it a reliable source, though with considerations similarly applied for The Straits Times given Singapore's limited press freedoms. In fact, CNA, being a mediacorp news outlet, could be considered a state-owned news outlet given Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings - the investment arm of the Government of Singapore. However, compared to The Straits Times, it's considered more reputable particularly due to its documentaries. It was considered broadcaster of the year at Berlin World Media Festivals and New York Festivals, global gold for Best News Website at Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022 and having outstanding reporting on climate change at Asiavision Awards. A Reuters survey in 2024 also showed that CNA remains the most trusted brand among Singaporeans. Also from accessing its usage across Wikipedia, it seems CNA has been used for various topics. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: CNA should be WP:GREL. While owned by Mediacorp, CNA has demonstrated a greater degree of journalistic independence than The Straits Times. It has positioned itself more as an international news outlet rather than a local one, similar to NHK World-Japan, BBC News, France 24 and Deutsche Welle (DW). Its international coverage is widely regarded as reliable, balanced and professional. While some caution may still be advisable when evaluating CNA's domestic political coverage as with any national outlet, its international reporting is fully reliable and on par with established sources with international recognition for its credibility. Aleain (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: Per above. I have personally always found CNA more neutral than ST, especially with their international reporting. By extension, I have also found Today to have similar levels of neutrality to CNA. For some context on Today, it is also owned by Mediacorp and was merged into CNA in 2024. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 I still have doubts about this RFC, but will add a comment anyway. The situation in Singapore remains the same, as noted by Reporters Without Borders[45], and especially given the passing of the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill[46]. CNA is a trusted and respected news organisation[47], but editors need to take into account the local situation when dealing with anything related to the government or ruling party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  Singapore's media landscape may not mirror that of countries with a freer press, but that does not make CNA unreliable. Option 2 suggests that CNA spreads false statements like fake vote counts or baseless attacks on opposition figures, which is simply untrue. CNA has earned international recognition for a reason, and there is no evidence of it engaging in outright disinformation. While CNA is highly cautious on local politics, it does not cross into the kind of state propaganda seen in fully authoritarian countries where reliable sources such as SCMP and Al Jazeera are based in. Aleain (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Option 2 doesn't suggest they spread false statements or anything such, it states that additional considerations apply which is the case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  WP:MREL, which Option 2 refers to, alludes to a grey area between sources that are generally reliable and those that are not. Has CNA engaged in consistent patterns of poor fact checking, inaccuracies or widespread errors in its areas of expertise that would exclude it from meeting the standard of a generally reliable source under WP:GREL? Aleain (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  There is a grey area when it comes to the situation in Singapore, and shown by the sources linked. In those areas additional considerations apply as per my comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. Rather than how should we consider its reliability, we should consider the reliability of a source (which is not just the publisher), in a context, for a Wikipedia article, if disputed, with no check-one-of-four forms. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• RfC Close/Withdraw No WP:RFCBEFORE here. Adding the comment that I doubt the GREL status of this for anything to do with the govt. Mediacorp is a monopolistic broadcaster directly owned, controlled and funded by the sovereign fund Temasek itself mired in controversy around appointments of close relatives of the top Singaporean political brass. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  It seems you may not be fully informed on the topic and are making a quick remark without engaging meaningfully with the discussion. While Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings, a government-linked investment firm, that alone does not compromise CNA's editorial integrity. CNA has its own editorial team and regularly produces journalism that is regionally and internationally recognised. It covers a wide range of issues, including those critical of government policy. Dismissing it purely based on ownership reflects a shallow understanding of media ecosystems and ignores CNA's track record of factual and balanced reporting. Aleain (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  My vote for this was mainly a procedural one to close neither in affirmation nor in disagreement on the basis that RfCs need a prior infructuous discussion which isn't the case here. A remark/comment was appened, and labelled as such, but neither was it rash, shallow nor made on mere analysis of ownership. Your assumption in that regard is incorrect. I am well aware of the Singaporean media environment, its self-censorship, PAP presurres and intransgencies [I lay the same in the Straits Times discussion above]. Neither the CNA nor the Mediacorp are alien to these.

  Politics and Change in Singapore and Hong Kong: Containing Contention by Stephan Ortmann (2009, Routledge):

  Finally, unlike Hong Kong, Singapore's ruling elite controls nearly all of the major external means of communication. The leading English-language newspaper, the pro-government Straits Times, is owned by the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), which is closely linked to the government. The other major media company. MediaCorp, a government-linked corporation, has a monopoly over freely available terrestrial television stations and owns the only freely distributed daily tabloid, Today. There are virtually no alter-native voices in Singapore's media landscape, which means that the govern-ment possesses a strong ability to control the masses. Prominent party members have, furthermore, published autobiographies, monographs, and other commemorative books, which are widely available in Singapore book-stores. This stands in contrast to the opposition, which has difficulty getting its books and magazines published. The PAP has also used the mainstream media to broadcast documentaries which are biased in favor of the ruling elite.

  Fake News and Elections in Southeast Asia: Impact on Democracy and Human Rights by James Gomez, Robin Ramcharan (2022, Taylor & Francis):

  Control of broadcast and print media has also been achieved through the total control of Mediacorp via Temasek volding a government investment firm headed by the prime minister's wife, Ho Ching - as well as via the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA), where government approved management are given "200 times the voting power of ordinary shareholders", leading to pervasive self-censorship, and the use of domestic media to orchestrare "coverage [that] clearly favors the PAP and "misrepresents[s]" its opponents. In 2021, Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 160th in terms of press freedom, only 17 places alove China and 19 places above North Korea.

  But what about CNA itself, let us turn to the enwiki article on it:

  CNA has been criticised for its pro-government bias in Singapore. In its 12th biennial report released on 2 September 2009, Pace stipulated that "the broadcaster was adopting a conservative and careful approach in its reports and programmes", while being labelled as the "voice of the Government".

  Broadcast media is also generally less reliable than print media. Even if we were to rate CNA GREL, I don't see why we should anyhow, that would come with a giant caveat of exempting that status for any local or political coverage.

