Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 515

In Genspect, is this claim supported by the sources? "Genspect opposes allowing transgender people under 25 years old to transition...^[1][2][3]"

Genspect themselves say this here: "We have grave qualms about anyone below the age of cognitive maturity i.e., the mid-twenties, making the decision to medically transition." and "We believe that medical transition for children and young people is harmful and should not be permitted."

Also relevant is this reporting from the Daily Dot (rated WP:MREL), focusing on leaked chat logs from a Discord server run by the group.^[4]

The vice director for Genspect, Alasdair Gunn, chimed in to clarify that their focus on youth transition is purely political strategy. "None of us would ever recommend transition for anyone," Gunn said. "The key point here is: eyes on the prize! We have to stop child transitions. On those over 25 we say little, because it’s not in YOUR interests to mention this. We have to break through to the policymakers who are left of center, and the way to do that is to focus relentlessly on the problem of transition for under 25s."

I and some others think the source wording and the context I gave here support the current article claim. Another group of editors want to change the word "oppose" and/or rewrite the sentence. Two possible rewrites have been proposed:

1. "...advocating a more cautious clinical approach to gender dysphoria, calling for higher transition age thresholds, and arguing against trans-inclusive conversion therapy bans."
2. "Genspect has campaigned for delaying transition pathways for children and young adults, including those under 25."

Proponents of the rewrite believe that the current wording implies that Genspect supports a legal ban, which they claim they do not support. Generally, they believe that what Genspect itself says should be given more weight, and that the current sources are "passing journalistic characterization," and should not be viewed as definitively representing the views of the group. I'll leave them to expand on their views here.

I think that the current wording is fine and that what Genspect themselves say should be given little or no weight.

Pinging all involved on the article talk (please try to let uninvolved people answer instead of repeating the same arguments again here): RiverArchivist2000, LunaHasArrived, HenrikHolen, Snokalok, Aertt, GreenAndWhiteA320, DanielRigal. InfernoHues (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• Just adding another source. The Texas tribune which is used in the body and says "Genspect ... and argues that no one under the age of 25 should be allowed to transition". Before repeating the claims by the daily dot. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
• I believe you have missed the two most relevant quotes from Genspect's own statements:

We do not believe that this issue should be addressed through using a minimum age requirement.

We don’t think medical transition should be banned for legal adults.

Those statements directly conflict with the implication of the current lead wording.

My argument is not that we should automatically believe Genspect over secondary sources. The problem is that the sources being used for the current wording appear to consist mainly of brief journalistic characterisations that do not actually detail any concrete under-25 ban proposal, policy, or campaign, while Genspect’s own published statements explicitly reject blanket age-threshold bans for adults. Even the Gunn quote cited in the Daily Dot source discusses political messaging strategy, not a proposal to ban transition for everyone under 25.

In a situation like that, either much stronger sourcing is needed to support such a specific and categorical claim in wikivoice, or the wording should be made more neutral and precise. Right now, the lead presents the strongest possible interpretation as though it were an undisputed fact. RiverArchivist2000 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC) — RiverArchivist2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Those aren't really usable; Genspect isn't a WP:RS and WP:ABOUTSELF, which is what we'd use for self-sourced statements in a context like this, isn't usable for things that are unduly self-serving. An advocacy org's self-description of their goals and mission is usually going to be self-serving, especially if it contradicts reliable secondary sources. We should cover them the way the best available secondary sources do. --Aquillion (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• "I think that the current wording is fine and that what Genspect themselves say should be given little or no weight.". +1

We do not need to bowdlerise our coverage, which is already pretty mild. The statement in the lead follows the content in the body and none of it extrapolates to more than what the sources say. In addition to the main source we have the Texas Tribune which corroborates it.

Independent sources trump an organisation's self-description even under normal circumstances. The quotation seems to show a very senior person in the organisation admitting that it deliberately misrepresents its objectives for political purposes which only strengthens the argument to give very little weight to their own statements. If there is any genuine controversy over the authenticity of the quotation then that might make a difference but, given that it would likely be libellous to publish the quotation were it not authentic, I think that we can take it as genuine unless there is any other coverage directly disputing it. We already have one other source corroborating it using very similar words to those we use in the article. I don't see a problem here. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It is also explicitly supported by this Slate article ; Genspect is a “gender critical” group that promotes GET; all of GETA’s leaders are on Genspect’s leadership team or serve as advisers for the organization. Genspect tweeted last year that “trauma, mental health issues, neuro diversity, and difficult accepting homo/bisexuality can cause gender distres [sic]” and that gender-affirming care should therefore not be available to anyone 25 years old or younger. I oppose any rewriting of the sentence. Katzrockso (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

In general Wikipedia is always more interested in what independent sources say about a topic, rather than what a subject says about themselves. Also just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it should be included, WP:VNOT. What should or shouldn't be included in an article is a WP:NPOV matter, whether article content should be rewritten that a discussion nfor the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The debate is on the claim of whether or not the current wording

"Genspect opposes allowing transgender people under 25 years old to transition"

is supported by these sources. The three in-page sources provided list these quotes:

(The Texas Observer)"Some members quoted support banning transition for anyone under 25, which has become a mainstream Republican position."

(them)"That said, the notorious organization Genspect has gone on the record as referring to 18-25 year olds as “adolescents,” and claiming that this bracket should also be denied gender-affirmative care, and subjected to conversion therapy, despite being legal adults in the wake of this event. This suggests once again that their goal is to expand bans from simply minors to everyone under 25." this quote is referencing a tweet made in the context of the Boston Children's Hospital controversy, in which Genspect used the term "adolescents" rhetorically to defend a claim about the hospital that had been fact checked as false. A rhetorical label deployed in a controversy is not a formal position, and should certainly not be stated as a fact in wikivoice.

(The Sunday Times)"Stella O’Malley, a psychotherapist who founded Genspect, a group that has campaigned against the transition of transgender people aged under 25, is sceptical of Scotland’s desire to empower 16-year-olds." This source does not align with the current statement as it asserts Genspect has campaigned "against" the transition of transgender people aged under 25, not that they have a policy of legal restriction on that age group. Again keep in mind the current wording is "opposes allowing transgender people".

None of these three sources support the current claim.

The strongest source is from The Texas Tribune listed as source^24, which states: "Genspect has also partnered with groups such as the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom, and argues that no one under the age of 25 should be allowed to transition because their brains “haven’t yet fully matured.”" But even this is simply a characterization as the assertion of policy is not backed up by a quote or source. This source also directly contradicts formal statements Genspect themselves have made on several occasions about their policy.

WP:ABOUTSELF seems to allow for this statement to be included, as it's authority is not questioned(origin of source)and it's also not unduly self serving. As in the policy is shows examples of statements such as "we are a reputable organization" there is no indication that a statement or denial of their stance on a policy can be treated in that manner. Put simply there has been no reason given to argue that Genspect's own words of denial qualifies as a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF.

The alleged Gunn quote mentioned by some to support the current wording actually undermines it. "“None of us would ever recommend transition for anyone,” Genspect’s vice director, Alasdair Gunn, reportedly wrote on a private server that was leaked to the Daily Dot in 2023. “On those over 25 we say little, because it’s not in YOUR interests to mention this. We have to break through to the policymakers who are left of center, and the way to do that is to focus relentlessly on the problem of transition for under 25s.”" If you take this quote as truth, and determine that this supports the claim that Genspect opposes transitioning of all ages, than even then it would not align with the current framing. I don't think it needs to be addressed any further since whether or not you accept or deny it, it still does not support the current wording.

In WP:V when sources conflict the correct response is in-text attribution. Not an editorial decision to declare the stronger claim the winner. Aertt (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Also the Slate article is an editorial characterization. "Genspect tweeted last year that “trauma, mental health issues, neuro diversity, and difficult accepting homo/bisexuality can cause gender distres [sic]” and that gender-affirming care should therefore not be available to anyone 25 years old or younger."

