Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 489

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context of the disagreement:

Talk:Her Majesty (song)#Chumbawumba cover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously, is this what passes for journalism nowadays?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or

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

or

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

or

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

or

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

or sagas like this:

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

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

There's been somewhat recent edit warring over the last two months at Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor about whether claims that founder Ramy Abdu is Hamas affiliated based on assertions of Israeli intelligence services should be included in the article. I've looked the claim up, and aside from a couple of examples, most mainstream media does not mention this claim when talking about Abdu. Sources that I found mentioning the claim were mostly strongly partisan pro-Israel advocacy sources such as NGO Monitor, UN Watch, Honest Reporting, etc, which I don't think are usable. The two exceptions that people have cited are pieces in Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post^[1][2] Personally, I'm somewhat leery about the Jerusalem Post, WP:JERUSALEMPOST says that it should only be used for basic facts regarding the conflict, which I don't this claim is. With the Haaretz source, I am unclear whether Haaretz is objective stating that Abdu is affiliated with Hamas, or merely stating that is what Shin Bet have stated to them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How reliable is the widely used sports database, Winsipedia?

*Option 1: Generally Reliable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Ari Ben-Menashe#removing passage on Epstein

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to Tor Midtbø [no]( political scientist at the University of Bergen), in the book Scandalous!,(Nordicom) pg 62,In the study by Fladmoe and Jenssen (2009) concerning a comparison of different scandals in different newspapers, the results showed that the leading tabloid, Verdens Gang (VG), took the lead in the scandalization irrespective of political colour – and irrespective of the seriousness of the scandal., but doesn't seem to note any major pattern of innaccuries. A large part of this chapter is about how the paper broke parts of several major Norwegian scandals, like the Calla affair [no] and the Ramin-Osmundsen case [no].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  In june, Axel Springer SE said:

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

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

  Recent Bloomberg interview with the CEO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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