I wanted to bring this source up for discussion. The source is Times Now, an Indian news channel operated by The Times Group.
There hasn't been any actual discussion of the source in specific. It's been mentioned here and there along with other sources, where it was more or less considered to be only usable for backing up basic details - although there was at least one occasion where someone called it a reliable source. (see this and this)
The source itself came to my attention via an AfD for a book, where one of the sources was an article that was very, extremely obviously a vanity puff piece the book's author paid to have written about them. To sum it up, the article talked about 12 authors who took extreme methods to write a book. You had 11 extremely well known writers... and the book's author, who is not at all well known or covered. The book itself has barely received any coverage at all. It's very likely that he paid to have it written about him, as the advertising page says that they will do branded content.
I ran the article through an AI detector and it was flagged as almost 100% generated by AI. I looked at several of their other articles and ran those through an AI detector as well. All of the ones I ran had some degree of content that appeared AI generated (25%, 39%, 92%). The 39% one was a premium source about a serious topic, which was kind of concerning. If even their premium content contains likely AI prose, that's not a great sign.
Aside from that, the site has been criticized in the past for spreading misinformation and biased reporting. They've even been reprimanded within their own country for violating the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards. The site was also criticized in a case study for spreading misinformation. (Link goes to a RS/N discussion that lays out several of the criticisms - the discussion wasn't about Times Now, but rather another site that was also covered in the case study.) So if we add in the inherent issues with AI prose and vanity reporting, there's a higher chance for misinformation to be spread even with basic information.
I honestly don't think that we should be using it for anything at this point. Between the AI reporting, evidence of what is very likely undisclosed paid advertising, and the aforementioned misinformation and biased reporting, I don't think we can trust this site for anything.
If people are in agreement, I'd like to add this to WP:FILM's list of sourcing for Indian cinema and mark it as unreliable. The list is film specific, but myself and others have brought the list up in relation to other topics because if something isn't even reliable for film, it's almost certainly not going to be reliable for other things as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
Please note: I have absolutely no knowledge of this source.
You mention some content is likely paid, there is a section on this at perennial sources: WP:NEWSORGINDIA.
If the content appears to be AI generated, it would fall under WP:RSPLLM. I would advise caution when using AI language detectors, as they are often inaccurate. There was recently a discussion on these tools here a few days ago. Mitchsavl (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
I just noticed that Times Now has a perennial sources entry where it is regarded as marginally reliable with additional considerations to Indian politics and Hindu nationalism.
The perennial source entry should be changed to GU like Republic TV. The controversies that ReadersofthePack mentions are the same for both and they have the same presentation for anyone who watches TV. Omen2019 (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, AI detectors are faulty in my experience. Their film reviews seem mainly negative so unlikely to be paid for, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
@Atlantic306 and Mitchsavl: What is your opinion on the site other than the AI detectors? The site has received massive amounts of criticism for putting out propaganda and misinformation. I mean, the Wikipedia article mentions how they've repeatedly violated broadcasting standards. The bulk of the article is about how the site is unreliable and how poorly they're received by other news outlets.
Also problematic is that again, if we ignore the AI content part, the site does clearly appear to do some form of undisclosed sponsored posts. This source, the one that kind of sparked this, looks to be something that Rithwik Aryan paid to have written. The article lists 12 authors the outlet says went through extreme situations to put out iconic works. Aryan is listed alongside George Orwell, Cheryl Strayed, Elisabeth Gilbert, Laura Hillenbrand, Jon Krakauer, Anthony Doerr, Maya Angelou, Victor Hugo, Yann Martel, and Zora Neale Hurston. All of them are all pretty darn noteworthy. Meanwhile Aryan is included for a book that was released about two months prior and received a fairly small amount of coverage. I mean, I'm really uncomfortable considering the site reliable for reviews based on the presence of negative ones, not when the site is clearly doing undisclosed sponsored puff pieces.
I don't want the site to be considered reliable purely because AI detectors may be faulty. Again, aside from AI concerns the site is known for being biased, spreading misinformation, is clearly engaging in undisclosed paid praise pieces, and is seen as a joke by other news outlets. I don't think that we should be using them for anything, not even reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the site, so I do not have an opinion on its reliability or accuracy. When I saw the question, I remembered that there were existing entries at perennial sources regarding LLM content and undisclosed advertising in Indian media, which would be relevant to the question. Looking at the Wikipedia page for the source (assuming the page is accurate), I would at least describe it a generally unreliable. Mitchsavl (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd like to see more evidence. Other news outlets have a vested interest in denigrating their competitors, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Evidence pointing towards it being unreliable:
They don't fact check or try to do due diligence when reporting. They make sloppy mistakes that have resulted in lawsuits.
In 2008 they ran a photo of a former judge of the Supreme Court of India in an article about a funding scam, stating that the photo was of someone who was allegedly involved. The judge was not involved and they had used his photo because his name was a sound-alike. Times Now tried fighting the fine, claiming it was only up for seconds, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against them. If they'd done due diligence they'd have easily discovered that it wasn't the same person.
On at least one occasion the News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) has forced them to issue an apology. In 2018 they ran a biased news story about an activist. She complained, as they did not try to reach out to her for any information. The case almost made it to the Supreme Court, but the NBSA made a ruling before that and ordered Times Now issue an on-air apology.
They have been reprimanded several times for violating the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards for misrepresenting facts and issuing biased reporting.
An example here would be that in 2021 they reported that the Pakistan Air Force was hovering over some land in Afghanistan. The video in question was a three month old video of a F-15 belonging to the US Air Force.
The outlet, along with Republic TV, was the focus of a case study about the Love Jihad conspiracy theory. The study highlights the various ways that the channels manipulated facts and viewers to further the conspiracy theory. The channel was one of the reasons the conspiracy theory grew in popularity and is even highlighted in the Wikipedia article for the conspiracy. Their part in things has been noted in places like this, this, and this. For specific quotes from the above case study you can check out this section.
Other groups that have called Times Now out include the non-profit fact checking website Alt News and media watchdog Newslaundry. Neither are media outlets and they presumably do not stand to gain anything by calling them out.
Now there's evidence that they are engaging in undisclosed paid puff pieces, as evidenced by the "12 authors" article I linked above.
So in this case, we have a media outlet that is widely criticized for sloppy, biased reporting where they misrepresent sourcing in an attempt to further various viewpoints. The undisclosed paid vanity articles is also an issue. Between the two, can we really trust anything that comes from their site? The prior discussion about Republic TV leaned towards it being unreliable for anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
I just came across Times Now at Harvey Levin. Given the quality of that report and how they've deliberately twisted the wording to be sensational, they at least shouldn't be used for anything contentious in BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 15:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Sitrick called Levin a good friend, that's all there is to say. Do you think that's the spin the report is trying to put across? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 20:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
Looks like a bias problem, no? Alaexis¿question? 06:47, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Its also worth noting the authors made the following disclosure:
There is no allegation of wrongdoing against Levin, and the documents do not suggest he was involved in any criminal activity.
While such a disclosure does not by itself liberate the article bias or discrimination, it is relatively early in the article. I would say calling out a person is a bit misleading, especially since many people just read the headlines, but wouldn't make it false. Mitchsavl (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
Its not false or bias, it's sensational tabloid reporting. The kind of stuff that shouldn't be used for BLPs, see WP:TABLOID. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 10:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
What do you think about its use with non-BLP stuff like reviews? I've seen other tabloids with similar issues get deemed unreliable for anything, like the WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:GLOBALTIMES. I just figure that if a site can't be trusted for anything else, particularly if its because of biased viewpoint and misinformation, that they shouldn't be trusted for things that seem relatively benign, like reviews. Can we really trust that a positive or negative review isn't just them furthering a viewpoint? It also feels like by using them for some things, it might cause people to assume that they're reliable for other things, even if they're listed as unusable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
If you're including the TOI main website in this there are many hundreds of their film reviews used on Wikipedia so i'd like to see some specific evidence of unreliability / bias of the film reviews. From my own experience reviewing hundreds of Indian film articles I can't recall any TOI reviews that seemed unprofessional or much out of line with the general consensus of reviews regarding the particular film, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Protos
I want to use this article by Protos for Draft:Tai Lopez but I'm not sure of its reliability. From what I see, the site primarily focuses on crypto-related topics, taking a somewhat critical view. Nighfidelity (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I think there's a typo in your link (As it goes to a 404 page) and you mean this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Protos should avoided, especially for BLPs. It is slightly more reliable than other notable crypto outlets, but it's still very much inside the pro-crypto bubble and has most of the problems with that industry. The about page's gushing praise of "the digital money revolution" and oddball pseudo-populism directly interferes with their claimed commitment to "unshakable integrity". Being willing to say some unflattering things about cryptocurrency isn't, by itself, enough to make a source reliable. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Nighfidelity (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Blueprint: Review
This source was brought up at an AfD and is one of those things that could help keep an article. There was some question about its reliability, so I thought to bring it here. I had initially brought it here to justify its use as a RS, but while researching it for here, I found something that is concerning that actually makes me think otherwise.
I was initially supportive as the review site has been used as a source in academic/scholarly sources like Polity Press, Taylor & Francis, and Liverpool University Press. It's not super heavily used, but enough to where if not for the issues, I'd probably argue for its use.
The issue came when I started researching its parent organization, the Blueprint: Film Foundation (which is present as a link at the bottom of their website), which is now called Blueprint Arts. The review site is specifically pop culture related, while the main organization runs various programs and projects, which presumably also includes the review website.
What changed my stance completely was the discovery of this page, where the parent organization talks about their bespoke arts marketing. This led me down the rabbit hole to another link on the main review page to Blueprint Film, which is an outright marketing firm. None of the sites outright state "pay us and we will write about and review your film", but the language does give off the strong impression that this is one of the services offered. It's just not listed on the website. One of staff members for the marketing firm has done a review for the film website, which definitely raises an eyebrow.
So the situation here is that we have a site that at first glance appeared great and reliable, but looks to be part of a marketing firm that is only slightly transparent about how they go about things.
What's everyone's stance on this? This would be an obviously unreliable for me, but the use in academic/scholarly sources just gave me a bit of pause. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I think this is right to raise eyebrows, I note that the Brand page makes it more clear that they are in the business of making brand promotion videos. I would not take their reviews of at least these kind of videos as reliable. Based on their Professional services I would not take anything they say about topics related to "Gravesham Borough Council’s Light Festival and Fringe Festival" as reliable. Other's I would take on a case by case basis. Czarking0 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
So would you say that any of the reviews are usable or ones that are more obviously brand promotion? The reason I ask is that the bespoke arts marketing page for the parent organization is a bit vague. It kind of looks like it's more for cultural events, but it also seems like it's not limited to that either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
They're probably reliable for statistical information being a database of sports information. That article could definitely use more sources, especially ones that provide significant coverage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 21:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Sports Reference is reliable for statistics, teams played for, numbers, and the like. It's widely used across the baseball, football, basketball, and ice hockey wikiprojects. TheKip(contribs) 17:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Reviewit.pk
Previously discussed (briefly) here in 2024. Would like to get a consensus that this is not reliable. As stated in the last discussion, it looks like promotional (likely paid) churnalism. It is clear by the disclaimer on the website they have no editorial oversite ("The content on reviewit.pk is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. Some articles may include opinions, rumors, or speculative content, especially in the context of showbiz and celebrity news. We strive for accuracy, but we do not guarantee 100% factual accuracy at all times."). It is used to support facts on over 300 pages in Wikipedia. CNMall41 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I believe the user submitted part is about comments on articles, rather than user generated articles. The disclaimer is the typical "you can't use us" wording. You will find something similar on most sites, it's not an indicator of reliability. My opinion hasn't changed since the last time, it's a typical celebrity gossip site, low quality and shouldn't be anywhere near anything controversial in a BLP. However they're probably reliable for basic facts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 18:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I initially thought that too but pointed it out since they says "(e.g. comments)" indicating it could be more than just comments. Another thing to note is how the writers have no byline, no pic, and publish multiple articles (sometimes five or more) per day. Here is an example. Could be similar to a WP:RSNOI and WP:RSNON. It may be time to create one for RSNOP.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Unreliable per discussions and evidence given. Maybe someone can find it being used by reliable sources? Currently, 324 uses in English Wikipedia. --Hipal (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I found a Reddit thread and a bunch of social media but no one talking about the publication itself in the media or citing it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Is Tailem.com a reliable source for this edit to Kid Rock?
Looks like it was written by a large-language model, so probably not. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
If it's not AI itsbtbe opinion of a relatively new website that lacks any use by others, I wouldn't say it's reliable in context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 09:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. Someone already reverted it. Doug Wellertalk 12:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Is Indiaweekly.biz a reliable source?
I was questioned about this in a WP:GAN and was wondering the publisher which is Asian Media Group and owns WP:RS sources like
easterneye.biz. please let me know TheArchitectOfYe (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The outlet (India Weekly) isn't really super covered anywhere and it's also not listed at WP:ICTFSOURCES. If it's deemed usable (or not) then this should get included there.
The about page says that it started as a newspaper in 1965. I do see mention of a newspaper of the same name, but it's unclear if that's the same newspaper. It looks like it might have been, since a search for the creator's name (Tarapada Basu) does show up in the source. Not sure if that would mean that the current incarnation is reliable, but it does mean that it existed prior to the website. Of note is that there may be some false positives as The Pioneer went by "Pioneer Mail and India Weekly News" at one point and appears to be unrelated to India Weekly in specific.