The direct quotation contains "trauma, mental health issues, neuro diversity, and difficult accepting homo/bisexuality can cause gender distress[sic]" however the following portion of the statement provides no quote and is simply a characterization of the tweets implication. Aertt (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

But even this is simply a characterization as the assertion of policy is not backed up by a quote or source. We don't require reliable sources to have a "quote or source" themselves; the entire purpose of a reliable secondary source is to perform its own interpretation and analysis, so they can summarize their entire take on Genspect based on its action, and we presume that their usual editorial controls and fact-checking process cover this unless there's a reason to think otherwise. And contrary to your assertion there isn't any reason to think otherwise here; you say that this source also directly contradicts formal statements Genspect themselves have made on several occasions about their policy, but Genspect isn't a reliable source themselves, and their statements here are unduly self-serving, so we can't cite them via WP:ABOUTSELF for this; they carry no weight. In plain English, it's expected that an advocacy org would cast their mission in the most flattering light possible, which means that we can't really rely on their own statements about themselves to characterize them in this context - and also means that, in situations where they contradict reliable secondary sources, we just assume that their statements are puffery, so to speak, and do not accurately describe their actual position. Either way, ultimately, what your argument boils down to is your own original research attempting to cast doubt on the conclusions of secondary sources; but that's not appropriate. If those conclusions are wrong, there should be other reliable secondary sources that dispute them. --Aquillion (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• I support the current wording. Genspect's statements about themselves are not a source that trumps actual reliable secondary sources, and using their own site to cite their policy goals in wikivoice over secondary sources would be little more than writing PR for them.

Snokalok (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

• The current wording is well sourced, and even if there weren't reasons to distrust what Genspect says about their own positions, their word is not equal to several reliable secondary sources.

Relm (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I am having troubles with articles concerning the allegations against Michael Jackson, mainly because any source contrary to his innocence gets arbitrarily removed and called unreliable or incomplete or whatever. Therefore, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. I am currently trying to fix the extremely biased article "1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations".

In short, the first accuser is said to have confessed the abuse while sedated. A single unsourced vintage article on GQ from 1994 written by Mary A. Fischer, who wasn't even a journalist at the time and literally wrote an opinion piece on her first year there, claimed it was sodium amytal and that it's used to implant memories. The section 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations#Use of sedatives makes really bold claims, all based on this single self-published source.

In another source, journalist Diane Dimond refutes the theory that sodium amytal was administered and states that other drugs were used instead. The same claim is backed up by another journalist, Victor Gutierrez, who was extremely close to the Chandler family and even provided actual documentation and private photos/scans, including the "Consent to administration of anesthetics" form used on that day.

I have opened a discussion on the talk page, waited patiently and finally made the edit, in accordance to Wikipedia's guidelines. The edit was immediately reverted by another user, who claims that Diane Dimond "is an unreliable source and proven liar with no credibility whatsoever" and another user added that "Dimond it’s not allowed to be used as a source on Jackson per past consensus."

I have therefore pointed out the following things:

1. Diane Dimond won several awards and dedicated her life to her research on Michael Jackson; therefore, she's an expert on the subject.
2. In 1995 she was sued by Michael Jackson for slander, but the lawsuit was dismissed, because of her long record of reliable reports, which was deemed further proof of her "lack of malice".
3. Gutierrez was also sued, but not for the claims in his book. As for today, the dentist report was never challenged by MJ nor by his estate.
4. These claims were also reported by another source, Randall Sullivan in his book Randall Sullivan#Untouchable, but it was deleted as well because, according to @TruthGuardians, "the independent reliable source that is cited, does not have an independent reliable source contradicting the claim".

My question to you: I can't find any "past consensus" on any archive about how unreliable these sources are. Can someone please help me understand why:

• Diane Dimond, Victor Gutierrez and Randall Sullivan are not allowed?

• Mary Fischer's unsourced vintage GQ opinion article is allowed?

DanieleJava (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

GQ is considered a generally reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. However, a claim that someone was administered sodium amytal is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that also invokes WP:BLP considerations, given that it implicates Chandler's father in the commission of wrongdoing. Without corroboration from higher-quality sources, I think it would be WP:UNDUE for inclusion.

Looking quickly into Diane Dimond, it seems that some of her work was published in less reliable publications while other parts of her work was published in more reliable publications. It might depend on the pieces in question. No comment on the other authors yet. Katzrockso (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't find any previous discussion on the RSN about Diane Dimond. I didn't find any past talk page discussions about Diane Dimond on Talk:Michael Jackson. I didn't find any discussion deprecating Diane Dimond on Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, there was a brief discussion at Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations/Archive 6, but this discussion revolved more around Maureen Orth. I don't see any consensus in that discussion to "ban" any sources from being used. Katzrockso (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, @Katzrockso.

The Dimond's source I've cited was published by Atria Books (Simon & Schuster), so definitely not a tabloid.

About Maureen Orth, the talk page says she's been banned "because her pieces on Michael Jackson are filled with conjecture, speculation, and sensationalism". Yet, the sodium amytal story is allowed with no proof whatsoever.

Reading the whole discussion, it was clearly an impasse and there's multiple references to an established consensus, which seems impossible to find.

• "This conversation is not going to change a past consensus"

• "Past community consensus has determined she cannot be considered reliable." DanieleJava (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not see a request for comment regarding the use of Maureen Orth as a source in the 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations article, so I agree with Katzrockso that there does not appear to be consensus to "ban" the use of Orth as a source in this article. The only past discussion about Orth on this noticeboard is "Using J. Randy Taraborrelli as a source in Michael Jackson articles" (2019), which resulted in a request for comment about another author (J. Randy Taraborrelli) that I closed several months later (with a closing summary that was restricted in scope to the Michael Jackson article and was more limited than an outright "ban").

The only discussion in the archives of Talk:Michael Jackson that mentions Orth in the discussion heading is "Removing Taraborrelli & Maureen Orth as sources" (2019), which consists of only two comments: a long comment by an editor who was subsequently topic banned from Michael Jackson (after changing their username), and a very short statement of agreement by a second editor. The longest comment in the discussion at "Why is Vanity Fair special correspondent Maureen Orth a forbidden source on Jackson allegations." (2023–2024; in Archive 6) is the same second editor's lightly rewritten version of the long comment made by the topic-banned editor. (There was a major problem regarding LLM misuse in the Michael Jackson contentious topic, which this appears to be an instance of.)

@TruthGuardians: In reference to your two comments in Talk:1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations § Police Raid Paragraph removed:

• 21:27, 7 May 2026 "Orth is also a banned source on the topic of Jackson via past consensus"
• 21:36, 7 May 2026: "The discussion can be found on Michael’s main page, and it applies to all of his pages. Dowd, Orth, Dimond, primary sources related to either the accuser family or the accused of family, and Victor are all disallowed."

could you please provide a link to the discussion in question? Talk:Michael Jackson has 43 archive pages, so it is challenging for editors who are not already familiar with the discussion to locate it in the archives. — Newslinger talk 10:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I tried finding a reference to Dimond and could not, apart from an editor complaining that she was biased, which isn't a reason to exclude even if true. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

“Banned” was probably not the appropriate word to use here as there was never an RFC. There were only ever uncontested talk page discussions about some of these things that stayed opened for months and some of the discussions already linked above. Michael Jackson has a lot of Wikipedia pages. While I do have some of these discussions linked on my Mac, even then some links are dead or have changed. If a discussion wasn’t had here it was had there or somewhere else. I can’t remember where every last discussion took place across all of Jacksons pages.

Nonetheless, the editor is suggesting to use Victor Gutierrez. Victor was successfully sued by Michael Jackson for falsifying information. Dimond was the one who formulated most of her stories as victor as a source or based on what Victor was successfully sued for. Michael Jackson took him to court and was awarded 2.7 million dollars in damages https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-apr-10-me-37930-story.html. And while Michael Jackson also sued Dimond for this as well, the Judge ruled that she was not the one responsible for Victor’s fake stories. https://www.deseret.com/1998/4/10/19373725/michael-jackson-wins-2-7-million-in-lawsuit/ Both VG and Dimond are the very definition of why WP:QUESTIONABLE exists. Dimond also got her start on Tabloid TV show known as Hard Copy, so while Black Kite claims it’s only alleged that she has been biased, no, she’s been more than just biased. She’s been sued, unreliable, and was also known to be having conversations with the DA prosecuting Michael Jackson, which makes her totally not neutral.