  PS: Comparisons between Singaporean government controlled media and other outlets such as Al Jazeera and SCMP have been made in the Straits Times discussion above. But I ask those making such comparisons to read Al Jazeera Media Network#Editorial independence. Though I also believe there is evidence for a revisit of SCMP's status at RSP. Gotitbro (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 CNA fits into the "soft approach" broadcasters Martelanc et al identified [48] in the typology of state-backed external services built for their UNESCO study in the 1970s. The state affiliation, therefore, shouldn't be questioned in its reporting on matters external to the home country and we should default to simply determining if it crests some basic standard of USEBYOTHERS which, as far as I can tell, it does. Insofar as its reporting on the home country goes, the state affiliation itself shouldn't be questioned unless there's evidence (beyond ownership) to support such questions which, as far as I can tell, there is not. It may incorporate or exhibit unique framing in its reporting but that, by itself, is insufficient to question the veracity of the underlying claims. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
• Bad RfC - I'm agreeing with Peter Gulutzan on this one. All news organizations are motivated to get things published quickly, which leads news organizations, in general, to making mistakes. With online publishing and a 24/7 news cycle taking over... it's perhaps gotten worse because it's no longer "get it done before the morning paper is published" and there is a push to get it out the door immediately, so editors should always take news reports with a hint of skepticism, and know that news stories evolve as more information becomes available. In order to review this source, we need to know what the conflict is. What is it reporting, how is it being used, what's the disagreement? Denaar (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1. Chetsford said it well. A source with proper editorial review and all the other hallmarks of a reliable source shouldn't be listed as anything less without evidence of actual issues, which I have yet to see. Yes, CNA is somewhat more favorable to the SG gov't than some other newspapers in other countries, but my evidence for this is purely anecdotal and they (as far as I know) do not make things up to further potential biases.

To push back on the RfCBEFORE arguments: CNA has been discussed at RSN several times before [49][50][51]. Even if that weren't the case, there has been a long-running saga around SG state-backed sources spanning many discussions here and on article talk pages, FAC pages, and elsewhere. Having extremely similar sources called into question justifies an effort to confirm the reliability of CNA by RfC. Toadspike [Talk] 03:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (CNA)

• Is there any WP:RFCBEFORE for this? It appears to have been opened out of nowhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• In truth, I thought RSNs/RfCs are for discussions for all widely-used sources being used, and I opened this RfC more to also add CNA on the RSP list following the re-evaluation of Straits Times reliability. But an admin off-wiki pointed out to me, if there hadn't been issues, please don't bring them up. So, honestly, I apologise if this is out of process or anything. Let's say I misunderstood the assignment.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Both the noticeboard header and the edit notice explicitly ask you not to do this. Unless there has been prior disagreement and discussion this should proby be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this should be closed. The discussion about The Straits Times and CNA is closely linked since they are part of the same country and media environment. CNA is widely used in articles relating to Singapore and the greater Southeast Asian region, and its reliability was already raised on this noticeboard here. If we don't deal with this now, when will we? The same debates are bound to come up again soon so it's better to get everything cleared up. Aleain (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  The issue is that noone who may object to CNA's use can know to comment in this RFC, because they have yet to raise any objection. This feels uncomfortably like pre-approval. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  I had previously attempted to ascertain CNA's reliability more than a month ago on WikiProject Singapore, but unfortunately there was little response. I believe there had been sufficient visibility on both the WikiProject and this noticeboard for a reasonable amount of time to allow for a range of perspectives on CNA. Aleain (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

• This was never setup correctly, and so was archived early. I've restored it from the archive and added the {{rfc}} template per WP:RFCOPEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  I've posted a close request to WP:CR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:58, 22 September 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.

RfC: Simple Flying

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for Option 4. -- Beland (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

---

Is Simple Flying [52] from 2024 and later ...

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

Is Simple Flying prior to 2024 ...

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

Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Simple Flying)

• Option 4 (all years)changing !vote per RickyCourtney's reasoningOption 2 (2024+), Option 3 (2023-) ... Recent reporting seems to be fine for non-BLP content on aviation-related matters that doesn't make extraordinary claims or assert information inconsistent with other sources; older reporting may be problematic. Simple Flying passes WP:USEBYOTHERS as it's widely cited by, for example, The Kansas City Star, [53] the Miami Herald, [54] WBOY-TV, [55] USA Today, [56] CNN, [57] WJLA-TV, [58] Fortune, [59] The Week, [60] and scores of others. It has multiple reporters, indicating a gatekeeping process, and it hasn't been negatively checked by fact-checking websites like PolitiFact, Snopes, etc. On the other hand, their reporters all seem to be generalists without specific expertise in aviation journalism, almost all of the USEBYOTHERS has occurred in the last two years, and some basic factual errors were noticed in the years immediately after it went online (2019-2022). Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC); edited 20:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (2024+) I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. In lack of a specific edit and specific cite, I can only say I would tend to not use it on a basis of low WEIGHT of readers . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 Option 4 (all years) - If WP:UBO is the only evidence that Simple Flying's reliability may have improved, then I'm going to have to oppose any change at this time. - ZLEA ^T|C 05:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Changed to option 4 per Avgeekamfot. - ZLEA ^T|C 20:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 (all years) - Based on AndyTheGrump's research, this is a churnalism outfit that makes schoolboy errors and who's links by other sources can probably be attributed to journalists in a hurry.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 (all years) - My experience with SF is that, while some factual information may be buried in their stories, much of it is just farming content for social media consumption. Announcements of new routes, etc., might be factual (even if they're just re-prints of corporate press releases), but there are too many instances of factually incorrect statements included in their reporting. Considering this, it's best that they be considered "generally unreliable" and articles should avoid citing them, especially if other sources exist. I think it's also a bad idea to apply the rubric that reliable sources cite SF here, considering the authors of those otherwise RS are likely not aviation specialists and might be inclined to believe whatever they read on sites like this. nf utvol (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 (all years) - I've consistently reviewed additions of Simple Flying as a source since the prior consensus emerged and support fully depreciating it. It is not currently used on Wikipedia but it is added a few times a week. I'm interested in aviation so I often read articles from Simple Flying and often find inaccuracies. It's only really useful as an aggregator of events but completely useless for facts. Depreciating would save a lot of time. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4, all years, support deprecating As both a working journalist and journalism professor—and an aviation geek personally—I find this outlet reads like classic churnalism aimed at engagement farming. While a few authors demonstrate expertise, their work is diluted by articles from others who publish articles with factual errors or only trivial observations (without the purpose of making complex topics accessible). The problem is that many of these mistakes are subtle enough to pass unnoticed by a general audience (or hurried non-specialist journalists), but stand out immediately to those with subject-matter expertise. To me, that reflects either insufficient editorial oversight or a lack of editorial sophistication—shortcomings that, in my opinion, are inexcusable for a publication that presents itself as a specialist source or for a reliable one for Wikipedia. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4, all years, support depracating I actively review simpleflying links before removing them and I have not seen any that stack up against more reputable aviation sources. There's just to much in there that's wrong to trust that someone might actually find and link to something that is factually correct, so on balance I'd suggest we're a much better of place without it. 10mmsocket (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Simple Flying)

