Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.


(Sections older than 5 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.)

List of archives
, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479
480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489
490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499
500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509
510, 511

Additional notes:

Shortcuts
  • RfCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
  • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
  • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

RfC: The Points Guy (TPG)

What is the reliability of The Points Guy (TPG) as a source?

— Newslinger talk 17:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)


Previous discussions:

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Survey (The Points Guy)

  • Option 3 or 4. The Points Guy (TPG) is a travel blog consisting of sponsored content that primarily focuses on the loyalty programs of credit cards, airlines, hotels, and other travel companies. As an affiliate marketing company, TPG is paid when a reader signs up for a credit card or other product that TPG promotes on the website. TPG is a questionable source because it has an "apparent conflict of interest" with the financial institutions that offer those products, and with the companies whose co-branded credit cards are marketed through TPG. The topics covered in TPG's content almost entirely overlaps with the companies and products associated with TPG's affiliate relationships.
    The 2007 contract "Chase Bank USA, N.A. Affiliate Program Agreement with Affiliate" that was publicly released in an SEC filing by a web property of Bankrate (which acquired TPG in 2012) includes the following clauses:
    • "Affiliate will only use credit card descriptions provided or approved in writing by Chase."
    • "Prior to using any of the Licensed Materials, Affiliate will submit to Chase for approval a draft of all proposed material that incorporates the Licensed Materials, together with a brief statement setting forth the proposed use of such materials and any other background or supporting material reasonably requested by Chase to allow Chase to make an informed judgment. All such materials shall be submitted to Chase at least seven (7) days prior to the date of first intended use. Chase will notify Affiliate of its approval or disapproval of such materials within five (5) business days of its receipt of all information required to be submitted. The approval or disapproval of such materials will be in Chase’s sole discretion."
    • "Affiliate agrees not to use the Licensed Materials in any manner that is disparaging or that otherwise portrays Chase in a negative light. Chase may revoke Affiliate’s license at any time."
    • Specifies a long list of "Restricted Trademark Terms", including airlines (e.g. British Air, United), hotel chains (e.g. Holiday Inn, InterContinental, Marriott), retailers (e.g. Amazon.com, Toys "R" Us), and other businesses (e.g. Disney, Starbucks) that have released co-branded products with Chase Bank
  • Two years after Bankrate acquired TPG and took over the management of "some affiliate links", Skift published "The Blurring Ethical Lines Between Credit Card Companies and Travel Writers", which stated: "As highlighted in this Mr. Money Moustache post, advertisers like Chase aren’t above nudging the editorial in a direction of their choice — and when bloggers don’t step in line they risk losing their revenue stream." That sentence linked to another sponsored credit card blog which reported that Chase Bank revoked their affiliate contract, with one of the reasons being the blog's use of the text "WTF!?" to describe one of Chase's rewards cards. As of today, TPG continues to advertise credit cards from Chase Bank and other financial institutions (which also require such affiliate contracts) on just about every one of its pages, which indicates that TPG is apparently complying with the content-related terms set in these affiliate contracts.
    In 2019, Red Ventures (RSP entry) acquired Bankrate, which included TPG in the purchase deal. A 2024 request for comment (RfC) on this noticeboard designated Red Ventures properties as generally unreliable, because "Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner" and "The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic." However, TPG was excluded from that RfC because TPG had already been placed on the spam blacklist at that time. I see absolutely no reason to consider TPG more reliable than other Red Ventures properties, including sponsored blogs (other than TPG) owned by Bankrate as well as CNET (2020–2024) and ZDNet (2020–2024), all of which are considered generally unreliable during their Red Ventures eras. — Newslinger talk 17:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC); edited to clarify attribution of contract 12:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 3 A travel blog reliant on sponsors should definately be considered non-RS. I don't think its that bad to need full depreciation as its not published false information. But since it is likely to be reliant on opinion related to sponsorship then just a straight option 3 would be best in my view. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Editors need to be on the lookout for sponsored content or CoI, and it's generally not notable material anyway. That being said, in the few instances where the blog actually provides information useful for an encyclopedia, I don't see why not. NotBartEhrman (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 3 4 and Blacklist: From [ https://thepointsguy.com/about/ ]:
"Our site may earn compensation when a customer clicks on a link, when an application is approved, or when an account is opened with our partners, and this may impact how or where these products appear."
We know that thepointsguy can't be trusted on credit card rewards programs, because they're partners with the credit card companies, not an independent reviewer.
How do we know that they are not also partners with airline rewards programs and hotel rewards programs?
Looking at a recent article "I left my laptop on a flight. Here's how I got it back within 24 hours" thepointsguy says some really nice things about Delta.
Right in the middle of the article is this ad:
"Earn up to 80,000 miles with our favorite Delta cards. To help you decide which Delta card is best for you, take a look at the details of the most popular Delta Amex cards from our partners" (they use the word "partner", but I am pretty sure that the money and the control only flows one way).
That ad leads me to "Best Delta credit cards of February 2026" which in turn says "Most of the cards we feature here are from partners who compensate us when you approve through our site",
So imagine if the author of that article (Clint Henderson / The Points Guy) had said something bad about Delta. Or even pointed out that even if Delta does everything right there is a high probability that someone will steal the laptop instead of turning it in to Delta lost and found. Do you think Clint's "partners" would be happy? Even if Delta had nothing to say, which kind of article would result in the most people clicking on that link, getting a Delta card, and putting money in Cliff's pocket? The Conflict of Interest cannot be surmounted give their current business model.
In my considered opinion, thepointsguy.com should go back on the spam blacklist. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
For the record, Guy Macon, the blacklist "is intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses". It's not for blocking unreliable sources absent other concerns. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd be curious for people's opinions on this site's non-sponsored content. I don't really think there's any question that the sponsored material/really anything relating to loyalty programs is unreliable, but we should be looking at the entire site. When you do that, you can find a host of articles about things like altered airline routes, improved aircraft interiors, airline orders for new aircraft and airline policy changes. These pieces could, subject to editorial discretion, have encyclopedic information and are factual/reliable in the colloquial sense (Wikipedia reliability very much TBD).
    I'm personally leaning option 3 because that Red Ventures ownership is a flashing red warning light and Liam at TPG did not respond to my questions about their editorial practices. Still, there's more nuance to this question than the comments above have considered. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 3 It's not much better than a press release. But press releases do have their uses, so I don't see the need to deprecate or blacklist. Jumpytoo Talk 02:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4. No case has been made why this site should no longer be blacklisted. The user who requested it is here to promote their business, not to build an encyclopedia. Cortador (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per above. The Kip (contribs) 19:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4 TPG is only marginally better than WP:Simple Flying which was depreciated in terms of accuracy, but much worse in terms of the amount of promotional content they publish. Anything important would have been covered by others, we should depreciate them. Avgeekamfot (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4 The site's promotional and advertising is an excessive part of the content. There is zero (negative?) evidence of even an intent to maintain a solid editorial/revenue wall. I'm sure there's some journalistic effort and truth in there but the end product is tainted. The site barely rates a page in the encyclopedia. It's unfortunate that the revenue model is so tightly founded on the editorial subject. If they want to be considered a reliable source, they need to find advertisers that they don't need to write about and get on, and stay on, a neutral, non-transactional footing with the credit card companies and the travel venues. (invited randomly by a bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4. Grossly promotional. And blacklist again if there is the slightest effort to cite it anywhere by anyone who should know better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4 Wikipedia:Reliable sources excludes any content that is either an aggregator, not verifiable, or produces sponsored content. It may barely meet Wikipedia:Acceptable sources guidelines, where articles list individual authors, but I would state that it is generally unreliable and should never be used. I don't recommend blacklist. Abs145 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4 and blacklist again. This is sponsored content, the owner gets paid for landing on his site. It is utterly unreliable and the fact that the site owner (who is not here to contribute) to request unlinking is single proof that that request was made to (enable) spam again. This should first have been decided through a RSN RfC to be reliable and of significant use, and then delisted, not the other way around. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 3 For non-spon content I think there are certainly more reliable sources that go in-depth vs what TPG puts out. netstars22 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 3 or 4. Per Newslinger Coffeeurbanite (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4 and blacklist again per Beetstra. the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4 I was going to say option 3 but Beetstra provides compelling additional reasoning. I think thread participants that voted before their response should reconsider.Czarking0 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
