Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 488

In the article Glenn Diesen (about an academic based in Norway who is accused of promoting a pro Kremlin geopolitical line), there is a dispute on whether a review of one of his books should be cited. The review is in a minor mainstream western journal, Media, War & Conflict, but the authors are affiliated to state institution in China, the Communication University of China in Beijing. Does their affiliation preclude their use? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:35, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Short answer, no. Maybe there affiliation should be taken into account when using the source, depending on its content, but it wouldn't preclude their use. Per WP:RSBIAS biased sources are not unreliable, but they should be handled in a way that acknowledges any bias. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

IMO No. It doesn't undermine the credence of peer review. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

In general, I like to write something along the lines of "A review article in <Publication> stated _____________." That could help with dealing with whatever bias. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:22, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Years ago, there were multiple academic sources saying that publications in Chinese journals or written by researchers living in China were biased on the specific subject of Traditional Chinese medicine, and we decided to discourage their use. But it's not enough to say "Oh, this nationality, so they're biased". The academic studies presented some evidence that authors living in China were under pressure to not publish unless their study reached a state-approved pro-TCM conclusion. I would not want to exclude a source on the grounds of nationality except under similarly strong evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley, ActivelyDisinterested, Aaron Liu, WhatamIdoing, GeogSage, Rsk6400, and Jeppiz: From what I gather here from the above discussion, this is a perfectly fine source to use with attribution as we had. I will be restoring this if arguments beyond China being the location of these academics aren't forthcoming. Gotitbro (talk) 18:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Not an obvious case. Of course Chinese affiliation is not an issue whatsoever for most publications. In this case, when it's about providing support for a propagandist for an authoritarian regime closely allied to China, it is less clear cut. I find it highly unlikely that the authors could have written a negative review even if they wanted to, meaning that the reliability is questionable. Jeppiz (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Here's the actual proposed usage:

In a review for Media, War & Conflict, Chang Zhang and Ting Zhou of the Communication University of China described the book as an insightful analysis of Russophobia in the West and its negative implications especially for the latter. They concluded that the book "has arguably drawn a delicate balance between theoretical reflectivity, historical depth and empirical breadth."^[1]

To me, this looks already sufficiently attributed, and being published in a mainstream journal should give it Due weight. I don't see a problem with this. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

We should take into account that we are dealing with a subject the Chinese government is deeply interested in (probably more than in traditional Chinese medicine), i.e. the Russo-Ukrainian War. It also actively engages in disinformation (see e.g. ; there are lots of other sources for that). Also, "Russophobia in the West" is a Russian propaganda narrative. In my view, a correct attribution would be "Chang Zhang's and Ting Zhou's university is controlled by the Chinese government which actively engages in a disinformation campaign supporting Russian narratives on Ukraine." Rsk6400 (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Complete synth to discredit a perfectly valid source as shown by multiple users here, simply tendentious to try and continue to challenge it based on the country of the academics origin. Gotitbro (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Frankly the idea that we should be making de-facto judgments of any source solely upon the basis of the national origin of the author is non-neutral and contrary to Wikipedia's goals. When one considers that there may very well be Chinese editors of EN.WP it is also borderline to a UCOC violation. I would suggest that Rsk6400 should cease attempting to suggest an academic source is unreliable on the basis of its authors being Chinese. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Simonm223: I never attempted to suggest an academic source is unreliable on the basis of its authors being Chinese. It's @Gotitbro who constantly claims that I made such an attempt. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  I am perfectly capable of reading what you wrote. The argument provided in that diff is a pretty extreme failure to understand WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And, frankly, I think Gotitbro understood you just fine. Simonm223 (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The authors just being based in Mainland China does not automatically make them unreliable, especially when they were peer reviewed in a reliable western journal. Such sources are especially important to provide a WP:GLOBAL perspective and to avoid WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I can also see that the author has published papers which criticize Russian media, so I don't believe there is a publication bias/restriction issue here either.

However, there could still be a discussion as to how the review is summarized, for example in the example provided above, I note the summary only described the positive parts, did the reviewers really have no criticism of the book? Adding such content of what they critisized would make the review summary more balanced. Jumpytoo Talk 02:13, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Normally, book reviews are not peer reviewed. I didn't claim that the authors are "automatically ... unreliable". Rsk6400 (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: It is RS nonetheless, to claim otherwise you would need to show evidence why either of these authors or the journal itself are unreliable. You claim here and here that your edits have been misrepresented by me (that you wanted the RS rejected due to the national affiliation of the authors). I disagree, the same thing was first highlighted by Bob and multiple editors have seen the edits and rationales given here and at the article's talk page, clearly most disagree with them. These are but your statements:

Removing review by Chinese academics - see talk. ... I removed the source you added by two academics from the Communication University of China - China is a country without any academic freedom, and a country supporting the Russian aggression. We cannot expect a text from there on a subject that has some importance for the Chinese government to meet the standards for a reliable source. ... In addition to what I said above about the government which controls the authors of the source I'd like to add: The source supports the idea that there is significant Russophobia in the Western world, which is a fringe theory, see WP:FRINGE. ... Removing source from Communication University of China once again, will explain on talk in a jiffy ... The fact that there is no academic freedom in China means that one will never get a position at a Chinese university if one doesn't agree with Xi Jinping's ideas. And once having got such a position, one's views and especially publications will be under even closer scrutiny. And of course every Chinese academic knows what can happen (and has happened often enough) to those who are no longer in Xi's good books. Academics in the field of political and related disciplines are of course interested in dialogue with Chinese academics, that's why no good journal will reject their contributions. ... The journal addresses expert readers (academics and international relations people) seeking a deeper understanding of how their Chinese counterparts think and argue. That is perfectly OK for the journal, but not for us. ... We should take into account that we are dealing with a subject the Chinese government is deeply interested in (probably more than in traditional Chinese medicine), i.e. the Russo-Ukrainian War. It also actively engages in disinformation (see e.g. ; there are lots of other sources for that). Also, "Russophobia in the West" is a Russian propaganda narrative. In my view, a correct attribution would be "Chang Zhang's and Ting Zhou's university is controlled by the Chinese government which actively engages in a disinformation campaign supporting Russian narratives on Ukraine."

You have failed to establish the evidence for the claim that this and Roberts are non-RS sources or any more unreliable than the sources we do already cite on the BLP. Either the evidence should be forthcoming or its time to drop the stick. Gotitbro (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Do you really think it's fair to combine edit summaries with talk page comments ? Do you really think this belongs here ? Well, at least it proves my point, not yours: I never rejected the review because of the authors' nationality. The word "Chinese" in my first edit summary is a shorthand for what I explained on the talk page in the same instant. And I never made the claim that Roberts is "non-RS". Now for the last time: Stop misrepresenting other editors. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rsk6400: Since, you repeated this twice at my talk page that I had somehow misrepresented your case, it's only fair to have all the rationales that you ever gave for the removal. If you really think that them being academics in China [publishing in peer-reviewed journals not under any purview of censorship] somehow compromises their intergrity, that them being Chinese means that we attach the policies of their government wherever they are mentioned and that these are not nationality based arguments then we have a greater problem with understanding what multiple other editors have already told you. It is time to stop arguing along those lines.

As for Roberts, if it's not RS then there is simply no case for a removal. Since, other editors here and at the article's Talk page cleary find no problem with it either, I will be restoring it. Enwiki is not the ballot place to stuff only negative things at BLPs. Gotitbro (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Playhouse Disney | Moviefone It claims that the show aired on the Seven Network, is there any proof of this? 49.185.208.86 (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You're probably better of asking such questions at the articles talk page, talk:Playhouse Disney. But looking at the article it uses this report from C21Media to verify that Seven Network ran the programme. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The talk page for the Playhouse Disney page is indeed more appropriate to ask that question. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammar_Siamwalla Check reference 3. There's a user that keeps restoring it to Bangkok coconut. It's about a different ammar, one that is a music artist! 2405:6584:4E0:6000:1537:1529:6D09:99F9 (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

That reference is a Facebook post. It should just be scrapped entirely. If there are no better sources than a Facebook post, that information isn't due for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes the user also uses a lot of Facebook and blog posts it's very irritating. 126.113.231.78 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I say, a better source would be needed than that, if the info is to be included. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

So what is this coconuts source unreliable? I tried searching the archive for coconuts which was not very fruitful. At first glance it is hard to tell how reliable this source is. Czarking0 (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Here is the editorial policy . Kind of vague. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:V (programming language) § Valid Criticism is NEVER Vandalism. Sourcing-based objections to the inclusion of certain criticism. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Notoungulata, @DTavona: has claimed that this 2020 paper published in Annual Reviews is idiocy, sloppy research by academic professionals and that the paper's claim that

...humans undoubtedly interacted with [South American Native Ungulates] near the end of the Cenozoic and probably had a contributing if not major role in their extinction

is a tired and egregious excuse and that he wanted to express his college educated outrage at sloppy research by academic professionals and even sloppier work by journals printing said work. . I personally thimk that DTavona's (who has sporadically made edits arguing on the talkpages of disparate topics since 2009) arguments are frankly wildly off-base, and I have reverted them and hatted them previously because I think they go against Wikipedia guidelines, but it is clear that DTavona is not backing down . My opinion is that the article in Annual Reviews is perfectly reliable, and the opinion expressed, while not uncontroversial, is hardly fringe within the topic area (see this 2024 paper for a recent review, and DTavona's arguments seem to be based primarily on his own opinions rather than trying to assess the consensus of experts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Annual Reviews is a reliable source and DTavona should stop engaging in original research. Fences&Windows 19:53, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm curious as to your thoughts on the use of Bustle to support this claim: According to Bustle magazine, the name Pennywise may have originated from the British proverb "Penny Wise, Pound Foolish", which refers to a person who is cautious in small matters but takes risks in big matters. The magazine speculates that the name is a warning to children not to take their lives for granted.. I've removed the sentence from the article pending the outcome of this discussion.

Source: Gommeh 📖/🎮 13:31, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The magazine is clear that it's speculation, and this is appropriately reflected in the excerpt posted, with in-text attribution. Seems more of a question of whether this speculation is WP:DUE rather than reliability per se. Siawase (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Any views on whether Top School Guide is an independent and reliable source? It's been adddd at David Game College to support David Game College is recognised as a leader in A level retakes. The College is one of the leaders for A level retakes, and would normally expect its A level retake students to improve their result by two grades. The source, here, does indeed say that, but reads to me as if it may have been written either by the school or to promote it. The website's Terms say The data presented on topschoolguide.com has been sourced from official and reliable sources. All efforts are made to verify the data and ensure that information is up-to-date and accurate. I'm not sure where the information about the college's expectation could have come from, if not the college itself. Tacyarg (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Statements like Yes, the college can offer discretionary fee reductions on a case-by-case basis. Call Top School Guide and we can help you prepare a convincing case for fee reductions. make me think it isn't very reliable. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 14:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Not in the slightest bit reliable. I work in that sector. In fact, I'd support blacklisting it. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, both. Tacyarg (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I see you've taken it and the statement it supported out of David Game College, thanks. I've done the same with the other three school articles it appeared in. Do you (or others) have any views on https://which-boarding-school.com, https://www.britishunited.net and https://www.best-schools.co.uk? All are used in Cardiff Sixth Form College. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

None of those are reliable either, they are all websites that are trying to sell school places to parents so of course they will be biased in saying that schools are "good" (or whatever phrase they choose). That's not to say those schools aren't good, it's just that we'd need an actual reliable source. If they are quoting exam results and the like, that information will be available elsewhere. The data in Cardiff Sixth Form College sourced to those websites is about 11-12 years out of date as well, so probably just needs removing. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I have no view on the Top Schools Guide. It may, or may not, be reliable. And I acknowledge its vested interest, as is the case with many publications. But I do have a view on a discussion such as this, involving some 3/4 editors max, being used as a “policy” to classify TSG as a deprecated source, and to then remove edits using it. If that is the aim, I think a broader, and better publicised, discussion is required. KJP1 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Possibly, but WP:NOTRS is policy, and includes the sentence Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. It is pretty undeniable that websites whose existence is predicated on trying to make money by acting as an intermediary for providing school places to parents have a conflict of interest. Black Kite (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely accept that such an argument can be made. And that you could follow on from that to deprecating TSG. But I don’t think that has yet been done. KJP1 (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Per the noticeboard header "While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy." However any editor can remove a source, and associated content, because they believe the source isn't reliable. That's just normal editing practice, as editing is the first step in WP:CONSENSUS. It's only if editors disagree that more formal discussions are needed. Editors rarely need permission to edit (I would say never but edit requests, semi / extended protection, and such exist). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

TSG is generally unreliable, and should be declared as such. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The link is . The other two sources for the first line are Twitter and YouTube. Maybe half of the sources are ok. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, I was reading about new music and found a confusing article. The citations are dense, even in the lede:

Avery Friedman is a Brooklyn-based[4][5] musician and singer-songwriter[6] from Cleveland, Ohio.[7] Her lineup includes James Chrisman (Sister. / CIAO MALZ) and Felix Walworth (Florist / Told Slant).[8][9] She released her debut album 'New Thing' via Audio Antihero[10][11] on April 18, 2025,[12][13][14] which received support from NPR Music's All Songs Considered,[15][16] The Line of Best Fit,[17] Under the Radar Magazine,[18] KEXP,[19][20] BBC Radio Scotland,[10][21] No Depression,[8][22] Hanif Abdurraqib,[23][24] New Noise Magazine,[6] KLOF Magazine,[12][25] WFUV,[26][27] WNYU,[28][29][30] Rockerilla,[31] FM4,[32] Out Front,[33] Spotify,[34][35][36] and others.[37][38][39]

The article's hard to read and could use some MOS:LEADCITE / WP:OVERCITE help, but I'm not familiar with musical sources. There are 185 sources total = 179 Template:Cite web + 2 Template:Cite news + 4 in some other format? Here's my clumsy attempt to count the unique publications or websites:

Can some people help explain which are reliable? I don't know what's typical for a musical artist. Blepbob (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You might find better advice at WT:WikiProject Albums, as they maintain WP:MUSIC/SOURCES a list of reliable and unreliable music sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:54, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link! Blepbob (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s not exactly a reliability issue, but most of these primary sources that might be okay for sourcing non-controversial facts, but the article lacks decent independent sources. It might be worth taking it to the conflict of interest noticeboard as the same sloppy promotional style and same IP editors seem to be involved in other Audio Antihero-related pages. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:47, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm attempting to clean it up by taking out the obvious instragram, x.com, bluesky type posts, but we already had an IP come add them back in. Denaar (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a small but volatile discussion at Talk:Chen Weihua over whether this paragraph should stay. I started a not-rfc RfC to discuss it and we started discussing the source attached to this paragraph. NYT is obviously a reliable source by itself, but the reference here seems to be too trivial to meet WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. Sources, even if reliable, need to be in-depth, and this reference is not... I think. At least from this one paragraph it's not. I can't read the rest of the article for what it's worth. guninvalid (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The New York Times article cited also contains a Wayback Machine link, which should have the full article. Can you point to a policy or guideline that says that WP:RS coverage of a person also needs to be "in depth"? - Amigao (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This should not have been taken to RSN because there is no disagreement over whether the source is reliable, but over if including the information follows WP:BALASP. WP:VNOT is relevant here: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." The neutrality noticeboard would be more appropriate as WP:BALASP falls under WP:NPOV. Amigao is correct that a source does not have to give SIGCOV for its information to be included. 49.185.124.85 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

While I don't personally find what a person retweets to be encyclopedically relevant in the slightest, I agree with the above editors that this isn't a source reliability issue. This isn't a question of fact but of the relevancy of underlying facts. Simonm223 (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

At Talk:Jennifer Brooke/GA1, my attention was drawn to "spoiler" articles for soap operas. Examples of what I am talking about can be found at this link (although WP:DIGITALSPY is marked as "generally reliable", the last discussion was 13 years ago). It seems to me that what happens is the marketing division for soap operas puts out PR releases to certain websites who then give previews to consumers without providing any coverage. Thus, these spoilers should be treated as WP:PRSOURCE, following the sentence "Many less reputable news sources will write an article based almost exclusively on a press release, making only minor modifications." Is this correct? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

What I suspect is happening is that the soap opera producers are sending out details of the upcoming episodes, and then websites write up articles using the details. Compare this article from Digital Spy - "When Rachel is offered a permanent teaching assistant job at Hollyoaks High, she decides to turn it down so she and Nathan can go travelling. However, she will be left pondering her decision when she realises that Nathan may not want the same thing anymore" and this one from Whattowatch -"Also, Rachel's offered a permanent teaching assistant job at Hollyoaks High, but wants to turn it down so she and Nathan can go travelling. She starts to realise, though, that maybe Nathan doesn't want the same thing any more."
Outside of these paragraphs the articles are quite different, but it's readily apparent that both author were basing that paragraph on the same source. That's not to surprising, where else are they going to get details of broadcasts that haven't happened. I can't say for sure how much original writing is involved in the examples but, although similar, they aren't exact duplicates and the articles that contains them are quite different. So I'm not sure that all of PRSOURCE is appropriate, the articles don't read as "effusive praise" for instance. But it's clear they're not entirely independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I have a lot of questions about the suitability of this particular article for Wikipedia.

BBC Archive: The 8 Generations of Video Game Consoles - BBC

The purpose of this listicle appears to be: giving the BBC a chance to show off its archival footage of various technology history. Each point is a "numbered generation" of console followed by a fun blurb and some video. There's no credited author.

The thorny issue is numbered video game consoles are on the list of "citogenesis incidents", in which a Wikipedia article becomes the source for external reporting in a circular manner, eventually coming around to being a reinforcing source for Wikipedia again. This complicates sourcing a lot, because it becomes really important to discern whether the article is parroting Wikipedia, or providing its own independent research / supporting evidence that allows us to improve articles.

My issue is that this source is being used extensively throughout various pages on Wikipedia, like Ninth generation of video game consoles (3rd source), as evidence that the generation classifications are real and correct. The contextual question is: can this article be used to independently support the existence of "numbered console" generations, or the specific machines placed in each category? I disagree strongly that this source can be used in this context.

I can imagine a reliable source saying something like "we, a team of academics, have used these elements (8 bit CPU, cartridge format, year range) to place the NES in the Xth Generation". But this particular one isn't doing that, despite being on the BBC, a source usually given the green light for Wiki standards.

I would like some opinions on this front, thanks! Hornpipe2 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The BBC has a long history of being a reliable source, and I see no reason to think it couldn't be for a topic like the history of video games. (It's not like it's just a general publication trying to compete with tech websites on hard tech data like the raw power of a PlayStation 5 or something.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:04, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Great, you again, and of course conveniently ignoring the actual issues with the source and context I have raised. Well, maybe an impartial user will chime in soon. Hornpipe2 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I frequent RSN and have it on my watchlist. And yes, that was my point, I don't see any "actual issues" with the source. You haven't outlined anything that's an issue. It's just pure speculation of a hypothetical issue. Sergecross73 msg me 03:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

To myself, Sergecross73 was being impartial. In any case, I think we are well past trying to fix the 'Video Game Generations" issue. It has unfortunately spread beyond Wikipedia and the situation is what it is. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:39, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Myself, Sergecross and a few others have been trying to assert that the video game generation, even if WP did create citogenesis at the early stages, is at a point where that genie is out of the bottle, and the terminology is readily accepted across reliable sources, to the point we use RSes to catalog consoles to generations. (This has caused a lot of consternation on a few pages where we have no sourcing to put recent Nintendo consoles into the generations because they haven't been cataloged that way by reliable sources, yet the broader gamign audience thinks they should be, but that's not a question to be resolved here).

The larger question that relates to this, that if we know for some reason that we can demonstrate citogensis from years back (and we have sources that point out WP's role here), but no longer can be proven for current sourcing, are we perpetuating the citogenesis or the fact that reliable sources have gone ahead on their own to continue using that terminology an appropriate way forward. Some of the recent arguments claim that since it started from OR on WP's side, that the whole system must be corrupt even if RSes are talking about well beyond what WP had originally set out. Masem (t) 04:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the whole genie part and with the Nintendo Switch issue. (I have my personal opinions regarding the NS1 and NS2, but to me, that is besides the point.) Regarding the larger question, I am unsure if a proper answer even exists. I would lean toward the latter with sources having adopted it as the way forward, but I can see the reasoning for trying not to use generations to describe the history. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes it's the larger question I'm sort of after, and I do even think it's possible to find "real" sources to support it. But limiting the scope here, my question on this page isn't really about whether generations is a good idea or not, it is merely whether this article is a good source or not for the claims it's upholding.

I am comparing it to, say, Nine European vacation destinations to visit in 2025 if it's not your first time - also posted on the BBC website - is this enough info to edit the Slovenia article and add "It is the fifth best place to visit in 2025 if you have never been there before."?

My thinking is that the BBC posts puff pieces all the time, how do we distinguish claims made in the travel piece vs actual research? Or would you say "BBC listed it as..."

I know that some BBC areas are basically 100% green (news?) but others are open to some debate. This specific one is filed under "BBC Archive", indicating it's a showpiece for the content held in the BBC's archives, and not from e.g. the "Technology" section where I would feel it carries more weight. Hornpipe2 (talk) 05:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That "top vacation spots" article is not an apt comparison point. The BBC video game article isn't some sort of "Top 8 video game generations ranked by quality" or something. Its not a ranking at all. (or even a listicle at all really.) It's an outline of the generations, with a section title for each generation, in chronological order. Apples and oranges. Sergecross73 msg me 14:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

To add, its likely this will come to a larger RFC to the community by this section's OP (I've guided them towards how to get a neutral RFC going), so I think a key factor is the larger question I mention above, which is why it may be good to get some clarity on that. Masem (t) 05:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that the article is not reliable, since it effectively uses Wikipedia as a source, even if the BBC doesn't cite it. That said, I can't prove that, and it is possible that the BBC did come to this conclusion independently - which I doubt.

Tangent: they once featured a SMB1 cartridge jammed into a SNES on BBC Breakfast, which says something about their relationship with video game consoles, and is also pretty funny. Cortador (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem with the possible citogenesis for consoles is that we know about where WP's input would have started, but we have no way to tell where it ended. As a main VG editor today, I can tell you that we have relied on reliable sourcing and not our OR to build out the last several generation articles (though we still have to deal with new editors/IP pushing on their own interpretation of things), so its very hard to claim that any reliable source discussing the seventh, eighth, or ninth gen is from citogenesis from WP, we're waiting for them to make the determination of generations, not us. Before then, its extremely fuzzy. (And it should be clear, we know we likely contributed but we know we are not solely responsible for it; the idea of console generations existed before, its only our numbering scheme of the early generations that might have been citogenesis - but that also reflected what was going on on message boards and the equivalent, so there's a lot of open questions about that.) Masem (t) 12:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor with about as little knowledge of video game consoles as it’s possible to have in 2025. However, I do not see any argument here as to why BBC Archive should be seen as less reliable than other BBC coverage. The article is not at all comparable to the travel destination example; I don’t even think it’s correct to call it a listicle. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There is a tendency to treat all BBC content the same as BBC News, which doesn't necessarily work. As an example there was a BBC Travel article that made some exceptional claims about historical details. It was the kind of "I'm going on a journey" travelogue that were so popular awhile ago, and obviously not reliable in context. I don't see any issue with this article, but given how vast and varied the BBC output is I would be hesitant to give all of it the same level of reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's been 7 months since I've first proposed this, and it has reached consensus that using baidu baike to access dead links(sort of like wayback machine but it's a screenshot instead) is accetable. . I've even started using it on several occasions, but only if it is not archived on any other location.(I still have no idea how to archive a link there, however I have used baidu baike in a similar manner to how schools suggest using wikipedia as a website to find sources, including archives of dead links)

I think it's time that we remove https://baike.baidu.com/reference/ urls from the edit filter, and block https://baike.baidu.com/item/(articles, where the unreliability is) instead, considering the community consensus on this. At the very least, this needs a mention on WP:RSP to prevent misunderstandings.

Pinging @Toadspike, who has also been involved in prior discussion about this. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I support this:

• Baidu Baike's articles are useful but not to be cited - they are at their best a tertiary source and often lack inline citations
• Baidu Baike's archives are incredibly useful and allow access to images of older Chinese news articles. Unless someone can point to examples of fake articles on the archive they should inherit the reliability of the original news source and not trigger a filter

Oblivy (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

the archive is more of just screenshots of news articles or government sites with a link at the top saying "proceed to original URL" in chinese Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You should ask for this change at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. There seems to be enough previous discussion that should support an edit filter change. For the record, I am also supportive of excluding the archival service of Baidu from the deprecation. Jumpytoo Talk 03:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks; will post it there instead Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've posted it at Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

 Implemented per discussion at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive 21 § Baidu baike archives. I've also excluded baike.baidu.com/reference/ from User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, per User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList § baidu.baike.com/reference/. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've updated WP:RSP with reference to this discussion: . Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Is tanks-encyclopedia.com (Tank Encyclopedia - The Online Tank Museum) - usage on WP tanks-encyclopedia.com   a reliable source for use on Wikipedia? I've encountered in on Cannone-Mitragliera da 20/70 (Scotti), where it seems to be not cited, but it seems to be quite widely used. From the about page, at least some of the contributors appear to be published.Nigel Ish (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks more like a fansite or something amateur than a reliable source... Given their lack of professionalism and acceptance by actual academics and journalists I would consider all of Bocquelet's publications generally unreliable, so tanks-encyclopedia.com as well as naval-encyclopedia.com, truck-encyclopedia.com, plane-encyclopedia.com, and tank-afv.com. Bocquelet is minimally published, but as an illustrator not an author and in lesser presses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Theres also some weird stuff going on with actual publishing... This for example from plane-encyclopedia.com "Our writing criteria is largely open ended, but to be considered for publication an article must be at least 1500 words in length and give a detailed history on the development and use of the aircraft of your choosing. We are not accepting articles on fictional aircraft, though hoaxes with a historical basis are acceptable. Sources should be listed at the end of the article. After publication, the article remains yours and can be modified or removed from the site as you wish. Your article can also be monetized by making a video script for it, or allowing another writer to make one for you. Please contact one of our admins for current rates." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Someone reach out to the talkpage of WP:JAPAN/RS about the issue about Sankei Shimbun. The discussion is here :Talk:Sankei Shimbun#Use of the term "far right" and Talk:Kurds in Japan#To Mr. grapesurgeon

For me at least, I personally see Sankei Shimbun as generally reliable for non-controverial stuff as I used it a lot. Sankei also suffers from the same issue other Japanese sources have either they have a somewhat nationalistic bias. As I indicated in the WP:JAPAN/RS, to never use it on controverial stuff like WWII in Japan, Korea-Japan relation, China-Japan relation as they often report it (in my opinion) as biased and even downplaying warcrimes (see article).

I know that there is also past discussion for Japan Forward, the english language version of Sankei. Discussion Here

I want to hear RSNs thought on this. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Pinging participants from both discussions: @Seefooddiet, AlphaBetaGamma, Saimmx, みしまるもも, and Grapesurgeon: Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Miminity, you just pinged the identical user (Grapesurgeon) twice as he has renamed his account some time ago. That aside, I'm not objecting to grapesurgeon as of now, so literally just go ahead and settle the source as unreliable on that topic. I still see the newspaper as reliable for everything else, and I will object marking the entire source generally unreliable unless anything pops up that kills their reliability.

Ex. this article about the expo 2025, which has no problems whatsoever, at least for me. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

AND by "that topic", I meant their coverage of international politics, especially anything related to East Asia, and coverage surrounding incidents by foreigners. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Oops, I have a crappy internet and to save some time loading each userpage, I just copy and paste the name on the signature. Yeah I agree with not just labeling the entire publication as unreliable as their reports on stuffs like non-political events and general interest is comperable to that of other publication Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Plus having the bot mass remove every single citations to Sankei would friendly fire citations to those uncontroversial topic coverages, which would force me to revise a ton of my edits to non-political topics (I rarely edit political stuff), especially things like Expo 2025 pavilions (cited Sankei multiple times). AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yea I agree that for noncontroversial topics Sankei is most likely fine. It does a lot of sports and pop culture coverage and I've not heard of issues with that. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

For domestic political coverage that does not involve foreigners in Japan or WW2 disputes, (an example that involved East Asia and WW2 is this coverage about Chinese people insulting the Emperor Showa) like , I'd say, "A better source should be used if possible, has the source has a reputation for being pro-LDP in both tone and reporting (which also has problems with WW2 warcrime denial). Overall, a case-by-case evaluation is needed here." (See citations on jawiki article 産経新聞) The reason for this is that, I didn't find most of the articles as blatantly problematic as their international coverage , , although my political views may be affecting my assessment as a Japanese here. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's also more than WW2. It also boosts far right South Korean politics.