• This site has been the subject of two previous discussions here and is frequently added (and removed) from articles. Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  For reference those discussions were:
  WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421#SimpleFlying.com
  and
  WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#SimpleFlying revisit.
  Simple Flying is a Valnet publication[61]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Why is this RfC distinguishing between '2024 and later' and 'prior to 2024'? Has something of significance changed? If so, we need to be told what it is, and be given evidence that it matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have the same question. I am unaware of any changes after 2024 that would impact their reliability (which, for the record, is not exactly stellar). nf utvol (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Same here. What changed in 2024 that might change its reliability? - ZLEA _T\^C 17:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, virtually every example of WP:UBO I can find is 2024 or later. Why that is I can't say, but it probably doesn't matter. Wikipedians generally don't have the capacity to engage in correct evaluation of the veracity of online sources; a best practice would require evaluation of at least two constructed weeks of content for every six months evaluated. In the absence of this individualized ability, we do (or should) rely on on what RS do to ascertain the reliability of any given source. RS, in this case and as far as I can tell, seem to have adopted an observable pattern of use that preferences 2024 and later. (Perhaps others will notice a different pattern or no pattern at all, though, in which case they can normalize their opinions between the two time periods.) Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

As has been explained below, UBO isn't enough to evaluate the reliability of a source. In addition to the factual reporting problem, WP:Simple Flying states that the source has engag[ed] in plagiarism and churnalism. Therefore, I'm going to have to oppose any change in its reliability rating unless and until it can be shown that all of its issues have improved. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a look at what content Simple Flying currently has on its website. An article entitled How Many P‑47 Thunderbolts Were Built? [62] has just been published, and since I know a little about the P-47, that seemed worth further inspection. And I have to say, I'm far from impressed. The article is repetitive and badly written (e.g. "Thunderbolts destroyed upwards of 7,000 Axis aircraft, with around half of that number being on the ground and more than half being in air-to-air combat." which requires rather unorthodox mathematics) and gives a distinctly unfinished impression - assuming that an LLM wasn't involved somewhere, which seems at least possible. If this is at all typical of Simple Flying's output, I'd have to query why we'd want to cite it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Another example of sloppy writing, from February this year: "Supermarine built a number of seaplanes, including the Seafire (a naval version of the Spitfire)" [63] Either the writer doesn't understand what a seaplane is - a float-equipped aeroplane operating from water rather than land - or he has done zero research into the Seafire, which most definitely wasn't equipped with floats, being instead a modification of the Spitfire design, equipped with a tailhook etc for operation from aircraft carriers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I should probably nominate this bit of insightful writing for the annual internet stating-the-obvious prize (I assume there is one. If not, there should be.), From Why The Boeing 747 Has Four Engines (published 4 days ago) .[64] "The Boeing 747 has four engines because that is what it was designed with. It was designed with four engines because, in the 1960s, four engines were considered optimal given the engines available, the need for power, and the range requirements." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't have much familiarity with aviation but I have to agree with Andy here. This site to an outsider looks like a bit of a content farm, even if it isn't necessarily written entirely by AI. The sheer volume of articles being put out per day by the same contributors, as well as the SEO-bait content Andy highlighted is cause for concern. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't presuppose any knowledge or ability to judge what sources are reliable. I can only go by what reliable sources indicate are reliable. Chetsford (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Evaluation of the reliability of sources (in general, or for specific content) by Wikipedia contributors is a routine process - it is the purpose of this noticeboard. One does not require any particular specialist skill to recognise bad writing, and only minimal knowledge to recognise the sort of obvious error that a legitimate aviation journalist shouldn't be making. And no, WP:UBO isn't some sort of trump card for negating such assessment. It is evidence to take into consideration, alongside other considerations, that is all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I started an essay which some other editors have helpfully contributed to on this outlet which may be helpful for editors as they participate at WP:Simple Flying. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• I've posted a close request to WP:CR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:59, 22 September 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.

Library of Congress blogs

I've been editing the article Jack (hero) and found some relevant posts on the Library of Congress blogs (e.g. this one) by Stephen Winick, a folklorist at the American Folklife Center of the Library of Congress. While blogs are typically not reliable, I think these should count since they're written by subject matter experts. The about section on the LoC blogs says that they're written by staff and Library experts. Are these fine to use, and more generally, are LoC blogs reliable sources in general? Truthnope (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

We generally consider self-published materials, including blog posts, written by qualified experts to be reliable. ElKevbo (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• I've used them before, and found them pretty good. I think it was Winick that I was usually using. Going to be pretty solid WP:EXPERTSPS. Don't use on BLPs, but for that article, completely fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Which of these sources is reliable for Carl Azuz?

See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Carl Azuz

Source	Statements supported
The Teen Magazine	Azuz first found interest in broadcasting during high school theater.
Weddington Witness	Azuz advanced to writing and producing for CNN International before being recruited for student-focused programming, including work as a features writer and writer/deliverer of the "Shoutout" segment.
Old News Club
The Criterion	Azuz has been described as "bringing news to a generation in a lighthearted, engaging, and factual manner" with his use of puns and presentation of news segments, which have been widely used in schools.

– MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it, these look very low-end sources. Little more than blogs, where you can sign up to be a correspondent. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Is the Historical Society of the Somerset Hills a reliable source?

As in this edit, MrOllie has removed uses of material from the Historical Society of the Somerset Hills in about a dozen articles, with the claim that the references are being removed because they are "unreliable sources / self published website". As discussed on the editor's talk page, MrOllie claims in these edits that the material "is a self published website. Since it was put up by folks with no professional qualifications, it doesn't meet WP:RS."

Is the Historical Society of the Somerset Hills a reliable source? Is there any reason that because it publishes its own material on its own website and newsletter or that its staff are not professionals that would preclude its use as a reliable source? Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a source that I would advocate using. It's a historical society run by volunteers. There's likely no editorial oversight, no peer review process, and the members are enthusiasts rather than professional historians. It's better than a individual's blog, but a reliable source it ain't. Why we would use that to support the location of Barnards Township isn't clear to me - surely there are better sources confirming where the place is? Girth Summit _(blether) 21:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Tom's Hardware

Tom's Hardware (link) is an Canadian website owned by Future US, who also own other RS like GamesRadar+ and PC Gamer. It has been operating since 1996. It's been mentioned once here with no clear resolution. There were also some mentions in WT:VG/S, but never a full discussion. The site has forums, but they are automatically unreliable per WP:UGC, so only articles matter.

Tom's Hardware about page Dabmasterars [RU/COM] (talk/contribs) 10:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Generally reliable. They have an editorial policy, are an IPSO member, and have a good NewsGuard rating. Cortador (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

(Copy pasted from the discussion in VG:RS) Seems reliable to me. Editorial staff looks good and articles are well-written. –GM 00:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone actually challenging its use? Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Don’t see why it shouldn’t be considered reliable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Novara Media.

I have looked in the archives, there are two slim mentions of [[Novara Media]], but there's no real chat. What are your thoughts? Halbared (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I think, per the note at the top of this page, that you need to be more specific. What is it being cited for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Ta for that, I hadn't actually read that note.Halbared (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Skyhorse Publishing

Is there any precedent for evaluating the reliability of an imprint? This imprint seems to be pretty sketchy, at best. The article on Skyhorse Publishing is highly critical and there have been numerous articles about Skyhorse that paint an unflattering picture. The challenge is that because the books are distributed by simon and schuster, they appear on sites like barnes and noble without any warning that they might be questionable (https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/epstein-dylan-howard/1133835450).

Here is what led me to evaluate them in the first place

Talk:Ari Ben-Menashe#removing passage on Epstein

And here are the instances I could find of the imprint being dsicussed in the past with none of it positive

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 322#c-Location-2020-12-22T15:51:00.000Z-The Four Deuces-2020-12-20T04:11:00.000Z

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 454#Sports Publishing/Skyhorse and Triumph Books

Crs5827 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a response to the question, but a note that appearing on the Barnes & Noble website should never be taken as any suggestion of quality. They basically list everything in the distribution catalog, which will include all sorts of material that is self-published or from non-reliable publishers. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know that they list self-published books. And while I fully agree with you, I presume that lots of others don't know that B&N lists self-published books. Of course listing on B&N isn't a criteria for a RS (to my knowledge anyway) it can give an air of credibility. Crs5827 (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It really doesn't. The Camp of the Saints is on there. [65] PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

You can trust me that they really do list self-published books. I'm not sure that I've seen anyone use the existence of a book at bn.com to mean anything more than proof that the book exists, however. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It depends. A lot of the scandals have nothing to do with reliability - their most scandalous deeds, publishing works from people who are known or alleged to be morally dubious, Woody Allen or Norman Mailer, may be morally questionable, but I don't see how that would have a reliability impact. But there are other issues, so I would say there is a reason to be more cautious than other publishers in especially controversial/conspiratorial topics, but this can be moderated depending on individual book and author given their contrarian tendencies, but they're influential enough I wouldn't toss it out wholly; if an author there is respected or the book is widely cited/has a good reception I would say that is fine. The authors of this book seem to be tabloid journalists who have little positive reception given to them. I would surely not use them on medical anything. Especially historically, whatever turn they have taken recently does not seem to stretch into the past. From what I can tell in the late 2010s and 2020s they have gotten more questionable. I think in this case removal was appropriate.

Also, B&N means nothing. They will have anything on that site. They have neo-Nazi books on that site. It is like Amazon. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