    @The ed17 We do not blacklist on reliability, but we do by consensus or even by bold editing. This is one of the very few sites that are spam by nature (native advertising and such), and the very fact that the site owner is here is enough evidence that they want Wikipedia to be redirecting traffic to them, another reason to (covert) spam. And site owners come here knowing their site is blacklisted, knowing that they can't get traffic from here, which (likely) hurts their business.
    We blacklist sites that we do not want to be linked, it is the low-weight option to keep them out and either we blacklist them by community consensus (what we can do here) or by bold editing. We are not a bureaucracy, our policies are not set in stone. We revert bold edits soon, not long standing edits and not because of some bureaucratic reason, and especially not when you are unsure if the native advertising / spam website was spammed or not. What is not sponsored content and desperately needed can be whitelisted, something that does not seem very often for this site. There is no (or very little) loss in not being able to link, and a big gain in keeping it out. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    @Beetstra: Dirk, you are assuming an awful lot about the motivations of this website without any evidence. It's not fair to assume that wanting off of a blacklist = intention to spam. In this case, I can absolutely see it being an exercise in PR and/or a hopeful, if doomed, attempt at being ranked as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
    You're also not characterizing its content accurately; this is not one of a "very few sites that are spam by nature". First, I'm a little surprised at "very few sites" and assume you misspoke, as there are at minimum sixty metric tons of spam websites on the internet that should never be linked on Wikipedia. Second, when it comes to this particular website, I've shown above that it has a newsworthy non-spammy side. That editors agree that it's nevertheless not reliable for our purposes (I'm in option 3 myself!) is not the same thing as "spam by nature". To take that argument to its logical extreme, is The New York Times spamming because it is increasingly trying to supplement its revenue by steering people into its paid-for games and Wirecutter for kickbacks? (No.)
    Finally, we do indeed ignore policies/guidelines/bureaucracy when there is good reasoning, but we're still searching for good reasoning here. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
    Most sites are not native advertising by nature, most websites exist to sell a product, to make a revenue. There is a distinct difference. These native advertising sites are a distinct problem, they appear 'good' information, but are not, it is paid content, 'hell no' type for referencing. That has not changed. A good part of the website is native advertising, we should never us it. If there is a relatively small part that can be used, then that part could be whitelisted wholesale, or through specific whitelisting. The same tactics as we apply with other material that is blacklisted and where we do have occasional need.
    And the comparison to The New York Times is not the same, a total red herring. We deem that a reliable source for most of the information, and the paid-for-games are not something that people would typically use for referencing (and if they do, that little part should be cut out). Nor was this often badly used material, let alone spammed.
    We are not looking for good reasoning, this site is native advertising, paid for content, utterly unreliable. Unlike most of the material on the blacklist, this (the native advertising material is spam), whereas other websites were spammed (and generally useless for Wikipedia) or badly abused. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
And if nytimes.com/wirecutter is deemed depreciated on RSN and still gets added while every single addition needs to be cleaned up as it is just 'supporting' bad info on Wikipedia, then I would suggest to put a hard stop to that and stop wasting editors' time, as we do with a lot of material that is currently on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
I suppose we're stuck on your definition of "native advertising" and/or where the line is between that vs. a website that both sells products and produces news. We're talking here about a website that does want kickbacks, but also has a significant news-reporting element. I've already linked to several articles that demonstrate their news reporting, and contrary to your "this site is native advertising, paid for content", their advertising policy says that any paid-for articles are clearly delineated. Whether or not it's Wikipedia-reliable (as I said, looking not), it simply does not fit a definition of being purely native advertising. As I believe I've said elsewhere, it may be more effective to instead seek consensus to expand the definition of the blacklist. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
No, we're not. We are stuck on the 'significant part' of it, and bureaucratic reading. By the looks of it, it is a specific section that is not native advertising (as you say, clearly delineated, all the examples you give could have been excluded on the blacklist or blanket whitelisted - if wanted in the first place). That part seems to have changed since original blacklisting, but then we are now also allowing to link all the crappy stuff just because some part is not native advertising. And the part that is not native advertising is not needed (it is still deemed unreliable), was never wanted, and is still unwanted. This RfC is just a discussion because someone, bureaucratically, decided that it should not be blacklisted because it wasn't strictly spammed, resulting in people who do not know that it is unreliable adding it, making our encyclopedia worse and necessitating constant cleanup.
We do not need to do that (i.e., discuss expansion of the definition of the blacklist) , because we have WP:BOLD, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. If a community consensus states that a website is unreliable and that we should not link to it, then we can add it to BED/blacklist/edit filter (and those discussions exist, also here specifically agreed to by several editors, where we deem by consensus a website so [[unreliable that the consensus states that we should take steps to not be able to link to it at all, or even specifically states that there is consensus to add it to the blacklist). Or we can boldly add it if someone evaluates a website as something that is causing way more work to clean up and there is no advantage to link to it. The blacklist has many rules that is not strictly spamMED (actually, many of them are on meta), and the fast majority of that is not even 'spam' beyond having an operating model alike The New York Times. Their inclusion by consensus or boldness is already mentioned in WP:SBL as that has been a long standing practice.
(so in response to your points: 1) you are right, it is not all sponsored content, but that is not a reason to also being able to link to the material that is, nor that he non-sponsored content is wanted; 2) it was not blacklisted based on reliability, it was blacklisted based on (ab/misuse of links to) native advertising; 3) it wasn't wanted, never demonstrated it was needed, and is demonstratable still not wanted. Saying that it isn't or wasn't spammed as not being a reason for having it blacklisted has never been a reason for hard exclusion of being blacklisted historically nor practically nor actually and is just a bureaucratic interpretation (and actually, a rather ironic one). Dirk Beetstra T C 10:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I think a big part of the problem is the name. We call it "Spam-blacklist" but clearly use it to blacklist for other reasons. My preferred solution would be to have two lists; one for spam only and one for all other reasons. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
If you don't want to use the term "spam-blacklist" there is also the more neutrally-named Special:BlockedExternalDomains. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
That's just another list of mostly spam sites, with a few things like "Hosts copyright violations" and "hijacking attempts" mixed in. I think we should have one place for spam and nothing else, and another for everything else. That way when we block a domain for hosting malware, nobody will comment about it not being spammed. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
One of the problems is that BED cannot be whitelisted, which is something you need for all different cases for which you would (or could) enforce exclusion of external links (spam, spamming, malware, utter abuse doxing, by established consensus, you name it). For the current state, the blacklist is the most lightweight ànd flexible of them. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Just as a note, one of the very first edits after deployment of the local blacklist blacklisted a link for reasons that was not spam or spamming, but likely after a community consensus. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
1) this RfC exists because someone thought that there was a chance that this site's news articles could be reliable. 2) a brief misuse of linking from paid accounts in 2018 is all I've found. As far as I've seen, no one has been able to demonstrate actual spamming. 3) Guy Macon's point above is cogent, but I would still maintain that someone should work to expand the page definition. For example, the page currently says "blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers." Frankly, I'm not a fan of unwritten rules. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
The operating word being 'should', by boldness and consensus (in its different forms) in a lot of cases used for other things. You're not a fan of written rules and you keep saying that the list is for spam only while historically it has never been only that.
I know this RfC is for reliability.. and the blacklist/BED for stuff that we don't want to link to, not necessarily separate topics. A brief misuse is all you found, not that the site owner is here because he wants his links / the traffic from Wikipedia or that a good part of the site is native advertising (spam). I don't disagree to expand on the guideline to better describe the historic use, it may be a bit too cryptic or even incomplete for describing current use, but that is not a reason for (bureaucratic) removal of spam(med) material. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (The Points Guy)