In any case, I checked the website for anything that would mark it as obviously unusable. Their terms and conditions page does mention branded and sponsored content, but says that they will be clearly labeled. Them doing this doesn't make them automatically reliable, but it is a good sign. If they didn't have this, then it would be instantly considered unreliable. They also have staff bios, which is also a good sign.
I don't have much more than that, but I figured that I'd add in what I could find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
It's not a false positive. I think it was acquired by AMG early on when it founded Garavi Gujarat. The who we are page of AMG lists itself as the publisher of India Weekly and not just owner of the website.
The three AMG papers look like reliable well-established diaspora originating sources whether Garavi Gujarat (www.garavigujarat.biz), Eastern Eye (www.easterneye.biz) or India Weekly. I think Garavi Gujarat may be particularly good due to the lack of good Gujarati language vernacular news sources. Omen2019 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
TweakTown for use within biographical articles
Hello everyone, I was working on assessing sources for Draft:Plainrock124 when I came across this article. I checked if there has been discussion on the reliability of this source and Tweaktown is listed on WP:VG/UNREL. I looked at the linked discussion and this listing was primarily as a result of @Woodroar's concerns with rewritten content and affiliate links.
This specific topic has that been covered by TweakTown was covered by many other sources, but TweakTown is 1 has a significantly larger character count than the others. Additionally, this isn't a product review or anything similar, so there is no paid promo as far as I can tell. Given that they do have a posted editorial policy, should Tweaktown be allowed for use within biographical articles? TansoShoshen (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd consider TweakTown a content farm, unreliable for all content, and especially for claims about living persons. They put in the minimal effort to rewrite or paraphrase or describe other online content, that's all. Here they describe a tweet and quote its replies, then they mention some YouTube channel stats. Oh, and they add a TL;DR summary, for anyone who can't be bothered to read 6 sentences. The kicker for me is when they write PlainRock didn't provide any further context on what got him specifically banned from the store. An actual reliable source would have reached out to PlainRock or the store for that context. Woodroar (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Decision Desk HQ reliability
Decision Desk HQ today made the wrong call in the Democratic primary race for New Jersey's 11th district. This was then covered by multiple outlets as candidate Tom Malinowski having won, and subsequently this made its way into his wikipedia page. For example, this article - https://www.insidernj.com/mejia-dogfight-malinowski-cd-11-as-mejia-surges-into-first-place/. Or articles like this, which the URL shows originally were quite differently written - https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-government-news/new-jerseys-tom-malinowski-wins-primary-for-suburban-house-seat
This is not DDHQ's first mistake, in 2018 it made a notable mistake, projecting David Valadao would win, although in that case AP also had to retract its projection - https://www.270towin.com/news/2018/11/21/gop-wins-ga-7-while-ca-21-is-now-too-close-to-call_719.html. They have main multiple other mistakes since, such as in 2022, or in the 2025 Seattle mayoral election. In that one particularly, their call was criticized, and a local outlet they had partnered with decided not to display it at the time. I believe they should not be used as the sole basis for calling elections, and articles or sites that rely on them when declaring a winner should be taken with similar caution. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 04:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Why would Wikipedia ever need to "call" an election? We would (or should) wait until the result is confirmed. We aren't a news ticker. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia will say which candidate won an election. Elections typically take weeks to be certified, even if the results are not in dispute. Especially considering many editors race to be the first to add an update, it seems extremely unlikely editors will be willing to wait those weeks. What do you mean by "the result is confirmed"? For many, race calls are that confirmation. That's why I think it's important to recognize that those flaws can be flawed, and for some organizations significantly more than others. But if you know of a broader policy Wikipedia has on when to edit articles to write down the winners of races, please share. Perhaps attributing any calls, or whatnot Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Editors could wait until multiple sources have called the election, and there is more certainty about the result, rather than just relying on the first source to make the call. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 20:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I would say that Decision Desk HQ enjoys a strong reputation for what it does, but Wikipedia shouldn't be in the position of citing projections for the basis of whether someone has won an election. Mackensen(talk) 13:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
DDHQ (which I interned for in 2016) adopted a very aggressive strategy to get their name out by calling races first. They didn't have a reputation to lose yet, so there wasn't much risk. This paid off massively for a while, especially calling 2020 a day or so before the networks. A fair amount of luck was involved. I expect them to pull back now as a more established player, facing the same incentives as the networks. Anyway the other editors are right, we should never cite projections as fact anyway. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Even RS are wrong occasionally. The key thing is that they correct their mistakes publicly. DDHQ seems RS to me. In polling and modeling, you're bound to get things wrong occasionally depending on your error tolerance. EvergreenFir(talk) 20:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Hmm. That's fair. I guess we just disagree here. Or rather, I think the error tolerance they have here is irresponsibly large. For me, it's not so much about making a mistake once in a blue moon. It's about their aim of being first, leading to a pattern of calls that were considered risky at the time. The thing I consider most significant is when the local paper they teamed up with in Seattle reversed course right after their call, before it was known to be wrong Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
I was disappointed to read this, but looking at the edit history for Tom Malinowski seems to show that it was only done by one editor and only for a period of three minutes. That wasn't the impression I got from "subsequently this made its way into his wikipedia page" given how brief it showed up.
In any case, it is usually best to lean to how the last main election article handled it. I believe it was either three or five specific sources in agreement for the 2024 election. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
PPL Institute article Who Are You Talking To? The Discernment of AI and Human Content on Social Media
Interesting source was brought up on Talk:Dead Internet theory, and I want to bring it up here to see what others think.
Looking at the organizations home page it states:
Note: The PPL Institute is a prototype of a research and education non-profit organization. The prototype is currently in phase one.
Looking at the authors of the paper, two, Ryan R. Rajpal and Alexis R. Grayon are listed on the About us page, with Rajpal appearing as the director of the organization. Ryan R. Rajpal credentials are:
"He holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and philosophy from Rutgers University, where he graduated summa cum laude and with the highest honors in political science."
Alexis Grayon's credentials are:
"Alexis received their Bachelor of Science in Biomolecular Science from New York University and their Master of Public Health in Environmental Health Sciences and Molecular Epidemiology from Columbia University."
Frankly, I believe this entire thing looks like a self published blog dressed up to look like an academic publishing venue by some graduate students (If true, I understand the publish or perish mentality, but this has a bad look). Looking for more opinions though, so if I'm correct this discussion can be referred back to when the article is inevitably brought up again by the theory advocates. If I'm incorrect we can begin incorporating information from the article. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
A brand new think tank with no reviews of their output as of yet, so I wouldn't be using their pieces at this point, and especially not for any major claims. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
If they were a bit more established, they could be considered a subject matter expert, which may be considered as a reliable self published source. If it is a new source, it may be impossible to establish that a) the people listed have the relevant credentials, and b) the people listed are actually the people behind it. The internet makes impersonation and falsification a trivial task, or at least until there is sufficient evidence otherwise. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Is The Irish Times a reliable source?
I was surprised to see that The Irish Times, a major newspaper published in Dublin since 1859, is not included in the perennial sources list. Thriley (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:RSNP is a list of sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of sources, and if the reliability of the Irish Times hasn't been questioned, there is no reason why it should be there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I see. I've never stared a discussion here. Currently RTÉ is the only Irish news org marked as generally reliable. I thought a second one labeled that would be helpful. Thriley (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Attempting to compile an exhaustive list of reliable sources (or of unreliable ones for that matter) would be a fools' errand. That isn't the purpose of the list. It is there to indicate consensus on sources we've discussed in depth, most commonly because reliability (sometimes in regard to a particular topic) has been a matter of debate. If a source is being frequently cited, as the Irish Times is, and it's reliability hasn't been questioned, I think it is reasonably safe to assume that it needn't be, at least by the standards applied to newspapers. As always, 'reliability' depends on context, but I'd think that most western/central European 'newspapers of record' would be deemed generally reliable, and it would only be the exceptions that might find themselves on the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Some could argue that Wikipedia is an eternal fools' errand. A brief discussion confirming that it is indeed a reliable source isn't wasted time. But that's from me, someone who isn't deeply familiar with the format of discussions on this page. From a Google search I made before posting here, the overview stated that it is "often described as having a left-liberal or centrist-leaning perspective." I thought that would be something best discussed here and not left entirely to AI. Thriley (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
It's political standing is completely irrelevant, bias isn't reliability as per policy (see WP:RSBIAS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 00:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
We don't base our reliability assessments on Google's search engine comments. We shouldn't be basing anything on such comments. Search engines aren't WP:RS, and in any case, reliability in Wikipedia's terms is something that only Wikipedia contributors can determine. We may take into consideration what relevant WP:RS has to say about a source when coming to our decision, but the decision is ours, and may come down to editorial judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
If that bias has influenced coverage, that should be discussed. Thriley (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
All sources have biases. Beyond that, if there is a specific issue with the Irish Times being cited in a particular place, we can discuss it. We don't engage in pointless debates over vague unspecified suggestions of 'bias'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The perennial sources list is a log of discussions that have happened here, not a exhaustive list of reliable or unreliable sources. Unless someone is questioning the reliability of the Irish Times there is no need to have any discussion about it. As to RTE it should never have been added to the RSP as it doesn't meet WP:RSPCRITERIA, I've deleted the entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 00:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
To give my post context, I am beginning the process of getting Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live to FA. I've noticed many news orgs lacking in their coverage, particularly in detailing O'Connor's struggle with childhood abuse and mental illness and also the strength she found in Rastafarianism. This issue exists in material published immediately after her performance as well as in the articles published years later. As I start to pick through sources, particularly in Irish news, I want to be aware that I could be using sources that have a bias. I went to the source list and saw no Irish Times, so I came here. Thriley (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
You are asking whether a source is biased in the context of an article in which it isn't even cited? If that isn't the definition of a pointless question, I don't know what is. If you think there is anything in the Irish Times that might be relevant to the article, either add it yourself, or if you think it might be contentious, start a discussion on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I try to edit in good faith. Please try to be less rude. Thriley (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
That's Andy in polite mode. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Ah I see. I appreciate it somewhat. Too many Gruff and Grumps have been banned. Thriley (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I really didn't expect to see anything about this paper that made me question it, but seeing this article from Le Monde makes me think it would be worth the time for editors to have a look at potential problems: The 'Irish Times' mistakenly publishes fake article written by AI I know this does happen, but seems to becoming more common as paper's dump staff, don't bother to do any copy editing, and slowly hire a new generation of journalists that are addicted to short form videos. All Western papers of record are going to have problems if they don't already. We can't pretend that the standards followed yesterday are the ones followed tomorrow. Thriley (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
That was in 2023, the article was withdrawn within hours and the newspaper apologised, which is what we would expect to see from a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
For infos about exams and colleges in India is Siksha a reliable source?
Referring to this website which focuses on posting infos of about colleges and competitive exams like Joint Entrance Examination for example this blog post -- Dagoofybloke⋆˙⟡talk? ๋࣭⭑ 12:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
DiscussingFilm
This website shows up as not having a consensus on its reliability. An RS/N discussion from 2020 didn't result in any meaningful consensus or much information beyond a writer also having a history writing for Digital Spy. I am currently using this article as a source for a draft I am working on. It goes into a lot of detail, the author Salazar actually being the co-owner of the site itself. Their about us page doesn't offer much information, however the team page does have some writers that have written for reliable sites, such as Guy Dolbey for Inverse (1) and Ernesto Valenzuela for SlashFilm (1). I personally can't find a page that details editorial policy, but based on everything else I think they can be considered reliable or at the very least marginally reliable. 11WB (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The article cited is very much opinion, and should be noted as such if it is cited. I'd be wary of over-using it as a source for that reason alone. Where we cite opinion, we should be looking for balance amongst sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm surprised by this. It doesn't strike me as a blatant opinion piece. 11WB (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Film criticism is generally opinion. 'Blatant' doesn't really come into it since that is what one expects from a film critic: it is what they are expected to provide. Beyond that, since you haven't made any indication as to what you intend to use the source for (beyond the brief passage cited in your draft, which seems ok, though would maybe need marking as Salazar's interpretation if other sources haven't made similar assessments) it is hard to say what is appropriate: I advised against over-use, rather than stating it couldn't be used at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I did say I have used that source for a draft I am currently working on. To be more specific however, that article has been used in the appearances section of the location the draft is about. It is used to verify plot specific information, rather than reception. It would be good to get some input on this website in general however, rather than this specific article alone. 11WB (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Per their Contact Us page, they aren't interested in advertising or SEO content at this time. I also don't see any sign that they did in the past - I even looked at the page in Wayback. That's a good sign. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Looks like they have an award, but no one seems to cover it so at bare minimum that award wouldn't count towards notability. Other than that, the outlet did receive some brief mention at GQ and Variety highlighted an interview they did with Kevin Feige.
Offhand they seem to be reliable, but of course I would hesitate for anything that would be controversial. You'd want something a bit more solid than that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The Hill reliability for breaking news
On this noticeboard The Hill is rated generally reliable. This is sourced to 10 discussions. However, looking through them, most seem to only mention The Hill very tangentially, and none go into much depth, with the possible exception of number 8. All of these discussions are also several years old. I think The Hill is likely generally reliable for statements of fact that have been firmly established, though I hold that opinion somewhat tentatively. However, when it comes to breaking news, they have a history of having to make corrections. More worryingly, they do not disclose what changes they make when they make them, even when completely rewriting an article, as this URL shows - https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5724818-tom-malinowski-wins-nomination/. Because of this, it's somewhat hard to judge their reliability. I will note that Media Bias/Fact Check lists them as mostly biased "they have rushed to publish breaking news that needed to be corrected or removed in the past". MBFC should be used with caution, so take that or leave it. This article also notes errors in the past. In it The Hill attributed the errors to one employee, who left before this latest mistake - https://thedesk.net/2025/04/olafimihan-oshin-the-hill-discipline-settlement-nexstar/Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Media Bias/Fact Check itself is unreliable. Cortador (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
This is easily solved by not adding breaking news to articles, regardless of the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 13:58, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
you're right, thanks for pointing me to the specific policy! Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Afaik The Hill is mostly neutral and avoids sensationalism, except for its talk show Rising which should probably never be cited, as with any other news talk show. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:03, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Agreed on Rising, and that should probably be noted in the consensus. I have seen people try to use Rising before with The Hill's reliability as justification. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Support adding specific mention of The Rising’s unreliability to RSP entry as I’ve also seen editors trying to use it for dodgy claims. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
The rewrites aren't great, but besides that this is a problem inherent to breaking news sources, which is why they should be used sparingly. I've written an essay on this at User:Thebiguglyalien/Avoid contemporary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
How to see in how many pages a source was used?
Hello there, while checking the sources used in an article at pt:Ovocitação I noticed that this and other similar articles in many languages are constantly edited by paid agents of fertility clinics to promote certain websites.
I think https://www.profecund.com and https://walnuthillobgyn.com might be such sources. The guidelines on top of this page tell me to only ask for a blacklist if the source is widely used, however, I don't know how to check this. Morgueço|Morgueco(he/him) 🦇 🇧🇷 talk • contributions 08:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
If you look at/hover over the LinkSearch lines in your meta link you can see how to search for external links. Or have a look at Help:Linksearch. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
If the spam is cross wiki, consider asking for addition to the global blocklist, instructions are located at m:Spam blacklist/About. JumpytooTalk 07:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
It turned out they weren't widely mentioned, probably it was a translate-assisted edit that forked from an older version of the en article. Morgueço|Morgueco(he/him) 🦇 🇧🇷 talk • contributions 08:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Primary or secondary? Reliable sources recapping TV episodes
What to make about articles recapping TV episodes, like People magazine summarizing a Bake Off season finale, E! article recapping The Amazing Race episode, Entertainment Weekly recapping Survivor? Not just nonfiction, what about fictional ones, like AV Club recapping Stranger Things, NBC News op-ed recapping Game of Thrones, CBS Detroit recapping Breaking Bad?
Are they primary sources, secondary, both, or....? Not trying to question their reliability, but reading WP:GNG makes me wonder whether I should treat recaps as if they're primary sources, "secondary" sources summarizing and/or detailing primary sources (e.g. episodes), or... George Ho (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Not just both but possibly both with the same article. If they do nothing other than restate the contents of the episode then that would be primary, but summarisation requires at least some analysis and that analysis would be secondary. The ones from more reputable sources are likely to always, or nearly always, contain some secondary content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 16:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I think it makes sense that they'd get a youth to review a children's game show, and given that it was put in the paper at all, it was likely held to the same editorial standards as the content written by staff and/or professional journalists. In this context, is it still a reliable source?
It's reliable publication. I don't see why being 12 should discredit a review. That would be ageism.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I think that it could be usable for uncontroversial claims like details of the show's format, and would expect that it was held to similar editorial standards of accuracy, etc. Reading through this review in particular, I'm a little less certain it should be considered WP:SIGCOV and/or cited in the Reception section, given the threadbare nature of the review (brief description of the show's format, puffery in the form "if you love game shows...this is the show for you", and then a 2.5/4 star verdict that does not explain in the slightest what caused the reviewer to dock 1.5 stars). Reading the review, I genuinely don't know what the reviewer actually thought of the show herself. That the reviewer is 12 is irrelevant; that they write like a 12-year-old, and thereby don't provide the kind of analysis we would look for in a review, isn't. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
I've never counted the kids reviews when searching for reviews for books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
It's reliable, but I wouldn't call the article a review for notability purposes. As per Rosguill, the article reads more like a description of the show than an actual review. JumpytooTalk 07:19, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Comment: Typically no, these reviews are not usable. In most cases they don't receive any substantial editorial oversight other than spelling and grammar, as the goal isn't to analyze the work but rather to encourage children to write and because it's cute. It's pretty rare for any children's writing to undergo any rigorous editorial oversight. The only teen publication that I can think of that does editorial oversight is Teen Ink and that's specifically for the magazine because they do have some editors specifically for that. Even then, there's a question of quality and if it's the strongest possible source.
My rule of thumb is that they can't be used to establish notability unless it's something truly exceptional, like if a kid wrote for a major piece for the NYT (ie, not a kid's column but an article published as one would by an adult). It's of dubious usability for backing up non-controversial claims, because we don't know if their information is correct or not. They could have done proper research or they could be basing it off their own memories, which can be faulty. Of course there's a risk of this with adults as well, but the average journalist is going to be more likely to try to be accurate because it's literally their job. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:47, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Is Black Catholic Messenger notable?
Curious to know others inputs on this ongoing AfD and if theres any established notability.
This page is for the reliability of sources, editors may give you advice on whether a source helps with notability. If you're looking for extra input for the AfD you might be better off posting to a related project page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 20:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Is Gurufocus a reliable source for company analysis
At Talk:ValueAct_Capital#requestedit a COI editor has proposed using GuruFocus to verify facts about their company. My investigation of this source makes me question its reliability. This is due to what seems to be routine reporting of company filings that very much could be AI generated. Their home page is an ad which is atypical for reliable sources. Czarking0 (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Excerpts from their disclaimers:
"The information on this site is in no way guaranteed for completeness, accuracy or in any other way." - Making such a guarantee would not be a good idea, even the best journalists, professors etc. can make glaring mistakes.
"The individuals or entities selected as "gurus" may buy and sell securities before and after any particular article and report and information herein is published, with respect to the securities discussed in any article and report posted herein. Gurus may be added or dropped from the GuruFocus site at any time." - This suggests that editors may potentially have a conflict of interest. I am not familiar with this industry and don't know if this is a standard disclaimer used.
Their about page looks decent, and appears genuine. They have a partner program, which is based on referring people to payments on their site for a 20% commission, but that appears to be the extent of it. I was unable to find an editorial policy (though having one does not mean it is followed, it would still be symbolic of trust and not having one is makes me question why they didn't bother).
I hope this info helps! Mitchsavl (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Czarking0, GuruFocus mostly provides statistical and analytical information for investors that is not a particularly good fit for Wikipedia. I see some use by reliable sources, but not very much. In general, I would be hesitant to cite GuruFocus, but use may be appropriate in some cases. Since GuruFocus covers the entire market, it does not contribute to notability. Postings by gurus should not be used unless the gurus are subject matter experts, and then only with in-text attribution.
For the particular edits requested here, I would not use GuruFocus. The article in question is an analysis of a Form 13F filing, and it is not clear where they got the activist investor information. I also note that the one comment on the article states: “Article seems to have a few glaring errors including the percentage of a reduction in positions and numbers of shares sold... someone at gurufocus should do a quick QC on this one.”
I note that the COI edit request also relied on Institutional Investor, which is fine as a reliable source. John M Baker (talk) 04:24, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Self made Map
The image is here, a self made map. Do you think this is reliable to be used on wikipedia articles? Per the creator of the map, texts from various sources were used to draw this map. Question comes down to a) factual accuracy? b) verification? c) are all kingdoms/towns factually located? e) reliable sources? Are all borders factually accurate? d) are all kingdoms/towns factually named? Please share opinions. RangersRus (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on maps is really, really bad. This example is an extreme example, but most or our maps are making some basic cartographic errors, are poorly sourced, and if they were text would be considered synthesis or blatant original research. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
my thoughts too synthesis or blatant original research. RangersRus (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
If we were applying original research policy to images we wouldn't be allowed to have any non-historical images at all, maps or otherwise. The act of producing an illustrative work, photography or otherwise, is "original research", whether it is taking a photograph of a celebrity (after all we have no secondary source that says it is that celebrity) as much as making a map is. As long as the sources check out it is fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Images that are used for illustration are held to a different standard than images that are used for information. The problem with maps is that they can fall into both categories (illustration and information) simultaneously. Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
I would say that a user created map should be fine, as long as the information is properly sourced, such as to other maps, databases with specific coordinates etc. For historical maps such as this one, there would be complexities as, prior to modern measuring and recording equipment, finding a precise location would be near impossible.
The page on commons lists a large variety of sources (of which I know nothing about), and if those sources contain maps, coordinates etc, and are reliable sources, then I would say a self made map can be used. I would still prefer a map which is not self made, but in many situations, this may be impossible for copyright reasons, or they are not of a suitable quality.
I would suggest asking around at WikiProject Maps, whose editors would be well versed in consensus around this topic. In fact, I think I may go and notify them of this conversation now. Mitchsavl (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
There is this source on Durrani Empire map. Supposedly reliable source but the creator of the self made map called this sourced map "poor to reality". In own words It is unfortunately, poor to reality (and rather simple) as you suggested. To list a few errors (with the iranica map) among many; The Durranis never controlled Wakhan, and rarely exercised control over Badakhshan, only intermittently. They also did not control Chitral nor Kafiristan. So the creator said he used texts from various sources to create a map of his own. The green color looks like the shades depicting Durrani Empire but I just picked one town "Ladakh" to search the sources (as many as I could that were from historians) if it was ever under the empire in 1765 but I did not find any such reference. How are we to believe that the map is not WP:SYNTH? Some sources listed are unreliable and primary like "Ayn-al-Vayaqi", "Katib Hazarah" and many like these. I haven't even looked at other towns yet. RangersRus (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
All images used for illustration are informing you of something. An image of a squirrel informs you of what a squirrel looks like. An image of a celebrity informs you of what the celebrity looks like. We have WP:IMAGEOR that explicitly says images are not covered by this unless they advance new arguments. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Given that the map consists entirely of a 'new argument', as documented by the map's own creator, who explicitly documents the multiple sources from which it was synthesised, WP:IMAGEOR rules out its use. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm not defending this image specifically, because I don't know how well the sources back up what is shown, but as to the general idea IMAGEOR says unpublished ideas or arguments. If you read a source about geography and then distill what you read into an image that is not OR, it is not presenting an unpublished idea or argument, any more than taking an image is. After all, there is no published source that explicitly says the image you took is of what you took it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Maps are a bit more complex then images and our policy is not adequate to address them. Map communication model and Critical cartography, are both interesting reads related to this, and How to Lie with Maps is a great book that discusses the problems around them in an excellent and digestible way (You can download at least part of an old edition from the authors ResearchGate here). Maps can serve many functions, but one view is that they are models of reality, and can serve as a scientific hypothesis that is tested every time the map is used. An extreme view on this can be seen in William Bunge's book Theoretical Geography, where he defines maps as a subset of mathematics. The critical cartographers (I'm not a member of their school of thought, but I keep up with their rambles) generally reject empirical views of cartography and believe maps reflect the bias of the cartographer as well as underlying power structures. The act of creating a map from this view is making an argument. While the quantitative geographers and critical cartographers really don't get along most of the time, they would both agree a map is more then just an image. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Accepting critical theory here for the sake of argument by this logic would we not just entirely ban maps to be compliant with WP:NPOV? If no map can show anything of empirical value, then we can't use any. If we're using an out of copyright map, we're dealing with the NPOV views of that time, if we're using a US government map we're spouting off US government propaganda, same with the UN. So we have no maps to use.
And a map is information, sure, an image is not just visual, but I disagree that maps are extra special vs any other kind of visual. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
World ocean map
In terms on maintaining a neutral point of view, I would say that with a modern border, that recognised by a majority of countries would comply, as is the case with other generally accepted information. Notable disputes would have to be noted, and there are some ways to show multiple borders on the same map. A map showing mainland Australia, for example, is something that almost everyone agrees on, and would qualify as NPOV, whereas a map of the borders between oceans is disputed, and one single map may not be enough to cover all points of view. Certain solutions exist, such as the use of a gif. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
@PARAKANYAA, this is why it is important to cite our sources. We can absolutely use U.S., U.N., or really any map from a reputable source, but we need to clearly state the source just like anything else. Merging together several sources, making modifications to the underlying data ourselves, or creating new maps all together is OR. Currently, citation practices on our maps are abysmal. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Ok, but then they aren't NPOV to use for facts, we would be presenting the opinion of an organization, not a fact. So we cannot use maps for any purpose where we are trying to represent objective reality. This is going to be almost none of our current uses for maps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
We need to cite everything on Wikipedia. We cite the U.S. government for population statistics, the CDC for disease stats, peer reviewed journal discussion sections, textbooks, news articles, etc., these are all reliant on the government being transparent and accurate. "Objective reality" is not the best way to think of what maps are showing, the most quantitative positivist view them as models and simplifications of reality. For example cartographic generalization is used to actually get the information onto a visual representation; a map designed to be seen at a global scale will have more generalized borders then one at a regional scale. Further, the concept of a border isn't "Objective reality," it is a human construct. According to some countries, Morocco has annexed Western Sahara, others say it is disputed. Kashmir appears differently on Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese maps. Whatever set of borders we use, we need to cite whose world view we are using. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
If you read a source about geography and then distill what you read into an image that is not OR. That isn't what has been done with the map though. It is made by distilling multiple sources into a single map. This is synthesis. Nobody could recreate the map from a single source. Or, for that matter, with the same results from the multiple sources cited, I strongly suspect, though that isn't really relevant. The map is an image of nothing but the map creator's own personal interpretation of multiple sources. Per core Wikipedia policy, we leave such interpretation and synthesis to WP:RS. We don't do it ourselves, regardless of whether we are writing text, or creating a map. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The map is an image of nothing but the map creator's own personal interpretation of multiple sources Just to note, this is in line with the critical cartography view point on what a map is in general, and why our policies break down when cartography comes up. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
(I am reviewing the article where the map appeared) I am of the same opinion as @AndyTheGrump. At very least to evaluate a map, we need to have a similar enough map from a WP:RS to compare with, i.e., a solid point of reference. Otherwise, it becomes to challenging to evaluate from text sources. Countries claim sovereignty and even go to war over maps. So we need apply a similar level of scrutiny in maps as we do in text sources. Btw We need to distinguish when we talk about geography over political/area of influence/battle maps. I talk about the latter. A.Cython(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
On the topic of boundaries countries go to war over, I've been trying to sound the alarm wherever it comes up: A lot of our orthological locator maps are very poorly sourced, and might have user generated boundaries. Example is the one from South Sudan. One of many issues we have is that we don't have an agreed upon "reliable source" for boundaries, or a way to easily update them when changes are made to the source. This has lead to a lot of heated discussions over maps from the U.S. government that show Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara. South Sudan (orthographic projection) highlightedGeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
We're never going to have solid agreement on borders as long as there are borders. What are you expecting? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Citations for the borders we are using. That is what I'm expecting. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I am not well versed in the history of cartography, take the following with a large grain of salt.
The problem with historical maps is that, in most cases, exact information would be incomplete, missing, or filled with errors. Whenever a border dispute is involved, such as would be the case for historical wars and conflicts, the different perspectives may result in contradictions, and the victors of such a conflict may have the ability to destroy or alter records. You then have additional complications where geographical features shift significantly over time, as is often the case with mature rivers, major volcanic eruptions etc. As a result of these various factors, it may often be impossible to accurately create a historical map, or even find sources which agree. Mitchsavl (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
As a cartographer, if I make a map that depicts a historical event where sources either don't exist or disagree, I become the source. I make maps as part of my IRL job, it is definitely original research. Because I'm semi-anonymous here and my IRL credentials are meaningless here, I'll point to examples from Wiki. I've made several maps for various Wikipedia pages that I've tried to use fairly strict and conservative cartographic approaches on. I try to document my sources and the methods I use to manipulate the data in those sources to produce the maps so that anyone could theoretically recreate them and check my work. All maps are models (at least in the theoretical framework I subscribe to), and All models are wrong, but some are useful. They are only useful though if we follow proper cartographic conventions, document our sources and methods, and on Wikipedia follow a strict interpretation of policy. If we can't find good sources to make a map for Wikipedia, unfortunately not having a map is better then including a bad or misleading one. Unfortunately, most people do not understand cartography enough to actually know how bad the mistakes are, we have an entire category on Commons filled with maps that are characterized by polite literature as "misleading" (I can cite almost a century of peer reviewed literature and textbooks where cartographers explain why they are misleading, all while expressing frustration that no one cares to actually do basic research on how to make a map before publishing them). Rather then simply deleting them, others have argued that we should leave them until they are eventually replaced by ones using correct symbolization. No where else on Wikipedia would we leave misleading information until it is replaced with something better. Our policy is not adequate to handle maps, and the policy we do have that might apply (like cartographic conventions in the literature) is relaxed or ignored. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Please do not let our ignorance upset you. We all know that you have studied these things in detail. And we all know that the end result will be WP:OR. Let it be as he said. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Upset is not really a word I'd use, frustration maybe, but more broadly at the world/project then at any particular person. In the literature there is a particular quote: "As cartographers, therefore, it is our responsibility (though not ours alone) to ensure well-designed, data-rich maps are part of any online geographic visualization system, and to be "Internet activists" in developing good content. It is now, while the web is relatively young that we have the most opportunity to shape it." I am trying to do my part as an "Internet activist" to improve cartography on Wikipedia, in my limited capacity as an anonymous editor. On Wikipedia it is a bad word to say you are an "Activist" because WP:RGW, but I agree with Wikipedia:We are absolutely here to right great wrongs and think it applies to this kind of advocacy. Whenever the discussion about issues on maps comes up, I try and bring some attention to the issues in hopes some momentum builds for community consensus change. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The map does not consist of a new argument, it strictly follows text-based WP:RS sources. Noorullah (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
In cartography, drawing lines from historic text based sources would be publishable in a journal as original research. . . GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The map is clear and unambiguous WP:OR. It cannot be used in any article, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't think we should discourage self-made maps in and of themselves. But as has been said, they have to be sourced, and this one contains way too much information drawn from way too many sources; it's clearly synthesis (it's a beautiful work, but not suitable for Wikipedia).
I suppose the thing about maps that makes them uniquely challenging compared to text and other diagrams is that it's difficult to omit information from a map. You may have a source that says "The Empire of Alethkar contains the City of Kholinar", but you can't make a map that illustrates just that fact because the map will also inevitably imply that twenty other cities are or are not contained. For maps showing something complex like a border, I don't think it would be crazy to have a policy that requires a reliable GIS data file.
Maybe if the borders on this map were smoothed or blurred, and all of the tiny countries were removed, it would be better? Presumably the approximate size and location of this empire can be found more unambiguously in text sources. Justin Kunimune (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
A lot of the arguments here do not seperate de-jure and de-facto from reality.
-
The map pasted in question from @RangersRus is based on de-facto boundaries and borders. I.e what's owned in reality akin to what is claimed. In this notable example, the Durranis claimed control over all of Iran. Did the Durranis in reality control all of Iran? Not even laughably close. What matters is a de-facto control over a region. Not de-jure. It depicts the ground reality of the situation, not meaningless claims of sovereignty at the time that is different to reality.
-
Moreover, RangerRus's nitpicked example chooses a "town" (Ladakh is not a town, it's a Kingdom/polity). He claims that there was no such references of Ladakh being nominally under the Durrani Empire yet there are plenty, to source a few...
-
@AndyTheGrump said: "That isn't what has been done with the map though. It is made by distilling multiple sources into a single map. This is synthesis." - The map itself in question uses sources that don't dispute with each other. There isn't a source that says (x) control happened here versus (x) control never really happened! The source itself uses numerous sources because it's depicting a very vast region from Eastern Iran - Central Asia and to Northern India. Questioning the sources and usage is fine, but claiming it's incorrect for a map to be depicted on a large scale (since it relies on many sources to depict the regions) is simply not an appropriate argument.
-
Overall, maps should be created as long as there is WP:RS to attribute everything depicted accurately. In regards to the above map, I'm more than cooperative in helping by providing sources for things into question because it's well sourced and thoroughly researched/depicted without making my own summary judgement. I stuck to the sources and what they depict. Noorullah (talk) 08:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
To argue WP:SYNTH is again, baseless, since this map is strictly following sources themselves. (Mainly text-based)... Noorullah (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
He claims that there was no such references of Ladakh being nominally under the Durrani Empire yet there are plenty, to source a few. Here is what I also said, in my comment as many as I could find and you do not even have these sources listed that I was going through but still its not a good representation for a self made map that is clearly synthesized. By the way one of the author Sophie Ibbotson is a British writer, explorer, and development consultant specialising in emerging markets. She is no reliable for the history area of study. Going by what you shared just on Ladakh alone, In 1751, the tribute paid by Ladakh to Mughals, was transferred over to Durrani through representative in Kashmir. So your interpretation and depiction of Ladakh as part of Durrani Empire in 1765 as you show in the map you created, is based on just this brief mention? Yes? Does it say that Ladakh was formally or directly part of the Durrani Empire in 1765? Did empire ever annex Ladakh? Could it be that Ladakh maintained its independence and tribute was for some specific reason only? This is the problem here on why self made maps where creator uses self interpretation and depiction is clearly WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
There are other sources listed in the citations that mention Ladakh. These ones I chose from a simple search on google books (to show that there's readily references that do clearly attest this). For Sophie Ibbotson, see WP:HISTRS as to what defines historical scholarship, She's chairman of the Royal Society for Asian Affairs and has widely dived into the history of the region.
-
"is based on just this brief mention?" - Does it say otherwise? Are you saying they didn't pay tribute?, that would be WP:SYNTH. The book goes on to say that they had been paying tribute all the way until 1819, when the Sikhs conquered the region. (See Page 180)
-
"Does it say that Ladakh was formally or directly part of the Durrani Empire in 1765?" - The book clearly says they swore nominal allegiance to the governors of Kashmir (Kashmir was ruled by the Afghans and its governors were appointed by the Afghans, or were typically Afghan governors themselves (most of the time)).
-
"Could it be that Ladakh maintained its independence and tribute was for some specific reason only?" - I think you need a refresher on understanding tribute systems in this time period for Asia, much of it would typically be for realizing paramountcy of another nation.
-
Nonetheless, to conclude, none of the above is WP:SYNTH, the sources clearly establish that Ladakh recognized the Durranis nominally as their suzerains, and paid tribute. Noorullah (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
I am only going to respond to Sophie Ibbotson as unreliable and leave on others to give opinion on WP:SYNTH per the source and its content you shared. Sophie Ibbotson is not historian and has no credentials in that area. The majority of Sophie’s work is economic development consultancy through her company Maximum Exposure and the World Bank. You can read more about her in this article. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
It states in article: "Sophie writes for a variety of academic and consumer publications, focusing predominantly on Eurasia". It's important to note what qualifies for WP:HISTRS. Noorullah (talk) 15:20, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
That certainly doesn't help with reliability. Scholarly historians (she is not) ensure their work is worthy through a disciplinary practice called historiography. RangersRus (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The Ibbotson book is a travel guide published by Bradt/Sawday/Wh, who are not an academic publisher. So to build any artefact from it dealing with history (whether that be a map or article text), would be very poor practice. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Noorullah, you write that To argue WP:SYNTH is again, baseless, since this map is strictly following sources themselves. You cite 62 different sources for your map. . Can you explain how it would be remotely possible for any contributor to actually verify that the sources have been 'strictly followed', and that the sources 'don't dispute with each other'? That content be verifiable is an absolute requirement of Wikipedia, and it is blatantly obvious that a requirement to study 62 different sources in the sort of depth necessary to confirm your claims doesn't constitute 'verifiability' by any reasonable definition whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump A possible solution to this would be clearly dividing what sources were specifically dedicated/relied upon for a region. Some of these sources used are also used to reinforce others. (as in some sources cited just reiterate what is used, but more sources for the sake of it).
- Another solution is dividing the map into appropriate areas to depict a specific region. For example, if I wanted to include a focus on the Sikh Confederacy, I could split the map to focus more on that section (and subsequently include sources for solely that as the map would be focused on that area) and vice versa for other regions compared to one large grandiose map. Noorullah (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
From WP:SYN: Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. THe 'conclusion' in this case is your map (and please don't even attempt to argue that maps don't have 'conclusions'). A map you have created through synthesis from multiple sources. Any map that can't be derived from a single source is synthesis. Any map that wouldn't be arrived at by a reasonably competent contributor reading the same single source is original research. This is core Wikipedia policy, and has been for many years. If people have been getting away with WP:OR/WP:SYN with maps and similar images for years, it is only because policy hasn't been properly enforced. If you seriously want to argue that contributors should be able to synthesise maps from multiple sources, make a proper policy proposal in the appropriate place. Until then, policy stands, and your map does not belong in any Wikipedia article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
"Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." - But.. they are covered by the sources? That's the key underline here, the policy states that you can't synthesize meaning not explicitly stated by any of the sources. In this case, they are stated by the sources. You also can rarely make a map without utilizing multiple sources, and I'm sorry but your blanket proposition would see most maps on Wikipedia taken down. Noorullah (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Your map is unambiguous synthesis, created by your own personal interpretation of multiple sources, and it will remain so, regardless of how much repetitive bullshit you post claiming otherwise. As for other maps, it is blatantly obvious to anyone who take the trouble to look that maps and other images have routinely been used to insert WP:OR, synthesis, and outright misinformation into Wikipedia for decades. This needs to be stopped. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Can you explain why it is WP:OR or / WP:SYNTH without resorting to insult? See WP:NPA and remain WP:CIVIL please. The map was created through the usage of WP:RS sources, as are many maps created on Wikipedia alike. You erroneously quoted Wikipedia policy regarding WP:SYNTH when its conclusion is supported by sources. Whereas if it was determining something else, that would be WP:SYNTH. Noorullah (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
I have already both cited and quoted the relevant policies. Which apply regardless of whether you understand them or not, and whether you agree with them or not. I suggest you stop attempting to bludgeon your synthesis into Wikipedia, and find something more useful to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
@Noorullah21, I can try. And forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you're getting hung up on the "explicitly stated by any of the sources" phrasing. It's not saying that the sources, in sum total, must support the conclusion (i.e., the whole map). It saying that the conclusion/map must be present in "any of the sources", or, in other words, at least one of them.
Imagine if, instead of your 62 sources, you only had 2 sources. One gave the borders and name of every country, and the other gave the coordinates and name of every capital. If you put them together, that would be synthesis because the "conclusion" (again, the whole map) is partially stated in one source and partially stated in another source. If you need more than 1 source to assemble a map (or any other conclusion), then it's almost always going to be synthesis.
Ultimately, the most we should be doing with maps is taking existing sourced maps and making them easier to read, turning them into other formats (like SVG), changing to accessible colors, and so on. Woodroar (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Well the problem is almost all contemporary existing sourced maps are in copyright, so we cannot use them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
The data behind maps of actual places would (I think) be non-copyrighted, or ineligible for copyright, as detailed in WP:NONCREATIVE. Mitchsavl (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Correct. Editors can still create maps based on geographical facts, which cannot be copyrighted. They just have to avoid violating policies like OR when doing so. There are templates for creating maps at Wikipedia:Blank maps, plus plenty of other resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps and commons:Category:Maps.
It's unfortunate that not every country has (relatively) open policies like the USGS, but editors should be used to this. It's not like we can take most images or text, either. Virtually everything that's contemporary is under copyright. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Woodroar (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Honestly, the way most maps are made on Wikipedia are made looks like watching someone try to do photoshop with Microsoft Paint, or trying to write a report by attempting to edit a PDF. Free professional cartography/GIS software exists, for example QGIS, GeoDa, and even ArcGIS Online lets you make simple maps with a free accound. We should not be encouraging the use of .svg or .png images for creating a map, we could and should create a repository for Shapefiles, Geodatabase (Esri)s, or other formats that are specific to storing spatial data. There are tons of datasets that are publicly available, my personal favorite for the United States is the CDC Social Vulnerability Index because of all the data, but there is also tiger files. For international boundaries, I tend to like the Large Scale International Boundaries published by the state department, which are "the only international boundary lines approved for U.S. Government use." They are free to use, but should be attributed. jpg, .svg, or whatever format are generally final products, like exporting a PDF from a Word doc at the end of writing a paper. The entirety of Wikipedia's map making is not only amateur, which is forgivable, but the instructions have no grounding in the reality of how they are made, and I an others have encountered active resistance at changing that. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 08:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Changing colors on maps can actually change the message a cartographer was trying to convey. There is a HUGE body of literature around how to select colors on a map, and it varies by intended audience. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I mean, that is a very small part of it, the entirety of Color theory technically applies. A big part of the literature is by Cynthia Brewer, and the result is the defaults in ESRI software as well as her tool ColorBrewer. Choropleth maps, and Chorochromatic maps both have their own body of literature surrounding them, such as the the number of class breaks in choropleth maps (Example is George JenksJenks natural breaks optimization or the unclassified scheme proposed by Waldo R. Tobler). Color has cultural connotations, such as red meaning danger in the West but luck in many Eastern cultures, so Color symbolism needs to be considered. Once the data are processed, creating the final map is a subset of graphic design, so a good cartographer should have at least a basic understanding of graphic design principals. If you're interested, there are some good papers on the topic of color on maps. Here is a VERY small selection of some of my favorites:
"Maps are slippery customers" J. B. Harley in Writing Worlds: discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of landscape, Cambridge University Press, 1992. I once wrote an essay suggesting that maps aren't just rhetorical devices - arguments - but that they frequently contain arguments with themselves as they attempt to hide contradictions imposed by their attempt to classify (and thus assert control over) a messy world that rejects easy classification. I may have been overdoing the Foucaultian postmodernism, but it didn't go down too badly, so I may have been onto something. Or at least given an indication of why Wikipedia needs to avoid treating maps as some sort of authoritative statement, and instead look at them as sources like any other, subject to all the usual rules. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
This map is absolutely OR/SYNTH and not reliable. It should not be used on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
One thing that has come up in this discussion several times is the need for some specific policy related to maps. Here are some of the thoughts I have in regards to what considerations would be required. I do not know to what extent any of these aspects have been implemented, or how necessary they are.
If Wikipedia were to add map making instructions, the biggest challenge I suspect would be ensuring newcomers are aware of these guidelines. I think there would need to a template, similar to the {{Welcome}} which can be added to talk pages when a user uploads a self made map, added manually by editors.
Any policy would have to not be too restrictive on style and criteria, at the risk of negatively impacting the usefulness of them, but should include certain aspects such as sourcing requirements.
Perhaps guidelines may be better, with a procedure for replacing maps with ones which are more fit for purpose.
Personally, I'm unconvinced that we need 'specific policy related to maps'. What we actually need is a commitment to apply existing policies (WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR/SYN, WP:NPOV) to maps and other images. If this needs clearer instructions then we can have them, but core policy on how we construct articles shouldn't need to be redefined to suit the content type. If something is unsourced, unverifiable, synthesised, or lacking neutrality, it doesn't belong in an article, regardless of how it is presented to the reader. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
I agree we need to apply existing policies, but believe maps need something more. Some examples: we need a list of reliable sources for boundaries, some basic standards around symbolization, and to enforce some standards around appropriate projection. A map is a lot like a text block, it includes a lot of information to communicate to a user, and choosing inappropriate symbolization can be as misleading or more then improper word choice. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Trying to create an exhaustive 'list of reliable sources' for anything is unwise, given that policy requires that reliability is assessed in context, and perhaps more obviously because any list would inevitably be out of date: new reliable sources (and of course unreliable ones) will be published all the time. As for standards regarding symbolisation, projection etc, that is maybe an argument for 'MOS'-style guidelines, but I think what we are discussing here is something much broader - the need for map creators to comply with the general verifiability/no WP:OR/NPOV policies and ethos of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
So here is a verifiable bit of ink which might be used in the article:
The author here has chosen to illustrate the location and extent of Durbani's conquests in 1762 by inking in some space on a map. I think that should be first and foremost what is verifiable, the choice to define some drawable element and exactly what that represents. Editors should not have license to choose for instance 1765 or to align with modern boundaries from another source.
We can rubbersheet that image, create a feature ready to be rendered, but what then? The author here chose to add large landmass and water bodies, labeled rivers. a few towns, lines of longitude, and what looks like a major roads transportation network. The easiest thing to do, and maybe the most useful for modern readers would be to simply plop that polygon down on a modern basemap showing political borders. Every element of the resulting map would be strictly verifiable, but in my opinion it would change a great deal the information presented by the author. That road network, major towns and waterways are very important for an 18th century empire that didn't really have well-defined borders. Adding in the modern national boundaries, while helpful for modern readers in localizing the area, are maybe not an element that should be added? Just how far can editors depart from the author's original map within the ethos of Wikipedia? fiveby(zero) 15:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
There is an old saying about shopping in Beverly Hills: If you have to ask the price, it will probably be too high for you. Similarly if we have to wonder how far we can depart from a specific item, then we are probably beyond the limit of acceptance. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
PROPOSAL: Let the article Map coloring be seriously expanded. It is very brief at the moment and the material GeogSage provided above is far more informative. He would of course be the best person to do so, but please help/lobby for this to happen. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Minnesota Reformer
Some editors at the pages for 2020s Minnesota fraud scandals and Feeding Our Future are arguing that the Minnesota Reformer is an unreliable source. The Reformer is part of the States Newsroom nonprofit news network. This Columbia Journalism Review article says that States Newsroom is transparent about its funding, has a nonpartisan perspective for its news coverage but left-leaning commentary, and has many employees who were previously at major state newspapers. This last is true for the Reformer, which was founded by J. Patrick Coolican, formerly of The Minnesota Star Tribune.
In 2025, the Reformer won seven awards from the Minnesota Society of Professional Journalists , including the "most prestigious award" given to the entire newsroom staff. The award specifically highlights reporting from the Reformershowing that some Feeding Our Future defendants have ties to Medicaid-funded autism centers now under investigation by the FBI.
These editors are arguing that this autism fraud reporting , as well as a commentary article by fraud investigator Kayseh Magan, , are unreliable. Notably, Magan's article also received a 2025 MSPJ award for best editorial: .
I see no reason why the Reformer cannot be treated as a standard WP:NEWSORG - and those arguing for unreliability have presented little justification. Astaire (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
It looks like only two editors presented any case for unreliability (actually they were arguing it was biased and that that made it unreliable, which is not our policy), and the other editors found this unconvincing. I believe one of the two then declared they're off to join Grokopedia. In short, unless new info is presented, we can treat it as reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
One would hope so, but there has been a tremendous amount of stonewalling on those pages and I wanted to perhaps get some outside opinions and see if there were any legitimate objections to reliability. Astaire (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't see anything problematic about it. Both of the editors claiming it is biased are SPAs who are clearly arguing from a POV viewpoint (i.e. the Reformer doesn't agree with their worldview, so it can't be reliable). Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
At least a few of the articles seem to imply not just bias but questionable reliability. EEpic (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
There seems to be plenty of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Here are uses in the Minnesota Star Tribune (1, 2, 3, 4), the NYTimes (1, 2), NBC (1), Free Beacon (1), CBS News (1, 2) and MPR (1, 2, 3) all from a very quick search. I think we can treat the Reformer as reliable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
While there is opinion commentary present, that doesn’t create unreliability in content. The use by others and history of accurate information show that the Reformer, like other papers in the states network, is reliable. ~Malvoliox(talk|contribs) 15:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I would agree… The only thing to remember is that “generally reliable” does not mean “always reliable”. A generally reliable source CAN be deemed unreliable in a specific context. Even the best get it wrong occasionally.
Of course, you have to jump through all sorts of hoops to successfully argue that a “generally reliable” source did get something wrong… but it CAN occur. No news source is 100%. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Another good indicator of reliability is that they publish corrections and fix errors (see 1, 2, 3, 4). —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd say Unreliable. There were articles offered that demonstrate bias:
Gov. Walz to Republicans: Expect me ‘to ride you like you’ve never been ridden
The Trump administration made its opinion known almost immediately after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday: The officer acted heroically in defending himself from Renee Nicole Good
Gov. Tim Walz’s Minnesota in 8 charts
That said, Gov. Walz to Republicans: Expect me ‘to ride you like you’ve never been ridden’ stands out to me as not just biased, but with insufficient editorial standards. Any website that would publish something implying that the governor made a crude sex joke, when that's not what he was saying at all, is engaging in dishonesty which is different from bias. EEpic (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I don’t see an implication of a crude sex joke. What’s unreliable here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The title. It's a crude to the point that I don't think even WP:DAILYMAIL would take things out of context that way, which leads me to believe there's no actual editorial department/policy. I went to the about page to look for information on one, and what I saw was a vague mention of full editorial independence and only 4 employees, which leads to me believe there's effectively no oversight or editorial apparatus. This is actually a lot less than I thought. EEpic (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
You say you believe "there's no actual editorial department/policy", and then you link to a page which shows that the Reformer has at least two editors. You say that the quote is taken "out of context", and yet the headline provides context by saying Walz was speaking "to Republicans". No one (except Wikipedia editors grasping at straws) would interpret this headline (again, read WP:HEADLINE) as a sex joke. Astaire (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
The founder is listed as one of the editors (which is another red flag). Minnesota Reformer has just 4 employees not counting him. It's essentially a start-up with zero oversight and no editorial department. For reference, the Los Angeles Times has 500 employees. Los Angeles Daily News has ~100. EEpic (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
It's been around for six years. That's not a startup. It has a full journalistic ethics policy. It is part of a larger nonprofit network. Being small is not, by itself, an indication of unreliability. Do you care to engage with the evidence presented by other Wikipedians here, such as the professional awards and the use by other reliable sources? Or the Wikipedia policy that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective? —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I would not give much weight to an award from a local chapter of a membership organization such as MNSPJ, as in most cases they're looking for people to give the awards to. The reward in question has a simple 30 dollar application fee and they take submissions through a gmail address. And while it's nice, it does not speak much to the substance I'd be looking at. Six years has nothing to do with if it's a start-up or not, and an ethics policy is not an editorial policy (though they can overlap). It functions like a start-up with no real editorial oversight. In fact, six years with such a low staff count makes me question the overall reliability even more. EEpic (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
We have never used staff count as an indicator of reliability before. If you want to propose this as WP policy, you need to take that up on the reliable sources talk page, but meanwhile here you need to provide arguments based on current policy. Incidentally, there are a couple of dozen bylines on the frontpage, so the five listed staff members are not the extent of their team. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
So your argument is that we cannot use an award-winning series of Minnesota Reformer articles about autism fraud because you perceive a "crude sex joke" (literally just a quote) in the headline of a completely different article? WP:HEADLINE covers your first and third complaints: News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. You also need to read WP:BIASED: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. And regardless, it is utterly bizarre to argue that including statements from the Trump administration - clearly denoted as an opinion - is proof of bias. Astaire (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't see you pointing to anything actually false here. That's what we're looking for in reliability; it's not a question of whether there are underlying opinions we'd agree with, it's whether its facts are true. Plus, what the headlines are is not relevant, because we don't trust anyone's headlines for accuracy; see WP:HEADLINES. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
You and @User:Lunarscarlet have both repeatedly made arguments which simply make no sense, and ignore our policies and guidelines. There is a lot of ex post facto reasoning going on here to back up a predetermined judgment about how the relevant articles should be written. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Bias and dishonesty are not the same thing. The lack of editorial oversight (four employees total with no editorial department or editorial policy that I can find) and manipulative headlines with dishonest framing, that of which would not be published if there were any sort of real editorial policy, does not give me much confidence in reliability of it. Respectfully, you've attempted to use Minnesota Reformer to insert opinion piece content into a DefendantsWP:BLP section concerning Somali Americans, that of which per WP:BLPSOURCES would not be permitted even if Minnesota Reformer didn't have issues with dishonest framing and a lack of an editorial department. EEpic (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Your views appear to be in the minority. There is nothing I added that would be in violation of WP:BLPSOURCES, since the material is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. Consensus in this discussion is clearly heading towards the view that the Reformer is reliable, your personal views notwithstanding. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:10, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Doesn't seem very reliable. Here's an article of the founder collaborating with a person named Magan to write a piece that alleges some kind of shadow conspiracy between Aimee Bock, the main person in the Feeding our Future case, and the Minnesota government (Tim Walz and Jacob Frey and several other Minnesota figures). One of those figures is a council member named Jamal Osman, who Magan ran against for political office and lost to, representing a major COI. Magan technically has a COI with everyone in the article. The article is bizarrely structured with the names of targets as headers. It's full of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and essentially lacks credible evidence entirely. The founder putting his name on this with someone who has such a strong COI suggests questionable ethics, and that the founder himself (the editor-in-chief of all content) doesn't appear to have a reputation for fact checking. High Professor (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Which part of the article "alleges some kind of shadow conspiracy"? I don't see any allegations of conspiracy in the piece. Could you specify the falsehoods and misrepresentations you see? It seems like a fairly straightforward piece (in 'Commentary', not straight news) describing various connections between FoF and elected officials. These connections have also been reported on by the Minnesota Star Tribune, the Sahaan Journal, and MPR, among others. Nothing is alleged by the Reformer that hasn't been reported elsewhere too. I'm also curious why you say Coolican "doesn't appear to have a reputation for fact checking"? He worked as a political reporter for the Star Tribune, the largest paper in the state, for 5+ years and at other outlets besides. Seems like a typical reporter. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Also, Magan's COI is disclosed in an editor's note. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I do think that that particular author is definitely unusable for the reasons you mentioned (especially WP:INVOLVED) and raises broader questions about the tabloid-style nature of the larger publication. --Aquillion (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Smart Flash Magazine and Shūkan Bunshun on Vanilla Car
Per the DYK review ofVanilla Car, is Smart Flash[ja] reliable or at least usable for the article. The source seems like has the same problems with other WP:SHUKANSHI (Japanese weekly magazines) (i.e. outrageous reporting/clickbaity articles on entertainment personalities). But, this is not a BLP that's why I used it, so I'm stuck. Courtesy link for the source used in the article.
Although Smart Flash is not widely cited as a reliable source, I think the way it is currently used on the Vanilla Car page looks fine to me. I think the Bunshun page can be used the same way, especially considering that this is not a biography page. 23impartial (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Fact Focus
About this source: .
Fact Focus is a [well-known] Pakistani investigative news portal co-founded by Ahmad Noorani. I used a detailed in depth article from this by Noorani (where he alleges nepotism by Asim Munir) to expand the existing Asim Munir#Allegations of nepotism section. SheriffIsInTown asserts that "Fact Focus will be considered a self-published source by Noorani" and "Noorani founded FF, sits on its editorial board, and any material written by him about himself, where he is an involved party, and published on a platform he owns and oversees editorially, is unequivocally a self-published source. This constitutes a WP:BLPVIO and falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP"
The report has nothing to do with Noorani himself and the argument that an editor writing an article for their publication makes it SPS I find quite untenable. Note that the article includes first hand interviews with all of those accused of benefiting from the nepotism and the article itself and Noorani were both attributed in text within the article.
And I quite doubt noting corruption by a WP:PUBLICFIGURE falls under GOSSIP. Gotitbro (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
What the article already stated :
On 17 March 2025, Ahmad Noorani published a report alleging that relatives and close associates of Munir had interfered in key government appointments, securing top positions despite lacking merit or performance. The next day, about 20 armed men who identified themselves as police raided Noorani's family home and forcibly took away his two brothers to an undisclosed location. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) described the abduction as likely an act of retaliation for Noorani's reporting, while the Committee to Protect Journalists said that Noorani and his family's court petition linked the brothers' disappearance to his report on Munir. RSF further reported that local police denied any involvement.
I find it quite stunning that we would state that a journalist's family was harrased and outright kidnapped by a BLP for a report on the BLP but not what the report was actually about. Gotitbro (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown now asserts (beyond SPS) that "this piece is totally written in an opinionated language and not suitable to be used as a source about a BLP, it is the only source reporting these, WP:EXCEPTIONAL will appy here as well".
"totally written in an opinionated language and not suitable to be used as a source about a BLP" would be well covered by WP:BIASED especially when we attribute the very thing.
As for claims of "EXCEPTIONAL", to restate this was merely expanding on the corruption/nepotism reporting as to why a journalist's entire family was kidnapped and disappeared. Gotitbro (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, there is a reason why Fact Focus redirects to Ahmad Noorani; it is his publication, and it was founded by him. He is on the editorial board himself, along with one other indivdual. My opinion in this matter is that any publication authored by him, editorialised by him, and published by him on a platform founded by him should be considered self-published. Secondly, sourced to The Print, we already have coverage of what he published and what he alledged, as shown here, On 17 March 2025, Ahmad Noorani published a report alleging that relatives and close associates of Munir had interfered in key government appointments, securing top positions despite lacking merit or performance. This should be sufficient. I think it would be a WP:BLPVIO and WP:UNDUE to name six other living people, some of them non-notable, based only on his report. In my opinion, if mainstream sources do not cover this and he is the only one making these allegatoins against six individuals, then we should be cautious about including them. Fact Focus, which is founded by him, is not a mainstream source. WP:EXCEPTIONAL should also apply, as some of these are serious allegations and he is the only one covering them. I have no problem if the same thing is sourced to a mainstream source; I only have an issue with this source, which I have explained above. Sheriff|☎ 911| 02:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Whether a source is a redirect to a journalist or whether it has an article has no bearing on its RS status or it being an SPS. I will wait for other editors to comment on this but the root case of your argument for it being SPS is untenable. If the problem is just with this source, then we are at the absolutely right forum. Though it should be noted that the SPS argument itself was soundly rejected the last time it was brought here and it is questionale if a relitigation is even needed.
PS: As for exceptional, BLP et. al., it is properly attributed and provides substance [not handwaving] as to why the entire family of a journo was picked up and disappeared for reporting on corruption by ministers and chief ministers and the most powerful man in the country, these are simply not "non-notable" people but as WP:PUBLICFIGURE as one can get. Gotitbro (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
WP:PUBLICFIGURE states that If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Sourcing is not the only issue for me, and Fact Focus as a whole is not an issue either. The issue is multifaceted. Firstly, my concern is with the founder and head of the editorial board writing, approving, and publishing his own opinionated articles. Secondly, even if we find that the source is copacetic, there are other issues with this content. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and WP:BLPVIO are among the issues that a discussion at RSN cannot resolve. Sheriff|☎ 911| 03:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Then you should not have and should not continue to refer to the source as SPS all the while repeatedly removing that content. I for one consider the allegations of it being SPS already well settled i.e. refuted in the extant (previous) discussions.
Above, you alter quite significantly what the original BLP policy states. Your quote:
"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
While what the actual text says is:
"If you cannot find reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
That is quite an alteration of P&G. As we do know that FF in this case is as 3PARTY as they come. I might as well take this to BLPN but the untenable SPS argument should very well be settled here. Gotitbro (talk) 05:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I never said that I do not have a problem with this specific article being an SPS. I said that I have multiple issues with this content, not just the sources. I also never said that Fact Focus as a whole is a self-published source. At this point, I only have a problem with this specific article being an SPS and opinionated, not with Fact Focus as a whole. No, the matter was not settled before. In my opinion, it was inconclusive. The neutral editor cautioned the OP that they should not bring the matter to the forum unless someone objects to the source, and in their concluding remarks they said that no source is reliable all the time and that reliability can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I am not sure what you are reading, but WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly states the word "multiple" in that sentence. Would I have to give you a screenshot? Sheriff|☎ 911| 11:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Let us focus on the SPS claim from the previous discussion. Where we already have two editors disagreeing with your assertions of it being SPS explicitly.
ActivelyDisinterested: but I would disagree with classing it as self-published. ... I can't see any reason to dismiss the source out of hand. It doesn't appear to be self-published, it's used by other sources, and I can't find any reports online that would cast doubt on it. Saqib: Noorani is a co-founder, so unlike TPMM, he isn't the sole authority here. Additionally, many credible journalists have contributed to this website. ... Merely dismissing it as a self-published source overlooks its legitimacy and the valuable information it provides.
You can say perhaps the RS question wasn't settled but it not being SPS very well was. Though it was clearly stated, as you note, that no one has actually shown it to be unreliable in the first place and tempering arguments on that is a non-starter. And with the extensive usage by other 3PARTY sources, then and now, I would say it very well is RS.
To restate, "I find it quite stunning that we would state that a journalist's family was harassed and outright kidnapped by a BLP for a report on the BLP but not what the report was actually about." But that is perhaps a more suitable question for BLPN. Where I would take this, lest any objections come from other editors for this source.
PS: Had a template display issue, you had correctly quoted the BLP portion. I apologize. Gotitbro (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Gotitbro So, if I stated the BLP portion correctly, then the matter should be considered settled. This should not be included until it is supported by "multiple reliable third-party sources." Sheriff|☎ 911| 21:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
Not really, as the fact that a journo's family was kidnapped and disappeared is widely reported as is also the fact that it stemmed from reports of corruption on the most powerful man in a country (CPJ, RSF etc). This is already very well settled in the article.
This would then perhaps be the only article on enwiki where we state consequences of illegal action (kidnapping) without exactly specifying the fact which caused it in the first place which would be of utmost importance for the subject and readers.
The primary facet of bringing Fact Focus to RSN was to shine a light to it simply not being SPS, the crux of the original argument. I see this to be quite well refuted by different editors.
If no objections from other editors come as to the source itself being non-RS or SPS, I will further move the discussion to BLPN. Gotitbro (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I was trying to modify my comment further with the following: Why should an encyclopedia cover these? Most of it is WP:UNDUE as well, as he merely recounts who was posted to which position without clearly stating that Munir was behind those postings, nor does he establish how he believes those people were unqualified for the jobs to which they were appointed. Sheriff|☎ 911| 22:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
The first sentence of the section sourced to ThePrint already covers what his report was about. Sheriff|☎ 911| 22:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
I would limit the discussion of the content dispute here but would state that a journalist's family being illegally targeted for that reporting makes it more than due. That the article includes first hand interviews with the accused (many of whom don't even deny the allegations) only further establishes solid journalistic practice.
It is indeed the job of a journalist to hold the powerful to account and not be targeted for it and a textbook flouting of that happened here. It is entirely encyclopedic to note why the state apparatus was so moved to act.
And nepostism in any administration anywhere in the world is not to the surprise of anyone at all. We even have specific articles for some of them, Government hiring and personnel of Donald Trump. Gotitbro (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@Gotitbro No source states that the family was abducted by Munir. Rather, the sources state that his brothers were abducted after he published the report. This does not amount to a direct allegation that Munir ordered or carried out the abduction, so presenting it as such goes beyond what is due. I believe that would also constitute a WP:BLPVIO, as we would be adding an allegation that the sources do not directly make against Munir. Therefore, we are already being very generous in including material that arguably should not be included at all. There are six individuals named in the disputed content you were attempting to add, and all are living persons. This is not only about Munir. Some of those six are not even notable public figures, to whom WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE would apply, meaning no inclusion even if multiple sources exist. For the rest, WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, which requires multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources. So no, we are not taking sides, neither that of the journo nor of the most powerful man. We will follow our policies and guidelines. Sheriff|☎ 911| 23:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Are his brothers not part of his family. A report on corruption was filed by a journo on the leader of a country and his family was targeted is as simple as it gets. If the assertion is that the entire content is violative of BLP then nuke the section but if that isn't to be done and we already feature quite prominently the allegations then it is only reasonable to feature what the specific allegations were which I repeat "would then perhaps be the only article on enwiki where we state consequences of illegal action (kidnapping) without exactly specifying the fact which caused it in the first place".
As stated earlier we already have multiple sources stating in no uncertain terms that the abduction stemmed from the allegations. Most of the alleged individuals are of course as prominent as they get, it could indeed have been discussed whether some of them need to be included (would argue yes) but complete blanking resting on claims of SPS render that extremely weak.
With the claim that Fact Focus/the article is either SPS or non-RS very well opposed by different editors, I will now be taking this to BLPN where "policies and guidelines" can indeed rightly be applied. Gotitbro (talk) 05:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Brothers are not always considered part of one's family once they are adults with families of their own. When the broader term "family" is used, it first implies a wife and children to the reader. Secondly, the abduction incident does not belong in Munir's article. BLPs should document only what the subject of the article actually did, supported by reliable sources. Here, the source merely states that the abduction occurred after the report; it does not say that he carried it out or clearly allege that he did so. That is why this part is WP:UNDUE in Munir's article. No source has made such an allegation, so we will not go beyond what the sources state, nor will we include content in an article where it does not belong. Sheriff|☎ 911| 11:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
That brother's are not part of one's family is an absurd statement. To clarify, none of this is meant to be added to the article in the first place, as what has been proposed to be added above and subsequently blanked contains none of what the discussion is being sidetracked to.
As for what the community ("we") would decide that should be left upto it not unilateral assertions by editors. With most editors here and back then disagreeing with what you have stated till now. I will end the source discussion here, seeing clear disagreement with claims of SPS and non-RS. Will continue this at BLPN and ping involved editors to resolve the content dispute. Gotitbro (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Fact Focus as a platform for investigative journalism has been covered in Columbia Journalism Review, and its reporting on Pakistan's generals even before Asim Munir was cited globally, including by Bloomberg in 2022. I don't think there's any argument that it's a self published source. The idea that a single article on the website is a self published source while the rest of the website isn't, also doesn't make any sense. It's obviously a reliable source.I haven't looked at the actual content dispute too deeply since this is RSN, but if the supposed SPS-ness of the source is the only issue, it should be restored. regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss] 12:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
@TryKid CJR is not citing Fact Focus; rather, their report is about Noorani, and in that context they mention that he founded Fact Focus. They are not citing any report by the publication. Only Bloomberg is citing it. I am not sure whether we can classify a rather new platform as a reliable source solely on the basis of one other RS citing them. I would like to see feedback from more contributors, especially some regular contributors of this forum, before considering this a consensus on Fact Focus being an RS and reports by Noorani not being SPS, although he constitutes 50% of the editorial board. I see you are not a regular contributor of this forum, as your last contribution before this was in October 2025 (four months ago), which is quite a long break from the forum, so no offence, but I am going to take your feedback with a grain of salt here. Sheriff|☎ 911| 21:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
FactFocus is looking like a good source, it is not self-published for Pakistani CoS Asim Munir but it is self-published if Noorani is writing about himself. What's the problem? Omen2019 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
So far as the content written is backed by the source. It should be accurate to the source not made-up obviously. Omen2019 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
Frontiers Media
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Both WP:CITEHIGHLIGHTER and WP:CITEUNSEEN have recently received an update that has listed all Beall's list (online) URLs as predatory journals. Frontiers Media and their respective journals are included in this list and have been marked as predatory. However, these journals have been cited over 700 times on Wikipedia, and the argument could be made from reading their Wikipedia article that some of their journals are legitimate. There currently isn't a consensus for the reliability of Frontiers Media, so should their URL be removed from the cite plugins and can they be considered as a reliable source on Wikipedia? 11WB (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Why, if they are considered predatory and/or unreliable, would we want to use them for references on Wikipedia?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't know. I have personally never cited them, however it appears 700 articles have to date. 11WB (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Have either of you read the introduction of our article Frontiers Media? It's quite informative. --JBL (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Frontiers has been discussed extensively (most recently here and here) and I think the summary "there currently isn't a consensus" is not so much right as the statement "the consensus is 'meh'". How a tool like WP:CITEHIGHLIGHTER should handle that situation doesn't seem like a topic for this board, it seems like something you should bring up with the people who maintain those tools. --JBL (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
You would be correct for Cite Highlighter, but not for Cite Unseen, which works as a mirror of Wikipedia consensus. The way it categorises sources can be seen here Meta:Cite_Unseen/sources. RS/P is listed under 'consensus-curated WP source lists'. I will have a read of the RfC you linked however (which for some reason was never closed) and see if a consensus can be transferred across to Cite Unseen. Leaving sources marked as 'No consensus' is not helpful to editors. I have already gained consensus for some other sources that were also lacking an established consensus. @SuperHamster can explain how Cite Unseen works better than I do as the lead maintainer. 11WB (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
When the fact of the matter is that there is no consensus or that consensus is that the source is of variable quality and needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis, then a tool whose job is to "quickly perform an initial evaluation of the sources used in a given article" should provide that information (either that there is no consensus or that the consensus is "meh"). It doesn't seem like you really have a question about source reliability here. --JBL (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Case-by-case basis would be classed as a situational source. Interestingly, the word "meh" was not used in the RfC you linked. It seems options were mixed between 2 and 3, which is likely why Cite Unseen currently marks its reliability as not having a consensus. Based on this, I think my original question stands. Can Frontiers Media be considered as a reliable source on Wikipedia (irrespective of what the plugins say)? 11WB (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Interestingly, the word "meh" was not used in the RfC you linked. Oh good lord. I'm going to put this down to intentional obtuseness rather than incompetence and bow out; I hope you enjoy other people giving you the same answers more. --JBL (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't understand the need for such hostility. I've given reasonable and respectful responses, along with taking your points seriously. Calling me obtuse is uncalled for. I appreciate your input in this discussion, have a nice day! 11WB (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
The one time I encountered a Frontiers source being used there was consensus not to remove it even though it was on a controversial political BLP. So, clearly there is no consensus to remove them, even in cases where we should be upholding higher standards. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Frontiers is a real mixed bag with a lot of junk. I have thought some of their papers in palaeontology (which is a low volume, low citation field) were great (e.g. ) and not easily replaceable with better sources, and written by well regarded subject matter experts such that their reputation stood on their writers than their publisher, and I would oppose blanket removing papers simply for being Frontiers published. That said, for fields like biomed, it publishes a lot of garbage (see for example the infamous AI rat penis paper) and oftentimes for high volume fields there will be much more reputable sources covering a topic that should be used instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
This is my line of thought as well. It appears very situational. Cite Unseen does have a marker for that, so switching it over is quite easy. Thanks for this! 11WB (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia is used as source thousands of times on Wikipedia, even though it's specifically not allowed by policy. How many times something is cited isn't a useful metric to gauge it's reliability. CiteUnseen maybe use the RSP as one of its inputs, but it's not it's only input - it also uses list of predatory sources that's where the highlighting is coming from. If you have a problem with one of the highlighters you need to talk with whichever editor is the maintainer, this board can't force them to change anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 01:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I was the one who updated the list you linked. Frontiers Media is a unique case, in that it is marked as both predatory (as of 13 Feb), with no consensus on reliability (per the RfC linked above). I think I've got my answer now, so this discussion can be closed. Thanks! 11WB (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is Qeios a reliable source?
Qeios is an unusual online journal for peer-reviewed papers. It has some things common with Wikipedia: mutual peer review, Creative Commons license, free to use. On the other hand it uses AI to streamline the review and publishing processes. It does appear to be trying to do the right thing, and its usage stats suggest it has significant traction. There are a few dozen citations to its content here, and no doubt that will only grow. I asked a GenAI and it suggested that academics have mixed feelings about the quality and reliability of its content. The preprint section is obviously not reliable, but, once a paper has attracted sufficient positive peer review to be published, does that conform to our WP:RS? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:59, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
It's a preprint server masquerading as a journal. The preprints are then voted on by "peers" (how is this determined? I think too complicated for Wikipedia) but without human editorial involvement... NotBartEhrman (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Good point about the lack of qualified editorial oversight; another thing in common with Wikipedia. Added AI sauce is no substitute. Should we be deleting citations here, to Qeios content? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I would treat it as WP:SPS and check if the authors are recognized subject-matter experts from other publications. NotBartEhrman (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
On the whole, yes. Citations to a preprint server are almost always unsuitable, even a preprint server with extra pizzazz. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
l think it is a "no go" all the way. I would not trust it at all. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:56, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Edinburgh Live | edinburghlive.co.uk
I have concerns about the quality of Edinburgh Live as a source. It has been used 359 times as a citation on Wikipedia, yet its reporting often includes sensationalist headlines. For example, it frequently uses dramatic language such as “swooping” to describe routine police call-outs in Edinburgh. I am concerned that this style may not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing. 1keyhole (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, sensationalist headlines do not necessarily reflect source reliability, see WP:HEADLINE.
The source appears to be a local paper, focused on the city of Edinburgh. The following is based on content from their website:
About Us page
They have an AI notice , where they state that their stories will not be "generated solely by AI", their journalists may use AI tools as aids to "help enhance [their] coverage", to deliver their "readers accurate, timely and relevant information". They also provide example use cases, such as foe more quickly sifting through data or to "break stories first", and for the purposes of identifying content that would be of interest to their audience. I am not indenting to imply that they do or do not use AI responsibly.
They provide an email address for corrections and clarifications , which is generally a good, sign, though that page does not link to anywhere where they say what articles had corrections. On that same page, they claim to be a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (website) an "independent regulator for the UK digital and print news industry".
The site contains a variety of links to external sites in their footer.
I have NOT analysed the source for reliability.
I was unable to find any previous discussions on the source in the archives. Mitchsavl (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Their publisher,
Reach PLC
, has a number of publications that have been assessed as unreliable sources.
Edinburgh Live
itself has been the subject of several complaints to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), including:
These are just some cases that suggest recurring issues with accuracy and editorial standards. 1keyhole (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
In the claim "generated solely by AI" the key word is of course "solely". Does that mean 50%, 30% or 10%? I think in time this will be even less reliable than now. I am on your side on this. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
With regards the IPSO complaints, being regulated by IPSO is a good sign, but it does not establish reliability in itself. Having complaints made against a publication absolutely does not establish unreliability. So let's look at these complaints:
12231-20 - This is a complaint about bias. Not our problem. It was resolved by adding the attributed opinion of a gender critical feminist group to the article.
16898-23 - This complaint was upheld because of family privacy concerns. The factual basis of the story was correct, in the sense that the publication correctly relayed the statements of a grandparent whose grandchildren had not returned from Pakistan, although family members in Pakistan challenged this account.
17799-23 The publication inaccurately stated a deceased individual was a father. They immediately published a correction when notified of their error. This one is a little fishy, although it is seemingly good evidence of correction of mistakes. Was this an AI induced error? British papers frequently use the term "mum" or "dad" to add emotional impact to tragedy stories, so it is the kind of mistake AI might make, but could also be human error.
29065-20 This was investigative journalism where reporters attempted to verify claims about the unconventional treatments and opinions held by a pracitioner specialising in autism in children. The methods, impersonating a parent of an autistic child, were considered legitimate by IPSO. Almost all the information in the article was correct, however, the paper stated that the practitioner had recommended the child eat organic chicken nuggets. This was true, but in reality, it was because the journalist had stated "he will only eat chicken nuggets" and this context was not revealed in the article. IPSO found that this was misleading.
Overall, the above cases do not seem to me to be strong grounds for considering Edinburgh Live to be unreliable.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Surely the reason why the words "mum" and "dad" are liked by headline writers is more prosaic: they are short. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, that's also a reason, but they get used in the body of articles too. And in this case, "man" and "dad" have the save number of letters, but one is much more impersonal than the other.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The [ukcity]live.co.uk stable of publications are generally accurate sources. They are regulated by IPSO and, although perhaps not the most intellectually deep analyses, they are generally ok for local news (which is all you would use them for). They are local level sources though, so I would not use them to show notability in a deletion discussion.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
RFC: Sources on a JKR footnote
This RfC was opened for the contentious issue of women's rights and related transgender issues. The issue is currently under debate and divisive both in the USA and internationally. It is also currently being debated on the Trump biography Talk page due to the many aspects of this debate. The current RfC has made a more narrow request to assess two sources in the context of the Watson footnote on the JKR page currently being contested. The current RfC was not intended to address the larger issue of the debate which underlies this topic, but is only directed towards responding to the editors who have participated in the RfC, as stating their opinions about the issue and presenting their reasons for making their choices. As such, there have been only a handful of opinions presented, with only one apparent holdout for supporting the 2 reliable sources being evaluated for use in the JKR article. On the basis of the opinions of the participating editors, then the consensus is clearly on the side of not recognizing the 2 footnotes under discussion as relevant, and to OPPOSE their use in this article. Any further RfC on this issue should try to take into account that this is a contentious topic and that reliable sources which are used in the JKR article should mention her name and her opinions directly in order to avoid issues which might verge upon WP:Synth. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following questions are regarding this footnote on J.K. Rowling regarding proposed gender self-recognition law reforms that Rowling opposes.
In this footnote, is Pedersen 2022 a sufficient source for the information it's citing?
In this footnote, is Suissa & Sullivan 2021 a sufficient source for the information it's citing?
No to both: Pedersen 2022 says that Rowling's influence [...] in this particular debate must also be acknowledged but it doesn't ever say what that influence is. Without outside knowledge of Rowling's politics in general this could just as easily mean that she supports the law in question. Suissa & Sullivan is even worse because all it says about Rowling is that she's been harassed. It doesn't say she's been harassed for her politics, it doesn't even mention her politics. Certainly it doesn't mention her specific opposition to any law at all. Loki (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
Bad RfC - the discussion is at the Rowling talk page, where the principle of replacing the sources with better sources is agreed by all (at least regarding Suissa & Sullivan). RSN is there to discuss if the source is reliable and this RfC studiously avoids the question. It seems to me that you either want an RfC at RSN that individually asks if the sources are reliable or you want an RfC that asks if gender critical sources can be reliable sources (as per Adam's comments in the previously aborted RfC, Both these sources are extremely gender critical sources). But an RfC asking if they should be used in that place on that page belongs on the Rowling talk page. It also won't yield the answer you hope for. Suppose this RfC closes with "no to both" and they come out - any editor may put them straight back against something they do clearly support (e.g. that Rowling has been the subject of attacks for her stated views). The question as framed here does not answer whether the sources are reliable - only a content question on that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
No to Suissa and Sullivan, no comment on Pedersen 2022 I haven't read Pedersen 2022 or looked at its provenance so I won't comment on that but Suissa and Sullivan is effectively nothing more than an editorial by a pair of people with strong ties to anti-trans advocacy groups and should not be used for anything other than the opinions of Suissa and Sullivan where due. It should rarely rise to the level of due. Generally it should not be used and should never be used for statements of fact. Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
No to both Neither have any real discussion of Rowling, certainly not sufficient to connect her with specific laws as proposed, and both are highly biased sources. I don't think either say what they're meant to say, but with so little text on Rowling (two to five vague sentences each), I'd question whether anything in Rowling's article could be cited to them, even if their reliability wasn't pretty questionable. I'd also say there's a real oddity in using Suissa and Sullivan to say the Equality Act protects trans people given that the consequences of For Women Scotlabd v The Scottish Ministers, which Rowling supported, removed most of those protections. That's after Suissa and Sullivan, but still... Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
No - WP:SNOW: I'm confused. If what @sirfurboy is saying is accurate, we all agree these sources are not reliable for the claims that are being expressed. And I agree, discussing them in the context of this unique claim does not prove or disprove their overall reliability, rather, only their reliability in this unique context.
I would welcome a conversation as to the sources' overall bias/reliability, which seems more appropriate for this page.
I would also welcome a conversation suggesting sources that would be better suited for the Rowling claims, but that is likely a better conversation for Rowling's Talk Page. Maybe I'll flit over there. pickalittletalkalittle🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Only yes to both if framing is changed: for one of them, Suissa is a professor at the University College London at a politics-related subject. For the other, the work has been published with the Edinburgh University press. In general, I believe individuals with PhD in related areas and university presses are likely to be reliable (with caveats).
However, I am worried about the framing, and we should be careful to not assume conclusions. As such, if these works are cited, we should be very careful to only state what the sources clearly state. As always, with contentious material, adding extra sources beyond these could always help. Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Couod you sign it at least date the RFC question? And thanks for re-wording the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 17:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
@LokiTheLiar could we possibly reword "sufficient source" to "reliable source" in the RfC or is it too late? I think that was the intent of the RfC here Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
I think given the narrowness of the wording RFC question, that change doesn't make a difference. Loki (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Please don't ping me. I only commented on whether the RfC was malformed. I would rather jump into a swimming pool full of razor blades and salt than make any comment about the fight between J.K. Rowling / her supporters and her opponents. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
Firstly, Both are used in a footnote to the text "Rowling has opposed proposed gender self-recognition law reforms", which reads "The laws and proposed changes are the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill; related are the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018, and the UK Equality Act 2010, which makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic." This means that the sources need to be explicitly about Rowling's opposition to these laws. They are not law sources, and they aren't even sources for Rowling, as they only have two to five sentences that even mention her each.
Suissa and Sullivan, which can be read here has very little text on J. K. Rowling. Its sourcing for the sections on J. K. Rowling includes the website Medium, an unreliable source, and says nothing worth including in an article. Hence, it's a terrible source for Rowling. It is used for the text "...the UK Equality Act 2010, which makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic", which, especially after For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, is a very questionable claim to make, especially to a non-law citation that predates that case, and it does not connect this to Rowling in any way.
The citation for Pedersen is to the abstract, which is very strange, as no reference to Rowling appears in the abstract. The full text does mention her (in two sentences), with "the influence of J. K. Rowling in this particular debate must also be acknowledged." being the only connection to the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill made. Again, very weak source for Rowling, and not a law source.
Both these sources are extremely gender critical sources, and have a very strong bias in that direction. While biased sources aren't entirely a problem, it means they need to have something unique to offer, and... they offer nothing that's not trivially replaced. For BLPs, questinable sources should never be used when they can be replaced with non-questionable sources, especially when they only mention the BLP in passing. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 05:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
[Moved following comment from survey section in reply to me.] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - There shouldn't be a concerted effort to force these sources into the article when they have so few sentences that even mention Rowling. Like, these aren't going to come up in a search for her very readily, so if they are constantly appearing, then someone is probably engaging in tendentious editing. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 01:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
I don't follow where the attempt to disrupt is. This RFC is in the wrong place, and it is probably significant that to date it only has comments from people who recently edited the Rowling page. It is not asking about the reliability of the sources; this RfC is a content question. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
You: 'Suppose this RfC closes with "no to both" and they come out - any editor may put them straight back against something they do clearly support'
Doing so would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, since these have only trivial content about Rowling, and all the votes have commented on them being bad sources for Rowling. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 02:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Ah, that is just hypotheticals then. My point, of course, is that the question being asked does not resolve that. Your quotes below certainly show that the sources do support text on the kickback and threats she has received. We are not asking if the sources are reliable for that, and as I understand it, that was why Suissa and Sullivan was first added to the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
That was already rejected, see previous RSNs on them. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 13:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Where was that decision? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
You've been told this before. You know this. It's why they aren't used for that in the article; it's why it's shocking they've been readded. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
Surely they never left the article, and neither was there any consensus in any previous discussion, was there? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
That's your reading as someone involved in that discussion, but there is no resolution coming out of that discussion. Your insistence otherwise notwithstanding. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
Is there anyone who wants to make positive arguments for why these are suitable sources for how they're used? Because it feels like there's one person claiming the whole discussion is invalid, and everyone else agrees they should go. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 00:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
There is a positive statement above for their use, but with different framing. In the discussion on the J K Rowling page, I have suggested that Suissa and Sullivan can be replaced by a better source - you just need to find the better source that makes the same point. On the talk page there, I have also given my opinion that Pedersen is fine, but that doesn't mean that we have to use it if you can find a better source for that one too. Either source could be used with different framing, as discussed above. Discussion is on the J K Rowling talk page, and my view remains that this is a bad RFC as it asks a content question for the JKR page at RSN, and this is probably why it is poorly attended and most of those responding are a subset of long term editors at the JKR page and not other RSN regulars. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
All text about Rowling in the two sources.
To simplify things, This is every sentence that's even slightly about Rowling from the two sources:
"The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read" [The novel is not named]
"The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling,2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired."
"However, the role of creative writers as public voices on contemporary issues may also be a particularly Scottish element, and the influence of J. K. Rowling in this particular debate must also be acknowledged."
"Threats to their well-being and job security have been made against many of the higher-profile women involved in the debate in Scotland, from Joanna Cherry MP to the author J.K. Rowling, and – as will be discussed – to several of the interviewees."
Roughly speaking, these do not feel like sources with a strong interest in unbiased facts. We've discussed Suissa and Sullivan in detail before (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Suissa_and_Sullivan, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 503; views that it's reliable are definitely in the minority. Pedersen is a primary source research paper which reports the results of interviewing 18 women; almost all sourcing is in the introduction, setting up the concept of a cooperative constellation, the sourcing largely disappearing after that. Offhand, the only source that appears to even be about gender critical thought in Pedersen is (sigh) Suissa and Sullivan.
Some notes:
Suissa and Sullivan uses blogs as sources, and changes the text from those blogs to add hyperbole. For example, the "tidal wave of requests" in the quote above is sourced to Leng, which is an article on Medium (website), an unreliable source, and lacks the hyperbole added.
Pedersen is based on, "Eighteen one-hour interviews were undertaken with women identified as members of a
Scottish women’s cooperative constellation around the issue of GRA reform and its impact on women’s sex-based rights, including politicians, researchers, journalists, and activists." - and makes it clear the women were selected specifically for their gender critical views.
Suissa and Sullivan is written in a very stream-of-consiousness style. Very, very little is discussed in any detail, and it jumps topics rapidly. This is not consistent with any sort of detailed analysis.
Pedersen is a very strange source in general, with some odd claims, and strange selection methods, and, in the end, is based on short interviews with just eighteen people, all from one side. Some statements by the author (one of which she cites herself for) in it include:
"As far as the UK debate on the subject of potential reforms of the Gender Recognition Act is concerned, the parenting site Mumsnet has been identified as functioning as a subaltern counter-public for the expression of gender-critical feminism, which has been censored from other parts of the Internet such as Twitter and Reddit (Author)."
"The ‘writers’ group was originally conceived as containing members of the media – journalists and newspaper columnists who had written on the subject of GRA reform, including personal opinion pieces, and followed Seibicke’s (2017) suggestion that the media should be included in such constellations. However, it was augmented by the inclusion of a number of creative writers and bloggers, who were identified by other interviewees as key voices in this cooperative constellation in Scotland."
Both Suissa and Sullivan and Pedersen are unabashedly biased sources. They make the fact that they are written entirely from a gender critical perspective absolutely clear.
I would struggle to identify much these would be useful for. Maybe as primary sources for gender critical thought, but using them in such a way feels like it would strongly run into issues with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
So, on the whole, I would consider these as Unreliable sources, which should only be used in exceptional circumstancesAdam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs. 17:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
I think much of the analysis you gave on these works seem to be WP:OR itself (although OR doesn't really apply outside of articles, you get the point). The difference between academic works and Wikipedia is that the former doesn't need to be as transparent, so even if to our own eyes the methodologies seem suspect, there could be a reason for it we aren't aware of. Also, having individual Wikipedia users analyzing academic sources to see whether they personally agree with their methodologies to determine if it's reliable could lead to all sorts of problems.
I'm not dismissing you or saying you're wrong; I just think it might help out more to see what other reliable sources state about these ones. In general, I think we should automatically trust sources that meet the reliability guidelines, unless these sources are stated by other RS to not be reliable.
I've said all I am going to. It's purely an opinion piece penned by people who combine significant bias with minimal relevance. It is unreliable for fact and undue as opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this person's website an RS for The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews
Per their "Who we are", they seem to have repute with use by others, and Gilles Karmasyn (the director) has published in Revue d'Histoire de la Shoah about Holocaust denial online. The other main person Nicholas Bernard is a lawyer specialising in French Public Law, seems to check out. A spot check on some of their articles indicates they align with well established knowledge on holocaust denial. So they would seem to be reliable and usable.
Now, to how they are used in the article linked: In 2021, Gilles Karmasyn, head of the french anti-Holocaust denial website phdn.org, established that the real authors of The Secret Relationship were Afrocentric activists Molefi Kete Asante, Jacob Carruthers, Asa Hilliard, Charshee McIntyre, and Rosalind Jeffries, led by Leonard Jeffries.
This is a direct translation of a sentence added to French Wikipedia, while this could very well be true per the post by Karmasyn, ideally I'd want to see a corroborating citation, or a citation that gives support to this post from Karmasyn. Those more familiar with BLP should weigh in as some of the authors that Karmasyn lists are still alive. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
“Established” might be too definitive a word in this sentence, but this is a very highly regarded source BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
How would you suggest we word it? Thanks. Doug Wellertalk 10:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
My immediate go to would be "argued", but this may have issues that I am ignorant of. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd go with wrote (t·c) buIdhe 00:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I’ve checked the source and made an edit reflecting what it says and used “published research indicating that” BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Ars Technica retracts allegedly AI-generated article
Technology website Ars Technica, listed as 'generally reliable' on WP:RSP, has recently pulled an allegedly AI-generated article with fabricated quotes. According to the quotee, "these quotes were not written by me, never existed, and appear to be AI hallucinations themselves." One of the editors said they will investigate the incident once they resume work on Tuesday. Could be worth rethinking the listing after seeing their response. Catalk to me! 14:07, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Rethink in what way? What do you consider the response should have been? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm simply noting for posterity in case such incidents become a pattern. My concern is that the article was written by longtime staff writers and not outsourced writers like in case of Sports Illustrated. I agree with Mackensen, and their upcoming statement should explain how the fabricated quotes bypassed (created by?) its editorial process and future steps to prevent such occurrences in the future. Catalk to me! 14:56, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
A public retraction is the correct thing to do in this case. It's neither the first nor the last reliable publication to make such an error. If Ars were to announce that they're going to use AI-generated articles going forward, that would be a cause for concern (but they wouldn't have pulled the article if that was the intent). Mackensen(talk) 14:41, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
Yep. We don't expect every RS to be 100% flawless; we expect them to have an editorial process that cares about getting the facts right. Taking down the article pending an investigation is a good sign. Having some familiarity with Ars, it would be wildly off brand to permit LLM-written articles. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
The editor-in-chief at Ars has issued a statement. I imagine there will be something fuller later this week. Mackensen(talk) 21:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
I'm quite impressed with their response so far, and I'm not easily impressed. I would say that our only possible response is to upgrade their reliability, if they are not at the maximum already. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
They are at the maximum already, FWIW. Loki (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
The author has taken responsibility and stated that it was a screw-up made while suffering from COVID. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
I suppose I accept the apology, but I do find it rather hard to believe that a journalist reporting on AI would not know that such systems routinely tell lies. It's pretty much the first thing I learnt about AI: that it has no concept of ethics. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
A retraction is the correct thing to do. It would be concerning if they didn't retract. TarnishedPathtalk 08:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
More information Off-topic digression about the Guardian ...
Off-topic digression about the Guardian
The Guardian was also recently accused of AI writing an article and denied the claims , though nothing was accused of being fabricated/false. I think we need to accept that many reliable sources are going to have some AI-written/copyedited/influenced content somewhere. Katzrockso (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable source for that? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
There aren't any. It is just an accusation on X and repeated here. It quotes a supposed response by The Guardian that I can't find anywhere else. Hmmm... Fabricating quotes... Sound like the accusation was generated by an AI to me. (No, I am not being serious.) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that the quote was fabricated? From what I can tell, the person contacted The Guardian and received that as a response. Or are you suggesting that Max Tani, journalist at Semafor , and former reporter for Politico and The Daily Beast is just making stuff up?
You can check the article yourself, it certainly has a number of the hallmark WP:AISIGNS editors on Wikipedia have derided editors for putting in articles. Katzrockso (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
If Max Tani ever makes a claim in a reliable source instead of in a deleted tweet, I will pay attention to him. If Wikipedia ever changes its WP:OR policy, I will check the article myself and treat my guess as if it was a reliable source. In the meantime, do you or do you not have a source for your claims other that a deleted X tweet? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
You folks mind if I hat this or move it into its own section? Doesn't have anything to do with Ars. Mackensen(talk) 02:49, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
I think it would look great in a nice WP:HAT. Very stylish. Maybe a nice Akubra.:) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Close
Juno news
This is being used on the Canada shooting page today, but seeing their about page should be clear it doesnt count as reliable. Psephguru (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Heck no. Not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
_highlighted.svg)