We cite them some 2,000 times, but a decent chunk of this seems to be due to two things 1) they publish editions of the CIA World Factbook and 2) seem to do a lot of accessible reprints of old books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA said it well. It's a contrarian publisher, which at the very least gives an editor like myself some pause when considering use of its publications. But it is what it is. And remember, the bible is nonfiction. But above all, the works should be considered individually. After all, as reported by Jacobin, the far right is a lucrative market for book publishers[66]. I know Hachette has been raking in millions through their Center Street imprint, as has HarperCollins through Broadside Books and Simon & Schuster though their Threshold Editions. Harper has an entire imprint called Fox News Books, whose books routinely appear on the Times's best-seller list.[67] It's all business to them. It's a publishing gift that keeps on grifting. I increasingly became of aware of Skyhorse after they picked up the cancelled Woody Allen memoir and the cancelled Philip Roth biography, as well as RFK Jr's The Real Anthony Fauci. But I read through Skyhorse_Publishing#Criticism and I'm not seeing anything that makes them more unreliable than what the Big Five publishers are doing. Harper themself published Project 2025 propaganda last year. If the issue is a book being cited that Skyhorse published then consider how that source is being used and if its voice consitutes due weight. Publishing fringe beliefs, theories, and conspiracies is evidently not unique to this more controversial publisher anymore. So again, assess the sources individually. Οἶδα (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Even being published by a Big 5 publisher is no guarantee of reliability. For the most part they care about whether or not it will sell well and little else. For example, all of Graham Hancock's baseless pseudoarchaeology books have been published by the Big 5. This is nothing new, the 1950 pseudoscience smash hit Worlds in Collision was published by Macmillan and later Doubleday, two of America's leading popular publishers at the time. The point here is that popular books should never be considered automatically reliable just because they have been published by a mainstream popular press, they all must be evaluated on a case by case basis based on the reputation of the writer. I would generally expect a higher standard of quality from academic presses but they aren't infallible either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I think reputation of the individual book (preferably scholarly) can also be a useful determiner, to see how accepted it is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course being published by a big 5 pub is not a guarantee of reliability, but I think anyone who claims it's not a factor whatsoever when building a picture of reliability is kidding themselves. Should it be? Probably not. Crs5827 (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the Big Five is a lot better than self publishing, but worse than academia. And even academia is not perfect. I would say Skyhorse is also a lot better than self publishing, and a bit worse than the Big 5... but there are a lot of publishers out there. With books, there are a lot of factors that can be taken into consideration. The writer, the book reception, whether it is widely used, just basic evaluation on if the claims are WP:FRINGE, etc. Even big five publishers publish a lot of.... [68] [69] fringey things, and that's just one example. The removal was right, but I don't think we have a big issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Being published by some kind of reputable publisher is most of the time a bare minimum baseline for a book to be considered usable as a source. I agree that The writer, the book reception, whether it is widely used, just basic evaluation on if the claims are WP:FRINGE, etc are overall much more important to evaluate for books than the publisher. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Sort of, I suppose. A book having been published by a Big Five house does suggest a greater level of oversight and fact-checking, but that is because these publishers have a lot more to lose. But it is not any solid guarantee of reliability. Market incentives still drive them to publish sensational or ideologically slanted content that sells, and various imprints within the same publisher can have very different standards. Meanwhile, smaller or contrarian presses like Skyhorse may take on riskier or more fringe titles, which of course does not automatically make each work unreliable. Some may be well-sourced or written by experts in their field. So while a publisher's reputation can be suggestive of reliability, each book must still be judged on its own merits, especially when used as an RS on Wiki. Though, Skyhorse is the same company that recently acquired Salem's Regnery Publishing, which famously published Dinesh D'Souza's 2000 Mules after delaying it due to a "significant error"[70], then issued an apology two years later to the person it defamed.[71] Skyhorse is evidently interested in quick publishing and picking up controversial titles that explore fringe viewpoints.

So if I trawl Google Books and find some obscure book about a controversial topic and it was published by Simon & Schuster, the reality is, yes, I would approach it somewhat differently than if it were self-published, at least on immediate evaluation. But have you seen the books the Big 5 have been pumping through these "Conservative" imprints? They have gotten much worse since they dipped their toes in publishing the countless number of Trump era tell-all memoirs. I'm repeating what PARAKANYAA said again, but these are fringe voices that these major publishers are selling, and they are selling well, yet they receive little to no mainstream coverage. They'll often appear on the Times's best-seller list, but appear nowhere in their journalism. Meaning this is just business and the mainstream corps are happy to profit off of material that mainstream papers, trades and academic journals will never publish. Οἶδα (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia@NatGertler@PARAKANYAA@Οἶδα and anyone else who wants to chime in:

Talk:Mossad#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2025

Now I'm confused. I submitted an edit request that has to do with a Skyhorse book, but it was rejected. Is that because the article says that the authors say the fact is true, rather than stating outright it's true? Or is it something else? Crs5827 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like there was any reference to Skyhorse in the reason your edit was turned down; it looks like it was more like the suggest edit was phrased in a way that indicated that the quote ("He said, on the record, unequivocally, that Jeffrey Epstein was working for Israeli intelligence operations, the Mossad...") was the sole reason for the book pointing toward the Mossad... but I could be wrong, and you'd be better off responding to the person who made the editing decision, to get a clearer view. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I was going to respond to them, but then I realized I don't even know what I'm responding about since it's different to put someone else's claim in the article as their claim, vs. claiming it in the article. I'll try to get some clarity, but this is confusing. Crs5827 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The Observer under Tortoise Media

I have no particular reason to believe that this has affected reliability at all, but the table entry for WP:THEGUARDIAN still refers to The Observer and makes no reference to its new owner Tortoise Media. This should be acknowledged to avoid confusion. UltrasonicMadness (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This is probably an issue for the RSP talk page. The simple fix is adding a date to the mention of the Observer in the Guardian RSP entry.

My sense is that new Observer is as reliable as the old one but we probably don’t need to discuss it unless there’s a particular issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

This was brought up on RSP's talk page a few months ago in a section I created. Although it only had one reply, another user stated that it could continue being GREL regardless of whether it needed to be split from The Guardian. Xeroctic (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Verdens Gang (norwegian newspaper)

The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang (VG) is used 3,728 times on Wikipedia, but is it really a reliable source for articles about Norway? Meganenohito (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The reliable sources guidance on the norwegian wikipedia gives Verdens Gang as an example of a source "one should be a little more careful with" Tristario (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you're asking? The only thing I'm seeing is that they may have a tendency towards sensationalism, and as such might not be the best for judging what's WP:DUE for WP:BLPs or WP:REDFLAG material. But looking at their article here on en wiki and on Norwegian wiki (no:VG) I'm not seeing any mentions of a history of outright inaccuracies. They do have a page dedicated to corrections[72] where they also say they follow common Norwegian ethics rules for the press.[73] Siawase (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

From what I have seen when I was looking into Norwegian topics for some crime articles I wanted to write, they are a bit sensational in their coverage but have a commitment to factual accuracy. Might need to be a bit careful with how you word things, but they have won journalism awards and follow ethical standards. Generally reliable probably just be a tad more careful with touchy topics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The slightly abandoned discussions at no:Wikipedia-diskusjon:Gode kilder and no:Wikipedia:Gode kilder seem to describe VG as generally reliable for facts not related to scientific claims, but of a lower quality than journals, encyclopedias, or things written by academics. Articles by them have appear to have been brought up as signs of notability in their AfD debates.