Forbes

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources § Forbes
 – Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Forbes and its publications are on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but not here. It really needs to be treated as deprecated. Reasons: (1) A few years ago, they let go most of their editorial staff. (2) They accept press releases. (3) They accept "contributors" who are basically bloggers. (4) It's basically a grifter's paradise. (5) It's indirect undisclosed paid eduting. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Any source can be deprecated through an RfC. I'd like to gauge the rest of RSN before starting it, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • They're pretty much a slop website but I'm not sure if deprecation is needed right now. Based on the absence of editorial and the press release issue it might be appropriate to downgrade the reliability of WP:FORBES though. WP:FORBESCON already addresses contributors. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • see here and here for a list of times that Forbes has come up here. I was involved in some of those, and I seem to recall a rather strong consensus that the reliability of a Forbes.com link rests entirely upon the credited author, and that the Forbes name adds nothing in terms of reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    We might want to revise WP:FORBES to make that more clear then. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    Probably not a bad idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    Agreed that WP:FORBES should now be treated as WP:GUNREL for the reasons laid out. - Amigao (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Should we make this an RfC? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    I'm in favour of this, especially since Forbes has received such wide discussion, and is also a fairly well known source.
    Discussions listed at perennial sources WP:FORBES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A
    Discussions listed ad perennial sources WP:FORBESCON: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
    It is also very widely used, with at least 60,000 links on Wikipedia. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
    I'm also in favor of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with making present-day Forbes GUnRel. I feel like their non-contributor articles (well, when they had them) were reliable before a certain point, though. Maybe we should figure out a cut-off point? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
So far it seems that people presenting arguments for moving to GUNREL; nobody has presented arguments for deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Forbes (RfC)

Is Forbes (the main site itself, not just Forbes sites meaning the whole site, not just the Forbes 'contributors' articles) a generally unreliable source, given recent criticisms outlined above? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Responses (Forbes)

