Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

On Flock Safety I have made the claim "Flock has made secret agreements with U.S. Border Patrol to give its agents backdoor access to ALPR data from its cameras around the country — including cities like Syracuse, which had not agreed to share data with the federal agency."^[1] CEO Garrett Langley "falsely claimed" Flock did not have an agreement with Border Patrol to hide that the agency was able to search these records.^[1] This was reverted citing BLP policy. I posit that it is a reliable news source suitable for controversial BLP claims. Czarking0 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The source looks like user summitted news. I don't think it has much editorial oversight. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it user-submitted. According to their Contact Us page, the author is their "Reporter for Saranac Lake, Politics". I can't find the editor's name, however, which does raise questions about their editorial oversight.

That being said, controversial or negative content about living persons should really be supported by multiple top-tier reliable, secondary sources. The Adirondack Daily Enterprise could potentially be reliable for some purposes, but not this. So this isn't an RS issue as much as a BLP issue, which multiple editors have mentioned in their reverts. Woodroar (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

"multiple" - where is this indicated in BLP policy? Either way regarding the reverts I added a second source that is off topic here.

" top-tier reliable, secondary sources" - that is what I am asking here. I think this source is a top-tier reliable secondary source. I do not think there is anything in WP:RS that would indicate otherwise. Czarking0 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

A local paper that doesn't even name its editor is anything but top-tier. Requiring multiple, top-tier sources for claims like this is pretty common at BLPN, as it suggests a lasting, geographically broad importance, and a viewpoint that likely meets DUE. All of these things go hand in hand. Woodroar (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Your concept of "top-tier" is not policy based. Furthermore, you clearly didn't read this thread or the article carefully before responding as the journalist contact is included. Czarking0 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

How is a local paper with an unnamed editor a top-tier source? BTW, the relevant policy is WP:BLPRS.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the BLP policy also calls for "the use of high-quality, reliable sources" in BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You also have clearly not read the source or the thread here. The way one person can have a misunderstanding and then several editors pile on based on that misunderstanding is a problem on WP. Czarking0 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Look, I was content to leave well enough alone but—I know who the journalist is because I'm the one who linked to the contact page and mentioned their beat. Before doing so, I'd also read this thread, the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, and Talk:Flock Safety. Woodroar (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The side column clearly says "Aaron Marbone" as the author Czarking0 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Nothing about this is user submitted. The staff reporter's email is included in the side column. Czarking0 (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to bring the following Warfare History Network article Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse by Eric Niderost into question.

This article and many others on Warfare History Network are completely devoid of citations or a bibliography section. Not only is what Niderost writes of unverifiable, many details such as the involvement of the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd Division, are contradicted by other sources. Further concerning is that Niderost seems to have plagiarized [citogensis'd?] Wikipedia for the article in question:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars."

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."

The above claim of the 3rd Division's involvement from the Wiki article did not include a citation and searching the web for mentions of the ["3rd division" "sihang warehouse" before:2007-08-09"] does not bring any earlier information aside from the Wikipedia article.

The issue now is that Niderost's article is being used by an editor to repeatedly re-add the incorrect claim of the 3rd Division's involvement in the Battle, see: Imperial Japanese Forces on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. They have since added a number of additional sources to try to prop up this claim, all are published after Niderost's article, and of those which are properly cited, they either cite Niderost or Wikipedia.

I would like to hear what others have to say about this source and my assessment of it. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I would not consider that source sufficient to contradict prior academic sources on the matter. The sources citing it don't seem like they should be included either; Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai appears to be a random student paper. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Several issues:

1) That a source does not include a bibliography or in-text citations does not make it Wikipedia:Glossary#unverifiable, it makes it Wikipedia:Glossary#uncited. We typically do not require that reliable sources have any particular way of providing citations or support for their statements.

2) That is not plagiarism and you should strike or modify your comment as a BLP violation. Now it may be an example of WP:Citogenesis, but it is not plagiarism as the sentences are not substantially similar.

3) What other sources "contradict' the Niderost article? Katzrockso (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused about these first two points.

1. The page for WP:Unverifiable states:

Unverifiable information may be § cited (e.g., to an unreliable source or to a source that doesn't support the material) or § uncited.

While a source is cited on Wikipedia itself, said source is unreliable.

2. WP:Plagariasm states:

Summarizing a source in your own words, without citing the source in any way, may also be a form of plagiarism

From my understanding, even rewriting one's own work without acknowledging it in a citation constitutes plagariasm. Even in 2008, others were already pointing out this author has been copying off of Wikipedia.

3. "Senshi Sosho - China Area Naval Operations I (Until Match 1938)"(防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室 編 (1974). 中国方面海軍作戦〈1〉昭和十三年三月まで. 朝雲新聞社) pp. 401, 402 states (English translation):

On the evening of October 26, our naval landing forces, wanting to maintain contact with the enemy, particularly on the left wing of the Suzhou Creek area, continued their vicious battle. Using the moonlight at 0430 hours on October 27, the right flank launched an attack on critical points as planned. At 0505 hours the entire force began their advance and with an initial breakthrough of the frontline on Baoxing Road, each unit attacked with their all of their might. The Rightward Force was the first to succeed in breaking the frontline at 0700 hours and advanced to the west edge of Zhabei, later moving to the southern area and working to cut off the enemy's escape routes. At the same time the Leftward Force captured the North Station and Railway Bureau, followed by the Central and Leftward Forces sweeping enemies in the west and southern areas and moving to clear out enemies of the eastern pocket area. By around 1800 hours some 100 stragglers retreating from our advance had held up in the Sihang Warehouse. The other remaining stragglers were mopped up in the evening. Some troops also advanced west and captured Zhenru Station (真如駅). Our naval landing forces captured all of Zhabei, the Continental Rail Factory, the Central Weapons Arsenal, and Zhenru Station, with the enemy losses amounting to some 630 dead and a number of captured weapons. Our casualties amounted to 3 heavily wounded and another 24 wounded. The stragglers in the Sihang Warehouse were later encircled and told to surrender, but after ignoring the offer, on October 31 at 0145 hours they were suppressed with artillery and at 0300 hours our forces broke through and completely swept up what was left of the enemy.