According to Tor Midtbø( political scientist at the University of Bergen), in the book Scandalous!,(Nordicom) pg 62,In the study by Fladmoe and Jenssen (2009) concerning a comparison of different scandals in different newspapers, the results showed that the leading tabloid, Verdens Gang (VG), took the lead in the scandalization irrespective of political colour – and irrespective of the seriousness of the scandal., but doesn't seem to note any major pattern of innaccuries. A large part of this chapter is about how the paper broke parts of several major Norwegian scandals, like the Calla affair and the Ramin-Osmundsen case.

According to Store Norske Leksikon online, via Google translate,[74] VG has become controversial tabloid newspaper , with occasionally bold and brazen journalism in areas where the Norwegian press has traditionally been reserved and is a leader when it comes to sports. (This article has a much more detailed summary of VG's history than our article)

The Nieman Lab has an article about VG's "transparency portal", aka their practise of explaining why they exclude or reported certain content, potential conflicts of interest, a clear log of all retractions, that they started after the Trond Giske scandal + their misrepresentation of a quote from a woman. (Story was also retracted) They started this in 2022, and according to the Nieman Lab, positively impacted how younger readers trusted them, so other news outlets started doing the same thing.[75]

They get cited by sources we consider reliable, like the BBC[76] and NYT[77]. They have an advertising department[78] distinct from their journalism departments (of which they apparently have two: one for investigative journalism and one for current stories; might be worth thinking of them as a bit different).

I'm not an expert on the Norwegian media landscape by any means, but personally I've gotten the impression that they're more sensationalist in framing than sources like NRK (state) or Aftenposten (also owned by Schibsted, conservative). I don't know that they regularly get things wrong in the modern era. But yeah, the sensationalist thing is something to keep in mind when it comes to balance.

NB: not Verdens Gang (1868–1923) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Business Insider will now be publishing undisclosed AI-generated content

According to the media journalist Oliver Darcy, Business Insider has or will shortly begin publishing content generated by ChatGPT without disclosing these articles to their readers. Should this change the way we regard their reliability (currently No Consensus per WP:BI)? —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

If it is impossible to tell if an article was generated by AI unless one has a keen knowledge to pick out AI from human writing, then yes we should consider it unreliable for that purpose. It would be if like Forbes didn't disclose which articles were from staff and which were from contributors. Masem (t) 13:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say we should be even firmer and make a point of deprecating it. If there's undisclosed AI use then you can't trust anything at that point so should all be culled. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 Paprikaiser (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit of an overreaction? Cambalachero (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Not really. If they won't disclose what's being generated with AI then anything could be generated with AI and shouldn't be touched.

It's the same logic as you'd see with a product recall. If some from a batch are tainted, all are considered tainted. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler But if there's editorial oversight of the content, shouldn't that give it some reliability (unless shown to be factually incorrect)? Just because they didn't type it out doesn't mean they don't take responsibility for its content. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir people are obviously free to feel differently, but personally I'm loath to put much faith in editorial oversight of content if they're not bothering to even write the content. BI already doesn't have a great reputation, and this just worsens it further. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Editorial oversight in media isn't so strong that every fact gets checked, and so there will be many AI-generated statements not scrutinized by the person responsible for creating the content, and a subset of those will not subsequently reviewed prior to publication. This is 100% certain. Many of these statements will be accurate, but some will be inaccurate. The only difference between AI being and not being used is whether the amount of inaccurate statements is greater when it is used instead of a person creating the content. I believe that, yes, the content is significantly better without AI, unfortunately. —Alalch E. 20:14, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This is going to be a problem for sure Echoes of Automation: The Increasing Use of LLMs in Newsmaking (2025). This says that disclosure is/should be the trend. Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, AI works both ways. There are AIs that can write articles, and there are other AIs that can read an article (or an image or song) and tell if it was made by humans or AI. We don't need to try to figure it out ourselves. The system is not bulletproof, but it's a start.

Having said that, the link is not working for me. And isn't Oliver Darcy a self-published author nowadays? May be valid as a standard source, but for important stuff (such as a reveal that would lead to a source being banned) I would prefer if news were confirmed by other news sources. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Those systems are very very far from bulletproof indeed. I haven't seen any evidence of an "AI writing detector" that is provably accurate. And I agree, it would be good to get confirmation from a non-independent journalist. Try this link instead; the prior link is to an archive site. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

That says "use ChatGPT to generate first drafts", which is very different from "publish".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a strong distinction. How is anyone supposed to know what % of an article's first draft winds up in the published version? It could be 10%, or 95%. The key thing is that they apparently do not plan to disclose use of AI to write articles. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Now that I think of it... which would be the problem with a news article being partially or even mostly AI-generated, if it is checked for accuracy before publishing and any potential mistakes are fixed beforehand? The inaccuracy problems with AI are when taking the results as-is, but if a reliable publisher curated them, I don't see where the problem would be Cambalachero (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the first draft stage is probably the most dangerous place to insert AI. That's were a human is most needed to define the basic elements of what the story actually is. An AI could put an incorrect or inappropriate interpretation on a story which might persist into later versions even if the AI's writing style becomes obscured by subsequent human editing. That's far riskier than a human writing it first and the AI merely polishing it, and I'm not saying that that would be entirely risk free either.

I'm not sure how we should handle this. My thought is that if an article has the name of a human author on it then we should treat it as the work of that author and let them, and BI, take the shame if it turns out to be bad. So that suggests that we should consider it as Reliable as we usually consider BI, which might be up for reassessment if their quality falls either due to AI or any other reason. On the other hand, if BI are using to AI to generate anonymous articles then that strikes me as straight-up slop. If there is any evidence of that then I'd say that we should regard any articles not attributed to a named human as unReliable. DanielRigal (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The Red Ventures RfC set the precedent that a news organization which "uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner" should be considered generally unreliable (i.e. questionable). When Business Insider starts implementing the same strategy, they should be treated similarly. — Newslinger talk 00:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, Red Ventures' use of AI seems to be very different from using AI for first drafts.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, they seem to be different things... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• There's also coverage of this at The Verge. I think we should wait a little bit for more coverage (especially establishing the damage to their reputation) but it seems unlikely that they'll remain a WP:RS. --Aquillion (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  I note that that coverage appears to just be rehosting the Status report from Darcy and doesn't contain original reporting, but it does put their imprimatur on it which supports his credibility as a reporter. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. I agree with Ganesha811 here on this. It does suggest that Darcy is credible as a reporter. Has anyone identified anything to suggest his reporting on this is incorrect? Because I'd say BI making undisclosed use of chatbots makes it inappropriate as an RS. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• I'm leaning already considering it as unreliable per WP:RSCHATGPT as I trust the scoop linked above.—Alalch E. 19:10, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  In june, Axel Springer SE said:

  For the first time since repositioning as a private, transatlantic media company, Axel Springer brought over 100 executives together for a strategy meeting in Berlin. The meeting focused on the three strategic pillars of Axel Springer’s future: AI-based journalism, expanding media marketing platforms, and developing new growth areas. CEO Mathias Döpfner announced the goal of doubling the company’s value within five years.