  • Yes, it is generally unreliable, because it has extremely limited editorial oversight and a track record for pay-to-play publishing and publishing questionable authors and articles. I would allow exceptions only on a case-by-case basis, where the author is an acknowledged expert in the topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes Based on the discussion above. A website that has minimal editorial oversight and that routinely just posts press releases is not generally a strong source of information. Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Status quo (staff writers reliable, contributors unreliable). No evidence has been presented that Forbes staff writing is generally unreliable, no matter how dogshit Forbes Contributors are and how fucking annoying the Forbes website makes it to distinguish between the two. If Forbes is going to be considered "generally unreliable" in its totality it needs a cutoff date for staff articles. I think Forbes staff articles should be considered "generally reliable" until at 2010 at the very earliest, when the contributor system was introduced. Perhaps a better cutoff would be when the Forbes staff articles were moved under the same "sites" domain as the contributors. This seems to have occurred by 2021. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    I would consider that an acceptable compromise. Simonm223 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    Newslinger's disclosure that "contributor" articles are retroactively upgraded into "staff" articles is giving me major pause. Ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere, but I stress the importance of a cutoff. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    The articles are still contributor pieces. They just use a different URL now. Cortador (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Cortador I'm not talking about staff pieces being placed on the same "sites" subdomain as the contributors, I'm talking about this discussion, where a Forbes contributor was hired as a Forbes staff writer, and then their articles when they were written as a contributor were retroactively labelled with the "Forbes staff" byline. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    That seems like an actual issue. Cortador (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC. RfCs about sources should generally offer options for generally reliable/additional considerations/generally unreliable/deprecate. Additionally, the contributor bit has already been addressed, the article about Forbes being a "grifter's paradise" is also about contributors, and the last point of criticism just links to another Wikipedia page instead of linking to evidence about paid editing. Cortador (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    Just say what option you'd prefer. This isn't an elementary school quiz, you don't need me to define every possible answer for your. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
    You have my answer: this is a bad RfC. Cortador (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
    So you had nothing useful to add, but just had to say your bit anyways. Gotcha. There's no need to respond, I won't read it anyways. Check out that link, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
    If you don't wish to be criticised for how you word your RfC, this isn't the right place for you. Cortador (talk) 08:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Status quo (which is contributor pieces are GUNREL and staff writers reliable). No evidence that the staff editorial articles are unreliable has been presented, despite claims to the contrary. This RfC is an overreaction to the negative reception of their obviously terrible "Contributor" articles.Katzrockso (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Status quo but with a note to verify staff vs. contributor status as close to the publication date as possible. No evidence has been provided that even current staff articles are not reliable. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yellow zone: "contributor" pieces that have always been labeled as such are generally unreliable (except for the rare cases where WP:EXPERTSPS applies); "staff" pieces from the past need to be checked that they weren't originally "contributor" pieces. If they have been pure advertorials, disguising press releases as articles without putting them under the Forbes Advisor label, then we have a worse problem, and we should mark the entire site as generally unreliable and determine a cutoff year. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
    This is actually a good approach. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
  • WP:MREL / "yellow zone" per Continuous Dysfunction's reasoning. Also, I second Cortador that this is a bad RfC; instead of asking "is this unreliable?" which is kind of a loaded question, it may be more neutral to offer three or four options for its reliability. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
    I second that RfCs do not need to bureaucratically list meaningless options because respondents can state whatever opinion they wish; this is NotAVote, and meaningful ones like the yellow proposal here are frequently brought up when participants see things the proposer did not see, because we don't have to choose from the options. A bold "bad RfC" !vote is usually one to procedurally close it, and this issue is nowhere near to that. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    The point isn't that it prevents people from responding a certain way, but that it influences bias. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Status quo. I use Forbes Staff, from the main Forbes.com and Forbes Korea, for sourcing and have not run into issues. Labeling Forbes Staff pieces as unreliable is would eradicate a huge portion of business, finance, and media sourcing. Keep contributor section the same way that's fine. @Grapesurgeon: can tune in here. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Yes Forbes is generally unreliable. And in response to the above Labeling Forbes Staff pieces as unreliable is would eradicate a huge portion of business, finance, and media sourcing Good, we need to get rid of all that unreliable stuff, most of which is whitewashing of press releases. Wikipedia does not write fanfiction about companies. Polygnotus (talk) 04:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    I think this is a new argument that would need some backings up. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu Which part? Polygnotus (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    That staff pieces are also unreliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu Fortune named Enron the most innovative company in America for six straight years. Polygnotus (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    So? What does that have to do with Forbes? Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @UmbyUmbreon Can you please tone your signature down? Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    I personally don't see a problem with it. It meets the guidelines and even is shorter than his full username. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu User:Polygnotus/Scripts/Signatures.js Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    What's wrong with it? I don't see anything obvious that would mean it wouldn't get picked up by this script. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    In a private tab, the script seems to work fine on his signature for me. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    The script was made because the signature is so terrible to look at. No one said it didn't work on this script.
    But its ridiculous to have such a giant ugly eyesore as a signature. Polygnotus (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    i like it tho
    You code really fast! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Maybe this could be discussed elsewhere as it's unrelated to the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Besides Fortune not being Forbes, 1. that's a statement of opinion, not fact 2. NYT and others parroted claims of Iraq WMDs for years and we generally trust them because they published retractions. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu we generally trust them No we don't. Maybe you do. I certainly don't trust the NYT.
    https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/forbes-big-business.php
    https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/
    Something like ProPublica does actual investigative journalism. Even the FT doesn't just write down what companies tell it. Forbes is just pretty terrible, and I am surprised that people appear to be unaware of that fact. Polygnotus (talk) 07:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    I am talking about the GRel consensus we have with NYT.
    Your links are on Forbes Contributor articles, not Forbes Staff articles. The rryPie comment you quoted agrees with you to Keep contributor section the same way that's fine, referring to the GUnRel status of Generally unreliable Forbes.com contributors (RSP entry). Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu Proper journalism requires an adversarial role. Forbes does not have that. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/1205/opinions-capital-flows-global-warming-alarmists-james-taylor.html https://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/forbes-magazine-wrong-is-right/ Climate change denial? You trust the Heartland Institute? Polygnotus (talk) 15:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    That's a Contributor article. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu How is that relevant? We don't give sources a free pass to publish rubbish as long as there is a minority of allegedly accurate content.
    And you are ignoring what I am saying: Proper journalism requires an adversarial role. Forbes does not have that. Polygnotus (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    In that case, that is a good argument, but that does not address rryPie's argument and only repeats what she responded to. Her argument is that the identifiable minority is very useful.
    Forbes Staff does hold an adversarial position. Most famously, besides the ancient Stephen Glass, they exposed the Toyota Prius electronic "hybrid horror" stories as a hoax: https://www.forbes.com/2010/03/12/toyota-autos-hoax-media-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu they exposed the Toyota Prius electronic "hybrid horror" stories as a hoax So that is a pro-company thing to do right? An adversarial relation to the stuff they write about would be anti-company. And they are literally citing another publication which debunked the story the day before, and mentions that there was an anonymous tipster emailing news sources that the story is bs so lets not pretend this was a great achievement.
    And of course that is not written by a staff member of Forbes so it is unclear how that would even help your case, whatever it is
    In the Stephen Glass case some guy who worked for Forbes said that a story by some other guy who worked elsewhere was false. This is completely irrelevant to whether Forbes has an adversarial relation to the companies it write about (it does not).. Polygnotus (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    How about https://www.forbes.com/sites/rashishrivastava/2024/05/08/ai-generated-employee-handbooks-are-causing-mayhem-at-the-companies-that-use-them and https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2024/09/19/why-this-shadowy-penny-stock-flogger-may-kill-his-own-regulator ?
    (FWIW: I'm not sure what "Subscriber" means, but the article was written when Forbes only employed Staff to write and hadn't established the Contributor system yet.) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu Subscriber means that its not a staff member. It is the term they used before they established the Contributor system. They also used "opinion contributor". Polygnotus (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Besides what I mentioned (some of which linked) that makes me skeptical Forbes is that pro-business, having a pro-business RSBias would not stop it from being reliable as long as the facts that they do post are indeed reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    The "AI-Generated Employee Handbooks" thing is obviously pro-company as well. People want to get paid for writing such documents so obviously they don't want an AI to do it. They are correct that a Markov chain sucks at such things.
    A publication that whitewashes press releases and writes fanfiction is certainly not RS, because there is no fact checking, no precision and no professional distance.
    as long as the facts that they do post are indeed reliable They are not. They are as reliable as the company is. And the other article is pro-FINRA propaganda because if you promise to police yourself then there is less regulation (very old lobbying trick). Again, pro-company. Polygnotus (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

    There is no fact checking, no precision and no professional distance.

    They are not. They are as reliable as the company is.

    But the problem is vibes aren't enough to back things up. The standard on Wikipedia has been to find specific instances of false statements (preferably ones that were either really common or took ridiculously long to retract) to show sources as unreliable.