All of the articles I just linked are fringe theories widely rejected in South Korea and abroad. Really we should be skeptical of its reporting on politics in general, given what you've said about the LDP too. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I've expressed my views about Sankei in those discussions. I think its articles about current politics, particularly controversial social/political issues, should be broadly considered unreliable, similar to how we considered Fox News to be unreliable for politics. Sankei has pushed pretty egregious war crime denialism.

Also, relevant article: . Sankei publishes misleading stories about Kurdish people, often to boost anti-Kurdish sentiment. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not very sure. According to the Reuters Institute, the Sankei is trusted by people as many as the Asahi and the Mainichi, but somewhat lower than the Yomiuri. It is straightforward for noncontroversial topics, but not sure for controversial topics such as Korean politics. Saimmx (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I won't comment on the first example as I'm not a big fan of arguing about labels.

As to the second examples, this seems to me a due weight issue. Considering that it's a major newspaper trusted by many people (see the link published by u:Saimmx), I doubt that they made the story up. Note that the FCCJ piece that u:grapesurgeon posted accuses Sankei of a bunch of things but publishing outright fakes is not one of them.

Nothing so far indicates that it's an unreliable source. It doesn't necessarily mean that this information should be in the article. Not every individual incident should be mentioned in the article about a certain diaspora. Alaexis_¿question? 13:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your definition of reliability is a line between "outright fakes" and misleading stories that aim to negatively portray ethnic groups. If they consistently try to spin and boost stories that aim to portray an ethnic group negatively, as long as those stories aren't outright fabrications, that's perfectly reliable to you and just needs to be given due weight?

If they boost war crime denialism and conspiracies theories, that's perfectly reliable and just needs to be given due weight?

I'm unconvinced by this. I don't think we should be taking a single assessment by the Reuters institute over the other red flags that we're seeing over and over from this organization. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

What you describe is a bias. Every source has it and the policy is very clear that bias doesn't imply unreliability (WP:BIASED). Alaexis_¿question? 13:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Spinning stories to be misleading is not a simple matter of bias. Boosting fringe theories is not bias. We've made WP:FOX unreliable for similar reasons to the above, I don't see why this becomes an exception.

May ask that others join in on this conversation. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, I'm not a reader of Sankei so I've based my answers on the examples in this thread. "Boosting war crimes denialism" is a bit vague but if they really deny war crimes, I'd support classifying them as unreliable. Specific examples would help. Alaexis_¿question? 13:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Sankei Shimbun#Political stances examples given here

Lot of outright denials here. These are extremely against the international consensus; these are seen as really extremist outside of Japan. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see now, it looks pretty bad. Definitely shouldn't be used for anything related to WW2. Alaexis_¿question? 15:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

While search to the Japanese wikipedia for Nanjing Massacre, I found this. Even base on the title "（６完）「南京事件」広めた本　著者の豪人記者は中国からカネ貰って執筆した…そんな本が「百人斬り」脚色、裁判をも影響" [(6) The book that spread the "Nanjing Massacre" - the Australian journalist wrote it with money from China... The book also dramatized the "Hundred Killers" and influenced the trial] - this fairly recent article for again about the sino-japanese war. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I found another recent one this. I think searching for "南京大虐殺" or "南京事件" into Sankei will yield these type of articles. I personally think while Sankei is reliable for other stuff, as I and AlphaBetaGamma said above, this publication is known for publishing dogcrap and outright fringe articles about WW2. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

(moved from talk page) Can there be an exception to using RT and Sputnik such as in the Arab-Israeli conflict? See for example here. If we rely on Israeli sources and the NY Post to make claims like these , I don’t see what’s wrong with using RT. Either that or we should also say that Israeli sources are unreliable. In the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict, I say that they can be treated equally. Not only that it's also a BLP violation. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

We should not be using NY Post or RT for anything, and should not be using Jerusalem Post for IP articles. An exception for RT is not required but your deletions were appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a helpful exception. It would likely only enflame an already contentious topic area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion but (a)“Israeli sources” should not be seen as equivalent to RT; Jerusalem Post, for example, is a generally reliable source but tends to uncritically accept its Israeli government claims, whereas RT is the mouthpiece of the Russian government and actively promote falsehoods; (b) NYP is an unreliable source but for different reasons RT is; it is more kin to the Daily Mail (sloppy, sensationalist, hyper-partisan); (c) apart from topics directly connected to the Russian government, this is a topic area least suited to any exception for RT; it’s one of our most contentious topics so requires a higher rather than lower standard of reliability than other topics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

RT is a government-run propaganda outlet while NY Post is a tabloid rag that exaggerates at best and reports false info at worst. Neither have any place on this platform.

Many Israeli sources are deeply biased, but many are also independent (not state-run) and not wholly unreliable, and those that are wholly unreliable/state-run have for the most part already been dealt with here. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think some israeli sources can be used with attribution. I think some are basically unbiased, and can be used without attribution. I don't like disallowing a source just because its from israel, without some clear evidence.

I think RT is just not it, its a russian propaganda outlet that regularly publishes misinfo, and that other sourcing can exist if we need to cite a fact. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree on all points. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

As a participant in the original discussion who argued for making an exception for RT, my point was that since Abu Marzouk made a statement in an interview to RT and this statement was subsequently re-reported by reliable sources, the reader would benefit from having the access to the original interview. I don't see what harm can come out of it.

For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't advocate for making a general carve-out for IP articles, I think it would be a terrible idea. Alaexis_¿question? 14:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I might be OK with that. My first thought is that adding a note to the primary source would be fine, but that content should be restricted to what secondary RSs reported about the interview. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the content was based only on secondary sources. Alaexis_¿question? 17:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

R(ubbish) T(oday) is not even remotely a legitimate source, altho some strictly attributed quotes like that are probably fine. Metallurgist (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

In a previous review for @3602kiva, I took objection to FoundSF as a source. Looking at it again now, I'm no longer sure. Reading their about page, I get the impression that while this is sort of bloggish, there's also a real entity behind it and the two main authors (Chris Carlsson and LisaRuth Elliott) seem to have some claim to being subject matter experts. Any thoughts from the wider group? RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the entry. According to their about, they have a mix of primary sources, Wikipedia-style pages which seem to be open to editing from the public, and "historical essays" which are written and cited by one person. These are all separate and properly delineated so there's no problem with mixing them up. I wouldn't use the wikipedia-style ones for sure but the historical essays don't seem terrible (maybe depending on author, from what I checked they look to have relevant credentials) and it seems a reliable and not plagiarized archive of primary sources. Sees some use by others PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Huawei Central or HC Newsroom is a website covering news and rumors about Huawei and its products. It is used in ~40 entries. However some posts seems to be machine-translated from Huawei's website. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide examples. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Huawei Central (huaweicentral.com) has an about page listing four staff members, including a "Founder, Editor in Cheif [sic] and Author". The website mostly summarizes articles from other sources, and does not appear to be doing much original reporting. I consider Huawei Central self-published (and generally unreliable) because they have few staff members, and there is little evidence that they fact-check their information. It would be better in most cases to cite the reliable sources that Huawei Central is obtaining their information from, which is often linked at the bottom of their articles. — Newslinger talk 11:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

(moved from talk page) Can there be an exception to using RT and Sputnik such as in the Arab-Israeli conflict? See for example here. If we rely on Israeli sources and the NY Post to make claims like these , I don’t see what’s wrong with using RT. Either that or we should also say that Israeli sources are unreliable. In the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict, I say that they can be treated equally. Not only that it's also a BLP violation. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

We should not be using NY Post or RT for anything, and should not be using Jerusalem Post for IP articles. An exception for RT is not required but your deletions were appropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a helpful exception. It would likely only enflame an already contentious topic area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion but (a)“Israeli sources” should not be seen as equivalent to RT; Jerusalem Post, for example, is a generally reliable source but tends to uncritically accept its Israeli government claims, whereas RT is the mouthpiece of the Russian government and actively promote falsehoods; (b) NYP is an unreliable source but for different reasons RT is; it is more kin to the Daily Mail (sloppy, sensationalist, hyper-partisan); (c) apart from topics directly connected to the Russian government, this is a topic area least suited to any exception for RT; it’s one of our most contentious topics so requires a higher rather than lower standard of reliability than other topics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

RT is a government-run propaganda outlet while NY Post is a tabloid rag that exaggerates at best and reports false info at worst. Neither have any place on this platform.

Many Israeli sources are deeply biased, but many are also independent (not state-run) and not wholly unreliable, and those that are wholly unreliable/state-run have for the most part already been dealt with here. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:47, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I think some israeli sources can be used with attribution. I think some are basically unbiased, and can be used without attribution. I don't like disallowing a source just because its from israel, without some clear evidence.

I think RT is just not it, its a russian propaganda outlet that regularly publishes misinfo, and that other sourcing can exist if we need to cite a fact. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Agree on all points. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

As a participant in the original discussion who argued for making an exception for RT, my point was that since Abu Marzouk made a statement in an interview to RT and this statement was subsequently re-reported by reliable sources, the reader would benefit from having the access to the original interview. I don't see what harm can come out of it.

For the avoidance of doubt, I didn't advocate for making a general carve-out for IP articles, I think it would be a terrible idea. Alaexis_¿question? 14:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

That makes more sense. I might be OK with that. My first thought is that adding a note to the primary source would be fine, but that content should be restricted to what secondary RSs reported about the interview. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the content was based only on secondary sources. Alaexis_¿question? 17:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

R(ubbish) T(oday) is not even remotely a legitimate source, altho some strictly attributed quotes like that are probably fine. Metallurgist (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

In a previous review for @3602kiva, I took objection to FoundSF as a source. Looking at it again now, I'm no longer sure. Reading their about page, I get the impression that while this is sort of bloggish, there's also a real entity behind it and the two main authors (Chris Carlsson and LisaRuth Elliott) seem to have some claim to being subject matter experts. Any thoughts from the wider group? RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the entry. According to their about, they have a mix of primary sources, Wikipedia-style pages which seem to be open to editing from the public, and "historical essays" which are written and cited by one person. These are all separate and properly delineated so there's no problem with mixing them up. I wouldn't use the wikipedia-style ones for sure but the historical essays don't seem terrible (maybe depending on author, from what I checked they look to have relevant credentials) and it seems a reliable and not plagiarized archive of primary sources. Sees some use by others PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Huawei Central or HC Newsroom is a website covering news and rumors about Huawei and its products. It is used in ~40 entries. However some posts seems to be machine-translated from Huawei's website. 内存溢出的猫 (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide examples. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Huawei Central (huaweicentral.com) has an about page listing four staff members, including a "Founder, Editor in Cheif [sic] and Author". The website mostly summarizes articles from other sources, and does not appear to be doing much original reporting. I consider Huawei Central self-published (and generally unreliable) because they have few staff members, and there is little evidence that they fact-check their information. It would be better in most cases to cite the reliable sources that Huawei Central is obtaining their information from, which is often linked at the bottom of their articles. — Newslinger talk 11:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.advocate.com/news/wall-street-journal-charlie-kirk (t · c) buidhe 04:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

They didn't just fall for a hoax, they refused to retract it afterwards. Snokalok (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

More details on the retraction calls.

There were many discussions on the talk page where editors wanted to include the false information at the time, luckily @Catfish Jim and the soapdish declined to reproduce the misinformation itself.

It looks like it was discussed already on the talk page a bit earlier.

The WSJ has now added a small editor notice to the article, though they have not removed the text of the misinformation. Raladic (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I think "hoax" is too strong... it's probably an issue of competence, both on the part of the ATF and the WSJ. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

A hoax that apparently originated with the New York Post based on their claims of an exclusive and earlier publication time. FDW777 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

It didn't really "originate" with either of them, they were both quoting verbatim from an internal ATF bulletin. The ATF bulletin was wildly (and hysterically) wrong. The appropriate thing to do here would be to issue a correction, which the WSJ has done and NY Post has not. I think that means our current treatment of both the WSJ and NY Post is probably appropriate. Endwise (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Yet another reason why it is good that we have WP:NOTNEWS. It can take time for even the best sources to sort out fact from rumor. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

No, they cited what they claimed was an ATF bulletin, but which they actually just got from Steven Crowder. The NYT meanwhile said that according to senior law enforcement connected to the case, the document did not match other ATF evidence summaries and had not been verified by the ATF, and that senior law enforcement connected to the case said it wasn't veri.

Based on this, our treatment of the WSJ is not sufficient, and I think we need to downgrade it to yellow. Snokalok (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

As the sources you cite explain, the WSJ was citing the ATF bulletin. Crowder just got the "scoop" on them. Endwise (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Downgrading it seems a bit like an overreaction, given that we're basing this on a single instance where the WSJ was slow to issue a correction for a breaking news situation. Is there evidence of the WSJ being not generally reliable? Epicgenius (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Per Epicgenius. jp×g🗯️ 18:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, interestingly, The Telegraph seems to have not yet added any notice or made any changes to their reporting, which is a bit concerning. Endwise (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Both the WSJ's and The Telegraph's articles attributed the information to the (unverified, not debunked) ATF report (that the governor “gave no indication that the ammunition included any transgender references” is not definitive denial). (Sources with a different leaning have been given leeway in cases MUCH more egregious than this.)

The Telegraph does urge caution in the article text.

There is nothing actionable here; even if there were, you would need much, much, MUCH more robust sourcing to discredit the 40-times Pulitzer-winning WSJ than... whatever the hell The Advocate, The Verge or LGBTQ Nation are. 85.238.68.143 (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

WSJ may have gotten this report wrong, but it is still generally reliable. The fact that they issued a correction makes it all the more so.