Adachi1939 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Continued:

Xu Zhigeng (1995). 浴血淞沪 “八·一三”大上海保卫战 [The Bloody Battle of Songhu: The "August 13" Defense of Great Shanghai]. Chinese People's Liberation Army Press. p. 404, and Guo Rugui, Huang Yuzhang (2002). 中国抗日战争正面战场作战记 [China's Anti-Japanese War Combat Operations]. Jiangsu People's Press. pp. 567–569 both cover the fierce battle of the IJA 3rd Division to cross the Suzhou River at the end of October to early November 1937.

The notion that the 3rd Division fought at Sihang Warehouse was birthed on Wikipedia and promoted by Niderost's article. The above military histories show the 3rd Division was crossing the Suzhou River at the time and Senshi Sosho notes the fighting for Sihang Warehouse was fought by Japanese Naval Landing Forces.

Niderost's article is equivalent to someone writing the US marines were the main force landing at D Day in 1944. It is totally wrong but able to persist due to the language barrier. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. Unverifability is Wikipedia jargon. It doesn't really apply to sources themselves, but a claim, statement, or sentence in a Wikipedia article. If the Warfare History Network article is unreliable and there are no other sources for the claim, you would be able to say that the statement in the Wikipedia article is unverifiable, but it isn't coherent to apply the concept of WP:V to sources' contents. Indeed, if you open up the New York Times there are hardly any citations at all for the claims in their articles, yet we obviously wouldn't refer to their reporting as "unverifiable".

You have no evidence that Niderost engaged in Summarizing a source in your own words, without citing the source in any way. Moreover, this is the concept of plagiarism on Wikipedia, which once again is specific to article content and not source content. You still have no reliable source to claim that Niderost engaged in plagiarism, and a forum post is not evidence whatsoever. Katzrockso (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

If Niderost was just a random pop historian, maybe I would be more lenient—but he's a professor professor working in academia. The burden is on him as a writer to cite his sources in order to prove he has not commited plagariasm. I'm not even an academic and would expect others to hold me to the same standard. Adachi1939 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Some more suspicious things about the Wiki vs later published Article.

No web results other than the Wiki when searching "mint godown" before:2007-12-31:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"known also as the Chinese Mint Godown by those from the concessions"

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"Westerners knew the place as the Chinese Mint Godown."

Strange small detail for both to include:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"the defenders did not have a flag pole in the warehouse. Therefore, the flag was hoisted on a makeshift pole made of two bamboo culms tied together."

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"Because there was no flagpole, two bamboo poles were lashed together for the purpose."

These two paragraphs are nearly identical in their content:

07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:

"Attacking from all directions with cannon fire and tankettes, they pushed the 3rd Company out of their defensive line at the base of the warehouse and forced the 3rd into the warehouse itself. The west side of the warehouse originally lacked windows (as can be seen from the photos above), but the Japanese attacks conveniently opened up firing holes for the defenders. A group of Japanese soldiers tried to scale the walls to the second floor with ladders, and Xie just happened to be at the window they appeared from. He grabbed the first Japanese soldier's rifle, choked him with the other hand, pushed him off, and finally shot another Japanese soldier on the ladder before pushing the ladder off.

Niderost, Dec 2007:

"The west side of the building lacked windows, but Japanese shell hits had punched enough gaps into the wall to provide the defenders with loopholes. The Japanese, acting in concert with infantry, then brought forward tankettes. The fighting grew so heavy the Chinese Third Company was pushed back from its position and forced into the warehouse. Japanese infantry came forward with scaling ladders, a curious throwback in an age of mechanized war. The Chinese simply pushed the ladders off or peppered the advancing enemy with rifle and machine-gun fire. Xie personally lent a hand, fighting alongside his men.

If we break down the Wiki article's sentences it's essentially the following: [Concept 1 - Japanese attack with tankettes → push back Chinese 3rd Company] → [Concept 2 - West side attacked by Japanese → loopholes made for Chinese Defenders], → [Concept 3 - Japanese try to scale walls with ladders → Chinese resist → Xie personally stops them]

Looking at Niderost's paragraph, we can see the same content just paraphrased and rearranged, his is just constructed as [Concept 2] → [Concept 1] → [Concept 3].

The tankette assault is particularly interesting as like the 3rd Division concept, it also originated on Wikipedia and further mentions of it either cite Niderost or Wikipedia itself. For example Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Exisle Publishing. p. 544 reads "At midday Japanese light tanks , most likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, joined the siege in support of the infantry." and cites "Niderost, 'Chinese Alamo'". Adachi1939 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

While the concerns and input presented by User:Katzrockso appear to be in good faith and are appreciated, I strongly reject their assertions of myself violating WP:BLP.

The definition of plagiarism as per Chabot College—where the author in question is a faculty member—is the following:[36]

The term "plagiarism" includes, but is not limited to, the use, by paraphrase or direct quotation, of the published or unpublished work or another person without full and clear acknowledgement

Plagiarism includes the deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's works and ideas, as one's own, as well as paraphrasing without footnoting the source.

Regardless of whether or not the un-cited information originated from Wikipedia, per the above definition, the author Eric Niderost has engaged in plagiarism by paraphrasing without without footnoting the source material. Furthermore, the number of comparisons exhibited above demonstrates their much of paraphrased material did originate from Wikipedia. This at the very least needs to be removed due to Citogensis.

As an encyclopedic website, editors and readers like myself must be allowed to voice legitimate concerns with the academic integrity and work to remedy the issues. Unfortunately this discussion has largely been hijacked over perceived violations of WP:BLP that do nothing but shield this improper source from criticism. Adachi1939 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

When making claims about wrong doing that a living person makes, we have to do so based on reliable published sources, not based on our own Wikipedia:Original research. Katzrockso (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Wien Geschichte Wiki (https://www.geschichtewiki.wien.gv.at/Wien_Geschichte_Wiki) is an encyclopedia about the history of Vienna, run by the city government. Is it a suitable source for wikipedia? It is strictly moderated, and as far an I can tell mostly edited by city employees. EulersNumberIsGreat (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Depends on the claim being made with the source. But it also looks like WP:USERGENERATED content even if by city employees. We don't know their level of expertise.. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

No comment on reliability as yet, but we have an article on it at Vienna History Wiki, and there is some information in English at . Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely. Per our article on it “ It is written by Municipal and Provincial Archives of Vienna and Vienna City Library staff as well as external experts, and all content is subject to an editorial process and approved before publication.” Editorial approval is nearly the most important criteria for source reliability. This is not user generated at all; it is written exclusively by qualified employees of a reputable organization and then reviewed for accuracy by that organization. They even involve external experts. This is definitely reliable. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a bit of a strange one. It is user generated, but all edits are subject to Pending changes and subject to editorial control by a team from the Vienna city council and partner institutions (museums, research institutes, etc). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear I don't believe this is completely written by the council and partner institutions, but it is fully under their control. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

See this guide on how you can start editing the encyclopedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• I think it is a "so so source" not fully reliable but probably better than what there is beyond it in many cases. The Vienese crowd love their city more than one would guess, so they will do their best, but they are not all experts and their love may result in over affection in their edits. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This question concerns an article by a "Trainee Digital Reporter" at the Lancashire Telegraph.

List of people named in the Epstein files has an entry for Nicole Junkermann that says:

"Nicole Junkermann is a German entrepreneur and investor. Documents released as part of the files show that after his 2008 conviction Junkermann was in close friendship, and in repeated email correspondence with the financier and convicted sex offender over several years from the early 2010s."

The sole source provided is the Lancashire Telegraph, which appears to be a normal local paper and thus presumed to be generally reliable.

The page cited is Exclusive:Lancaster University visiting professor named in Jeffrey Epstein files

Is this source a WP:BLPRS for this claim?

The author is "a trainee digital reporter covering North and West Lancashire for the Lancashire Telegraph, predominantly covering Blackpool, Lytham St Annes, Lancaster and Morecambe"

It occurred to me that possibly more experienced editors might have checked the trainee's work. Am I allowed to presume that, or do I need evidence that it is true?

Note: every time anyone focuses in on a particular entry on the list an army of editors starts scouring the Internet for additional sources, and they often find them. To my way of thinking, this is backwards. Our BLP policy requires that this sort of thing be properly sourced at the time the information is added to the encyclopedia, not later when someone complains.

Background: List of people named in the Epstein files currently requires one reliable source mentioning (in any context, even in passing) someone being in the 3.5 million Epstien files. Despite there being an edit notice saying that "all statements in this article must be supported by citations according to the biography of living persons policy" and "people listed in this article should pass the general notability guidelines" there are people named on that page who lack a Wikipedia article or any evidence of notability.

Related discussions:

• Talk:Nicole Junkermann#RfC: Relationship with Jeffrey Epstein
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Junkermann
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Junkermann (2nd nomination)
• User talk:OwenX#Review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicole_Junkermann_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Junkermann (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#We need a clear policy about being in the Epstein Files
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named in the Epstein files
• Search Full Epstein Library --US Department of Justice

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You haven't given any reason why the Lancashire Telegraph should be considered unreliable. As you say, we tend to presume reliability for such sources because they have editorial standards. Having editors mitigates the relative inexperience of the reporter. If no one besides the Lancashire Telegraph is reporting this information then that would raise a question of dueness, but not of reliability. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue here is less to do with WP:RS style reliability and more WP:BLP policy. The Lancashire Telegraph is likely a generally reliable source, but is it a 'high quality' source that BLP calls for ("Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources.").
If it is then "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." per WP:BLPPUBLIC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Free clue: I have to actually claim that the Lancashire Telegraph is unreliable before I give a reason why the Lancashire Telegraph should be considered unreliable. I made no such claim. You ignored my actual question (question, not claim), which was whether this particular trainee digital reporter is reliable for this specific BLP claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Did you mean this as a reply to Mackensen? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

If it's a reply to me then I think I did address it and I regard the whole proposition as strange. Why would we evaluate the reporter's credibility independently from the publication who published him? This is an inverse of WP:SPS; the reporter's credibility comes from the fact that the Lancashire Telegraph published him. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, of course I was responding to Mackensen. And I should have been more clear. Sorry about that. For most things I am fine with assuming that someone is looking over the shoulder of the trainee digital reporter and vetting the stories -- even though we all know about the layoffs and overworked editors at local papers. But even if the fellow checking the trainee exists, think about our basic reasoning. We find that person A is findable in a search of the Epstein files, but no reliable source covered it, so person A is off the list. We find that person B is findable in a search of the Epstein files, and this time a reliable source did cover it, so person B is on the list. But what would our possibly imaginary editor check in the trainee's work? Would he just check to see that the facts are correct, or would he also substitute his judgement as to what is notable enough to print? Maybe they had space to fill that day. I am still left with a strong suspicion that we are choosing to include someone in our Epstein files list solely because of a decision by a trainee digital reporter. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear why that publication covered it as news: he was a visiting professor at the university in the publication's coverage area. So, it seems like that's an editorial decision not made by the reporter. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