    because if you promise to police yourself then there is less regulation

    The article reads clearly as against the company trying to deregulate to me. "Shadowy", "shady business practices", a detailed history of fraud... Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    FINRA is a self-regulatory organization. Self-regulating your own industry is of course far better (from the POV of the companies) than having the SEC do it.
    But the problem is vibes aren't enough to back things up. Maybe, but since you have tried and tried to come up with anything that shows that Forbes has an adversarial relation with the things it writes about (which is required to do good independent journalism) it is kinda obvious what is happening.
    It is pretty easy to write a whole bunch of stuff that while not direct lies are misleading and a form of propaganda. Polygnotus (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu Isn't the fact that you are unable to find an anti-company article evidence that Forbes knows on which side its bread is buttered? Polygnotus (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    I disagree with your arguments that they are pro-company. This is also part of the reason why enwiki evaluates sources based on specific examples of false statements. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Yet you failed to provide any evidence, despite trying more than once. Polygnotus (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    I meant that I disagree with your arguments that the articles I gave are pro-company; sorry for the unclear antecedent. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think that that is true. Polygnotus (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    That is the problem and why objective examples of their factual errors are the standard per RSBias. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Then go find some. Should be easy enough. But if what you are saying would be true then there would be no need for an RfC. Polygnotus (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Well, if you mean I should find objective examples of factual truths, it seems true that "Larry Summers Resigns From Harvard Over Epstein Ties", that Alpine Securities and Scottsdale Capital Advisors have challenged Finra's authority in court on constitutional grounds. It's too easy and means nothing for any source. This is why it's objective factual errors to be found.
    The RfC does not dispute the reliability of Forbes Staff at all, at least not before the recent events mentioned. It's essentially about whether the ever-diminishing proportion of Forbes Staff articles makes the "generally" part of GUnRel true and thus service editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu
    No, I meant you should try find some factual errors.
    They are not difficult to find.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2021/10/06/the-richest-under-30-in-the-world-all-thanks-to-crypto/
    written by By Steven Ehrlich, Former Staff and Chase Peterson-Withorn, Forbes Staff.
    which says things like FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion
    Save for Mark Zuckerberg, no one in history has ever gotten so rich so young.
    And even if the articles which are written by staff were factual (which they are clearly not), then you still can't use a source that publishes bullshit like this and that. Polygnotus (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    And you have the evidence that this claim is false? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    @Aaron Liu Of course. I don't know how deep you are in SBF-lore but the article says:
    FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion and Virtually all his wealth is tied up in his ownership of about half of FTX and more than $11 billion worth of FTX’s publicly traded FTT tokens—which can be used to make payments or for trading discounts on the FTX exchange, akin to a gift card or store credit. He also holds a few billion dollars’ worth of other cryptocurrencies he’s backing.
    You can't value someones net worth based on tokens issued by themself (or rather, the company they control) and mostly traded by Alameda (which SBF owned ~90% of).
    That is like valuing my net worth based on my phone number, or worse, based on the amount of IOUs I've written to myself. You can read Sam Bankman-Fried and Bankruptcy of FTX, both are decent articles.
    So when they said FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion that was factually incorrect.
    And when FTX went boom basically all of it disappeared in a puff of smoke, because it had never existed in the first place.
    It's like a puffball. When they are old and dried out you can squeeze and they completely disintegrate. Polygnotus (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Why not? Net worth includes not just liquidity, but also assets. Assets include stocks and other "investments", so yes, it pretty much just means how much people persuade others they have. Stephen King could have more real money than Elon Musk. Nobody was wrong when they in 2000 said Kenneth Lay, Enron CEO, had $400 million in net worth, largely composed of Enron stock. Enron turning out as fraud does not make that claim's outlet unreliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
    I think the difference between us is that you think a journalist should just write down what she/he is told, and as long as she/he does that accurately it is not a factual error. I believe a journalist should try to figure out the truth, and if unable should not just report claims by stakeholders as facts.
    Since Forbes writes "SBF claims to be worth X" as "SBF is worth X" we can't use it as a reliable source. Polygnotus (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
    That wasn't what I was saying. Net worth is defined by stocks whose worth is only based on public perception. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Status quo Forbes's contributors' articles are generally unreliable and should stay that way. shane (talk to me if you want!) 13:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    @EditorShane3456 Agreed, but I don't think that that is @MjolnirPants's question. Polygnotus (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    You're right, but it's become clear to me that asking editors to read the discussion above and below is a bridge too far, lol. I'm content to let everyone !vote however they like, based on whatever information they take in.
    It's not like this is the result of a major bombshell, it's just that there have been a number of smaller incidents over the last few years that make it seem like Forbes is not drawing as much of a distinction between staff and contributors as we are. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Status quo – It's well established that contributor articles are generally unreliable, and there is no evidence presented to conclude that staff writer articles are unreliable. The RSP list already makes a distinction between the two with different sections, WP:FORBES and WP:FORBESCON. I do think it would be nice to include the same guidance of checking the byline from FORBESCON into FORBES, to make that guidance more obvious in the latter case (even if Forbes makes it stupid annoying to do so). Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
    The problem is the difficulty of determining this difference. When a way to do something becomes too impractical, people won’t do it. It’s like how sweepstakes, for example, where some companies allow free entry into the sweepstakes only if you send a physical letter requesting entry to a specific address, to avoid being classified as an illegal lottery. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Is there a demonstrated pattern of factual errors in their staff reporting? Ivegut (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
    Well during the crypto boom they consistently posted very positive articles about stuff thats now long dead. I picked the biggest and easiest target, SBF, but anyone who is willing to spend some time can probably find quite a few more in a short amount of time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
  • WP:MREL – staff writers okay-ish. The contributors are unreliable. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Status quo I see no clear or solid evidence that articles contributed by Forbes staff are unreliable or fail to meet editorial standards. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (Forbes)

The two searches for "Forbes" and "Forbes sites link to 20+ discussions. It would be helpful to directly link a few discussions to back up: I seem to recall a rather strong consensus that the reliability of a Forbes.com link rests entirely upon the credited author, and that the Forbes name adds nothing in terms of reliability, since that is not what WP:FORBES says. The Nieman Lab article also deals with the contributor articles which are already dealt with in WP:FORBESCON (and maybe WP:FORBESADVISOR). It would be helpful to see the other claims (e.g. almost no editorial staff and publishing press releases) either backed up by citations or examples, especially since the latter isn't necessarily an issue if properly marked (e.g. Bloomberg, another businessy publication, does the same ).-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

"I seem to recall" is an operative phrase there. It means that I'm not staking my reputation on a couple of half-remembered discussions, just volunteering what I can recall of them off the top of my head. If my characterization is wrong, well, I provided 20+ pieces of evidence by which to confirm such. If you need confirmation, I'm afraid I have other matters on my plate, so you'll need to check those yourself. Here's a tip to speed things up: Search through my contributions in wikispace for the word 'Forbes'. Also, don't forget my former alt account, MPants at work.
For some context about their recent troubles, see and , in which they've lost a significant number of both editors and writers in the past year or so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with just volunteering a recollection, but you've used it as part of the basis for starting an RFC. If you didn't have time to verify it, then you probably should've waited until you had more time instead of now suggesting that other people research your arguments for you.
Your first link is about a labour action, which happens all the time and literally does not mention a single editorial staffer being removed (though obviously conditions are not great). The second link is about dozens of Forbes Contributors, who produce the unreliable content on the site, being removed, which is a good thing. Forbes appears to still have editorial staff, including an editorial counsel so that hasn't been completely cut. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't really care what you think of my reasoning.
The RfC ball is rolling, and I'm content to let the community decide where it lands. Please don't ping me, even if you really want to keep arguing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Since this is not a battle, I think PatarK was just trying to understand your position. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
If that is true, then asking for clarification rather than whining about me not digging up years-old discussions just to refresh my memory on exactly what was said would have been a more useful tact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
A year ago, one of the discussions on this noticeboard (Forbes.com authors who change roles), which I participated in, noted that when an author on Forbes.com changes their role (e.g. by being promoted from a contributor to a staff writer), their bylines on all of their previous articles are retroactively changed to reflect their current role. To confirm the level of editorial oversight that a Forbes.com article was subject to, you would need to check the byline of an archived copy of the article (ideally archived on the date of publication). A couple of editors believed that the amount of effort required to adequately distinguish staff articles from contributor articles on Forbes.com is enough of an "additional consideration" to justify a reclassification of Forbes on the perennial sources list.
Looking back at the history of WP:RSP, Forbes was the very first source on the list to be split into separate entries covering different aspects of the publication's content: the entry for contributor-written articles (WP:FORBESCON) was added on 29 July 2018, and the entry for staff-written articles (WP:FORBES) was added one day later. A third entry for Forbes Advisor (WP:FORBESADVISOR), a sponsored content section that the publication later introduced, was added after a 2021 RfC.
Even though most Forbes.com content is contributor-authored with little to no editorial oversight, public awareness of the staff–contributor distinction on Forbes.com is very low; many readers see the Forbes logo on an article and associate it with the century-old magazine. Forbes.com contributor articles are also rampantly misused in Wikipedia articles, with many of those uses violating the WP:BLPSPS policy. If there were a technical way to distinguish Forbes.com's staff articles from their contributor articles, I would have supported deprecating the contributor articles years ago. Unfortunately, Forbes decided to make that difficult, so their articles continue to be a problem on Wikipedia to the extent that we are now questioning all Forbes content. — Newslinger talk 20:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I feel regardless of the outcome of the RFC, noting that this switching of roles is an issue if the date of the article is somewhat removed from the present is worth noting on the listing. As for trying to discourage Forbes contributor content, maybe an edit filter based on the URL that then warns users about the staff vs. contributor distinction before they can save the edit? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
That edit filter warning would help. Ideally, we would track the names (and URL "usernames") all of the Forbes staff writers, as well as the date ranges of their tenures as staff writers, which would allow the edit filter to activate only for contributor articles. However, this would be a high-maintenance endeavor. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
I'd support an edit filter of this type. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