Orth is the only source in the world that has ever written something about Jackson attempting to place a voodoo spell on Steven Spielberg. I’ll let that sink in.

in regards to Dowd, I vaguely remember way back in the past coming across a political discussion here on Wikipedia in regards to the Clintons where it was being considered, if she could be considered as a reliable source on the Clintons. Jackson came up in that discussion. TruthGuardians (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Your very first sentence is “Banned” was probably not the appropriate word to use here as there was never an RFC.. Even if there were "uncontested talk page discussions about some of these things" then that may not be enough (especially if they took place on a less-travelled talk page). But really, without an RfC (or a reference to RSP or similar) you cannot unilaterally ban sources from articles, however terrible they are. (Obviously, an RfC on a terrible source will not be contentious). I would suggest that such an RfC for the sources mentioned above takes place and that if it does not take place here, then editors here are alerted to it. Black Kite (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I’ll start one on Jackson’s main article later. Let me ask you if the proper thing to do is just a lump all sources in one RFC, or have separate RFC’s for each source? While I do believe that, Victor Gutierrez and Diane can be lumped together for the same reason reasons, it may be more difficult to lump Orth and Dowd in the same RFC as they may deserve their own RFC and lumped together for similar reasons. So 2 altogether? And maybe not at the same time, but one after the first ends? TruthGuardians (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

They really need separate RfCs unless they are effectively the same source. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest RfCs be held at this noticeboard, for several reasons.

1) That the editors who attend the RfC would come from a wider range of editors - this noticeboard is watchlisted by a number of editors and over the course of a month has much more views than any individual Michael Jackson page

2) That the result of the RfC is less of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I know that because it is an RfC, it will technically have more global applicability, but determining the reliability of a source almost exclusively occurs at WP:RSN if it is to have global applicability. Katzrockso (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I have referred the conduct aspect of this issue to arbitration enforcement at WP:AE § TruthGuardians, which allows the current noticeboard discussion to remain focused on content-related matters. — Newslinger talk 17:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Court decisions are not a reliable source of information. She’s been sued, unreliable, and was also known to be having conversations with the DA prosecuting Michael Jackson, which makes her totally not neutral Being sued does not make someone unreliable, being WP:BIASED (or "totally not neutral") does not make someone unreliable. This makes your argument that Dimond is unreliable simply come down to the bare assertion that she is an unreliable source. Katzrockso (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with Diamond as a source per se. I do think it would be wise to avoid using Gutierrez in this context as a result of the libel judgment against him. If it's Diamond citing Gutierrez that's also something that probably might be left out. Journalists get sued. And if those complaints are dismissed it's not a mark on their reliability. OTOH there's no issue I can see with the GQ source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with Gutierrez. The issue is that his work seems to all be published in a book, which I think begets a lower standard of fact-checking than some traditional journalism. He is often described as a "freelance writer", which doesn't even grant the traditional presumption of reliability that we afford to journalists. A libel judgement, particularly about the same person we are proposing usage of the source, warrants at a minimum caution in a contentious topic.

Even many critics of Jackson eschew Gutierrez's book, describing it as fantasy or unreliable. I would agree this is an unreliable source.

@Simonm223 the relevant section of the GQ article that is under consideration here is this quote:

Before Chandler took control of his son, the only one making allegations against Jackson was Chandler himself — the boy had never accused the singer of any wrongdoing. That changed one day in Chandler’s Beverly Hills dental office.

In the presence of Chandler and Mark Torbiner, a dental anesthesiologist, the boy was administered the controversial drug sodium Amytal — which some mistakenly believe is a truth serum. And it was after this session that the boy first made his charges against Jackson. A newsman at KCBS-TV, in L.A., reported on May 3 of this year that Chandler had used the drug on his son, but the dentist claimed he did so only to pull his son’s tooth and that while under the drug’s influence, the boy came out with allegations. Asked for this article about his use of the drug on the boy, Torbiner replied: “If I used it, it was for dental purposes.”

As far as I am aware, this has never been corroborated by another reliable source. I think this falls under an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and that GQ is not a high-quality source for contentious claims about living people, so it shouldn't be used to make the claim about sodium amytal being used on Chandler. Katzrockso (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Do we have no other sources for the Sodium Amytal thing besides GQ? I kind of see your point on WP:EXCEPTIONAL there. I don't know. I know that Jackson's getting a lot of attention right now due to the hagiographic biopic that just got dropped and that a lot of people are pretty upset at it leaving out the accusations of sexual assault against children. However part of the problem is how much of this shit in the nineties was tabloid; I mean Hard Copy? That's not exactly an encyclopedic source. I kind of want us to preserve this topic which is obviously of relevance to his biography and of contemporary interest. Mr. Jackson is not covered by WP:BLP protections though so I would hope that better historical sources have come out in the intervening decade and a half since his death to allow us to cover this element of his biography neutrally. Simonm223 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

That's my understanding, at least, that the GQ source is the only one that supports the insinuation that the sodium amytal falsely caused Chandler to accuse Jackson. I'm not someone who has read hundreds of pages of court documents and dozens of books in this topic area, though. Katzrockso (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah... maybe that should be excluded then. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

At a bare minimum, it should be attributed, but I would not support inclusion of this information based solely on the GQ article. Katzrockso (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It is necessary to clarify a couple of things.

1. Gutierrez was sued because of one single claim made in 1995 that a videotape of Michael Jackson with a child existed. The court documents literally state that the lack of malice was determined “Based on Mr. Gutierrez's long track record as a reliable source". The lawsuit against Dimond was dismissed based on this. Gutierrez was condemned because he "refused to divulge his confidential source", according to LA Times. This has nothing to do with the sodium amytal story, which was written and demonstrated with documents in his book. Gutierrez literally produced private documents and photos from the Chandler family and these have never been challenged, not by Jackson nor by the Chandlers. Also, people tend to dismiss Gutierrez's claims because in his book he used the shock factor and even got in touch with the North American Man/Boy Love Association to gather more information on Jackson. Again, this has nothing to do with the fact that he's the only undisputed source of actual documents about the Chandlers' allegations.
2. Dimond worked for a tabloid, yes, but as already demonstrated, she was a reliable journalist, won several prizes and her claims were made in a book published by Atria Books from Simon & Schuster. Again, her book was not challenged in court. Also, she's worked as well for NBC, CNN, FoxNews etc. Dismissing all her claims based on the fact that she once worked for a tabloid is borderline prejudicial. And I keep reading that "Dimond it’s not allowed to be used as a source on Jackson per past consensus."
3. In Randall Sullivan's book "Untouchable", it is revealed that Mary A. Fischer allegedly got her information from Anthony Pellicano, Michael Jackson's private investigator and "fixer". "There are conflicting accounts of what took place after Evan and Mi- chael got to know each other. Michael’s story—or at least the story his representatives put together for him—was told most authoritatively in an article for GQ magazine written by journalist Mary A. Fischer in close collaboration with Anthony Pellicano, the private investigator who was working for Jackson attorney Bert Fields and handling most of the early contacts with the Chandler family." (by the way, apparently Sullivan's book is also not allowed because it "does not have an independent reliable source contradicting the claim").
4. Maureen Orth is apparently also "a banned source on the topic of Jackson via past consensus", which means I was not allowed to use her transcription of the 1995 Primetime interview by Diane Sawyer. The claim that Orth is not a reliable source "based on past consensus" is backed up by other editors, with no arguments or proof whatsoever.

Therefore, I would like to be allowed to cite:

• Gutierrez's book, only for the scanned documents

• Dimond's book, as secondary source

• Sullivan's book, as secondary source

• Orth's transcript of that interview, at least DanieleJava (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I would concur that a book written by an author should be treated distinctly from the work of that same author for a tabloid. I would hesitate to use Hard Copy as a source but I would not assume that applied for everything Diamond wrote. Being clear. Simonm223 (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem with this is that much of Diane‘s work prior to the liable judgment against Victor Gutierrez, it’s based off of stories that Victor fed her. She even did after the judgment in Jackson’s favor continued to use Victor as a source. In my opinion, it would just be easier just to not use any of her work on Jackson versus having to research who her unidentified sources are and if it was Victor Gutierrez, which is more than likely would have been. Once even Diane Dimond proclaimed she was absolutely certain that Jackson wrote "love letters" to the 2005 accuser on Larry King. King and Cochran cals her out on this. Nobody had ever seen such letters. In the exacts same show Dimond admits she never saw or read them, but at the same time remained certain they existed. This is the exact opposite impression of reliable sourcing. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:ACCORDINGTO should be applied here. These people don't need to be 100% reliable or unbiased. Plus, their claims are not extreme like the choice of a specific drug to extract false confessions, which falls under WP:FRINGE/PS to say the least. And I'd like to point out that Victor's stories have been corroborated multiple times, which is the reason why she was not condemned to pay. DanieleJava (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That’s not what WP:ACCORDINGTO is trying to get across here. I’ll suggest looking at WP:QUESTIONABLE in this case. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure that "dedicating your life" to arguing Michael Jackson is a pedophile necessarily implies one is an even handed expert, nor does it imply Diane is "not allowed". I think it depends on where she published and to what extent her arguments are WP:DUE. Generally, I think it's best to cover all sides of the argument when it comes to allegations.

What really is needed are WP:RS. The trouble is that many books published about Jackson allegations were written by people with diametrically opposing views.

As you argue, some people dispute the administration of sodium amytal. In a 1994 WaPo article, it states:

"An article in the October issue of GQ magazine that explores the allegations against Jackson says that the primary victim of the alleged abuse first made his accusations when he was given the controversial drug sodium amytal, otherwise known as "truth serum," for a root canal. Feldman, the boy's lawyer, said he was not interviewed for the article and that the allegation was "absolutely not" true."

I think that having a sentence stating that the accusers lawyer denied the allegation is fine. That said, it would be concerning if an allegation arose in a setting using sedatives. During the Satanic panic, it became very clear that children can indeed be guided or coaxed (often unintentionally) into making false allegations.

Zenomonoz (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The trouble is that many books published about Jackson allegations were written by people with diametrically opposing views. Which is why WP:NPOV requires that the different points of view published be attributed and represented. Katzrockso (talk) 00:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I suggest using the WaPo source which covers both sides of the story. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That wouldn't establish that the information is DUE for inclusion in the first place - we still only have one source (a low-quality source, in this context) that reports the allegation in its own voice at all. An unsubstantiated allegation of wrongdoing (the administration of a controlled drug to cause a false allegation of sexual misconduct) made in a fashion magazine that hasn't been backed up by reliable sources in the 30 years since sounds like gossip that shouldn't be included under WP:NOTNEWS. Katzrockso (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

An allegation, no matter how dubious, becomes due for mention if it has made its way into WP:RS like The Washington Post. I think it is worth covering the claim and denial, given how many sources seemingly assert this is proven fact. Many allegations (and conspiracy theories etc) are covered on Wikipedia if only to cast doubt on their veracity. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

An allegation, no matter how dubious, becomes due for mention if it has made its way into WP:RS like The Washington Post Where did you get this idea? A claim made once in a Washington Post article with no WP:SUSTAINED coverage in reliable sources is not always DUE for inclusion given WP:GOSSIP/WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VNOT. What other reliable sources have reported this in their own voice beyond the GQ piece? Katzrockso (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Your problem with this GQ article and the reasons stated, is exactly the discussion to have about Orth’s and Dowd’s works on Jackson. Each of them has made claims never before or since against Jackson. Far more outlandish I would say like Jackson was practicing voodoo on Steven Spielberg. Like what? TruthGuardians (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:ACCORDINGTO should be applied here. These people don't need to be 100% reliable or unbiased. Plus, their claims are not extreme like the choice of a specific drug to extract false confessions which falls under WP:FRINGE/PS to say the least.

And Victor's stories were so reliable that they've been the reason why Dimond was not condemned during that lawsuit. DanieleJava (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

We're talking about the guy who owned a chimp, built an amusement park, was obsessed with children, was a drug addict and collected Nazi memorabilia. The vodoo claim sounds more plausible than the sodium amytal fabrication. DanieleJava (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

These would be relevant to establishing whether or not the information contained in their articles is WP:DUE for inclusion in a particular article. I don't think the outlandish claims that "Jackson was practicing voodoo on Steven Spielberg" or whatnot is WP:DUE for inclusion on any article and would oppose its inclusion anywhere. This is completely tangential to whether or not a source is reliable. Even if a source is reliable, it doesn't mean that every piece of information or statement within the source needs to be included in an article (WP:VNOT). Katzrockso (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Katzrockso, no, WP:SUSTAINED is a notability guideline. Notability guidelines are used to determine whether an article should exist, not whether or not content within articles should be included. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware that SUSTAINED is a notability guideline, but the general principle applies to establishing whether content is due weight in an article as well. Something that receives only passing coverage in WP:BREAKINGNEWS receives less WP:WEIGHT than something that receives sustained coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time; this is covered by WP:PROPORTION;

For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. Katzrockso (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair, but better to use due and ‘noteworthy’ guidelines. Given the allegation made it into New York Times bestselling book by Halperin, I think it’s worth covering, that’s all. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It was bestselling because it came out right after MJ's death. That doesn't make the claim credible, nor sourced at all. DanieleJava (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

All sources came after the GQ article and mention the GQ article. As per today, Fischer never proved any of her claims. DanieleJava (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that notability guidelines do not determine the content of articles, the sodium amytal allegation does not appear to have been introduced by GQ at all.

As noted by Halperin (page 62) "Diamond may be unaware that the allegations were first reported not by Fischer, but by a newsman for KCBS-TV five months earlier. She may also be unaware that the reporter asked Evan Chandler whether he had used the drug on his son. Rather than denying sodium amytal was involved, Chandler claimed he had used a drug only to pull his son's tooth out and that while under that drug's in-fluence, the boy came out with the allegations. This admission is notable for two reasons. First, the drug's effects on Jordie appear to be consistent with the use of sodium amytal. Equally important, experts in the use of this barbiturate claim that the drug is not customarily used in dental extractions. "It's unusual for it to be used [for pulling out a tooth]," explained Dr. John Yagiela, director of the Dental Anesthesiology Residency Program at the UCLA School of Dentistry. "It makes no sense when better, safer alternatives are available." Fischer, however, was not content to rely on the KCBS-TV report. She preferred to go straight to the source and ask Mark Torbiner whether he used sodium amytal during Jordan Chandler's procedure. Rather than deny it, he told Fischer, "If I used it, it was for dental purposes."

These allegations also made made it into The Los Angeles Times (here syndicated into The Baltimore Sun). The whole dispute is covered in numerous books (e.g. the Ian Halperin book, a NY Times bestseller), so it seems due for inclusion. What seems to be in dispute is whether not that specific drug was in use. It is Chandler's lawyer who denied the claim merely by asserting that Chandler was never interviewed. This requires one to believe that both a KCBS-TV reporter and the GQ reporter were myth peddling and lying. It is no surprise that a lawyer would deny the claims on behalf of their client, but about the KCBS-TV reporter? We cannot take the claim of Chandler's lawyer as fact. All we should do is mention the denial.

Evidently, Diamond's supposed debunking of the sodium amytal allegation is faulty at best. She misattributes it entirely to a GQ article, when it actually emerged earlier in a statement given to a KCBS-TV reporter.

Zenomonoz (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

1. It's Dimond, not Diamond.
2. Halperin wrote his book after 2009 = after the GQ article
3. The LA Times quotes the GQ article = after the GQ article
4. The alleged KCBS-TV reporter has never been named (which is strange, since he's not anonymous) + the video has never been found. Does it even exist? Should we just blindly trust Fischer that she asked a mysterious reporter? Why didn't this reporter get famous for breaking such insane piece of information? Exactly.

The only person with actual information was Victor Gutierrez, who provided private documents and private photos, demonstrating an insider knowledge. Dimond got her information from Gutierrez, sticking to the documented evidence. DanieleJava (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The KCBS-TV report can't verify anything, since we don't have access to it. For what it's worth, from my understanding the KCBS-TV reporter first reported that Chandler was administered sodium amytal, but GQ was the first one to attribute the allegations against Jackson to the sodium amytal. That's the crucial point here. Katzrockso (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Since we don't have any proof that this KCBS-TV report even exist, being that the only source originally mentioning this report was the GQ article by Fischer, anything after it is hearsay. On the other side, we do have unchallenged documents that show that Robinul and Vistaril were administered. I discussed this in great detail on the talk page, waited patiently before editing the main article, and got reverted immediately after. Because, I quote, "Diane Diamond is an unreliable source and proven liar with no credibility whatsoever" and "Dimond it’s not allowed to be used as a source on Jackson per past consensus." DanieleJava (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

We do have some sources stating that there was a KCBS-TV report. The important thing to me is that the first (and only, as far as I'm aware) that states in its own voice that the reason Chandler accused Jackson is because of the sodium amytal is the GQ source. The KCBS-TV report, from all that we are informed about it, simply states that Chandler administered his son sodium amytal as part of a dental procedure. That information would be WP:UNDUE for inclusion on any article on Wikipedia because it is simply not WP:RELEVANT to any article (and to the extent that it is, it would be inappropriate WP:SYNTH). The actual source that makes the connection between Jackson and the sodium amytal is the GQ article from Fischer, which is why evaluating this source's quality is pertinent here.

We also have conflicting reports about the supposed KCBS-TV report, so without accessing it ourselves, I would consider it an unusable source and completely irrelevant for our purposes. Katzrockso (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Like I said, any source citing the existence of the KCBS-TV report comes after the GQ article and repeats what the GQ article says. Otherwise, there is no trace of this legendary report, nor a transcript or a frame or the name of the reporter. DanieleJava (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

By the way, I found out that Fischer is also the one who wrote "A Case of Dominoes?: Did six crucial players simply invent the longest, most expensive, most sensational-and most trumped up-case in LA.'s history?" Los Angeles, October 1989, pp 126, 135. She questioned the whole McMartin scandal and dove in the "false memory syndrome" rabbit hole, which coincidentally is the same used to imply that MJ had been framed with a false confession. I really, really doubt there is a KCBS-TV report, at this point, but what I find concerning is that my paragraph was removed despite including both theories. DanieleJava (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you casting doubt on false memories (a scientifically verified phenomena) and suggesting that mcmartin daycare panic was credible? This bizarre guilt by association critique of Fischer seems totally irrelevant. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

False memories are not a "scientifically verified phenomena" but a very controversial one. This is also off-topic. Katzrockso (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying that she made a bold claim in a period of time where there was moral panic around the concept of FMS and probably claimed the information came from a never-identified source. A drug that is not available for dentistry is illegally introduced in the lab of a well-known dentist, with no track records whatsoever, and with the only goal of implanting memories in a 13-year-old boy. This is not supported by modern psychology or forensic science.

That's why I propose we stick to the documented facts: Robinul and Vistaril were administered, as shown in documents from that day. DanieleJava (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

A moral panic about false memories? You mean a response to a widespread moral panic fuelled by fictional books and therapists, under which children came to believe there were satanic rituals in tunnels under their schools and infant cannibalism, all of collapsed under police investigation and experimental evidence of false memory formation (e.g. famous lost in a mall study). False memories are certainly controversial within the context of overzealous lawyers dismissing every allegation against clients as a false memory. But to suggest there is a problem with Fischer because of an article he wrote about the satanic panic isn’t a good argument. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks as if she took advantage of the moral panic to defend her favorite popstar.

By the way, we're steering away from the main topic, which is the question whether Dimond, Gutierrez and Sullivan are allowed sources or not, based on alleged "past consensus". Let's go back to that. DanieleJava (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. To get us back on topic, does Dimond (or other sources) raise the argument that the KCBS-TV interview does not exist? If so, I think that’s worth mentioning in the article. Otherwise, perhaps the whole thing should be removed. My preference would be to cover sources that contend the story was untrue to begin with (because it’s been covered in many best selling books). Zenomonoz (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I still think omission of the sodium amytal story is the best solution. Katzrockso (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Dimond doesn't mention the KCBS-TV report but she mentions the actual document from the anesthesiologist.

In general, my concern is that it is claimed that some sources cannot be used based on "past consensus" and we've been discussing this for days now without any actual proof of this past consensus. The sources are:

Dimond, D. (2009). Be careful who you love: Inside the Michael Jackson case. Simon and Schuster.

Gutierrez, V. M. (1998). Michael Jackson was my lover: The secret diary of Jordie Chandler. Playa.

Sullivan, R. (2012). Untouchable: The strange life and tragic death of Michael Jackson. Grove/Atlantic, Inc.

If edits containing these sources keep getting removed based on that claim, the whole MJ category ends up being extremely biased. DanieleJava (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

We discussed Gutierrez above and I think most editors on this noticeboard agreed that he is an unreliable source for several reasons. Katzrockso (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

So Dimond and Sullivan are okay? What about Maureen Orth? DanieleJava (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we've probably come to a rough consensus that Dimond is a generally* reliable source. I don't think we really discussed Maureen Orth and Sullivan. What's important to note about most sources is that they are typically categorized/analyzed by the publication they are published in. Work by one particular journalist or author is rarely analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, a source by one journalist/author could be reliable if published by a reliable news publication but unreliable if published by an unreliable news publication.

In particular with Dimond, perhaps editors think that her work for Hard Copy is unreliable because Hard Copy is not a generally reliable publication (perhaps it is WP:MREL or needs to have additional considerations), while her work for NBC, Entertainment Tonight, etc is reliable. Her book Be Careful Who You Love: Inside the Michael Jackson Case was published by Atria Books, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster, which is one of the "big 5" publishers. That indicates we should give more positive weigh in assessing its reliability. Katzrockso (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Harvey Levine (yes that one) was the one who originally reported on this story way back when. CBS actually does have a tape and for two weeks now I’ve been in contact with them to see what it costs or what it takes to release this tape. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Our article on the subject is cited to two reliable sources: (a) an Edinburgh University Press book which describes the site in positive, generically-reliable terms; and (b) The Times which does the same. On this noticeboard, a 2015 discussion was 2-to-1 against with concerns about editorial policies and using MediaWiki; a 2022 discussion was largely about the site's opinion pieces with one now-globally-blocked editor arguing against using it for facts; and a 2025 discussion was just one editor saying they were now using it instead of the source they'd originally come to ask about.

In 2026, given the state of the site as it lives and breathes today, what do we think of the site with regards to reliability for facts? It looks to me like an overwrought fan site, but I know that there's a point at which a longstanding and heavily-invested fan site can become a legitimate source for its subject, and I can't determine where on that spectrum UKGameshows.com lives. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The join us page make it appear to be a wiki, with very limited gate keeping. They have an editor, sub editor and reviewer, but there's no indication of what editorial control (if any) exactly takes place. The Edinburgh press and Times article might prove notability, but there not exactly WP:USEBYOTHERS. I've had a search to see if I can find anymore, but it brings back limited results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It feels borderline to me, but that's why I was hoping it'd be clearer one way or another to folks here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a source I would personally rely on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:35, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Would you mind also looking at the reply below and giving your input? I'd much prefer a consensus if we can get one. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Bodycombe is the former question editor for Only Connect and Weaver has been writing a column for the site for 25 years, which I would argue makes them subject-matter experts. The site's also discussed at from McGraw Hill Education and at Talk:Jay Rayner and Talk:Sandra Caron. I consider it fine for non-contentious claims.--Launchballer 01:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It has been 5 years since the website was last discussed. I am not here to quarrel about it's user generated aspect, that is evident and the website for sure has issues with oversight and allowing falsified or unverifiable information in. My hope is to perhaps allow for an adjustment to the wording regarding "Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia", particularly so when it comes to a famous grave entry/person has a Wiki page. It is not always guaranteed a greenlisted source will exist to source a person's final resting place on their page, so I was wanting to see if the wording of Find a Grave's listing could be amended to allow for the website's use to source final resting places ONLY on the condition there is a grave image to objectively confirm the individual is indeed there. In example, Wink Martindale passed away early last year, no sources emerged about funeral or internment since, but since then grave images have been submitted to his Find a Grave to show he was interred at Valley Oaks Memorial Park. I at one point had used Find a Grave to cite an inclusion of a cemetery when the person's entry had a grave photo, but more often than not it would be peeled out of the page owing to Find a Grave's status as a source. As stated I fully agree with the fact the website has a pretty glaring problem with corroborating submitted information, but I really feel some flexibility to use it should be allowed for ONLY when the entry has clear photographic proof of internment. Rusted AutoParts 05:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

If reliable sources are not indicating the place of burial, is it really something that we need to include in the article? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

We have pages for the cemeteries and categories for burials in given cemeteries to catalogue information such as this, if it's apparent and factual they are indeed there I don't why it would be sensical to exclude that information, it's just a matter of being able to place a source with it. Since we aren't entitled to the families putting out there funeral plans or internment plans, better sources aren't always guaranteed, it's why I'm only seeking a caveat added to Find a Grave's listing as opposed to fighting for it to be greenlisted, because when there is photo or even video documentation showing a grave being in a given location, I think there should be room alloted to make use of it should a greenlisted source not be available.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusted AutoParts (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are many editors who do not trust the images or videos on otherwise unreliable sites, due to falsification and hoaxes. I'm not sure I always agree with their concerns, but you're going to have an uphill struggle to get such a caveat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

In general, we use reliable, third-party sources not only to tell us what is verifiable fact, but also to tell us what is worth including. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:VNOTSUFF, we need not include any fact (nor an external link) merely because it is true or verifiable, and even if it is mentioned in a reliable source. A celebrity magazine might say a famous person has a pet dog named Max, is distantly related to Genghis Khan or Charlemagne, or enjoys reading in their spare time. This doesn't mandate their inclusion in a biographical article, just as you wouldn't find such trivia in "actual" (professional quality) encyclopedias like Britannica or American National Biography. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am not saying we include everything mentioned in reliable sources - but failure to find it in reliable sources is a good reason not to mention. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  But like you said whether a celebrity has a dog or likes comic books is trivia. I don't agree that stuff like final resting places qualifies as trivia. Wouldn't that not also place information as such birthplace/deathplace/place they grew up in that same vein? Rusted AutoParts 20:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  We don't tend to list birthplace, death place, or place they grew up without a reliable source. And those are places that had an actual effect on their life. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Listing someone's graveyard is probably the closest you can get to doxxing a dead person. There are almost no circumstances where anything more elaborate than "buried in Arlington National Cemetery" is needed except for the most blithely notable persons. guninvalid (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

In what way is it "clear photographic proof" when you have no way to know whether it's genuine or Photoshopped or AI-generated? And grave markers aren't stamped with the name of the cemetery where they're located anyway, so how would you know for sure that, even if the marker is real, it's located where the accompanying text says it is? Largoplazo (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

...Would there be particular reason for someone to falsify fake Wink Martindale grave images? In his circumstance, the photos of his grave were uploaded by Arthur Dark, who operates the YouTube channel Hollywood Graveyard, he actually goes to the cemeteries so he has no reason to fake grave images. As for listing someone's graveyard constituting "doxxing", I....don't really know what to say to that, it would be much different if they're in a very private section or their grave is unmarked but a gravestone in a public area for people to see isn't "doxxing". Rusted AutoParts 17:20, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

A UG source isn't reliable because you don't know a particular reason why they would lie. People post false info here all the time. Who knows why that do it? But they do it. Largoplazo (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so if there's suspicion a picture is falsified then is there not means to investigate on it to verify if that's the case or not? Do we really just leave it at "I suspect this is fake so we won't use it or verify that it is fake"? Would it not be fine once determined it's not in fact fake? It's why I'm approaching this selectively, it's not a "give Find a Grave broad permission to be used", we stipulate already it can be included as an external link if it "offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia", I'm just hoping to see if it's possible to tweak the wording so that it can allow for the external link usage to be used as the sourcing reason that person has been listed as buried on a given cemetery's page/added to that cemeteries burials category without it being removed as unsourced. Rusted AutoParts 18:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

If we have to look elsewhere to verify the information in the original source, it's tautological that the original source wasn't deemed reliable enough to stand on its own. This applies, in particular, to all user-generated content, not just Find-A-Grave. If a source that is reliable confirms the information, then that's the source to cite. Largoplazo (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Your concern pertained to whether an image was faked or not. So if the image is determined to be wholly authentic and accurate, your contention is that by virtue of having the concern of authenticity to begin, it's able to be discarded regardless? I just, I don't see the logic there. Find a Grave's usage in this instance I'm suggesting would only ever come in in the event there isn't a better source to utilize but there is photographic proof provided on Find a Grave to corroborate (and said photographic proof has no falsification concerns attached to it) Rusted AutoParts 20:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said cite the source that was considered reliable for verification purposes as the source. Don't cite Find-a-Grave. And, going right back to the beginning of this argument, since anybody can post anything on Find-A-Grave, including fake photos and fake descriptions of photos and their locations, the presence of a photo on Find-a-Grave is not photographic proof. Largoplazo (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

To what extent do we assume an image is falsified though? And to what end? It's smacks of absurdity to write off every photo added to Find a Grave as if it was falsified. How does this give indication of forgery? Or this? Why provide a real image of a grave but then falsify the location you're submitting it to? Rusted AutoParts 21:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The whole point of reliability isn't whether we're sufficiently satisfied that something in a source is false, let alone whether we can prove that it's false, but whether, simply by virtue of its being in that source, we can rely on it being true.

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I'm seeing that you've been editing here for a very long time and have a great many edits under your belt. For that reason, I hesitate to take you all the way back to first principles, by suggesting you read WP:V and WP:RS and, for that matter, WP:UGC, as I would if you were fairly new so you'd have the context against which to discuss the specific case of photos in Find-A-Grave. Yet surely you've read them before and are aware of the policies and guidelines they cover and the rationales for them. So I'm really puzzled as to what's going on here. Largoplazo (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Literally was just seeing whether there was any room for exceptions to utilize assets found in Find a Grave, as stipulated in it's current listing on the reliable sources list, to include things like categories identifying where the person is buried in lieu of more trusted sources not being available. I recognize how that sounds, which is why I made my case surrounding the fact of it an entry had clear proof of it's inclusion of a cemetery via imaging/video or specified coordinates or something. I didn't particularly consider having editors lob issues of AI or "doxxing" as rationale against this. I find the instant assumption that a photo added is faked a bit of a disheartening realization where were at in the age of AI, and frankly just makes me question why that caveat about including it as an external link is maintained when the "valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia" is inherently redundant when people tether the user generated content aspect towards whether the image on the page is even real or not. This is clearly not going to be going anywhere, so this thread may as well be archived. Rusted AutoParts 01:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I find the instant assumption that a photo added is faked a bit of a disheartening: All I can say in response to that is the answer I gave the first time you read that into what I'd said: I said no such thing. Surely you understand the difference between assuming something is false and having sufficient confidence that it's true to pass it on to the world as information. Largoplazo (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

That was just an in general remark about AI, not especially pointed at one specific person. Rusted AutoParts 01:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Has this website ever been wrong? Guz13 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

How would anyone here know that? It's beside the point. We don't presume a site full of user-generated content is reliable just because no one here has performed a study of whether anyone has posted anything fake on that site. We presume it's unreliable because there's nothing there to prevent fakery. Largoplazo (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If there hasn't been an example of fakery, then I would say it is reliable. Guz13 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

That amounts to "I believe what anybody says until I find out I was wrong", which is not how Wikipedia treats reliability. That's clear if you read the policies and guidelines on the subject. Largoplazo (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The policy statement is that reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The question though isn't about if the website is reliable, but whether primary documentation (photos) on the site should be considered reliable even if the site itself isn't (as it's WP:USERGENERATED content, and shouldn't otherwise be used). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The source is the website, not the photo, just as is the case every time we cite a source because of text it contains. And random photos from arbitrary people posting with no editorial oversight aren't reliable. Largoplazo (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thats the disagreement that I noted in my original reply to the OP. It's not true that it's always the website though, see WP:ANCESTRY and WP:FAMILYSEARCH for instance. Admittedly in those cases the primary sources are of a different quality. However my comment was more to do with Find a Grave not being reliable in general, as it's user generated, and that 'not being wrong' isn't a policy based argument.
My way of thinking about the images is that you could use the gravestone as a source, anyone could go and verify the grave itself and that would be inline with WP:SOURCEACCESS, so the image is just a courtesy link. It's really no different than using {{cite sign}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of examples of graves listed on that website for people who don't even exist. There was, for quite a while, a memorial for the U.S. penny. Katzrockso (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

A gravestone isn't a source. It goes hand in hand with the grave and the body in it, the things about which a claim is being made. This is like writing "the residence of the president of Mexico is green", displaying a picture of a green house as the only "source", and then telling readers they can fly to Mexico City if they want to verify it.

It astounds me that you brought up Ancestry and FamilySearch, two sites that are solid "No"s on the perpetual sources list. Largoplazo (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You've seen the colour and not read the details. Both listing at RSP state that the primary sources hosted by those sites might be used as reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I did read them. The primary sources they refer to are official public records the sites themselves upload, like their vast library of scanned census forms, marriage certificates, ship manifests, and so on. Not user uploads. See the discussions linked in those rows of the table for clarification.

Even those public records are subject to the usual precautions spelled out by WP:PRIMARY. For example, a participant in one of the discussions mentioned an ancestor who got "younger" with each census. It was the same with one of my grandmothers: she aged less than 10 years between censuses and her listed country of origin eventually transformed from Austria into the US. Largoplazo (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If the website has false gravestones, then this should be noted in its reliability. Guz13 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It is an unreliable source per WP:UGC. Everything can and is edited by users. Katzrockso (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

• I have no idea why anyone would object to using this site to document DOD and Place of Burial, given the great number of photographs present. In an era when corporate "mainstream" media is devolving into de facto State TV, it strikes me as quite counterintuitive that documented, factual, individually-researched evidence of limited basic facts is somehow cast aside, ostensibly because the contributors are unpaid volunteers rather than paid "journalists" who must sing for their porridge. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2026 (UTC) /// P.S. My father didn't get a newspaper obituary because obits are now profit-centers for the dying, nearly dead local press. The shits wanted nine hundred fucking dollars for an obit. That's gonna be an issue, moving forward. Stop being so smug about volunteer-run online factual resources, everyone. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  If you say "I have no idea why" after it's been explained in depth, here and in the site's policies, then there's no point discussing it all over again just for you. Largoplazo (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your seventh contribution to this shortish thread. Bludgeon much? Just because one says something a lot doesn't make it true. Carrite (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with ActivelyDisinterested. I see parallels between this discussion and #Findmypast - Newspaper archive below. In this case, Find a Grave is a courtesy link, with the citation itself pointing to the object via {{Cite sign}}. I agree that a gravestone is an unideal source, and it's often not necessary to include an individual's burial site when not reported by secondary sources. I also agree with users who have noted that it's unlikely that images on the site are faked (with no given reason to assume that they are). Wracking ^talk! 01:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable per WP:UGC where it's even given as an example. An external Findagrave link may be acceptable, especially for someone that Findagrave class as a "famous person" (their Findagrave memorials are under tighter control). None of this is intended to disparage Findagrave any more than describing Wikipedia as user-generated disparages Wikipedia - it's just that it is a tool for a specific purpose and not a good fit for what Wikipedia would use it for. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Something similar to this has been discussed before, but with respect to the owner of this publisher, not BackinTyme itself.

BackinTyme is (was?) a publisher owned by User:FrankWSweet, the webpage for it is archived here, it doesn't exist anymore. The publishing model was listed on the site as follows:

Backintyme Publishing is seeking authors of non-fiction on the U.S. color line. Have you written something informative on U.S. "racial" classification? If so post a sample to Bowker Manuscript Submissions and it will be considered by hundreds of publishers including Backintyme. Send any questions to sales@backintyme.com.

If we accept your work, Backintyme Publishing will pay for initial set-up costs as well as production costs, and we will place your book with the major booksellers, including BooksAMillion, Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Powells, and Amazon Kindle. You will be expected to be responsible for marketing and we will split the profits. If you have a non-fiction book in you, here is your chance to make it a reality.

Bowker seems to be a self-publishing service, I'm unaware exactly of its exact relationship to BackinTyme other than deciding what books they will accept, but the model listed here seems to be a self-publishing one. Frank seems to have a history of citing himself on wikipedia as seen in a previous discussion, he also expressed his frustration with the coverage of African-American history on Wikipedia on his website, under the subheading "Past Slavery is Irrelevant". His own books are published through BackinTyme and are uses as citations on Wikipedia. Some examples:

Note: Legal History of the Color line is highly cited on scholar (100+ hits), so I'm unaware of the guideline for that one, but from what I understand Mr. Sweet is not considered an expert in the field per se.

Other authors published through him are also cited on Wikipedia, and typically are within the purview of racial classification as stated on the archived website, and tend to discuss folk histories of small mixed-race ethnic groups in the USA, but from what I've seen not in a very academic sense. These books are not really cited by others. Onlookers are free to judge this themselves, as they tend to be available to read on Google Books.

I'm seeking input on whether BackinTyme publishing's works are valid to be used as RSes, and whether they should be cited on Wikipedia given this context. Apologies if I have constructed this inquiry incorrectly. Kotthu (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure BackinTyme's setup would count as selfpublishing, selfpublishers don't tend to pay for setup and production. Although obviously anything Sweet publishes though the publisher he owns is selfpublished. WP:USEBYOTHERS may allow the use of Legal History of the Color Line, but that isn't inherited by the other works. Of course that the other works published by BackinTyme may not be selfpublished doesn't necessarily make them reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the element that I'm confused about is their vetting is through be the self-publisher platform Bowker, you submit to them to get published through BackinTyme. I personally believe the works published by BackinTyme are not reliable, there doesn't seem to be any kind of vetting, peer review or editing process, or atleast that's the understanding I've gathered having looking through multiple works published by them over the months, however I didn't' want to put that in the main body of my question since people can look at the works themselves and judge. They tend to be personal family genealogy stories and folk histories by people about their own families, not done in a very academic way. Kotthu (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

They don't say that vetting is done by Bowker, they say they consider works they find on Bowker. If Bowker is doing some prevetting that doesn't preclude BackinTyme from having editorial control. From looking at the works they could be useful for people studying people's family stories, but I'm unconvinced on their use on Wikipedia. If the author has prior work or a relevant academic background or the work is cited by other works, maybe, but personally I would avoid them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

If Bowker is doing some prevetting that doesn't preclude BackinTyme from having editorial control

You're right, thank you.

If the author has prior work or a relevant academic background or the work is cited by other works, maybe,

Yeah, I think that is the only form of validation I'd consider, since BackinTyme itself seems to publish a standard of work I don't consider citable, but works that many others have cited I think are plausible to cite

I appreciate the feedback, thank you. Kotthu (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? @SocDoneLeft claims that it is created by a body of the Democratic Socialists of America.--User:Namiba 16:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No, as how do we know it was made by them? Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Being honest I'd be reticent to click a blind Google Docs link. It's certainly not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

No. We need a third party to verify it. Guz13 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I am baffled that anyone would think that an unpublished Google spreadsheet attributed to a political party is a reliable source. As others note, we have no way to verify if it's authentic, and even if it was authentic, it would be naive to take a party at its word for something like this. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hard no--I'm curious though where do the claims it comes from the DSA come from? Was it linked to a page associated with the DSA? Either way this isn't a source. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@SocDoneLeft claims that it comes from DSA itself. They can explain why if they wish. I came across it at New York City Democratic Socialists of America and other DSA chapter articles.--User:Namiba 19:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've occasionally been trying (probably unsuccessfully) to keep Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom reasonably clean of non-independent sources for party membership numbers. It seems that the Americans have similar problems. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You should see the disputes about the member numbers for Communist Party of the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It is a WP:SELFSOURCE. I did not add it. If we accept WP:SELFSOURCE for claims about organization membership count, then it should be kept.

That seems fine here. Newspapers virtually always repeat whatever membership number DSA gives. Have for decades. We should add "(claimed)", IMO.

The sheet is updated monthly by DSA's Growth and Development Committee (as the FAQ mentions). Previously by the National Political Committee. It's trivially easy for anyone in DSA to verify this: Go to the 1st tab "Readme", click the Discussion Forum link. SocDoneLeft (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that readers need to be able to verify this, not just anyone in DSA. Is this linked openly from the DSA website or some other way that it's obvious to that this is a DSA file? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

That is good, but how do we know it is authentic? Guz13 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Guz13 and ActivelyDisinterested: To my knowledge, it is not linked publicly. Is there anything the sheet itself could display to indicate authenticity, beyond the FAQ and Readme stating as such & linking to DSA internals & aligning with DSA's national & chapter public announcements? SocDoneLeft (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Anything in the spreadsheet could be changed by anyone editing it, so can't show who the authors are. If it's not from the DSA then whoever it is from could just say it is in the file. If it was hosted on their website this wouldn't be an issue, but there's nothing about the google docs link that shows it's authored from the DSA. That's why I was asking if it was linked anywhere official. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

They should host in on their own website. Guz13 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

EWeek used to be PCWeek but changed its name and went digital only in 2012 and has since been owned by marketing companies. It looks to me like another site that reprints press releases and fluff about companies (see for instance about a company of questionable notability), but its website claims that it's objective and makes money from ads, not content. Any opinions? https://www.eweek.com/editorial-policy/ Lijil (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

There editors seem to have a background in tech reporting, and the editorial policy you linked says the right things. They do offer native advertising (advertorials)[solutions(dot)technologyadvice(dot)com/advertise-on-eweek/]‡, but I don't know what to make of their disclosure. I can find one article where it's in the title, but no others. Then there's this page , which appears to lists all the article sponsored by a particular company but none of the articles mention that they're sponsored on the articles page. It does have use by others as a citation in printed works, although the quality of the publishers is quite variable.
The specific article you mention is by a journalist, but reads like a company presentation. At least on a case by case basis I don't believe that article is independent of the company it's reporting on.

‡Their parent companies URL has been blacklisted, I haven't looked into why. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that’s useful. The list of articles sponsored by a company but where none of the articles disclose that sponsorship sounds like not an independent source. Lijil (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• R.Saravanan; R.Ramesh (2023). M. Lakshmanan (ed.). "An Ancient Chola brick temple in Vedal" (PDF). Proceedings of the 29th Annual Session. Tamil Nadu History Congress: 388–390. ISSN 2319-3808.

I am currently in a dispute with @Parsecboy over whether a source added to the article Vedal by @Utcursch is reliable. It is my opinion that large versions of the source are directly copy-and-pasted from an unsourced prior version of the Vedal article, and the article fails to cite or attribute to Wikipedia, that it cannot be used. The dispute is at Talk:Vedal#Citogenesis. Context for the dispute can be found at Talk:Vedal#Requested move 2 May 2026 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedal.

Here is one of the most obvious examples of it:

The source (forgive it's awful English; it was written in Tamil and the publisher begins the journal by apologizing for how bad they were at translations):

The temple has two separate shrines. The main shrine dedicated to Lord Shivavadavamuga Agueeshwarar) and other one dedicated. Goddess Vasantha Nayagi. The main temple is built in the Gajaprshtha architectural style. (Aka thoongani style which resembles the backside of the elephant).The ghost image Ganesha Dakshinamurthy, Vishnu, Brahma and Durga are found on the wall surrounding the main shrine. Chandikeshwarar is also found as usual. Thevimana along with the images of the Gods is strikingly beautiful.

Our article on Nov. 19, 2021:

The temple which is almost in ruin has two separate shrines - the main shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva (Vadavamuga Agneeswarar) and the other one dedicated to Goddess Vasanta Nayaki. The main temple is built in the Gajabrashta architectural style (aka Thoonganai style which resembles the back side of the elephant). The goshta images Ganesha, Dakshinamurthy, Vishnu, Brahma, Durga and Chandikeshwar are found on the wall surrounding the main shrine. The vimana along with the images of the Gods is still impressive, though in ruins.

More input would be appreciated. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR says "Do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources." (emphasis mine). I think given that they've copied from use word for word that they're using Wikipedia as a spurce. So we shouldn't be using them at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Concur with ActivelyDisinterested, it's a pretty textbook case of WP:CIRCULAR. I can see the other editor is saying it could be AI instead, but that would also be unreliable, so I digress. Kotthu (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

1brianm7 is significantly misrepresenting the source by claiming that "large versions of the source" that are "copy-and-pasted"; I don't see any text that is directly copied and pasted, though there are sections where wording and structure are similar, as I noted on the article talk page thread.

As for Kotthu's last statement, I didn't say the text was AI-generated, but likely AI-translated; the two are not the same.

Given that the article was written in Tamil and then translated into English, I fail to see how we have literally any evidence that the material was plagiarized from Wikipedia. We're supposed to WP:AGF with our fellow editors; how about we extend that treatment to a pair of PhDs. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

On the paragraph they used and the paragraph used in that version of the article that I brought up here, the only difference is they do not say the temple is in ruins. Can you imagine somebody independently determining that the proper order was to say their are two shrines, say who they are to. Than say what architectural style they are built in, aka the backside of an elephant, and then say who the goshta iamges are of in the same exact order, and then say that the shrine's look good. The example you used in the talk page discussion of the differences is them using Lord Shivavadavamuga Agueeshwarar) while we use Lord Shiva (Vadavamuga Agneeswarar). I don't know about you, but Lord Shivavadavamuga Agueeshwarar) just looks like Lord Shiva(vadavamuga Agueeshwarar) with a forgotten parenthetical. The academic articles uses the same exact phrasing in other places that I cannot imagine an academic stumbling upon (e.g., "pronounced as vaedal"). 1brianm7 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

And again, like when you called me a liar because I was using a number derived from the last 150 days while you were using a number derived from the last 90 days, WP:AGF in that I have explicitly said it was a translation, and so I am not misrepresenting it by saying copy-and-pasted; I am calling it explicit plagiarism, which it is. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you ever learned a foreign language? Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, that's blindingly obvious. The only explanation that I can think of for anyone saying, "I fail to see how we have literally any evidence that the material was plagiarized from Wikipedia" is that they have failed to even spend a fraction of a second looking. Have you completely taken leave of your senses, Parsecboy? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Explain to me how somebody copied our content, translated it into Tamil, then translated it back into English and it came back in a form that even remotely looks like our content. Do me a favor: try it. Slap our content into Google and post what it spits out. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph copy-and-pasted from our page, into Tamil Google translate, and then into English via Google translate.

This temple, now in a state of near-ruin, houses two distinct shrines: a main shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva (Vadavamukha Agneeswarar) and another dedicated to Goddess Vasantha Nayaki. The main temple is constructed in the *Gajaprishta* architectural style—also known as the *Thoonganai* style—which resembles the curvature of an elephant's hindquarters. Adorning the walls surrounding the main shrine are *Koshta* images of various deities, including Ganesha, Dakshinamurthy, Vishnu, Brahma, Durga, and Chandikeswarar. Despite its dilapidated condition, the *Vimana* (temple tower)—adorned with images of the deities—remains a breathtaking sight to this day.

I knew that Google translate had started incorporating LLM's but uh... that is blindingly obvious. I think that is better content than what the article had, actually. LLM-translated, but better. This paper is from October 2022, however, and so they used just plain-old translation software, which explains why it is so broken. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused, aren't there other sources on the topic? Why use this one? genuine question, because it just seems to be reworded Wikipedia in the excerpts provided. Here are some better sources:

For stuff on the power plant:

Kendra, Manthan Adhyayan. "Impacts of coastal coal based thermal power plants on water report of visit to some operational and in pipeline plants in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu." (2014).

Preetha, K. V., and Ajit Menon. "Neo-liberalising energy production: The making and unmaking of an ultra mega power project in South India." Review of Development and Change 24.2 (2019): 242-258.

For the temple, you can just look at INTACH, which the paper cites, as well as news:

INTACH's Heritage at Risk Register: http://architecturalheritage.intach.org/?page_id=990

https://thefederal.com/states/south/tamil-nadu/cried-for-notre-dame-but-no-tears-for-the-temples-lost-in-tn

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/survey-report-puts-cheyyur-project-in-trouble/article6691343.ece

As a site note, here is an interesting document on the temple: https://webstor.srmist.edu.in/web_assets/downloads/2026/sivan-temple-vedal-heritage-documentation.pdf Kotthu (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

As someone who mostly edits airport (and other aviation) articles, I've seen Travel and Tour World used to source content, mostly start or end dates for specific airline routes. For a recent example, a user included a new route at Los Angeles International Airport citing this article: On all of their route articles, I've seen content that has made me question its reliability:

• Almost all articles on the site use AI generated images. While this wouldn't make it unreliable, it does feed into the next point:
• Most articles on the site read like they were written by AI. Just read something like this article: , one of many that read like it was generated by AI, violating WP:RSML.
• Articles on the site never list an author at all or who wrote it.
• For airline route news, other sites will typically also list the news and usually include some kind of source, such as an industry insider or the airline announcing the news, but Travel and Tour World never mentions where the information is coming from.
• For airline route news, typically several sites will publish articles, leaving other websites that don't use AI as options for sources.

While I am not sure about other articles relating to different topics on the site, most look to follow these trends of reading like they were written by AI. Here's another airline article for example which reads like AI: . Their About Us section does not mention anything about who writes their articles either. Just interested in seeing what other people think. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC))

A number of Turkish-language sources are used at Verum Messenger, including:

• Aydinlik
• Son Dakika
• Gazete Ipekyol

These sources appear to be presenting the articles as their own work, but they read like adverts or press releases. However, I am reading them through Google translate, so I might have missed something; can an editor with more experience in Turkish media comment? BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not speak Turkish and have not looked at those sites. But I do remember reading a few NY Times articles about the games played in the Turkish press by large companies who owned the papers. It was extreme manipulation. They tried some of that in NY and backfired. If you do some searches you may get a better idea. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)