  By convening its international executives and establishing the mission of becoming the leading provider of AI-empowered media in the free world, Axel Springer underscores its ambition to shape the future of media.

  Recent Bloomberg interview with the CEO:

  ... The company this summer fired more than a fifth of the staff at Business Insider, as the news site has suffered a sustained drop in traffic. “We have to find our new gold,” Döpfner says, opening a rhubarb soda plucked from a meeting-room fridge. “We have to disrupt ourselves rather than wait for someone to do it.”

  Döpfner insists artificial intelligence is the way to get there. The first time he used ChatGPT, he says, it felt like his third epiphany as a publisher. (The first came in the 1990s, when he saw his first news website; the second was the advent of the iPhone.) Axel Springer struck a pioneering deal with OpenAI Inc. in 2023 worth tens of millions of euros (Döpfner won’t be more specific), giving the AI company access to archives and current content to train its model and help answer queries. “And that is recurring revenue, on a daily basis,” Döpfner enthuses. Bild now has a chatbot powered by OpenAI that he says has expanded the time users spend on the site.

  Axel Springer sources are listed at Axel Springer SE#Newspapers, magazines, online offerings.—Alalch E. 19:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This is highly concerning if true, but Oliver Darcy's blog is not a reliable source to assess this. If anything, content should be timelined so that before a given date, it is fine. After, it is reconsidered. But, I would still like to see solid confirmation of this. Metallurgist (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Not reliable: Agree with Masem and Newslinger per the Red Ventures RfC. See: Evaluating AI-Generated Content. I already consider AI unreliable, so I'm also suspicious of ChatGPT. Per WP:NOTRS: Questionable sources have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. AI-generated content can be biased, contain misinformation, plagiarized content, or be based on original research. The source is obscure. Of course, a verified, reliable source can contain the above, but we have attribution. It is nearly impossible to separate real and synthetic without a source being identified. Does it really make sense to have to use a program to identify if a source is AI or human? Why not just identify the human. If a draft is based purely on AI it seems it would not be considered notable. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The Forward on Islamophobia and Nick Fuentes

I am investigating the use of the forward for the claim on Nick Fuentes that he is Islamphoic. I think The Forward is reliable but potentially biased to the point at that attribution should be added and their reporting not holding the same value for establishing due weight. I am basing this on existing RSP guidance for WP:ADLAS. I think The Forward represents a similar source in that it describes itself as Jewish news, and promotes its "decoding" of antisemitism as top importance work. On this article in particular, Fuentes islamophoic stance paints him in a negative light before discussing Fuentes opposition to Israeli influence in the US. The article goes on to echo the ADL's reporting on antisemitism.

Previous discussions on this notice board state that The Forward is reliable and note it as left-wing media.

The claim here He described the religion of Islam as "a barbaric ideology that [wants] to come over and kill us" is not disputed but it may be undue weight unless less biased sources also report this. Czarking0 (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that calling someone who says that Islam is "a barbaric ideology that [wants] to come over and kill us" islamophobic is like saying that the sky is blue. Alaexis_¿question? 06:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the Taliban section in the Nick Fuentes article has several sources that would be useful on this topic too. The Texas Tribune ref there says he "has been vocal about his disdain for women, Muslims"[79] And if it's possible to find it, this report[80] might have something useful. It was referenced by Washington Post[81] and the WSJ[82] Siawase (talk) 07:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0 you really need to understand that bias is a separate question from reliability. We don't need to exclusively cite conservative right-wing outlets like the New York Times when talking about right-wing figures nor do we need parity between right-wing and left-wing sources in either direction. We need reliable sources. Forward is reliably reporting that Fuentes said (awful) ant-Islamic things. Their bias is entirely irrelevant. Simonm223 (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

"bias is a separate question from reliability" - 100% agree. I tried to communicate that in my original post. I apologize for not being sufficiently clear. "Their bias is entirely irrelevant." - I disagree, I think that the consensus of WP:ADLAS at WP:RSP indicates that bias is an important consideration for building an article. "We don't need to exclusively cite conservative right-wing outlets like the New York Times when talking about right-wing figures nor do we need parity between right-wing and left-wing sources in either direction." - At no point have I advocated for anything like this. You are completely making a strawman argument and I ask that you retract this. Czarking0 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

While "conservative right-wing" was an editorial error where I'd intended just to type "right-wing", my reference was a point regarding reliability and bias rather than an exhaustive discussion of sources involved in your contentious edits to the Nick Fuentes page. You removed the SPLC on the basis of "bias" and now want Forward removed on the same basis. This is POV pushing. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on the sky is blue part. Looks like there are several more neutral RS to verify these claims. Appreciated. Czarking0 (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure how The Forward being a Jewish news org, its coverage of antisemitism, or its potential bias in coverage relating to Israel, at all effect their coverage of Fuentes' Islamophobia. Though the article covers his opinions on Israel & his antisemitism, we aren't citing them for that, but for a quote relating to Islam. The concerns of bias seem completely dethatched from the material in question. The Forward are more then adequate a source for this without any issues of due weight. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The forward is actually quite nuanced on israel, compared to other news orgs. I think its coverage on the issue is even better than nytimes. it still has a slight pro Israel coverage but being better than most western coverage is a low bar

Its biased as a progressive news outlet and should be attributed but assuming that just because a journal is focused on jewish issues means it is massively pro-israel is incorrect.

also islamaphobia isnt always connected to antisemitism or israel either. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

From what I've read, I always assumed The Forward lent in an anti-Zionist direction, as being highly critical of Israel (reminds me of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz also not being pro-Israel). Maybe this is mainly from the reporting on the ADL-RSN discussion, but it appeared fairly balanced/neutral as well as accurate (unlike numerous other so-called reliable sources at the time). Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'm not seeing the correlation of this Jewish newspaper being pro-Israeli what so ever. Also per above, bias does not mean unreliable either, assuming left-leaning bias remains. CNC (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, agree bias != unreliable. bias means we gotta make sure extra if its WP:DUE, and we gotta attribute anything they claim that is too out there. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:43, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm generally pretty critical of media sources but, I'll be honest, I have yet to see any significant accuracy issue with Forward. They're considerably more reliable than, say, The National Post. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The Forward makes Jpost read like a tabloid by comparison, accuracy wise. I know Jpost is considered generally reliable but I've found it marginal at best. Just to throw another example out there. CNC (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to equate being critical with the current Israeli government with being "anti-Zionist". There are many US-based sources that are critical of various actions of the American government, not just in the current moment but always; but it is a rare few over the past century-and-a-half that would wish to see the nation dissolve. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:59, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

There are any number of zionisms out there (political, religikus, etc.) and accordingly as many antizionisms.

think the forward displays a wide variety of thought and opeds for politically progressive jews across the spectrum. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Fair point, I used leaning in an anti-Zionist direction as a description, rather than being anti-Zionist, to elaborate on "critical of Israel", which in hindsight would have sufficed here. I'm thinking more within the context of broader perspectives, rather than any actual standpoint, ie within the context of the pro-Israeli/anti-Zionist spectrum, if such a spectrum exists. But you're right, the paper is by no means anti-Zionist fundamentally, even if highly critical. CNC (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The Forward is highly reliable and news items by its own staff need no attribution. It publishes a lot of opinion which would need attribution. It sometimes uses the JTA news wire which I believe is GUNREL though some editors may see as less than good standard, but this is a news item by a staff writer so is fine.

More generally, the comparison with ADL is totally unfounded but the fact it’s being made shows some of the problems with the ADL ruling. Yes, the Forward claims to be “decoding antisemitism” and therefore had a superficial similarity to ADL, but that is not in itself a reason to say it’s unreliable. The issue with ADL is that other reliable sources opposed ADL’s standard for categorising things as antisemitic, which isn’t the case for the Forward. Finally, the suggestion that Jewish sources shouldn’t be used for Israel or antisemitism topics (or by extension Islamophobia topics), which is implied here and has been suggested by other editors in other threads, is one we shouldn't ebrn be entertaining. Ethnicity has no bearing on reliability whatsoever. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

the suggestion that Jewish sources shouldn’t be used for Israel or antisemitism topics I don't think that suggestion has been made here? There has been some discussion on potential bias in Jewish sources, but I'd say we agree that, like every source, a Jewish source will have bias. I would say that any automatic assumption of pro-Israel bias in a Jewish source is not acceptable as some Jewish sources are ambivalent on Israel and a few are strongly anti-Israel. My view on The Forward is that its perspective on Israel slightly leans positive by international standards and negative by American standards, but that this will vary on an author by author basis. As you rightly state, there's a lot of varied comment here.--Boynamedsue (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

The reason presented for concern was: I think The Forward represents a similar source in that it describes itself as Jewish news, and promotes its "decoding" of antisemitism as top importance work. Otherwise I totally agree with all you say. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

On a careful re-reading, I can see your point. Though I more or less agree with the current consensus on the ADL, I reject any attempt to generalise to other sources. Especially so if it is based on the ethnicity of the editorial staff. ADL is ADL and The Forward is The Forward, there is no possible basis in policy that RSN's verdict on one should affect the other.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Same here. The ADL RfC was a wrench because the group has historically been good about white supremacist organizations right up until Israel enters the picture. I felt like an otherwise credible org had torched its reputation - which is frustrating. I have no such concerns about Forward. They do good work and anyone suggesting their Jewish outlook is a problem might want to consider some self-reflection. Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with The Forward, certainly not compared to many other sources in the fraught world of modern political media. I would suggest that in the case at hand, the fact Fuentes said this is not disputed and the fact this is Islamophobic is exceptionally difficult to dispute. The mention in Forward would make it due for inclusion as this is a mainstream political magazine.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• The Forward is reliable but obviously WP:BIASED and would therefore normally require attribution, especially for something of this nature; the real question you're asking, though, is about due weight, which isn't a reliability issue. That said, both for the issue of attribution and for the issue of due weight, we can just find other sources for this quote that don't require attribution, such as [83] - for a quote, it's usually very easy to see if it's been reported elsewhere. --Aquillion (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to attribute direct quotes in reliable but biased sources. Otherwise we would have to attribute nearly every quote, as almost all secondary sources are biased.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that WP:BIASED refers to a level of bias that goes beyond just "has opinions"; not every secondary source reaches that standard. And I do think that when a clearly biased source is the only one highlighting a quote, we should make that clear - including a quote in the article voice carries the implication of "this quote is important"; that implication's meaning differs if the source highlighting it is eg. a source whose entire purpose is overt advocacy against the article's subject, vs. if the quote gets more broad / mainstream coverage. If we just shrug and say "yeah but all secondary sources are biased" then the instruction to attribute biased sources in WP:BIASED has no meaning. --Aquillion (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

If we are not sure that the an individual's words are accurately reported, then the source is not reliable. If we believe the source has correctly reported the individual's words, it is a question of whether the quote is due, not whether it should be attributed.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Likewise agree, baring in mind that quoting the subject is a form of attribution in itself per WP:INTEXT. It therefore doesn't need to be twice attributed when the source is reliable. CNC (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this as well. If the source is reliable and the quote is already attributed, I don't see the issue. Cortador (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Effects of pornography

This is about [84]. Are these WP:MEDRS? tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also [85]. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2025 (UTC)