@MjolnirPants: While Forbes originally reserved URLs beginning with forbes.com/sites/ exclusively for contributor-authored articles, at some point many years ago, Forbes also moved all of its staff-authored articles under forbes.com/sites/, which prevented readers from discerning whether an article is staff-authored or contributor-authored by examining the URL without prior knowledge of the author's byline. Since then, all articles from Forbes (aside from the sponsored Forbes Advisor content) have been "Forbes sites" articles. In light of this, would you like to amend the RfC statement (specifically, the text "the main site itself, not just Forbes sites") to explicitly refer to Forbes's staff-authored and contributor-authored articles? — Newslinger talk 18:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Concur with Newslinger that the RfC opening question is confusing needs to be changed. It's really unclear what this RfC is trying to accomplish currently, given that Forbes contributors are already considered generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
@Newslinger and @Hemiauchenia, I was actually vaguely aware of that, but not having used Forbes for a long time, I thought it went the other way (they pulled all of their contributor articles into the top-level folder). Yes, I'll adjust my wording. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
After some further research, I found that Forbes launched its contributor network on 5 August 2010, although some of the contributor articles available at launch were dated a couple of days earlier. During this period, Forbes started commingling articles written by staff and by contributors under the subdomain blogs.forbes.com and did not provide bylines to allow readers to distinguish staff from contributors on the article pages themselves. For example, compare this staff article (current link) to this contributor article (current version), and note the use of the text "Contributor Since" on both articles. All Forbes articles were migrated to forbes.com/sites/ on 10 August 2011, which is when the "Forbes Staff" and "Contributor" bylines were introduced. As far as I can tell, there was no point in time during which Forbes.com contributor articles were under forbes.com/sites/ while Forbes staff articles were not. I've corrected my previous comment to reflect this.​​ — Newslinger talk 22:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for that info. I had been under much the same misapprehension. It's looking more and more like we might have overstated the differences between the contributors and staff articles in some of the previous discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

We need to establish a cutoff date, before which Forbes was generally reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

July 2014? That's when Integrated Whale Media Investments acquired a 51 percent majority.
Sometime before November 2013? According to "Never before have knowledgeable voices, reporters and topic experts alike, been able to connect and engage one-on-one with audiences equally empowered to share what they know... We've supplemented our full-time reporting staff with 1,200 qualified contributors... Many participate in a novel incentive plan that makes them accountable for their success."
The Nieman Foundation has a history of Forbes, saying
"Forbes’ staff of journalists could produce great work, sure. But there were only so many of them, and they cost a lot of money. Why not open the doors to Forbes.com to a swarm of outside 'contributors' — barely vetted, unedited, expected to produce at quantity, and only occasionally paid? (Some contributors received a monthly flat fee — a few hundred bucks — if they wrote a minimum number of pieces per month, with money above that possible for exceeding traffic targets. Others received nothing but the glory.) As of 2019, almost 3,000 people were “contributors” — or as they told people at parties, 'I'm a columnist for Forbes.' Let’s think about incentives for a moment. Only a very small number of these contributors can make a living at it — so it’s a side gig for most. The two things that determine your pay are how many articles you write and how many clicks you can harvest — a model that encourages a lot of low-grade clickbait, hot takes, and deceptive headlines. And many of these contributors are writing about the subject of their main job — that’s where their expertise is, after all — which raises all sorts of conflict-of-interest questions. And their work was published completely unedited — unless a piece went viral, in which case a web producer might 'check it more carefully.' All of that meant that Forbes suddenly became the easiest way for a marketer to get their message onto a brand-name site. And since this strategy did build up a ton of new traffic for Forbes — publishing an extra 8,000 pieces a month will do that! — lots of other publications followed suit in various ways."
--Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
I think it should be a lot later. Forbes staff was still reliable and separable from contributors for quite a while, and their reporting was trusted. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Maybe something worth implementing is an edit filter, reminding editors citing Forbes to make sure that that what they're citing is a staff article and not a contributor article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Does Forbes always make the distinction clear? Did they make it clear from the start back when they added those 3,000 people who were allowed to add anything they wanted with nobody checking them? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
It appears so. The byline either says "Staff" or "Contributor". With the two (current-version) links Newslin sent above it's "By Halah Touryalai, Former Staff." and "By Olga Khazan, Contributor." Aaron Liu (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Agree CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

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

Typically, if it's made it to JSTOR I'd think it's reliable and not predatory.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
That is not necessarily completely true. IHC material depends on author and the IHC session, some can be more reliable in the same line as the academic consensus but on the rare occassion there is material which is fringe or very outdated. Therefore it is generally acceptable but far from the best source. The context will be very important during editing. Omen2019 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
It should be generally reliable, is there a particular article you were planning using? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, I cited them on the Origins section of the Lawik dynasty page. Just wanted to clarify since it got removed by someone earlier for not being WP:HISTRS compliant. WareWolf665 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
That might be a case of more sources making the situation worse. A single good source is all that's required, additional sources of poor quality can make other editors more suspicious of content.
For anyone else's reference the article at question is:
Devra, G.S.L.; Arora, Shashi (2012). "Hindu Commanders in the Army of Sultans of Ghazna: A Case Study of Vijaypal of Bayana". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 73: 205–211. JSTOR 44156207.
This period of Indian history isn't something I know a lot about, but the journal seems respectable and G.S.L. Devra appears to have had an academic career in history. There could be specific concerns that the other editor has about the source, generally reliable sources can still be unreliable in a specific WP:RSCONTEXT, but I can't see a reason for it to be rejected without good explanation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. WareWolf665 (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Pinging @Gotitbro as the person that made the revert in question and wasn't told or notified about this discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
Firstly as this concerns WP:CT/CASTE edits, WareWolf665 (non-ECP) should not be editing in this area at all and should desist here and elsewhere for any edits and articles related to South Asian groups. I will be reverting their latest edits at the article as such.
Coming to the edit itself. The sources cited were the obscure Concept Publishing Company and Unistar, the former I am particularly familar with for publishing outright WP:FRINGE.
I also would not rely on Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, which has similarly (unlike their actual journals) engaged in the same. Apparent here in the very quote cited in the article:

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

The allusions here to race, mythological cruft (Takshaka, Nāga) should already render this entirely unusable. Gotitbro (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
First of all, the alert template states, "Additionally, editors must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days...(2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal." Afghanistan is not mentioned so I don't see how WP:CASTE is relevant here. Still, I will desist out of good faith.
Secondly, Tak here refers to the tribe of Takkas (alternative name) which was the ruling clan of the neighboring Taank Kingdom of Punjab (also known as Takka-desa or Tsehkia). Taks are also mentioned on page 211 of Proceedings as "the ruling class of Multan-Panjnad region" (in Punjab), hence confirming the source refers to the Takkas and not some fictional group. They do have some snake-related (Naga) mythology associated with their origin (per Cunningham) and hence the writers probably included it in parenthesis as a supplementary note, mention of which can be (and already was) omitted from the article. It does not make the entire source unusable. Not to mention, Jadaun/Bhati is a very real group and their mention should not be omitted for any reason.
I would also like to quote WP:HISTRS here, which states "This essay doesn't mean to imply that reliable non-scholarly sources are inappropriate or insufficient just because scholarly sources are available or potentially available. Finding and using scholarly sources is a best practice, not a requirement."
First of all, Proceedings of Indian National Congress undoubtedly qualifies as a scholarly source and this is highlighted by the existence of their articles on Jstor. You need to bring sources proving that their actual journals are more reliable than their Jstor articles rather than personal assumptions. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that this article does not qualify as scholarly. As per the quotation above, the essay deems it fine to use the next best source available which is this one. WP:FRINGE does not apply either as there are no other sources discussing their origin (at least, I could not find any).
I would also like to ping @Sutyarashi here as it was them who originally added the source while I expanded the information contained within it. Regards WareWolf665 (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

USA Today Shopping

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

Shopping articles should always be considered separately from any news reporting, in general editorial standards only cover the latter. This is a great example of how just because some isn't a primary source doesn't mean that it's WP:INDEPENDENT. If these aren't advertorials then they're so similar to advertorials that the difference is indistinguishable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:39, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
That is some disappointing material. The sample article's author bio has a link to USA Today's Principles of Ethical Conduct, which includes "We will not blur the line between advertising and editorial content. We will provide appropriate disclosures, exercise transparency and avoid actual or implicit commercial endorsements by our journalists" and this appears shortly in the article: "Just in time for Memorial Day, [product] is offering their device for $300 off, but you can get an additional 10% off when you use our exclusive promo code USATODAY at checkout. That's a savings of $324, plus you can lower stress, enhance your focus, have a brighter mood, get better sleep and lower your blood pressure." That does not feel like a complicated ethical situation; this is simply an advertorial. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. My concern is how poorly the advertising content is distinguished from editorial content. For example, Wirecutter content is clearly formatted differently than New York Times editorial content and has a Wirecutter-specific editorial policy. In the USA Today case, the content is presented identically (besides being under "Shopping") and links to the same journalist profiles and editorial policy. ~ A412 talk! 15:27, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
This is the same problem of paid news and hidden ads disguised as news pieces. The section ought to be completely unusable due to questionable/no independence like in WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Omen2019 (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Articles from USA Today's "Shopping" section are sponsored content, which is generally unreliable. Nowadays, many media outlets have a "deals" section that publishes blatantly promotional content like this as a form of native advertising that bypasses ad blockers. Unlike non-sponsored product reviews (which may be also presented alongside affiliate links), sponsored content is content marketing instead of journalism, and is inherently questionable due to its apparent conflict of interest. I would support implementing an edit filter that displays a warning when a link is added to a page within the "deals" section of any prominent media outlet. — Newslinger talk 21:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran International

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

Note the discussion started two months ago here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Per the discussion in January 2026 editors who frequent this board view it as generally reliable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
We don't determine reliability on the basis of vague "who's behind the organisation" questions. TarnishedPathtalk 12:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Discussion two months ago found a general consensus that it's biased but reliable (which I myself agreed with at that discussion), and I haven't seen anything to change my mind on that. The Kip (contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
See this discussion for another apparent example of this source publishing false info. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Add Clownfish TV

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

Why, have they been regularly cited? Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
It is cited as a source on the articles To Be Hero and Kevin Seymour. Christianhatley527 (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
We will need a better reason to declare them not RS than you have given. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
Christianhatley527… the “P” in “RSP” stands for “perennial”… the RSP list isn’t for listing “bad” sources, it is for listing sources that are “repeatedly discussed” (good or bad).
Clownfish TV may well be an unreliable source (I don’t know it well enough to judge, but I am always wary of YouTube channels), but even so we wouldn’t list it at RSP unless/until it rises to the level of frequently discussed. As far as I know, it hasn’t been discussed much. Blueboar (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
What little I can find is not exaclty encouraging, seems clickbaity, erring on the side of not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
If you thought is to add something to the RSP then you've got the wrong idea of why it exists. It's not a list of sources and discussions about including a source in the RSP shouldn't count towards WP:RSPCRITERIA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Sherloc/UNODC

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

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

Newsday

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

The MBFC's page on Newsday that you cite] repeatedly calls it specifically "left-center", i.e., just the smallest unit over from what MBFC calls "not biased" (but may be considered "centrist biased".) Even if we accept MBFC's evaluation, it is hard to see that as sufficient for concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
I've generally found Newsday to be a solid source for New York news, especially sports and pop culture. The Kip (contribs) 07:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
MBFC doesn't judge sources based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so while it's may be useful for finding information about a source it's rather limited for Wikipedia's purposes. If by listed you mean appearing on the RSP that's not what the purpose of the RSP. It's not a list of reliable or unreliable sources, but simply a log of discussions that have happened here (see WP:RSPNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
MBFC is itself not reliable. Cortador (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes, you could say the blind leading the ... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
This trite expression again. Wikipedians aren't reliable either, yet they determine all of our policies and guidelines. MBFC may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for citing article content, but it can be used as evidence when evaluating sources, along with other sources and Wikipedian arguments.--Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
With 19 Pulitzer Prizes, Newsday is a well-established news outlet and is generally reliable for news, including political topics. The reliability of a source is evaluated separately from its bias, and I do not see any indication that Newsday is any more biased than other high-circulation newspapers from the New York area that have won Pulitzer Prizes, including Generally reliable The Wall Street Journal (RSP entry) and Generally reliable The New York Times (RSP entry).
Generally unreliable Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is a self-published source, so citing its analysis carries no additional weight over an editor making the same claim without citing MBFC. In this case, MBFC's bias rating of Newsday is similar in intensity to that of The Wall Street Journal and of The New York Times, so the MBFC rating does not support classifying Newsday as more biased for political topics than comparable mainstream news sources. — Newslinger talk 09:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

TMCnet.com

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

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

Good sources for insects and arthropods?