No news outlet ever gets it right 100% of the time. Reliable sources correct the record when they do get it wrong. Just don’t use this specific report. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• WP:RS status is about a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so one incident only affects them if it has an impact on that. I suppose it's possible that this could, especially if it becomes part of a pattern, but we'd have to wait until we get high-quality sources saying stuff like "the WSJ is no longer as reliable as it once was because it keeps making mistakes like X, Y, and Z" rather than just pointing to a single instance ourselves. (FWIW while they did retract it I feel that they were a bit alarmingly slow to do so for something so sensitive - but that alone isn't going to affect a source's RS status unless it becomes clear it wrecked their reputation or something.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Even the most reliable of reliable sources make mistakes sometimes. Much more important is the reaction when they do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• This event reinforces that this is a generally reliable source, because it shows that editorial processes are in place to update articles where necessary. It's also worth noting that the updated article isn't being described by the WSJ as a correction. At least, it doesn't appear in their list of corrections here. Perhaps they think they accurately reported what an inaccurate bulletin said. I also think the language of the original claim was so vague and charged that it's hard to work out what it would even mean for it to be true or false. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• I agree with several others above that the WSJ is still generally reliable. "Generally" doesn't mean "always" - one of its generally-reliable peers, the NYT, has been accused of far more than what the WSJ just did - and the fact that the WSJ did correct itself doesn't indicate intent to mislead. Yes, it took a while for the retraction to occur, but WP:RSBREAKING news stories are usually not 100% reliable anyway, as they rely on primary sources; this isn't a WSJ-specific problem. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Honestly, this stregthens WSJ's reliability. WP:RSBREAKING means initial reporting about fast-breaking events will be wrong. The question is whether the source correctly attributes claims, makes updates as more information comes out, and strives to be reliable and present facts. And one link from a WP:BIASED, chock full of tweets and comments from advocacy groups does not make a strong case for media reliability. Longhornsg (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The blog SFist is cited 859 times on en.wiki. In October 2024, they reported on a Waymo accident in San Francisco, implying that Waymo was at fault. They even include a supposed statement by a Waymo spokesperson. [Kukura, Joe (2024-10-08). "Tech Bros Try to Help Waymo Entangled With Muni Bus, Leave Behind Stalled Waymo". SFist. Retrieved 2025-09-14.]

But that's completely false. According to NHTSA data and Waymo's own data, there were no accidents involving buses in San Francisco over the weekend in question (October 4–6, 2024). Instead, I've pinpointed the accident in the video as NHTSA report 30270-6514, which happened on Divisadero Street at Hayes Street on September 1, 2023 (over a year earlier). The time of day, damage report, and Google Street View of the intersection all check out. From the NHTSA report:

On September [XXX], 2023 at 10:48 PM PT a Waymo Autonomous Vehicle (Waymo AV) operating in San Francisco, California was in a collision involving a bus on [XXX] at [XXX].

The Waymo AV was stopped on the right lane of a multi-lane road when a city bus attempted to pass using the adjacent left lane. The rear right fender of the bus made contact with the left rear sensor of the Waymo AV. At the time of the impact, the Waymo AVs Level 4 ADS was engaged in autonomous mode. Both vehicles sustained damage.

Waymo is reporting this crash under Request No. 2 of Standing General Order 2021-01. Waymo may supplement or correct its reporting with additional information as it may become available.

Numberguy6 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There is also an San Francisco Standard article around the same time which covered the incident: . It is more likely that Waymo simply did not report the incident, unless you are saying both sources decided to make up this story? Jumpytoo Talk 23:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess if there was no damage, then Waymo wouldn't have to report it. The blog post doesn't indicate that any damage was done to the Waymo or bus. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Based on that picture and the description, it just sounds like a situation where two vehicles were awkwardly close to each other for a bit, due to what looks like a large crowd of people standing in the middle of the street, and neither of the vehicles hit anybody or another vehicle. I would really struggle to call that an accident. The SFist article is very coy about this, and does say at some point that it sounds unlikely there was any actual collision, so I don't think it is making any false claims. Although I do think it ought to be mentioned that this is a really low-quality article -- the whole content of it is "look at this tweet I found" and then a bunch of derogatory commentary and speculation about strangers who were in a video in the tweet. It is hard to see a world where this article being a citation would improve Wikipedia a whole lot for anything besides the most bare of facts. jp×g🗯️ 18:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It does seem, from the source, like the waymo vehicle stalled in close proximity to a bus such that the combined entanglement blocked traffic rather than that there was any sort of actual collission. It's a very funny little article but hardly encyclopedic. Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

A debate has emerged as to whether or not books by Nick Pope are RS, leading to a split !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni (3rd nomination). Input from other editors either in favor or not in favor of the usability of Nick Pope might be welcome. Chetsford (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Isn't Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard the correct venue? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, multitasking and posted on the wrong noticeboard. Please ignore. Chetsford (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

All good, I moved you over. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say not for any theories about UFOs but as if a notable writer in general who passes GNG, fine for basic utitalitarian facts. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 13:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No, not really. I do not believe he has a reputation for fact-checking. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

For context, the question at the AfD (IMHO) is about whether he can be relied upon for factual details about another author's work, and as evidence that the author is well regarded in her field. This is not about his opinions/theories/research on UFO's. Oblivy (talk) 13:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Still affected by his lack of reputation for fact-checking. Also, as their field is Fringe science, I am unsure another fringe should be used to establish notability. We would need to see non-fringe sources regarding them as noteworthy (with in depth coverage). Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Under WP:NAUTHOR the question is posed as "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors;". By excluding "fringe sources" (and to be clear I'm happy to classify both of them as fringe) isn't that putting the thumb on the scale? Or, putting it more bluntly, to exclude all fringe author's peers because they are fringe is to ensure that nobody in the field will pass NAUTHOR#1. Oblivy (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

One source is not "...regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors;". Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You're getting ahead of the argument. @Chetsford is saying it's not a source we can even consider. Oblivy (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE speaks explicitly to notability saying The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. This guidance is being very clear that we cannot use one fringe source to deem a second fringe source notable. So, no, Nick Pope is not RS for this purpose. In fact this is the precise use case for that line of WP:FRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

"For this purpose..." is carrying a lot of weight. How someone wrote a book, or whether she is well-regarded in the field aren't he same as the underlying ideas in the book or those held by people in the field. Oblivy (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

What is the "fringe theory" in question that is being sourced to Pope? OK, I see, it's not a fringe thing at all, just reporting (barely) on Bruni's background (1 line~) and some data about her research (barely). So not fringe as such but far from SIGCOV. This isn't even really a fringe thing; he's not getting into anything unprovable like that. It's just an irrelevant source in terms of GNG in basic terms. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

the Rendlesham Forest incident. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There are, according to my limited view in archive.org about five full pages in Pope's book, describing who she interviewed, conversations with UK government officials that are reported elsewhere. Not sure where the one line comes from. Oblivy (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Our article about her, her only published work (and well over half our article thus the only thing she is really notable for). Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC).

If we don't trust the source how do we trust the source to determine who is or isn't an important figure? The question would seem to be like weighing what content is or isn't due in an article, unreliable sources don't add weight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The claim at the AfD, which has now been brought here twice by @Chetsford is that we have to disregard the book because Pope believes in UFO's. The question is about a book that describes her IRL activities. Maybe you don't believe that Noah built an ark, but if an Ark-hunter writes a book about another Ark-hunter, do we automatically reject that person. There's a ton of bias in this argument. Maybe people are happy with that but it seems to me there has to be a way to talk about the people without affirming the beliefs they represent. Oblivy (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of bias in quoting one Ark hunter on another Ark hunter, and it's towards Ark hunting. As an example from news media sites - Russia Today writing a piece about one of the Pravda network sites shouldn't be used for notability purposes of the Pravda Network site. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot of bias in quoting one Ark hunter on another Ark hunter, and it's towards Ark hunting.

There are seemingly dozens in the US alone of notable very Catholic centric news services and sites, which we use for RS. I've even added one before (I can't recall where) for basic notability stuff on a non-Catholic subject. It was fine.

Can we use ten sources that are explicit "Catholic" sources to establish notability of a "Catholic" topic? It's the same thing. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's not. If those sources where reliable then they would be reliable for how notable a Catholic topic was. Unreliable sources are unreliable for the importantance of a topic. You're address only part of the issue, and so misconstruing the topic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

There's no policy that says a "UFO author" is flat unreliable in totality. That would be non-supported by policies which outrank any guideline automatically. He's not reliable for advocating fringe theories, or for establishing general notability of fringe theories. This is about biographical data and basic biographical notability--not about Bruni's beliefs or Pope's.

It's super important to be precise with this kind of thing. Note that I very clearly am !delete over yonder on the Bruni AFD. If this a pitched debate about reliability of ornithologists because one bird enthusiast was a crackpot, I'd be treating it the same. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No I think what people are saying is that this author is unreliable, and as an unreliable source is not reliable for what is important. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a totally fair question and debate whether Nick Pope is something like a deprecated source or only unreliable in contexts of actual "fringe theories", which is never automatically anything tangentially connected to or adjacent to "fringe" figures. Like on a matter of Bruni's "UFO beliefs" if any? No, not reliable. For basic bio data on Bruni? I have no idea. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If a bird enthusiast was a crackpot then their opinion of what was important in the field of ornithology wouldn't be taken into account. The study of UFOs isn't completely the work of unreliable sources, but the work of unreliable authors in that field don't get to say what is important in that field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The study of UFOs isn't completely the work of unreliable sources, but the work of unreliable authors in that field don't get to say what is important in that field.

I completely agree. I have no idea if Pope is reliable about the UFO topic when writing not about actual fringe theories (which again--not and never the totality of topics associated with UFOs, just the actual fringe subsets/theories). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

VPP - Although I know you have disagreed for a very long time - most UFO types are WP:FRINGE sources and cannot be used to establish the notability of other fringe sources. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm actually not disagreeing with the question of using notability standards like that. I know I'd be ice skating uphill today to want that held to the same standards as other cloistered (if the right word) environments like religious news sources (why I referenced Catholic news stuff--I powerfully believe standards should be uniform, with no special animals on any farms ever). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If they write about other author who wrote about UFOs then they are still unreliable. Those are not independent subjects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:29, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand what the current convention is. I'm saying it's a double standard to not hold for example Catholic news sites to the same doctrine (because it factually is a double standard). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If a website were to write woo about about Catholicism then it wouldn't be reliable about what topics are important about Catholicism. Religion is not a fringe believe, but there are fringe believes about religion. If a website said that Jesus was actually an orange, that website wouldn't be reliable for what topics are important in Catholicism. Again your example doesn't work, because it's ignoring the actual issue. Unreliable source are unreliable for what is important in any given subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It's probably all moot since I can't see how Bruni is even GNG, which is the only ultimate metric however we get to it. I assumed I'd at least find something on newspapers.com as she was some society/UK cultural fixture apparently for a while, but nothing really. I can't how this AfD from @Chetsford: doesn't end in a delete. Even I couldn't try to squeeze a diamond out of a lack of coal. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

No comment on the AfD, it's not a subject for this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:08, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested the notion that religion is automatically not a fringe belief might be challenged by the opponents of George Fox and Joseph Smith in their times. William Penn was a believer who wrote extensively about his Quaker belief and was criticised by members of other denominations for his beliefs about Christianity, e.g.. Can we use that criticism to show he was criticised by members of other sects? Oblivy (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Religion is not a fringe believe, this has been discussed many times and I'm not repeating that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand why there's a double standard for orthodox supernatural beliefs, but this makes it clear the discussion is about which beliefs we are going to privilege and not about whether writings by people who believe in something are/aren't credible on the subject of their belief. Oblivy (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no double standard, this is not about what beliefs get to be privileged, and whether one sources is reliable doesn't make another reliable or unreliable. If you want to start a separate discussion about religious sources you can. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:22, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear. I'm happy to have religious sources used. I don't approve of bias against sources written by folks simply because they hold/discuss heterodox views, and think @Very Polite Person was right to point out the apparent contradiction. Oblivy (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

My annoyance revolves around different evidence-free belief systems not being held to duplicate standards. The entire special animals thing if ever found in any policy needs euthanasia as an option, until no more special animals can exist. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying that details of UFOs are not factual reports but are instead matters of faith? Because that would be a fringe believe about a fringe topic. If bot there is absolutely no double standard, because the are different topics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

As with the historicity of accounts of people like St. Paul and Jesus, the existence of UFO's and Bigfoot are probably a mix of factual matters, speculation/inference, and belief. We can report on accounts and those who made them, without endorsing their complete truth. Oblivy (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The historicity of religious figures and articles about matters of faith are different subjects. Whether there is prove of St. Paul existance doesn't change someone faith that he did. If someone claims definitely to have found the Ark then tlthat would be a extremely exceptional claims, and likely fringe, believe that the Ark existed is a issue of faith. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are saying that believe in UFOs is a religious matter, I would disagree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to say we can report on their actions, including the fact they said things, not that we should be able endorse their claims. Policies like WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE would also limit what could be said about their claims or how it could be said.

I'm sure alien visitation is a core belief for some religions, but no I didn't say it's a religious matter. I do think accounts of religious miracles as fact vs. alien visitation as fact would be hard to distinguish in a principled way. Oblivy (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

What fact about her do we solely source to Pope? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems to be just this:

As part of the writing process she worked with members of the Ministry of Defence, interviewed a number of government witnesses and was even said to have briefed the prime minister, leading to some suspicion among other researchers.[7]

The hardback edition was launched at media event held at the Ministry of Defence, alongside fellow UFO researcher Nick Pope.[9]

So if consensus is Pope is not reliable for UFO stuff (seems to be consensus) then I'd guess the first one (7) is no good, but (9) would be OK as a supplemental second source, but probably needs a different source. If a writer had a book launch at the UK equivalent of the Pentagon, I'd guess there are other sources. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The book launch thing is not attributed to Pope, but to the Independent. There are other factual matters set out in Pope's book which could end up in the article, and the current state of the article is not relevant to whether a source exists which could support notability. Oblivy (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: The idea that a sci-fi book by Nick Pope, emcee of Ancient Aliens, Live on Tour!, will ever be reliable for a BLP strains believability. (quote from the AfD) – this is not a BLP since Georgina Bruni died in 2008. Ancient Aliens is an "edutainment" television show. Nick Pope's involvement in an edutainment television show about "ancient aliens" does not by itself render him an unreliable source. There would need to be evidence showing that he is unreliable for presenting factual biographical information about Bruni's life like this paragraph:

  Georgina Bruni led a remarkable life and worked variously as a go-go dancer, fashion designer, and nightclub manager. She traveled extensively and at various times lived in Jersey, Italy, Hong Kong, and America before settling in London in 1992. She wrote poetry, designed a positive-thinking course, and founded one of the United Kingdom's first online magazines, called Hot Gossip. She was a former director of the Yacht Club, where she was involved in hosting social events for MPs, diplomats, and MoD officials. Later on she became a PR consultant and ran a social club, Le Club 2000. It was through her involvement with the Yacht Club that she first began to mix with various MoD, military, intelligence, and diplomatic staff. (Pope, Burroughs & Penniston 2014, p. 175)

  I consider this book published by the reputable publisher Backbeat Books to be sufficiently reliable for this information.

  If Nick Pope is to be ruled an unreliable source, editors should present evidence showing he is unreliable. This should be backed by quotes from him showing he has published false information. Or even better, quotes from reliable sources saying he has published false information or promoted discredited theories. I've reviewed the book's quotes about Georgina Bruni and don't find the information to be promoting fringe theories. I am not an expert in this topic, though, so am open to being corrected by other editors if they notice otherwise. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:V asks for a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. He has a reputation for writing UFO books and being an edutainment presenter, that some might ask for something better is hardly surprising. Did Bruni work with the MOD, secret government witnesses, and possibly the prime minister who told her "You Can't Tell the People"? Those are the claims being made in the article using Pope's book. They're exceptional claims, why should they be taken on face value from an edutainment presenter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 04:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  There is biographical information about her in the paragraph I quoted that does not involve her "work with the MOD, secret government witnesses, and possibly the prime minister". I don't consider writing books about UFOs and being an edutainment presenter to be sufficient to make him unreliable. I would like to see specific examples of his having published false information or promoted fringe theories (such as promoting fringe theories about a particular UFO that contradict the consensus opinion of reliable sources) to evaluate how reliable or unreliable he is. Cunard (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  So if Russia Today posted an article about a obituary for a Russian general, that included contentious claims and exceptional claims it would be reliable for other matters? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding Russia Today, editors provided specific examples of why that source is unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 295#RfC: RT (Russia Today). I have not seen evidence in the form of what Nick Pope has said or done demonstrating how he unreliable. Specific examples of what he's said that makes him unreliable in editors' view would be useful per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Context matters, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." Cunard (talk) 09:19, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

" This should be backed by quotes from him showing he has published false information. " Sure. Really, you can just grab any random book he's written and flip to any random page, or grab any random interview. Here's a few examples I found when undertaking this exercise using the Amazon previews of his books and YouTube:

• On pages 1-2 of An Expose of the Alien Abduction Phenomenon he lays out the case that human-beings are being kidnapped from their homes by what he cautiously calls "aliens" but later (in subsequent pages) clarifies could be either marauding space aliens from other planets or ... fairies!
• In this interview with a local TV stations he repeatedly refers to "the phenomenon" as a factual occurrence and then defines it to mean either visits by marauding space aliens or some supernatural, interdimensional force that is playing tricks on humans.

Now, to be fair, we don't have RS that definitively state fairies are not kidnapping humans. If editors feel we need that, then I'm going to have to resign my argument.

Chetsford (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this evidence. Those fringe statements make him unreliable in the context of UFOs and other fringe theories. Regarding his reliability, I have the same view as Very Polite Person, who wrote, That's a totally fair question and debate whether Nick Pope is something like a deprecated source or only unreliable in contexts of actual "fringe theories", which is never automatically anything tangentially connected to or adjacent to "fringe" figures. Like on a matter of Bruni's "UFO beliefs" if any? No, not reliable. For basic bio data on Bruni? I have no idea. Cunard (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

In Ancient Aliens season 15, episode 9, Pope discusses "shapeshifters" --- beings that may appear in human form but are actually space aliens and can't be distinguished from other humans. Since space aliens aren't real, this suggests Mr Pope might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which, according to the CONLERN theory, is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth. We should be cautious assigning reliability for any fact whatsoever—no matter how basic—to a person who may have trouble doing something like telling who holds open the possibility that it may not be possible to differentiate the difference between humans and non-human objects, as every single fact is more complex than that. Chetsford (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC); edited 18:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

In Ancient Aliens season 15, episode 9, Pope discusses "shapeshifters" --- beings that may appear in human form but are actually space aliens and can't be distinguished from other humans. Since space aliens aren't real, this suggests Mr Pope might be unable to distinguish humans from non-human objects which, according to the CONLERN theory, [95] is an ability essentially all humans attain within 90 days of birth. We should be cautious assigning reliability for any fact whatsoever—no matter how basic—to a person who may have trouble doing something like telling the difference between humans and non-human objects, as every single fact is more complex than that.

OK, this is too far and outright WP:BLP violations. Stop it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Address this at WP:BLPN if you must, but please stop derailing threads with this drum you've taken it upon yourself to beat. Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

No. You are persistently and consistently constantly running up to the event horizon of BLP violations on multiple BLP's in this "ufo space" to the point that multiple editors have chastised you up to @Jimbo Wales:.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&oldid=1311410288#%22Professor_of_flying_saucers%22
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chetsford&oldid=1311410288#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karl_Svozil_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Svozil (2nd nomination)

You need to knock it off. This is grossly inappropriate behavior for an Administrator let alone any other editor.

You just called a BLP subject "subhuman" here. @J Milburn:, pinging you as one of the above links involves you.

Address this at WP:BLPN if you must

Your next stop is likely WP:ANI and afterwards ArbCom if you don't stop. There are receipts for all your BLP violations. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

You are growing a bad habit of demanding everyone act with academic deference to the most exotic claims of flying saucer believers under pain of you diverting the thread into tendentious accusations of BLP violations. Please simply accept that I have received all your past warnings, admonitions, censures, reprimands, cautions, and disapprobations and there's no need to hijack discussions with any more. If this is dissatisfying to you, request input at WP:BLPN and I'll be happy to listen to whatever is said. Thank you. "You just called a BLP subject "subhuman" here." No, actually, I didn't. If I'm mistaken, please provide a dif. Chetsford (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

FYI; Chetsford has now forked this to: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#BLP_violation_in_article_Talk — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

No, not at all. Not for BLPs, not for anything else. Woodroar (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable. (Saw this thread linked on RSN BLPN) I agree that it is not disqualifying if "Pope believes in UFOs". Some believers publish reputable work in other fields. There are also believers who publish work about the experience. However, Pope works in ufology. The distinction is that ufology approaches the topic with the assumption there is a deep mystery causing "the phenomenon" and that at least some UFO sightings are physical objects beyond our current understanding and controlled by intelligent beings. Fringe topics need coverage in WP:FRIND sources to establish notability, and Pope does not meet that bar. More broadly, Pope's work does not meet the standard at WP:QUESTIONABLE for fact-checking. For example, Pope appeared on "Black Knight Rises," episode 4 of NASA's Unexplained Files to comment on the supposed Black Knight Satellite, (which was a blanket). He said of J002E3, "We don't know what this thing is. To this day, it remains a mystery." The object was painted the same color as NASA hardware, and has been identified as part of a specific Saturn V rocket. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

By excluding New York Post as a reliable source, this "consensus" affirms that editors here are biased against a politically conservative news organization, as many people already believe about Wikipedia.

This policy should be reversed and each New York Post story should be judged on its own merits. After I tried to raise this question in Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources on September 10, 2025, this conversation was closed on September 11, 2025 by User:Hemiauchenia who advised to discuss it here instead.

Can someone provide advice on how this consensus can be reversed? Thank you. Queens Historian (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You can't just demand that Wikipedians bend to your will because you object, that's not how this site works. This isn't the Polish-Lithuanian sejm, and you don't have the Liberum veto. You've been here since 2013 and should know better. Dozens of people voted in the 2020 RfC that found the NYPost to be "generally unreliable" Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_312#RFC:_New_York_Post_(nypost.com), which should be weighted more than your measly single objection. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a non-starter proposal. If a topic is so important that you need it on Wikipedia in some form you will find a better source than NYPost. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Just because someone isn't a newcomer doesn't mean it's OK to bite them. You encouraged bringing this discussion here, which makes it particularly egregious. (Not that I think this proposal has any chance.) Jahaza (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in my response was a personal attack, merely a strongly worded rebuttal. You can take me to WP:ANI if you'd like, but I don't think it would go anywhere. The time and patience of Wikipedians is a precious and limited resource. People who do not respect other Wikipedian's time or the idea of consensus are not owed the reverence or patience of other Wikipedians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in my response was a personal attack in fact You've been here since 2013 and should know better. is explicit personal criticism. Subsequently People who do not respect other Wikipedian's time... is not assuming good faith in @Queens Historian's request, which is explicitly for "advice" and following your own instructions. Jahaza (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

It confirms that editors are against a politically conservative news organization, but that is not because it is politically conservative. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Re: "this 'consensus' affirms that editors here are biased against a politically conservative news organization," no, it doesn't affirm bias. It only shows that editors attend to whether a given source is, in fact, reliable in the sense of "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) and this one was judged to not have such a reputation. If you look through the perennial sources list, you'll find both conservative and liberal sources that are RSs, and both conservative and liberal sources that are not RSs, and sources in the center that are/aren't RSs, and right/center/left sources that are seen as marginally reliable. It makes no sense to make a comment like yours outside of that broader context.

As for "how this consensus can be reversed," it would be with another RfC. But the onus would be on you to show that there's a good reason to do that, starting with an RFCBEFORE discussion where you show that in the last 5 years (since the last RfC), the Post has changed its ways and developed a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

This comes up quite often, as it's seems to be a talking point in conservative circles in the US. But there are in fact many rightwing sources that are considered reliable, and many leftwing ones that are trash. The idea that because a source is rightwing, and that rightwing sources is considered unreliable, then editors have a bias against rightwing sources is a non sequitur. It jumps to a conclusion without prove, just because a source is considered unreliable doesn't prove that editors have a bias against that source.
If any editor believes a prior consensus is in error they can read the past discussions and construct a compelling argument for their position, consensus can change. For instance see the recent RFC on the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative source considered generally reliable by consensus. An example that dispoves the point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The Post tends to be sensationalist, but the objections I've seen tend to focus on the style of reporting and the choices they make in coverage, and in practice, I've seen discussions that they aren't reliable for notability purposes. PinkNews as an example of a left leaning tabloid, with sensationalist reporting, clickbait news article titles, so I'd expect it to be treated the same. Even right now, PinkNews main page is sensationalist click bait articles and celebrity gossip. But, if you read the descriptions of those two under WP:RSPS, the difference is pretty stark. Denaar (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Headlines for any media don't matter much per WP:RSHEADLINES. Nil Einne (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really support this proposal. That said, I have been considering opening a discussion on the suitability of treating Steven Greenstreet as an expert WP:SPS for the subject of fringe and paranormal topics, essentially treating his reporting on this narrow topic as a carveout similar to how we permit the use of the New York Post for entertainment coverage (WP:PAGESIX). I'm not currently prepared to make this proposal here and now, though. Chetsford (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a Post reader so I looked at the 2020 RfC that banished it to the unreliable category. There were both good arguments (like the lack of fact-checking) and bad ones (various evidence-less accusations). Five years have passed since then so if you believe that their standards improved or that there are content areas which are inadequately covered by other sources and deserve a carve out, like the media reporting, then it might be worth running a new RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 12:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess the question I would ask is what, in the world, does the NY Post have coverage of that is not adequately covered by non-tabloids? We shouldn't be bringing back a garbage source for no good reason aside from some fear of perceived ideological bias. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think it matters if it does or doesn’t bring coverage of something missing. What matters is if anything has changed since 2020 such that more editors will judge it reliable now, such as an improvement in editorial policy or vindication of reporting previously considered inaccurate. My sense is the opposite has occurred: it’s gotten worse. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

It would probably be worth reviewing The New York Post again. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

What's your evidence that their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy has improved in the last 5 years? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

First, please let me note that I have never seen a copy of the NY Post and do not really know what they write about. But I assume they are a tabloid. What I would like to do, however, is introduce the word causality into the discussion. If an editor from that publication gets a ticket for double parking, was the ticket issued due to their views or their parking habits? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, We all have to remember the mantra "correlation is not causation". Neutrality is not achieved by having equal numbers of publications with various viewpoints deprecated in some way, but by deprecating unreliable sources. If many of them happen to lean the same way politically then so be it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Not only that, but the WP:RSP is not a random or representative sample of sources. It's simply the sources that people have asked about most often. I'd venture that the vast majority of sources that people ask about here at the RSN are not listed on the RSP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• New York Post does not have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Therefore they are considered to be generally unreliable. Is there anything else to discuss? TarnishedPath^talk 14:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Enougj said. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

  +1. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Post has long been a tabloid rag with mixed reliability, as much as I agree with them half the time. Their local news might be less problematic tho. Metallurgist (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• I live in Manhattan and have seen the NYP on a regular basis for decades at grocery stores (where I go daily). This has nothing to do with bias. The front pages often make evidence-free claims. I find it difficult to believe anyone takes it seriously. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sometimes they seem to have gotten some things right that no other sources did at the time. That counts for something at least. Attribution should be required. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thats tabloidism for you. Sensationalism and puns. The Daily News does it a lot too. Im somewhat surprised NYDN is green. I always liked the format of both, and used to read NYDN daily. The Post is a mixed bag. Sometimes good, sometimes tabloidism. I would say they arent completely unreliable. They are somewhere between a more vetted newspaper and the National Enquirer. But the Times also has made plenty of errors and sometimes doesnt correct them in a timely fashion, but mostly does. Its been awhile since Ive read either DN or Post. Metallurgist (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Looking at the past discussions for WP:NYDN, it seems like the content of the articles is reliable, if not the headlines. Of course, one shouldn't rely solely on headlines for statements of fact.

  As for the NYDN being a tabloid, this refers to the format in which it's printed (i.e. smaller than a broadsheet like the Times). This is sometimes conflated with tabloid journalism, which is sensationalist and not always reliable. Some tabloid-size papers can indeed be tabloid journalism, but tabloids need not be tabloids, in either sense of the word - you can have a reliable tabloid-size newspaper or an unreliable tabloid-style broadsheet, for example. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Im not disagreeing, but the DN does dabble a little bit into tabloid journalism, just not as much as the Post. Metallurgist (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  That's fair. I just wanted to point out why the Daily News is listed as generally reliable despite also being considered a tabloid. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

• I believe that the NY Post has a pretty good sports section. Their news coverage is flawed, as said above. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  The Sports section of New York Post is well-regarded but here on Wikipedia, the entire newspaper is considered unreliable because of its political leanings. I'd like to see each story judged on its own merits rather than banishing the entire newspaper. Queens Historian (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Wnat evidence do you have for "because of its political leanings"? Isn't it deprecated because it makes stuff up? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• No "this "consensus" affirms that editors here are biased against a politically conservative news organization" see WP:RGW...Cheers. DN (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Re "This policy should be reversed ..." -- it's not a policy. Re "... each New York Post story should be judged on its own merits" -- I agree and some dictionaries (e.g. Britannica allow "generally" can mean "in most cases" or "usually" so "generally unreliable" should allow for that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• I think the New York Post's non Culture/Politics coverage should be considered reliable but their political coverage is very obviously biased. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• As I said in the 2020 discussion where the source was deemed WP:GUNREL, even our other local media often does not cover topics such as real estate to the extent that the Post does. There is convincing evidence that the political coverage is unreliable, and I would definitely keep the Post as "unreliable" at least with regards to politics topics. However, as I said there, I'm not sure this extends to non-political topics.
  Take real-estate, for example. The NY Times (a WP:GREL source) often cites the Post's real-estate coverage when reporting on real estate (see for example, this). The Post's real-estate coverage been cited in various books from reputable publishers as well (e.g. Plunz, Richard (October 18, 2016). A History of Housing in New York City. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-54310-1.; Busà, Alessandro (August 7, 2017). The Creative Destruction of New York City: Engineering the City for the Elite. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-061010-4.).
  That being said, @Queens Historian, I would caution against assuming that Wikipedia is biased against conservative sources. For example, The Wall Street Journal, despite being politically conservative, is considered a high-quality reliable source. (And on the contrary, there are many liberal sources that are considered low quality, like Daily Kos). – Epicgenius (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment the NYPost has spent the last week peddling what looks increasingly to be a transphobic conspiracy theory. Honestly, in light of this, I do not think carve-outs for architecture or sports is appropriate. It has reinforced that the Post does not issue corrections and, in fact, doubles down upon misinformation when it's expedient to do so. Simonm223 (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Over at AfD, there is an ongoing discussion of the article for the software pdfFiller. (I had originally supported deletion, but recently changed my position). In the search for sources a review of the product in TechRadar was offered as a piece of significant coverage. The article, published in late 2024, looks AI-generated to me, and the author bio is obviously AI-generated.

My question isn't whether this review can be used as a source in the article. I'm convinced it can't and would remove it if I found it in the references. My question is about whether TechRadar needs to have some additional scrutiny applied to it? I had always thought this was a solidly reliable source in the tech world (admittedly, that isn't my usual beat), but this review looks sketchy. Other reliable sources have been caught using AI authorship before. Is this another case? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Steve Paris is a real person, I couldn't say for certain that the the article is AI written. It does have some of the 'flat' feeling of AI, but I don't think it's definitive.
Are there any secondary sources accusing techradar of using AI? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

the author bio is obviously AI-generated: what makes you say that? The one I'm looking at^[1] seems very human-written to me and follows the prose style of a 2000s tech blogger. I can find bylines from him as far back as 2010,^[2] so this isn't a wholly LLM persona. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

That biosketch looks a little better (still somewhat LLM-ish to me, though). This is the author bio, in full, from the article linked in my original post: Steve has been writing about technology since 2003. Starting with Digital Creative Arts, he's since added his tech expertise at titles such as iCreate, MacFormat, MacWorld, MacLife, and TechRadar. His focus is on the creative arts, like website builders, image manipulation, and filmmaking software, but he hasn’t shied away from more business-oriented software either. He uses many of the apps he writes about in his personal and professional life. Steve loves how computers have enabled everyone to delve into creative possibilities, and is always delighted to share his knowledge, expertise, and experience with readers. He doesn't just do this, he does that! He loves sharing pivotal activities and leveraging crucial developments! Perhaps Paris is a real person, but if this is his writing style I'd never run one of his articles on my site if I were an editor.

If this is a false alarm, I apologize. I have been spending a lot of time on AI cleanup and AfD and perhaps I'm seeing LLM prose everywhere I look. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Dan Leonard, to me it also looks like the standard style that bios in tech/review websites tend to have. Always a bit vague and overly positive in outlook and breadth, I understand how it could be sen as LLM text if you have not seen many of these before. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• "Virginijus Sinkevičius". www.biyografya.com (in Turkish). Retrieved 2025-09-10. - Removed here
• "Hannah Neumann". www.biyografya.com (in Turkish). Retrieved 2025-09-10. - Removed here

This looks more like click-bait than a reliable publisher from what little info they provide about themselves. I've not looked to see if reliable sources cite them.

It's currently used over 300 times as a reference. Skimming through non-reference uses, I could only find brief comments on it's reliability:

• User_talk:DoubleGrazing/Archive_1#Help_with_RS @DoubleGrazing:
• Talk:Mehmed_Şevket_Eygi#Source_analysis @Johannes Maximilian:
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabri Kaliç

I'd especially like to hear from people familiar with reliable Turkish-language websites. - Hipal (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I've looked at this website again. I checked three bios of people I'm familiar with. The info seems at least superficially okay. In one case, the bio cites a long list of solid sources. Another seems to be based only on the person's own personal website, which is obviously a bit concerning. The third cites no sources whatsoever, which is potentially even worse.

They claim to have a sensible editorial policy, and to employ fact-checking measures. However, the company behind this website seems to be a small creative agency, and I've no idea how much editorial resource they have actually dedicated to this.

I'd say if a particular bio cites good sources, it's probably okay to use. Otherwise, I'd be cautious. And I certainly wouldn't want to accept this as the only source for any contentious or extraordinary info. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I still reckon that this source is rather low in quality. While it technically is a reasonable secondary source, it conveys a tone I wouldn't expect from an RS. However, sources are never neutral, and this is why citing it shouldn't be prohibited. Caution is advised, though. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Given the inconsistency across their articles, it's probably best to treat as unreliable, especially for BLP content. In the cases where their articles actually have sources, those sources should be considered for use as references. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Richard Dolan has the moniker (not sure if this is self-awarded) of "UAP historian". According to this LinkedIn profile he has a master's degree in history. His research, based on an Amazon search, appears exclusively confined to the topic of flying saucers in the form of popular books on the subject, including this one which is a collection of "first hand accounts" of magic owls riding in UFOs or flying alongside them or something (I didn't quite follow).
Searching JSTOR and Google Scholar I can find no evidence of peer-reviewed articles. I can find no instances of WP:USEBYOTHERS on Google News when I search "according to Richard Dolan" or "according to Richard M Dolan". He is a regular cast member on Coast to Coast AM, a sci-fi radio show . He appears to run an online store that sells pictures of himself [https://the-richard-dolan-store.myshopify.com/
Currently, we cite Dolan extensively in our flying saucer articles, including in the Philip J. Klass article where he is the sole source for the claim that Klass defamed Stanton Friedman, or our Flight 105 UFO sighting in which one of his books is the sole source for the claim the FBI investigated this event.
Do we consider Dolan RS for the subject of UFOs? Chetsford (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

No way. He is light years away from reliability. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not at this moment seeing anything which would suggest reliability such as serious sources taking his views seriously. At a minimum attribution is likely due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the research you did shows quite clearly that we should probably get rid of everything coming from him as much as possible, and only clearly attribute whatever stuff (if any) he has said that would be relevant. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it depends on how RS treats him. Most likely we are talking popular publishing houses (I.e. Macmillan, Random House, etc).....as this is not something university/academic presses tend to mess with. But that isn't the end of it there. Plenty of works from major publishers get criticized. Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• No; certainly he's not a subject-matter expert as we define the term and cannot be cited directly. There's some nuance when talking about stuff that went through a reputable publisher, but WP:FRINGE concerns would have to be considered, especially when talking about pop-culture books (I would generally categorize such books more as entertainment, not something that can be used for article-voice statements of fact.) At a glance, though, we seem to be citing him in totally inappropriate ways right now - this, for instance, which is obviously just a personal website, is being cited here for an entire paragraph that seems clearly inappropriate. Really, though, that article as a whole has broad POV and sourcing issues (we're also citing a huge amount to his FBI file, in a way that goes way beyond appropriate use of a WP:PRIMARY source.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
• Note: Aquillion raised a good point insofar as publishing house goes. I'd assumed his books went through a mainstream publisher as the most popular UFO books tend to do. For future record, in case this eventually becomes an RfC, I checked a handful of his books at his Amazon author page and they all listed Keyhole Publishing as the publisher. This led me to this press release that seems to indicate Dolan has more than an author/publisher relationship with Keyhole. The Keyhole website is currently down but the Wayback Machine from 2011 returns a barebones site that has the subheader "Featuring the Work of Richard Dolan". That said, Keyhole has published other authors (all within the UFO genre) so this doesn't seem to be a self-publishing effort per se, however, it does seem to be a specialty publishing house that Dolan himself potentially owns and/or runs. Chetsford (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, I couldn't find anything on "Keyhole" either. Of course, sometimes UFO books do get publication from some pretty mainstream houses. (Jim Marrs (for example) had 'Alien Agenda' originally published by HarperCollins.) Compounding this is the fact sometimes this subject is taken so lightly by other RS that it doesn't get any treatment at all.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Request to revise Army Recognition entry – defamatory & unsourced

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I am writing regarding the entry about *Army Recognition* on the page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The current text is:

> "Army Recognition is a site that reproduces press release material without any original reportage. In at least one example it has copied content without attribution from other sources. Editors allege that Army Recognition operates on a pay-for-coverage basis, providing 'online marketing and advertising solutions' for the defense industry. This model may raise questions about the impartiality and independence of its content."

---

Can the VOA pronunciation guide be used as a reliable source for American English pronunciations, especially of foreign names and places? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

They're interesting. They have kinda a Cuban/Hispanic accent mixed with American-ish going on. Cute. CaribDigita (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Where did you pick that up from? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 06:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with citing this state media source when the American English pronunciation is uncontroversial and due. Most pronunciations in articles are unsourced, so providing some kind of source would be an improvement for verifiability. — Newslinger talk 12:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Does one have to provide a full reference for the pronunciation or is it allowed to just add the pronunciation audio file? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 09:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

For the citation, I would link to an actual page on the website instead of directly to the audio clip, since the clip itself doesn't give enough context about what it is. For example, if I wanted to provide a citation for the pronunciation in the Ryan Wesley Routh article, I would cite either this search results page or the United States region page; there does not seem to be a better way to link directly to a single pronunciation. Also, according to c:Commons:Voice of America files, Voice of America media (which I believe includes the audio clips from the VOA Pronunciation Guide) are in the public domain and can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons when appropriate. — Newslinger talk 18:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Now that you've mentioned Routh, I've noticed that there's a discrepancy in how VOA gives the pronunciation (/ˈraʊθ/) vs. how Routh pronounces it himself (/ˈruːθ/). Should this be cause for concern given that both are supposed to be American English pronunciations? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

In this case, I would prioritize Routh's self-identification and cite the AFP clip instead of the VOA Pronunciation Guide, unless there is another available source showing him using or preferring another pronunciation. — Newslinger talk 11:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

So unless there is a direct contradiction with other sources, the VOA pronounce website can be taken as generally reliable? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

If the American English pronunciation is uncontroversial, yes, but its usage does need to be checked for due weight because most of its pronunciations are for non-US subjects. For geographic locations, I would prefer to cite a dictionary entry, if available. — Newslinger talk 11:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

https://militaryland.net/ is a website that catalogues various Ukrainian military units involved in Russo-Ukrainian War and their activities. This is a quite comprehensive source for those sorts of informations avilable in English language. My question for the fellow Wikipedia editors, admins and fact checkers is that, is this website should be considered as reliable sources for Wikipedia articles? As far as my opinion goes https://militaryland.net/ do provide pretty accurate and reliable informations often ahead of other main stream news sources who often site https://militaryland.net/ also in their reporting, which are verifiable through them as well. This website can be very useful source of information particularly for a country's military who is engaged in a large conflict currently and military information is scarce and far between or not available at all due to deliberate fog of war. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Website is geoblocked at where I am. This reduces the number of interested editors who can verify information against the site, and this discussion in particular, whether the source is reliable enough. – robertsky (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It has been discussed a few times before;
WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#Is Militaryland reliable?
WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 401#MilitaryLand.net
WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 403#Militaryland.net
Most opinions were negative, but it hasn't been discussed since 2023. It has an editorial policy and list of authors, but with author names such as 'Jeff2146' it would be good to see WP:USEBYOTHERS to show reliability. There I'm seeing a small amount of use in reliable published work, but not a great amount. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

So it do have some credibility and viability on main stream media. Should we use it as a source on Wikipedia articles? If agreed it can be used a reliable and comprehensive source of information regarding the realm of Ukrainian Armed Forces units. Information about which is hard to come by due to the ongoing conflict. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Also since 2025, Ukrainian Armed Forces has been reorganizing itself from a Brigade based force to a Corps based force in accordance with NATO standards. Many new units are being created within the Armed Forces to accommodate this transition. The existence of those will not be acknowledged offically anytime soon. https://militaryland.net/ do give a comprehensive and an almost daily update on these new units of Ukrainian Armed Forces. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

It's use by main stream media is very limited, and being useful isn't a criteria for reliability. There's no deadline so if details take longer to get to more recognised sources that's not a problem. Unless it's challenged it probably a margin source for uncontroversial details, but I would be looking for a better one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

They've certainly gotten more professional over the years... Personally I think that its their news articles which are more wiki speed and I would actually avoid the cataloguing of military units but your mileage may differ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Point noted. So, what are you guys' final judgment on https://militaryland.net/ overall then? Should we use it as a source on Wikipedia? And if yes for what information on which articles? They're both a news website as well as a comprehensive catalogue of Ukrainian military units overall. Which purpose should these be used? Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 20:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello all, I’m looking for your input here at RSN regarding a current content dispute on the Ghulam Ahmad Bilour article. The disagreement concerns several sources used to describe his ethnic and tribal background. Below are seven sources, each followed by a question. I’d appreciate input on whether these sources meet the standards of WP:RS and/or WP:SCHOLARSHIP for routine, non-controversial BLP claims. The underlying content reflects that: The Bilour family is described in several sources as hailing from Bajaur Agency, a region associated with Pashtun tribes. They belong to the Kakazai (Mamund) Pashtun tribe, while also being Hindko-speaking residents of Peshawar. I’ve tried to keep all reliably sourced perspectives, including the description of the family as a “Hindko-speaking merchant family” — while also adding sourced material on their Bajaur and Kakazai background. However, the opposing editor has repeatedly removed these additions, labeling them as "blogs," "obscure," or "non-scholarly" without providing detailed sourcing policy justification. 1. The News (Pakistan) – Syed Inayat Ali Shah (2008) Title: Personifying the Art of Politics Quote: “Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)...” Publication: The News (Jang Group) — mainstream Pakistani daily Archived URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20110728060105/http://jang.com.pk/thenews/may2008-weekly/nos-11-05-2008/pol1.htm Use in article: To support Bajaur Agency origin of the Bilour family. Question: Is this considered a reliable source for basic biographical information? 2. The News (Pakistan) – Sabir Shah (2018) Title: The Unending Tragedies of Peshawar’s Bilour Family Quote (first paragraph): “The Hindko-speaking Bilour family of Peshawar, hailing from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)...” Publication: The News (Jang Group) — mainstream Pakistani daily Archived URL: https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/342321-the-unending-tragedies-of-peshawar-s-bilour-family Use in article: Supports a dual-heritage framing — as Hindko-speaking Peshawaris of Bajaur tribal origin. Question: Is this considered a reliable source for basic biographical information? 3. Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) Podcast (Pashto) – “Olassi Adalat” (2014) Quote: At timestamp 01:40, Senator Ilyas Ahmad Bilour, brother of Ghulam Ahmad Bilour, says: “Our family originates from Bajaur Agency...” Source: Centre for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) — independent think tank Language: Pashto Audio: https://archive.org/details/03-03-2014OlassiAdalat Use in article: As a narrowly scoped primary source, attributing the family’s tribal origin to a member of the family. Question: Is this appropriate under WP:PRIMARY for non-controversial first-party claims? 4. Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust Website (Archived) Archived Team Page: https://web.archive.org/web/20190515022345/http://afghankakezai.com/team.php (Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust team page featuring Haji Ghulam Ahmad Bilour and other members. The site also includes a dedicated "Kakezai" tab in the community directory, and states its mission as: “We work to improve the living standards of the identified displaced and underprivileged Afghan Kakezai communities through interventions such as quality education, vocational & skills training, protection, legal aid, health, enterprise development, poverty alleviation, and socio-economic development initiatives.” Ghulam Ahmad Bilour is listed as Chief Patron, indicating formal affiliation with the organization and the community it represents.) Source: Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust, Peshawar Claim: Lists Ghulam Ahmad Bilour as Chief Patron, describes the family as part of the Afghan Kakezai community. Use in article: Narrowly, to support the claim of community affiliation via a non-controversial WP:PRIMARY citation. Question: Acceptable under WP:PRIMARY for confirming an individual’s participation in and endorsement of a community org? 5. Book - پښتانه قبیلې وپېژنئ ("Know the Pashtun Tribes") - by Dr. Latif Yaad Language: Pashto Original Publisher: Khyber.org (now offline) Archived PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20230407013034/http://www.khyber.org/books/latifyada.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20191113085102/http://www.tolafghanistan.com/app/download/5806295390/latifyada.pdf (Page 261-262 / 116 کاکازي) Quote: Lists Ghulam Ahmad Bilour under the Kakazai (Mamund) Pashtun tribe. (Page 261-262 / 116 کاکازي) Additional Notes: Dr. Yaad is a published author with other works (e.g., here) Bio available here: Pashtoonkhwa.com (Pashto) The book is not self-published in the ordinary sense; it's a cultural/tribal reference work by an academic figure. Use in article: To support Kakazai tribal affiliation. Question: Is this acceptable for uncontroversial genealogical claims, particularly in the absence of formal peer-reviewed literature? 6. Khyber News (YouTube, 2020) Title: Eight Years have Passed Since the Death of Bashir Ahmad Bilour Quote (video description): “Bashir Ahmad Bilour...belongs to a prominent political and social Kakazai family of Peshawar,” — referring to the Bilour family's ethnic affiliation. Source: Khyber News — Pashto-language regional news broadcaster Platform: Khyber News YouTube (official channel) URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scDB9fkk25E Date: 20 December 2020 Use in article: To support the Bilour family’s identification as part of the Kakazai Pashtun community, based on a mainstream regional news outlet’s description. Question: Is this source appropriate under WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS for routine, well-attributed BLP claims regarding ethnic affiliation? 7. Essay "Peshawar Blues" by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad - "Pakistan?" – Volume 4 of Critical Muslim (Oct–Dec 2012) - Published by Oxford University Press (OUP), in association with Muslim Institute & Hurst Publishers Quote: “The Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family...” URL: Link Page: 77 Concern: While the book is published under the imprint of OUP, this essay is: Polemical in tone Lacks citations or footnotes Literary/Impressionistic, with a focus on personal narrative and commentary Missing the scholarly apparatus required by WP:SCHOLARSHIP for making ethnographic or biographical claims. Part of a hybrid series ("Critical Muslim") that includes advertisements for the Muslim Institute, the British Museum, etc., as well as satire, memoir, and non-academic reflections. Published under the OUP imprint, which includes both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed content; this essay appears to fall into the latter category. Question: Does this essay, though published under an OUP imprint, meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP standards for ethnographic or biographical claims in a BLP? Or does its lack of citations and scholarly structure limit its appropriateness for that use? I kindly request community input on the following: Are Sources 1–6 reliable or acceptable for limited, well-attributed use regarding tribal and ethnic background? Is Source 7 appropriate for use in BLP-related ethnographic claims, despite its tone and lack of sourcing? My goal is to represent both perspectives fairly, not to remove one in favor of the other, but to make sure that all reliably sourced content is allowed to remain in the article in line with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful feedback. McKhan ^(talk) 03:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@McKhan, #7 isn't perfect but neither are #1-6, on the face of it all of them could be used with due care. I wonder what are the arguments against using 1-6? Do other sources exist claiming that he's not Pushtun/Kakazai/from Bajaur? Alaexis_¿question? 17:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

More information Author / Title, Source + Type ...

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 20:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you very much for your comment. I haven't seen any sources claiming that he is not Pashtun/Kakazai/from Bajaur. Please review this table, which includes the arguments. Author / Title Source + Type Live / Archive Link Excerpt Use in Article Policy Basis + Direct Link + Quote Misuse Rebuttal Policy Assessment Syed Inayat Ali Shah / Personifying the Art of Politics The News International - Pakistan (Mainstream newspaper, Secondary) Live / Archive "Ghulam Ahmad Bilour hails from Bajaur Agency in the Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA)..." Supports Bajaur Agency origin WP:RS / WP:BLP News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Mislabeling as "tabloid" contradicts WP:RS; source is reputable for routine biographical facts. Reliable for basic ethnic/geographic origin - aligns with WP:RS and WP:BLP standards for mainstream news reporting. Sabir Shah / Tragedies of Peshawar’s Bilour Family The News International - Pakistan (Mainstream newspaper, Secondary) Live “The Hindko-speaking Bilour family of Peshawar, hailing from Bajaur Agency..." Supports dual identity: Peshawar + Bajaur origin WP:RS / WP:BLP News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Blanket dismissal contradicts WP:RS Reliable for dual identity assertion - supported by reputable source and WP:RS guidance. CRSS / “Olassi Adalat” – Ilyas Ahmad Bilour (Interview) CRSS (Think Tank, Primary – self-attribution) Site / Archive "Our family originates from Bajaur Agency..." (Timestamp ~1:40) - Pashto Attribution from Ghulam Bilour’s brother, Ilyas Ahmad Bilour WP:PRIMARY / WP:BLPSELFPUB Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field.. Misapplied WP:FRINGE; this is not a fringe claim. Acceptable for self-described family origin - complies with WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPSELFPUB for non-contentious claims. Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust Archived Site (Primary – organizational) Archive Lists Ghulam Ahmad Bilour as Chief Patron Supports Kakezai affiliation WP:PRIMARY Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Incorrectly labeled WP:BLOG; it’s an org site, not a blog Valid for named public/community affiliation - fits WP:PRIMARY allowance for organizational attributions. Dr. Latif Yaad (bio / published author with other works / books) / پښتانه قبیلې وپېژنئ Khyber.org (now offline) Tribal Genealogy Book (Secondary) - Pashto Archive Lists Ghulam Ahmad Bilour as Kakazai (Mamund) Pashtun (Page 261) Supports tribal affiliation WP:RS / WP:CASTE / WP:BLP Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field... Cultural/tribal source; not self-published Valid for ethnic/tribal identification - supported by recognized cultural sources under WP:CASTE and WP:BLP. Khyber News / YouTube (official channel) Khyber News Regional TV (Secondary) Video - Pashto “Bashir Ahmad Bilour... belongs to a prominent Kakazai family...” (video description) Supports Kakazai identification WP:RS / WP:BLP / WP:CIRCULAR News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact... Circularity claim not shown with diffs Generally acceptable unless shown to be circular - meets WP:RS but subject to WP:CIRCULAR scrutiny/evidence. Muhammad Idrees Ahmad / Peshawar Blues (in Critical Muslim, OUP, in association with Muslim Institute & Hurst Publishers) Cultural Essay (Secondary, not peer-reviewed) Link “The Bilour clan, an old Hindko-speaking merchant family...” Used to assert urban identity WP:SCHOLARSHIP Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable.. WP:NPOV Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Not peer-reviewed or citation-supported; cannot override stronger RS May be cited for context but not to override genealogy - appropriate under WP:NPOV and WP:SCHOLARSHIP weight guidelines. Cumulative Policy Assessment: These sources, collectively, meet WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, WP:BLP, and WP:CONSENSUS standards. Objections have been rebutted with traceable policy excerpts. Misuse of WP:FRINGE, WP:BLOG, and WP:CONSENSUS noted.

Close

I hope it helps. Thank you. McKhan ^(talk) 18:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're using an LLM then please disclose it per WP:LLM.

Now I see that the editor you had a discussion with (@Sutyarashi - it's common courtesy to tag them when you request outside input) raised some valid concerns about your sources.

Still, The News and CRSS appear to be reliable source for such a claim. Alaexis_¿question? 19:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 20:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Alaexis, I appreciate your input. In the above table, I have provided my specific responses regarding the reliability of each source. In light of WP:RS, WP:BLOGS, WP:DEADREF, and WP:PRIMARY, I find it difficult to understand why the opposing editor is treating the archived website of the Afghan Kakezai Welfare Trust, based in Khyber Bazar, Peshawar — which remains active and relevant, a fact that can be confirmed by directly contacting the Trust — as a "blog." Furthermore, why is this important fact being overlooked: Would Ghulam Ahmad Bilour publicly appear as Chief Patron of a welfare trust, complete with his photo, if he had no connection to the Kakazai community? Similarly, Dr. Latif Yaad is a published author, and his book remains accessible as a WP:DEADREF despite the hosting site (Khyber.org) now being defunct. Both of these sources are compatible with WP:RS, WP:DEADREF, and WP:PRIMARY, and should be included to adhere to WP:NPOV. The opposing editor has repeatedly rejected these arguments, without directly addressing the WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, or WP:DEADREF reasons, which might indicate a pattern consistent with WP:IDHT. I hope that with broader input, a consensus can be reached based on the sources' merits and their compliance with Wikipedia's content policies.

McKhan ^(talk) 20:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Years ago an edit filter was created to block coordinated efforts from fans adding Eddy Chen to List of people with absolute pitch. The addition was rejected on the grounds that there was no reliable source to establish that Chen had perfect pitch beyond his self-identification. I recently reverted an effort that included a reference to this article from theviolinchannel.com. The site itself may meet RS guidelines given that they have an editorial team. As to the article itself, it's just a list of responses from musicians to the question "Do You Have Perfect Pitch? Were You Born With It?" The author of the article is simply tagged as "The Violin Channel." As to whether this establishes that the subject has perfect pitch seems a little borderline here. Ideally we'd have a source where an authoritative third-party confirmed that the subject had perfect pitch. This particular source is a bit borderline in that regards. I'd appreciate additional opinions as to whether this citation is suitable for adding Chen to that page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about the site, but that article is certainly not independent, so would not be usable even if published by the most reliable of reliable sources. All it confirms is that Chen answered the question in that way, not that he actually has perfect pitch. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, this type of claim falls under the "unduly self-serving" clause of WP:BLPSELFPUB. At best, it may merit attribution if there is sufficient weight and consensus to include it. Left guide (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Not an editor, hoping this is the right place to post about this sort of thing. If it's not, please kindly direct me to where this would be more welcome.

I found an article with some issues regarding its sources. Numerical methods in fluid mechanics has sources, but none of them are links, and none of them are inline citations. Also, it seems to have been written largely by a single editor.

Normally, I see a big warning at the top of the page like "This article could benefit from inline citations", but I'm just a measly reader and I don't know what the proper protocol for adding that kind of notice to an article is. One day, I'll make an account and learn the ropes of it all. One day.

In any case, if anyone who knows that they're doing could take a look at it, I would appreciate it.

- Lizzie 66.73.175.231 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

You can these kinds of questions at WP:Teahouse. They can certainly help unfamiliar editors on how wikipedia works can assist you with such issues. I agree that the page lacks sources and will tag it for citations needed. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to bring it up at WT:WPM, where you might find editors who know something about the subject. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be linked or online. This is an encyclopedia of human knowledge, not an encyclopedia of internet. Much human knowledge exists in print form. You can find it in libraries.

That said, the lack of footnotes is an actual problem, typical of older articles that have not been updated to more recent standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The big warning banners are pretty worthless in my opinion. Everyone can already obviously see that there are no footnotes. This article was almost entirely written by one editor in 2013 who has not been back since. –jacobolus (t) 19:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I do regularly use the warning banners and tags to find articles for which improvement is needed, when I am looking for something to do. You can find a list of these for mathematics articles, for instance, at https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Mathematics.html, and the same bot makes similar lists for many other projects. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Banners are if anything just flagging of an issue other editors have noticed in an article. Ramos1990 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I've been considering nominating Lancaster University Students' Union for AfD on grounds of notability as the only third party, independent sources are local news stories about a property owned by the organisation being sold, the rest are either primary sources, non-independent (such as the student union's own newspaper SCAN) or from The Tab, a website which publishes news about higher education in the UK. Looking at the bylines on their website, it seems the authors are students at the institutions they write about.

This has been discussed before but no consensus reached. Is it worth flagging this slightly-obscured lack of independence? It's used as a source in 616 articles. Orange sticker (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The Tab may not be reliable, but remember that before nominating an article for deletion you are expected to look at all sources that exist (which are certainly not limited to news reports), not just those in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The Tab is not something I'd ever regard as a reliable source. It's basically an online tabloid student newspaper that will basically publish anything from junk Buzzfeed-esque lists (remember those) to just regurgitating what's been published elsewhere (with zero regard for the quality of where it was first published). Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

While the Tab has many issues, a lack of independence (because its authors are students at the institutions they write about) is not one of them. Good quality student newspapers (eg Harvard Crimson, Varsity) aren’t deemed unreliable because their authors are students at the institutions they write about, any more than good quality local new newspapers aren’t deemed unreliable because their authors are citizens of the towns they write about. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think accuracy is this issue here, rather that this gives WP:UNDUE weight in terms of notability. It's similar to local news in the UK, which isn't really covered by WP:AUD which is very US-centric. Orange sticker (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The Teahouse and Help Desk often get questions about genealogy sites like Ancestry.com and Find a Grave.

I have started drafting a guideline (currently tagged as an essay) at Wikipedia:Genealogy sources. Please feel free to chip in. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m a new editor and would really appreciate opinions on this…

This source is the only source being used as a reliable source regarding Craig Parker’s sexual orientation. There are a lot of issues that I personally see with the credibility of this article, but most importantly is that Craig Parker is not directly quoted in the article about his sexuality.

From my research, other than the source in question, Craig Parker has never publicly discussed his sexuality or personal life, but has been outspoken about valuing his privacy.

Thanks for any help!

NicR77 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

At a glance, I'm not confident the source is a RS (I've never heard of them and they look a bit strange to me at first glance) but the specific complaint that they don't have an explicit "I am gay" quote is sort of the wrong way to argue that - it's basically you saying you don't like the evidence the source presents and disagree with their conclusions, which isn't really a valid WP:RS concern; RS is about the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of the source as a whole rather than how well they substantiate one specific claim. If you have other issues with the source (and I could see why you might) I would focus on those other issues instead; if they were an otherwise legitimate RS, "I don't like the fact that they don't quote Craig Parker directly on this" isn't really a valid objection. Caveat: Even if it is a RS, we can of course only summarize what they say, and what they say is indeed... odd. They seem to be just sort of taking it as a given that everyone knows he's gay, which might make it an awkward source to use. Also, saying things about someone's sexuality is usually WP:BLP-sensitive, which would definitely require a higher-quality source than I'd say this is. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand and I agree! After reading WP:BLP and WP:BLPRS I felt that the source was questionable at best for such a sensitive issue but wasn’t sure how to go about challenging it’s credibility. Also, as far as I can tell, the original article from the New Zealand Herald has never been publicly online either, which I would think would be another issue.

This source’s reliability has been questioned and debated for over 15 years on Craig Parker looking at the pages revision history. Could you please advise me on what would be the best way to go about correctly removing this as a RS? NicR77 (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

If you were unable to WP:VERIFY the original interview in the Sunday Herald you could remove it as a poorly sourced BLP issue, and the onus goes to the other side to provide a suitable source or show the reliableness per WP:BLPREMOVE.

However, I did this source searching for you and was able to find the original source which says You won’t see his Ponsonby home and tropical garden in a woman’s magazine and his love life is another no go area. As a gay man Parker says he doesn’t care what people say about his sexuality “it’s just not an issue for me.”:

• Huse, Shannon (2008-01-20). "No more Mr Nice Guy". The New Zealand Herald. p. 117. Retrieved 2025-09-15.

Jumpytoo Talk 17:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I did find this source previously, but seeing that it is on PressReader.com I could not read it without paying due to it being locked. I can only read the beginning of the article and can not see the part you have quoted. Since it is not accessible to the public should it really be used as a WP:BLPRS? Thank you! NicR77 (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources may be cited, regardless of their degree of accessibility. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Can I please ask how a source can be determined as reliable or verifiable by Wikipedia standards if it is not accessible to read? Isn’t that like saying "just believe whoever provided the source and what they say"? NicR77 (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Under WP:NEWSORG, we generally presume that normal news outlets are reliable unless there are incidents which suggest the contrary. The source is still accessible for anyone who pays, which is similar to citing a non-open-acccess journal article or a book. Based5290 :3 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

See WP:PAYWALL. An editor's inability to personally verify a source does not change its usability. FDW777 (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help! Just another question:

If the news outlet / journalist publicly leaked information from the article online before the article was actually published be a good reason to doubt it’s reliability? NicR77 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Depends on the situation. In general, singular incidents which the news outlet corrects or apologizes for usually do not significantly degrade their reliability, and I can't see a leak affecting reliability of a source too much. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright. The reason I asked was a direct quote from the original article from The New Zealand Herald was leaked and published on Wikipedia a day before the article was released. The publication date of the article is January 20, 2008 but a quote from the article appeared on Wikipedia on January 19, 2008. The User’s IP address who added it is in area of where the journalist, Shannon Huse, lived at the time. There were never any apologies from her or the New Zealand Herald from my research. NicR77 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you account for the timezone? When converted the edit was made at 10:18AM on the 20th New Zealand time. It is also reasonable that a New Zealand based editor would be the one to make the edit as it is a New Zealand paper. Jumpytoo Talk 00:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

New Zealand is 12 hours ahead of UTC, so it is theoretically possible that someone got their issue of the Herald and then made that edit. Regardless, the reference should still hold up for the purposes of WP:BLP. Based5290 :3 (talk) 00:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No I did not think of that, I apologize.

I am only questioning the reliability of this source so intensely because I personally know that the actor, Craig Parker, does not identify as gay, He claimed this source lied not long after it was published when he was at a convention back in 2009 or 2010 I believe. Of course, I have no way to prove that as it was not recorded. I was just trying to do right by him as a fan of his.

NicR77 (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

We can take Approach 5 of when sources are wrong and simply omit it under the fact that it is not due weight, since nobody else seems to have reported it. If you can find a source saying that Parker is not gay, it would be great if you put that on the talk page for Parker's article just to prevent other editors from stumbling into the same trap. Based5290 :3 (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Approach 5 sounds like the best way to handle this. Unfortunately, I have never been able to find a source that says he is not or that states what his actual sexuality is. Parker is openly part of the LGBTQ Community, as far as I know. He just does not identify as gay and has never come out so-called publicly, which is the main issue I have with this source.

Thank you so much for all the help! I am in the middle of a dispute with another user about this source and will have to have a discussion with them about it soon (they are blocked at the moment). NicR77 (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

My local library provides a subscription to PressReader which is how I was able to verify the source. If your libraries don't subscribe to PressReader you could also try a local college/university, and if all that fails and you don't want to pay for a subscription you can ask at WP:RX where someone who does have access can provide a copy. Jumpytoo Talk 00:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

It’s jut not an issue for me. I just don’t get why an actor would want to reveal their secrets, hopes and fears to a magazine or newspaper. I know what the magazine gets out of it, but not the person. If you are doing publicity to increase your self-confidence then you are really in trouble. It’s important to keep some privacy. Your friends and family are the people you reveal yourself to. They are the ones who should have real access to you.

The full quote seems dubious. He outs himself as a gay man to a newspaper, and then immediately speaks against outing yourself to a newspaper?

This could easily be simple miscommunication, perhaps he said "If a were a gay man" but the interviewer misheard. The fact that we have only one source attesting seems questionable.

I will say though, I found a video on Facebook of him giving an interview to Gay Calgary Magazine. He doesn't discuss his sexuality, and being so interviewed isn't proof that he is gay, but I thought I would share it.

What I find most questionable though is how "in passing" the quote is. I know a cross dresser who has told me they aren't trans, yet I see him describe himself as trans to others. I've always assumed this was just for communication purposes, since it is easier to say in a word than to explain he dresses in women's clothes but isn't trans. I wouldn't rely on a label someone uses mid-sentence to accurately describe their sexuality.

And I know this is a message board for discussing reliability, but we should also consider decency. He is a private person and has avoided discussing his sexuality. We don't talk about the sexuality of 99% of people on Wikipedia. There is no need for us to discuss his sexuality, especially given uncertainty surrounding our information. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 04:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

YES, thank you!

He has made several statements similar to this over the years and is always speaking about privacy. Like here which was only 4 years prior.

There are also multiple other things in the New Zealand Herald article that are incorrect or are at best inflated as well. If I’m honest, I do not think it was a miscommunication. I believe the journalist either intentionally misquoted him, decided herself what his label should be, or possibly fabricated it from the rumors that were going around at the time.

All this man has ever asked for is for his privacy and personal life to be respected. As far as I’m aware, Parker is indeed openly part of the LGBTQ community, but it is not my place to publicly say what his sexual orientation is for him. I just know that he does not identify as gay and has never so-called publicly came out. And in my opinion, this very vague and inaccurate article should not be used as such.

Thank you for seeing where I’m coming from on this. NicR77 (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, at Patriotic Electoral Bloc (see discussion), an editor attempted to remove a political ideology from the infobox (Russophilia) that is currently backed by nine sources. In a likely move out of spite so that this wouldn't be the only ideology in the infobox, they then added other random ones ("pro-China, pro-Ukraine, pro-Romania, pro-Europeanism") .

The source they used is the website of one of the bloc's members . They say no secondary sources are necessary per WP:ABOUTSELF. A third user questioned that user's reading of the primary source to back the addition of these ideologies , and no secondary sources exist confirming the bloc adheres to any of these ideologies; in fact, secondary sources exist stating that it opposes one (pro-Europeanism, ).

I would highly appreciate other opinions on this user's interpretation of WP:ABOUTSELF, on their use of the primary source and on their disregard of secondary sources for backing content they add. Thanks, Super Ψ Dro 09:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF only goes so far, in particular the first point that talks of content that is "unduly self-serving". Articles should be mainly based on secondary sourcing, or more simply Wikipedia is more interested in what others say about a subject than what the subject says about itself. If a group that secondary sources describe as violent communist insurgency wants to be described as a ornithology club that goes flower picking, then their self description can be ignored and the secondary sources used instead.
Searching for more secondary sources may help to see what weight should be given to the groups self description. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, while searching for sources to back Russophilia as an ideology, I noticed secondary sources did not really bother describing any other ideology of the bloc, specially English-language sources. After all, the bloc has only existed for under two months, not much analysis on it exists yet. You can confirm this yourself by checking the sources at the list on the (currently) third reference on the article , they describe the bloc merely as pro-Russian. I couldn't even find a single source (either in English, Romanian or Russian) describing the bloc's view on Romania, Ukraine or China (and as I said, I found secondary sources backing the bloc's opposition, not support, to the EU). In any case, a user already disputed that the primary source verified the content added by the user in the first place; their rationale is worth reading , and another opinion would be appreciated.

What do you think? Does WP:ABOUTSELF take priority here? I would love it if you could pass by and state your opinion at the discussion. Last time I had a disagreement with this user, it went nowhere to the detriment of the article, so I consider third-party participation necessary. Super Ψ Dro 19:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I think that we can be a bit more creative here. Instead of arguing about the long list of "pro-X" and "pro-Y" which looks a bit weird we could say that the party supports the neutrality of Moldova, which is something that both Moldovan and European sources appear to agree on.

- a Polish think tank that is definitely not sympathetic to Russia

We can also say in the body of the article that they describe themselves as X and are characterised as pro-Russian by various sources. Alaexis_¿question? 20:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No opposition to adding to the infobox that the bloc favors neutrality from my part. But I don't think the primary source verifies the bloc being "pro-Romanian/Ukrainian/Chinese". Here is the source, I invite you to read it and give your opinion . Theorically we could use this source to add in the main body that the bloc supports good pragmatic relations with Romania and Ukraine, though I'd very much rather have secondary sources for this. Super Ψ Dro 21:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus I agree. Alaexis_¿question? 20:15, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Since your message was short I am not clear on your stance regarding the inclusion of neutrality, so feel free to argue your position at the talk page (or clarify your position here, so I can send a link of your diff for the participants there to see). Super Ψ Dro 21:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Note There is also an open topic about this same dispute at NORN Xan747 (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

As well as noting that independent sources are preferred, I would also point out that most such sources should be expected to write about this in Romanian, not English. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The situation in Romanian-language sources is the same. There are no secondary sources backing the "pro-Romanian/pro-Ukrainian/pro-Chinese" additions. Super Ψ Dro 22:12, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that an electoral bloc put together for one election can be said to have any unifying ideology. Maybe the best thing would be to get rid of that parameter altogether and just describe the individual parties' ideologies in their articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, you can see multiple sources in English and Romanian referring to the bloc as pro-Russian on this list . There are a couple other unifying factors, such as neutrality. But there are not many ideologies that sources back for now. Including those first four on my opening message. Super Ψ Dro 21:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

We just need to take into account the fact that the sources writing in Romanian would often be biased in favour of the Bloc's opponents. Alaexis_¿question? 20:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It's why I don't wish to include for now other ideologies backed by these, like Euroskepticism. With Russophilia, I found universal consensus among secondary sources in English and Romanian. Not surprising considering the bloc's members. Super Ψ Dro 07:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Apparently the German wikipedia deprecated the Lexikon der Wehrmacht as unreliable (see the lexikon's own website which archives the account). Perhaps we should do the same? I see it is used on articles on Nazi German generals and other military figures on the English wikipedia (see this search).4meter4 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 started a discussion on the village pump a few years ago, that led to a request to blacklist and a RSN discussion, but nothing came from it.
It seems to be a personal passion project, but the author is unclear. Maybe some kind of collaborative project, although not strictly WP:UGC. Interpretation of historical documents is something best left to people trained in how to do it, so I would at least be dubious of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

My practice is to delete it whenever I see it used. There is no evidence it has proper editorial oversight. It is an enthusiasts site, and the qualifications of the site operator are unknown. My view is that it is another fanboi site and should be blacklisted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. If I were a researcher in this area I might find it useful but in a use with caution and need to fact check everything kind of way. I don't think it can be viewed as reliable.4meter4 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. @ActivelyDisinterested: @Peacemaker67: I think at the very least we should place it under the WP:GUNREL designation because it lacks an editorial team, is self-published, and presents user-generated content. It therefore clearly falls under the GUNREL description. If I understand rightly, we wouldn't have to have an RFC to label it a GUNREL unlike moving to WP:DEPRECATE or BLACKLIST. I would support deprecation if someone wants to go to the trouble of starting an RFC. 4meter4 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
• It seems like its an amateur website and as such isn't of much use to use unless published by a subject matter expert which this one does not seem to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, and sorry for the very beginnery question. I was recently involved in the deletion of Sergei Makhlai (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sergei Makhlai - Wikipedia). When I was reviewing the sources on the page, I noticed that Rossiyskaya Gazeta has articles written strongly from a Russian governmental point of view. I would therefore be concerned about its use in BLP articles, particularly for people who have fallen out with the Russian government. How would I start a discussion on whether Rossiyskaya Gazeta should or should not be used in BLP? Red Fiona (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It's literally Russian state media. I would question its reliability for discussing Russian political subjects. Simonm223 (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It looks like you have found the right place to start such a discussion, Either here or WP:BLPN would do, but not both. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:RT.COM, WP:SPUTNIK, and WP:TASS can also provide an idea about how Russian state media outlets have been handled on RSN in the past. - Amigao (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2025 (UTC)