It wouldn't say much for the publication's editorial oversight if it allowed a new reporter to publish such a piece, linking a semi-public figure to the world's most prominent sex offender, without the editors giving him the go-ahead. You've provided no evidence that this is the case, though. Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Mackensen, please stop telling me that I have provided no evidence for something I never claimed to be true. If I had evidence, I would not have used a phrase like "I have a suspicion" (saying that I suspect that it might be true but I don't know) or "It occurred to me that possibly more experienced editors might have checked the trainee's work. Am I allowed to presume that, or do I need evidence that it is true?" (saying that I suspect that it might be false but I don't know). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Free clue: the source is not the reporter. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Go away, Selbstporträt. Stop following me around Wikipedia and commenting on everything I write. I do not wish to have any interactions with you. Leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Readers might like to confer to WP:FORUMSHOP. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Report me at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any policies or guidelines. I never respond to you other than asking you to leave me alone. Your constant accusations of wrongdoing everywhere I post is WP:HOUNDING. Report me or shut the fuck up about my many alleged crimes. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Was going to contribute to this discussion but with the level of anger and aggression here I don't think I'll bother. AusLondonder (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Considering the LT is generally reliable as a local paper of record, I don't see why we'd make an exception here. Doesn't feel like an absurd assumption to make that said trainee's work would be overseen and approved by more senior newsroom staff. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• A passing comment. A Google search h provides many other sources so this may be much ado about nothing. Not for me to edit that page but sche resigned from charity etc.

Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why TLT shouldn't be reliable in this case, or in general. Someone appearing in the Epstein files isn't a particularly controversial claim since 1) the files mention like a million people and 2) we can even check for ourselves whether the claim is accurate. The wording in the article ("appear to reveal a close friendship") also seems fine and isn't particularly accusatory. Cortador (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

agreed. i think question of BLP matters, as is question of dueness though. Even if reliable coverage, WP:PUBLICFIGURES asks for multiple sources for saying someone appears in the epstein files. and a single paper commenting on it really does not suggest dueness either. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

We are dancing around the more important question: Is being on the Epstein list worth mentioning without context as to why and how the person is mentioned?I don’t think so. There is a huge difference between, say, someone who was mentioned in passing vs someone who regularly communicated and visited his island. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The article already states why Junkermann is mentioned. Cortador (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, though that doesn't have anything to do with the reliability of the Lancashire Telegraph, which isn't even the sole source reporting this connection. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly so. Many refs are on the talk page of her article. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 02:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

You are both completely missing the point. That was the only source cited when Nicole Junkermann was added to the List of people named in the Epstein files. Citations added later or found elsewhere do not matter. When writing about living people. WP:BLP is crystal clear: "Contentious material about living (or, in some cases, recently deceased) persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

I asked whether the source was reliable and the consensus seem to be yes, but referring to some other source on some other page does not overrule the clear wording of WP:BLP. Contentious material about living persons must be sourced inline when you add it. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, why not just add more sources my friend? No one will stop you. Anyway, I will say no more given that I could not care less about dead perverts or hot babes who like men 40 years older than themselves. I will just move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:39, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Me neither. That is why I am unwilling to make it my full-time job playing Whac-A-Mole searching for sources to fix edits that were clear BLP violations when they were made. I prefer that those editors stop violating BLP or, if they are not willing to stop, that those editors be indefinitely blocked. I also care about people who are not dead perverts but are rather completely innocent living people who were invited to a party that Epstein was invited to (and neither actually attended). They should not be tarred with the same brush as the perverts. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup, Guy is absolutely right here. If people violate WP:BLP policy by adding unsourced or improperly sourced negative content, nobody else is obliged to do anything about it. They may chose to revert it. They may also chose to inform the violator why in more detail. They may, if there is a pattern, report the matter. They are under no obligation to do any of this, and they certainly aren't under the slightest obligation to go searching for possible alternate sources - doing that is an active invitation for the violator to continue violating policy. People who aren't prepared to comply with core WP:BLP policy don't get baby-sat, they get blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

As you wish. As you wish. And you do have a point. But my keyboard is saying it is tired... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

As Guy references above, there was an RFC on whether to include the Epstein stuff in at Nicole Junkermann and there was no consensus beyond minimal mention. Whether something is an RS or not is irrelevant because WP:V (specifically

WP:VNOT and WP:ONUS) state that material is not guaranteed inclusion just because it is source from a RS. WP:BLP also states words to that effect. I see no good reason why the same shouldn't apply at List of people named in the Epstein files. TarnishedPath^talk 05:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Further to that, there is nothing whatsoever in Wikipedia policy that guarantees any specific article or list is included on Wikipedia, regardless of how many reliable sources it cites. The overall topic of the Epstein Files as such clearly meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, but how we cover the topic, what title(s) we select for articles, and whether we have any lists of material referred to in the files is all at contributor discretion, arrived at with due regard to policy and guidelines. Topic fragmentation encourages bloat and duplication, and (as is evident from the controversy over this list) can lead to subtopics/lists with an inherently questionable foundation: arbitrary decisions regarding content, and inherent risks of bias. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I am concerned about this site: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/

It's used in a number of pages as a citation, (see), but it seems to be at least partially a copy of wikipedia. For example, see this page, which copies wording that has existed on wikipedia since at least 2008

(Also, it managed to copy a bit of wikivandalism along with the rest of the page: cyanobacteria occur in tyour momhe Great Salt Lake, which is a bit of a giveaway)

I didnt check the history of each page, but every one i checked had at least some laguage identical to the wikipedia page: for example, Morocco#French_and_Spanish_protectorates vs https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-worldhistory/chapter/33-1-3-moroccan-independence/. Another example: Open-hearth_furnace#History vs. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/steel-production/#:~:text=action%2E-,After%201890

(Well, I suppose it is possible we are just copying them extensively, but i dont think so)

Is this the right place to report this? is there any way this site can be blacklisted or something, not sure how that works

thanks, /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable, Tioseafj. The sources at the bottom of these pages are Wikipedia. They've just scraped content that itself may not be accurate, and then people are citing it again on WP to verify said statements. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

ok, thanks. i am removing them. is there any kind of list it can be added to so people dont add it as a source in the future? when i tried to make a page with a kickstarter link (to source how much the kickstarter raised), i was blocked from doing so-- can we do that with this one?

thanks, /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That warning is only for particularly troublesome sources, unfortunately there's isn't a technical solution for minor sources such as this one. Editors have to manually ensure the quality of sources used in articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

ok. ill just keep an eye on it then. Im removing the existing ones /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I also think it is a useless source. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

thanks, i appreciate the confirmation :) i didnt want to remove hundreds of citations without confirming that my judegement was accurate /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries Just do it as they say. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD is a guideline, and you need no ones approval to edit. Only if someone objects do you need to stop and discuss, personally I think best practice is to follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

INFO: just in case anyone looks this up later and wants more information: while removing these I have found out that LumenLearning is a repository of lesson plans and textbooks, from various sources. Some of them are legit sources, some are lesson plans uploaded by individual teachers, and a large number of them are partially or fully copied from wikipedia. Some of the individual pages may be reliable because they are a copy of a reliable textbook, but unfortunately it's difficult to tell which ones. If you have a citation you think is good, i would try to find and cite the textbook its copied from. I will be removing everything thats cited to lumenlearning directly

(notably, almost every use of this source that ive seen has been used to retroactively source unsourced claims, aka: its definitely being used as a circular reference)

Thanks, /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 07:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I was patroling some edits by PARAKANYAA on the White genocide article here, and noticed they had removed an entire paragraph which included sources such as NYT, ADL and a WP:PRIMARY source because (edit summary): "not one of these sources mentions the word "white genocide". absent a reliable source connecting this to the term this is OR"

I looked at the very first page (third paragraph - second to last sentence) of the source which states...

"The United States and it's 'New World Order' has as one of it's foremost purposes, the eradication of the White race and its culture" (emphasis mine)

Since "eradication of white race" and "white genocide" are basically synonymous I felt it was a red flag and best to revert the edit and discuss it on the talk page, but we are having some difficulty communicating productively, as they have now moved on to arguing it is UNDUE, and copywrite protected etc...which it may be.

Due to the awkwardness of our interaction, I felt it best to see if anyone here is willing to take a look and offer some opinions.

(The context in question)

Shortly after Lane's Manifesto, the Aryan Nations published their 1996 Declaration of Independence stating that the Zionist Occupation Government sought "the eradication of the white race and its culture" as "one of its foremost purposes". It accused such Jews of subverting the constitutional rule of law; responsibility for post-Civil War Reconstruction; subverting the monetary system with the Federal Reserve System, confiscating land and property; limiting freedoms of speech, religion, and gun ownership; murdering, kidnapping and imprisoning patriots; abdicating national sovereignty to the United Nations; political repression; wasteful bureaucracy; loosening restrictions on immigration and drug trafficking; raising taxes; polluting the environment; commandeering the military, mercenaries, and police; denying Aryan cultural heritage; and inciting immigrant insurrections.^{[1][unreliable source?][2][failed verification][3][failed verification]}

They also mentioned a possible WP:COPY violation with this source, if anyone cares to comment on that as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This probably belongs at WP:NPOVN, not here. TarnishedPath^talk 07:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

There were three sources. The two reliable sources say nothing about the subject (the first doesn't mention the memorandum at all, the second does but quotes it talking about other, unrelated topics) and the third is a primary source that is WP:UNDUE, OR here, and also neo-Nazi propaganda. This is indicated by the fact I said "absent a reliable source connecting this to the term this is OR".

Why are we citing an entire paragraph in this article to a primary source by a white supremacist group that no secondary source connects to the subject of the article? How is that due weight, and not OR?

Also yes the link is a copyright violation. Copyright doesn't cease to exist for the extremely racist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Suggest reinserting a shortened form of the content indicating this racist group engages in this racist conspiracy theory but with care to copyright. And less detail is required. the eradication of the white race and its culture obviously refers to "white genocide" and we should avoid the "source using an obvious synonym doesn't count" thing. Furthermore the racist group is reliable for saying it believes in this hogwash. We should absolutely not lend credence to racist conspiracy theories using such sources but we can use them to document that these people hold these beliefs. Simonm223 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

PRIMARY SOURCE: I am not a fan of using Nazi or terrorist primary sources, but they are not unreliable for ABOUTSELF claims and this is indeed an obvious synonym. I would flag a primary source like this with a secondary source needed tag.

ADL SECONDARY SOURCE: ADL is a reliable source for this sort of thing, as extensively discussed in an RFC with a huge amount of participation. ADL supports the para because it mentions the Declaration and that it quotes Lane's manifesto, and specifically its 13 Words (which is an encapsulation of white genocide theory). ADL also mention some of the things in the Declaration per the removed para, but I agree that's overly detailed in the removed para.

NYT SECONDARY SOURCE: Obviously reliable. However, I agree it fails to verify the para.

Support Simonnm223 proposal to reinsert shortened version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Found a secondary source. Will edit a proposed version.

• United States (2001). Hate crime on the internet: hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, first session on ramifications of internet technology on today's children, focusing on the prevalence of internet hate, and recommendations of how to shield children from the negative impact of violent media, September 14, 1999. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. : Congressional Sales Office, Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., distributor. ISBN 978-0-16-065620-0. Retrieved 10 March 2026.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

How is a judiciary hearing ever a secondary source? Legal hearings are quite universally considered primary sources. Also, how is this due weight? PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not a primary source for this claim. It's the testimony of a researcher, from the ADL, to Congress. The fact it was published by Congress makes me feel it's due, but open to other views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

A primary source interview with someone quoting another primary source does not become a secondary source. That is not what a secondary source is.

Anything said in a proceeding like this is in the log, it is indiscriminate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Secondary sources are documents, recordings, or works that analyze, interpret, synthesize, or evaluate information from primary sources rather than providing direct, first-hand evidence. They offer second-hand accounts, commentary, and scholarly interpretation. The ADL expert's written testimony about the Declaration is a secondary source. The Declaration is the primary source. Please take this to the original source noticeboard if you have concerns about the use of primary sources that can't be dealt with at the article's own talk page. The community has strongly established that the ADL is reliable for precisely this kind of thing.

Re Anything said in a proceeding like this is in the log, it is indiscriminate.: I have no idea what that means but I'm pretty sure it's wrong. The ADL did the research and analysis, thought about it, and prepared written testimony to present to Congress, so I think they discriminated pretty carefully in deciding what information to emphasise and what not to. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

How is it due weight to include this when no secondary sources connect it to the topic of the article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Because it feels right, sourcing be damned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

As with other recent removals by PARAKANYAA of long-standing content on similar topics I watchlist that I've noticed lately, these are cases where a better source tag would be a more constructive first step rather than removing large amounts of semi-decent sourcing, and then if consensus emerges that there are no good sources the material can go, while editors have the chance to improve the articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have to agree, the content is correct, by their own words they believe in "white genocide", but the sourcing could be better. {{better source needed}} would be appropriate, although editors are allowed to remove content if they believe it shouldn't be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the issues, removing the primary source and failed verification source and using reliable secondary sources. Checking welcome. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Those changes are an excellent improvement IMO, thank you. Hopefully PARAKANYAA finds them acceptable as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Uncited/poorly cited material should be removed. I did check for a good source that says this, there isn't one. Of the two sources there now, one still does not say what we are citing it for, the other is a primary source from a court hearing. Neither of these evidence due weight. There are hundreds of white supremacist articles that reference the idea of white extinction - barring secondary sources, why is this any more due weight than any of those hundreds? PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The verification question ("one still does not say what we are citing it for") is best dealt with at the article's talk page as not an RS issue, will reply there. Congressional evidence (not court hearing) is not a primary source for this. Due weight also not a question for this noticeboard. Do any reliability issues remain? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Congressional materials are of course primary sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a basic misunderstanding. They are primary for some things and secondary for others. This document is a primary source for what the ADL testified, but a secondary source for what Aryan Nations said.

At any rate, this is not something that need concern this noticeboard, if you're no longer arguing for unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Poorly or uncited material can be removed, which is why I said that in the last sentence of my comment (and I strongly support the right of editors to do so), but the only material that must be removed in that case is BLP information. I don't think it's in doubt that they support the idea of 'white genocide', it is verifiable to their own words. Whether that source, or other sources, supports inclusion isn't a matter of verification but NPOV. Can I suggest editors try to form a consensus on the matter on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why DN brought this to RSN. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This should be restored. This isn't exact wording "white genocide", but so close that the term is appropriate. The article also lists several closely related terms i.e. sources aren't required to always use the exact term "white genocide" and only that. Cortador (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering if Proceedings of the Indian History Congress would be considered as a WP:HISTRS compliant source and if it can be used generally on South Asian history articles. WareWolf665 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Typically, if it's made it to JSTOR I'd think it's reliable and not predatory.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That is not necessarily completely true. IHC material depends on author and the IHC session, some can be more reliable in the same line as the academic consensus but on the rare occassion there is material which is fringe or very outdated. Therefore it is generally acceptable but far from the best source. The context will be very important during editing. Omen2019 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It should be generally reliable, is there a particular article you were planning using? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I cited them on the Origins section of the Lawik dynasty page. Just wanted to clarify since it got removed by someone earlier for not being WP:HISTRS compliant. WareWolf665 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That might be a case of more sources making the situation worse. A single good source is all that's required, additional sources of poor quality can make other editors more suspicious of content.

For anyone else's reference the article at question is:
Devra, G.S.L.; Arora, Shashi (2012). "Hindu Commanders in the Army of Sultans of Ghazna: A Case Study of Vijaypal of Bayana". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 73: 205–211. JSTOR 44156207.

This period of Indian history isn't something I know a lot about, but the journal seems respectable and G.S.L. Devra appears to have had an academic career in history. There could be specific concerns that the other editor has about the source, generally reliable sources can still be unreliable in a specific WP:RSCONTEXT, but I can't see a reason for it to be rejected without good explanation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. WareWolf665 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Gotitbro as the person that made the revert in question and wasn't told or notified about this discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Firstly as this concerns WP:CT/CASTE edits, WareWolf665 (non-ECP) should not be editing in this area at all and should desist here and elsewhere for any edits and articles related to South Asian groups. I will be reverting their latest edits at the article as such.

Coming to the edit itself. The sources cited were the obscure Concept Publishing Company and Unistar, the former I am particularly familar with for publishing outright WP:FRINGE.

I also would not rely on Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, which has similarly (unlike their actual journals) engaged in the same. Apparent here in the very quote cited in the article:

It appears that these ruling families belonged to Jadam or Jadon (Bhati) or Tak (Takshak or Nag) race of the frontier regions.

The allusions here to race, mythological cruft (Takshaka, Nāga) should already render this entirely unusable. Gotitbro (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

First of all, the alert template states, "Additionally, editors must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days...(2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal." Afghanistan is not mentioned so I don't see how WP:CASTE is relevant here. Still, I will desist out of good faith.

Secondly, Tak here refers to the tribe of Takkas (alternative name) which was the ruling clan of the neighboring Taank Kingdom of Punjab (also known as Takka-desa or Tsehkia). Taks are also mentioned on page 211 of Proceedings as "the ruling class of Multan-Panjnad region" (in Punjab), hence confirming the source refers to the Takkas and not some fictional group. They do have some snake-related (Naga) mythology associated with their origin (per Cunningham) and hence the writers probably included it in parenthesis as a supplementary note, mention of which can be (and already was) omitted from the article. It does not make the entire source unusable. Not to mention, Jadaun/Bhati is a very real group and their mention should not be omitted for any reason.

I would also like to quote WP:HISTRS here, which states "This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement."

First of all, Proceedings of Indian National Congress undoubtedly qualifies as a scholarly source and this is highlighted by the existence of their articles on Jstor. You need to bring sources proving that their actual journals are more reliable than their Jstor articles rather than personal assumptions. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this article does not qualify as scholarly. As per the quotation above, the essay deems it fine to use the next best source available which is this one. WP:FRINGE does not apply either as there are no other sources discussing their origin (at least, I could not find any).

I would also like to ping @Sutyarashi here as it was them who originally added the source while I expanded the information contained within it. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'm seeking opinions on the reliability of togetherweserved.com, an index of military biographies. (A search showed no discussion on it yet.) This site is used quite often as a source for "awards and decorations" sections of servicemen; for example on singer-songwriter Barry Sadler.

It looks like a clear cut case of user-submitted data, but before I start slashing and burning, I'd like to make sure that nobody thinks the site's solicitation of official documentation combined with their reputation gives even a modicum of editorial oversight. Thanks! Rift (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Looking around, I see TogetherWeServed.com (TWS) contains comprehensive military records of Military Veterans posted by the Veterans themselves. Seems pretty clear cut. If the person is still alive (or at least alive in the internet age), it may still be usable under WP:ABOUTSELF, if you can prove the listing was written by them. Jumpytoo Talk 01:49, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If it is going to be used, it would need to be attributed (i.e. according to togetherweserved). But as it is user submitted, I am cautious and think it would be best not to use the source altogether. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This is clearly user generated content and so generally unreliable. It might be usable if the details are posted by the subject of the article themselves, and only themselves, in an WP:ABOUTSELF way but be cautious "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim". If the material cannot be confirmed as being posted by the subject of the article, then it can't be used and should be removed. Depending on the details it might be possible to find another source to support the content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:43, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• I also think the site is far from reliable, given that the content is user generated. It serves no purpose... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd like a second opinion on the reliability of Mental Floss. I'm currently citing a listicle from this website to provide attributions to Production-related stuff in the Tremors (1990 film) article—https://www.mentalfloss.com/entertainment/movies/23-fun-facts-about-tremors—; however, a five-year-old discussion dismisses it as unreliable—Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_343#Mental_Floss. Does the objection still hold up? I think Mental Floss is OK on a case-by-case basis, provided that it's not citing questionable sources to support its content. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

listicles are always poor sources, if you can't find the information anywhere else I would be very hesitant to use it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't cite a listicle. My experience in reading them on any site (but most notably on mental floss) has been that they're a mixture of fairly useless factoids, common misconceptions and half-true factoids with a couple of real lip-flapping stupid fake facts mixed in to keep you on your toes. Cracked.com used to have listicles that included sources (making those ten times more useful, if not exactly usable themselves), but as I stopped reading after most of the writing staff got laid off in 2017. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is a 3rd opinion: they are useless and unreliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I actually have a 4th opinion. The country cover of Blinding Lights is superior to the original. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:33, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll mention my experience at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 497#National Day Calendar, where I was looking for sources and found that MentalFloss used "Good Riddles Now" as a source, which in turn seems to have lifted its content from Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:USATODAY appears to have articles under "Shopping" that are affiliate marketing (ex. "Use our special promo code to save an extra 10% on this high-tech wearable device."). I found referenced for one product. These appear to presented identically to normal news articles, besides being under "Shopping" instead of another header like "Sports" or "Nation". ex: . The current RSP entry calls out "Contributor" articles, but these are not contributor articles. I think this section is worth a callout. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Shopping articles should always be considered separately from any news reporting, in general editorial standards only cover the latter. This is a great example of how just because some isn't a primary source doesn't mean that it's WP:INDEPENDENT. If these aren't advertorials then they're so similar to advertorials that the difference is indistinguishable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That is some disappointing material. The sample article's author bio has a link to USA Today's Principles of Ethical Conduct, which includes "We will not blur the line between advertising and editorial content. We will provide appropriate disclosures, exercise transparency and avoid actual or implicit commercial endorsements by our journalists" and this appears shortly in the article: "Just in time for Memorial Day, [product] is offering their device for $300 off, but you can get an additional 10% off when you use our exclusive promo code USATODAY at checkout. That's a savings of $324, plus you can lower stress, enhance your focus, have a brighter mood, get better sleep and lower your blood pressure." That does not feel like a complicated ethical situation; this is simply an advertorial. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. My concern is how poorly the advertising content is distinguished from editorial content. For example, Wirecutter content is clearly formatted differently than New York Times editorial content and has a Wirecutter-specific editorial policy. In the USA Today case, the content is presented identically (besides being under "Shopping") and links to the same journalist profiles and editorial policy. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This is the same problem of paid news and hidden ads disguised as news pieces. The section ought to be completely unusable due to questionable/no independence like in WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Omen2019 (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Articles from USA Today's "Shopping" section are sponsored content, which is generally unreliable. Nowadays, many media outlets have a "deals" section that publishes blatantly promotional content like this as a form of native advertising that bypasses ad blockers. Unlike non-sponsored product reviews (which may be also presented alongside affiliate links), sponsored content is content marketing instead of journalism, and is inherently questionable due to its apparent conflict of interest. I would support implementing an edit filter that displays a warning when a link is added to a page within the "deals" section of any prominent media outlet. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Amid the ongoing war, is it a source to be relied upon? They are the ones who spread the extremely high death toll for the protests of last January, which they supposedly verified, but who are the verificators in the first place? Who is behind this organization? Shoshin000 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Note the discussion started two months ago here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Per the discussion in January 2026 editors who frequent this board view it as generally reliable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

We don't determine reliability on the basis of vague "who's behind the organisation" questions. TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion two months ago found a general consensus that it's biased but reliable (which I myself agreed with at that discussion), and I haven't seen anything to change my mind on that. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I propose we add Clownfish TV to the list on WP:RSP. I heard they are "Anti-woke grifters" I used to watch them and they are always negative and ruined gaming for me. They destroyed my mental health so I had to stop. I tried discussing it on the talk page of WP:RSP, but one person says this is the appropriate place. Here's the website: https://clownfishtv.com Christianhatley527 (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Why, have they been regularly cited? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It is cited as a source on the articles To Be Hero and Kevin Seymour. Christianhatley527 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

We will need a better reason to declare them not RS than you have given. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Christianhatley527… the “P” in “RSP” stands for “perennial”… the RSP list isn’t for listing “bad” sources, it is for listing sources that are “repeatedly discussed” (good or bad).

Clownfish TV may well be an unreliable source (I don’t know it well enough to judge, but I am always wary of YouTube channels), but even so we wouldn’t list it at RSP unless/until it rises to the level of frequently discussed. As far as I know, it hasn’t been discussed much. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

What little I can find is not exaclty encouraging, seems clickbaity, erring on the side of not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

If you thought is to add something to the RSP then you've got the wrong idea of why it exists. It's not a list of sources and discussions about including a source in the RSP shouldn't count towards WP:RSPCRITERIA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mjbama2010 has asked me about whether this would be an acceptable source regarding recent developemts in the criminal case of Hardbody Harrison. I'd informed them that court records couldn't be used due to WP:BLPPRIMARY, but I'm currently having trouble parsing a lot of the information in this UNODC url and whether it's independent reporting or also running up against WP:BLPPRIMARY. Would appreciate eyes on this from someone more experienced in this area. ᴸᵃᶠᶠʸTaffer💬(they/she) 18:44, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a reposting of primary court details and so shouldn't be used in an article about a living person per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Secondary sources contain analysis, evaluation or interpretation. If a source is just republishing primary details then it's still a primary source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:43, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Came across Newsday when looking for sources for "Suit & Tie". Should it be listed as generally reliable? It has won 19 Pulitzer Prizes and is the eighth-largest circulation newspaper in the United States (Media Bias/Fact Check list its factual reporting as "high" ). However, some people consider it biased for politics-related topics (Media Bias/Fact Check noted that it "is reported factually with a left-leaning editorial bias"). With this logic, should it be listed as generally reliable for non-politics-related topics and considered biased for politics-related topics? RedShellMomentum 03:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The MBFC's page on Newsday that you cite] repeatedly calls it specifically "left-center", i.e., just the smallest unit over from what MBFC calls "not biased" (but may be considered "centrist biased".) Even if we accept MBFC's evaluation, it is hard to see that as sufficient for concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I've generally found Newsday to be a solid source for New York news, especially sports and pop culture. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

MBFC doesn't judge sources based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so while it's may be useful for finding information about a source it's rather limited for Wikipedia's purposes. If by listed you mean appearing on the RSP that's not what the purpose of the RSP. It's not a list of reliable or unreliable sources, but simply a log of discussions that have happened here (see WP:RSPNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

MBFC is itself not reliable. Cortador (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you could say the blind leading the ... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

This trite expression again. Wikipedians aren't reliable either, yet they determine all of our policies and guidelines. MBFC may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for citing article content, but it can be used as evidence when evaluating sources, along with other sources and Wikipedian arguments.--Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

In line with previous discussions on CEOWorld and Universal Media, TMCnet.com appears to be a similar sort of content/award farm. There are nearly 1,000 citations with many in BLPs. I don't see previous discussion of this source.

Contentboost, an advertising company with the same address linked from TMCnet's homepage, lists Rich Tehrani and Erik Linask as chief managers of both entities. 81567518W (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• I see it as far from reliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, does anyone know a few good sources when adding information to pages about arthopods (mainly Lepidoptera)? I was also wondering if Butterfly Conservation and UKMoths are reliable sources. RamenThePigeon (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest asking on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Insects, editors there are more likely not have topic knowledge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice! I did join Wikipedia recently to help improve mainly insects and arthropod pages so I’ll ask for insect-related advice there in future. RamenThePigeon (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, if you are able to access such books, textbooks published by academic publishers would be a good idea, such as the following:

1. University Presses of well known universities
2. Elsevier Science
3. Kluwer
4. Palgrave MacMillan
5. Routledge
6. Sage Publishing
7. Wiley-Blackwell
8. John Wiley & Sons

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)