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

I would suggest asking on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Insects, editors there are more likely not have topic knowledge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice! I did join Wikipedia recently to help improve mainly insects and arthropod pages so I’ll ask for insect-related advice there in future. RamenThePigeon (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
Additionally, if you are able to access such books, textbooks published by academic publishers would be a good idea, such as the following:
  1. University Presses of well known universities
  2. Elsevier Science
  3. Kluwer
  4. Palgrave MacMillan
  5. Routledge
  6. Sage Publishing
  7. Wiley-Blackwell
  8. John Wiley & Sons
-- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Could use a good chunk of help at an article

I am in a dispute with another editor about the reliability of nearly every source at Lucky Bisht. To me, they all seem like primary or unreliably secondary sources. I would give individual cases, but it is literally the majority of the nearly 100 sources on a 608 word article. This would benefit from someone versed in Indian language sources, but anyone working here would be better than me.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you kidding? That guy is supposed to be a hitman. Who wants to mess with him? Kidding, of course. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality in Telugu newspapers

Telugu newspapers such as Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi have reported on replacement houses for Cyclone Hudhud. I can find an English-language source about these replacement houses first being built in 2016 from an RS (The Hindu). From there most coverage is in Telugu and from these newspapers. Examples of articles like this are and . The thing is, they seem to be biased towards one party (the Telugu Desam Party) and against another (the YSR Congress Party).

Their articles also mention this, Eenadu#Political impact and TDP support and Andhra Jyothi#Criticism respectively. So, is the general information, that the replacement houses have remained unused, to be trusted? How much of it from these newspapers can I include in the article? HurricaneZetaC 23:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

It's important to remember that sources don't have to be neutral, see WP:RSBIAS. It's editor who have to write articles without including their own biases. The solution is generally to either include the details while excluding an matters of opinion, to try and find additional so as to balance any bias, or if unavoidable to leave the details out.
The critical sections of their Wikipedia articles only discusses bias rather not any criticism related to incorrect reporting. Unless there are secondary sources critical of the reliability of their reporting, especially if they haven't posted correction to misreporting, they should probably be treated like any standard WP:NEWSORG (making sure to note WP:RSEDITORIAL).
It's difficult to give more specific advice on the articles, I can't see anything immediately wrong but I do not speak Telugu and Google translate's results aren't great. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Renewed discussion on AssyriaPost

In November a discussion was opened at the Noticeboard regarding the use of a publication known as AssyriaPost. I wanted to bring it back to the Noticeboard, as there have been some updates to the site since then and I feel that these are worthy of discussion for its use as a whole.

In the months since the original discussion, the website has now adopted an editorial policy. The policy states the publication's mission, editorial independence, efforts on transparency/fairness/accuracy, and other points. Additionally, in recent months, a number of named contributors have now been cited to have written articles for the site. The Opinions section has had a number of articles written with public authorship since December, while named and/or frequent contributors include figures such as here (BO), DB, and NG. In the Assyrian community, political journalism is often kept anonymous for security concerns, so most political articles are attributed to just "Assyria Post." In any case, the site has been more public about its operations since it was first brought to the Noticeboard, which warrants renewed discussion about its reliability.

Furthermore, the user that opened the discussion in November was 777network. This user was found/suspected to have been a meatpuppet for a user who was indeffed on English Wiki, Wlaak . Wlaak himself was topic banned from WP:GS/ACAS on English Wiki , before being indeffed for sockpuppetry and later globally blocked (though that block was rescinded, there have since still been issues surrounding his editing on other projects ). As I've stated elsewhere, off-Wiki evidence also suggests motivations to push a specific POV with a backdrop of anti-Assyrian sentiment behind them. This may seem like a lot of off-hand information, but it's necessary to mention, as it makes it evident to me that the reason this source was even brought to Noticeboard seems more about its use of "Assyrian" rather than any actual reliability issues. This discussion at Ant Wan corresponds to my point.

Either way, I think that there is due cause to reconsider the use of AP on Wikipedia, and I'm looking forward to hearing opinions. PresentlySuraye3 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

NewsBytes

Is newsbytesapp.com a reliable source? I noticed while editing Pakistani cricket team in Bangladesh in 2025–26 that the Cite button refused to create a citation for it, which led to me to dig further and realize that it was actually on the blacklist since 2017, after this request.Duckmather (talk) 01:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Newsbytes News Network, who are unrelated. They appear to say all the right things on their Ethical Conduct page (www.newsbytesapp.com/ethical-conduct) and their staff appear to actually exist (www.newsbytesapp.com/about) (that might seem a strange thing to say, but there's been several recent examples where staff were AI hallucinated slop). They do only allow redressal of grievances if you live in India, which seems problematic (www.newsbytesapp.com/grievance-redressal). Barring any specific concerns I don't see why they shouldn't be covered by WP:NEWSORG.
The blacklisting was done due to the site being spammed, rather than any apparent concerns about reliability. If you want to use an particular article you can always ask for whitelisting, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

theindiansun.com.au

Encountered this from a bot report on WP:AIV re: Special:Contributions/VeritasArchive1 (in this case, the user was mass removing links to the site, but a quick check looks like the removals might have merit, hence posting here. It seemed suspicious that the site was linked about, and directly mentioned, the same random, seemingly non-notable person ("Nitin Gupta"), and then randomly clicking on some entries in the EL search, especially more recent "articles," found him on even more. E.g., , , , . The person isn't on all articles, but enough to make me think it's a farm of some sort (especially since the site's article authors are frequently a generic "Our Reporter"). That said, I'm not at all an expert in the area, so thought I'd drop it here for y'all. Cheers. =) --slakr\ talk / 01:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

California Post

The California Post began operating early this year as the West Coast arm of the New York Post, which is considered "generally unreliable". At least 50% of their reporting is politics-based (which the NYP is most notoriously biased with), and it is run by ex-NYP and -Breitbart staffers.

I have never used this noticeboard before and am not overly familiar with what I "need", but their site shows the same kind of tabloid ultra-biased reporting as we see in the NYP. (recent headlines include "Trump taunts Gavin Newsom’s dyslexia, calling him ‘low IQ’ in Oval Office diatribe", "GOP senator pitches plan to slash California’s sky-high gas taxes — and save drivers more than $1 per gallon", "Billionaire Dem heiress keeps backing her ‘loser’ boyfriend’s failed campaigns") aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 06:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to wait and see whether they function as a subsidiary of the NYP and whether they actually publish falsehoods. News Corp owns many media outlets of varying quality. Alaexis¿question? 08:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI