Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

Additional notes:

• 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.

Start a new discussion

---

RFC: Olympedia

Which describes the reliability of Olympedia best:

1. The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
2. There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
3. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
4. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable and should be deprecated.
5. The source is:
   1. Generally reliable for sports-statistics data.
   2. Of unclear reliability for biographical data.
   3. Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC).
6. Another option (please specify)

11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Previous discussions and scope of use on WP

• Olympedia's biographical info (September 2025)
• Recent AFDs including Antoine Masson and Karel Pacák,
• LUGSTUBS (March 2023, nb. that referencing only to Olympedia was one of the del. criteria and the motion passed, also note the discussion of the incorrect biographical details for Alexander/Arthur Martin)
• NSPORTS2022 (February 2022)
• Olympedia (December 2021)
• Olympedia (April 2021)
• Reliability of Sports reference (2017)

A search using the WP search tool shows it is used on approximately 86,000 pages.

Survey (Olympedia)

• Option 5 (or Option 4 for biographical data in any event, and primary) - I don't doubt that the sport-statistics carried on Olympedia are generally accurate since they appear to come directly from official sources, but it would always be better just to cite those sources directly. This is also clearly a sport-reference-type source (indeed, it *WAS* part of Sports-reference.com) that doesn't indicate notability due to its wide-sweeping nature per WP:SPORTBASIC.
  When it comes to the biographical data, over the years I've seen a lot of mistakes in this which I've listed here. As this Swimming World piece notes, a lot of this biographical information appears to come from either the families of the athletes, or from the research of the hobbyist volunteers who run the website, and they do not cite the sources they get their information from making its reliability dubious. Some (the majority?) of these hobbyists are also active as editors on WP and I don't see why their contributions on Olympedia should be treated as any more reliable than it would be if it was entered as uncited OR here. Olympedia lacks a clear editorial policy, but also clearly solicits contributions from amateurs and again notes that a lot of their information comes from the Olympians themselves or their family members. A lot of emphasis is often placed on Bill Mallon and Jeroen Heijmans having set up Olympedia, but these people are self-described amateurs/hobbyists and, even if they weren't, there is no sign that these people write or edit all or even most of the content on Olympedia.
  The lack of independence from the IOC is now also undeniable given their business relationship.

The primary nature of this source is demonstrated in the way they repeatedly just relay incorrect data (e.g., the recent case of Dragan Kusmuk, who they describe as Dragomir Kusmuk because that's how his name was incorrectly listed by the IOC, one of many, many such cases). If this was really a reliable secondary source, there would be some degree of fact-checking on this and comparison with other sources where his name was correctly listed. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

FOARP, goodness knows I have no love for the IOC, but Dragan isn't exactly an uncommon nickname for people with the first name Dragomir; I'm curious as to how you decided that was an error on Olympedia's part as opposed to somebody registering & competing under a legal name, but later sources using a common name/preferred name? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 10:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I think if you check the previous RSN conversation or maybe it's the AfD, someone noted that the official IOC documents gave his name as Dragomir, as did the news reports listing the results of the Olympics. Katzrockso (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian It was this AfD (still ongoing). The original reports from the Olympic Committee reported his name as Dragomir. Unclear if there was perhaps a mistranscription of the Cyrillic or perhaps a nickname like you suggested, but it's hard to fault Olympedia from originally having the same spelling of a new as the literal official Olympics did. For all we know they could have a policy for naming that just reflects what original Olympic documentation states, just like Wikipedia has a more idiosyncratic policy on article titles and naming. Katzrockso (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Katzrockso I think you might be onto something with the naming scheme - looking at their other entries, though they note the name change, they have Balian Buschbaum as Yvonne Buschbaum and Heinrich Ratjen as Dora Ratjen. These are the names they competed under, but they aren't their common names or legal names (as far as I know).

A blanket policy like this makes sense - it's not going to be practical, or even wise, for Olympedia to track whether former Olympians have legally changed their name or adopted a new on. For example, a female athlete might change her name upon marriage for cultural/practical reasons, but want to keep her professional credentials associated with the name she is known by - and therefore won't publicize the name change. (And will view trying to give the credit to their husband's name as incredibly offensive). On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, I'd imagine women like Robina Muqimyar are doing all they can to stay under the radar now.

So are they errors? We often write about people under the name they used at the time. Barbara Bush, currently an FA, calls her "Pierce" until her marriage, and we often use "Folsom' for Frances Cleveland. I agree it's hardly fair to fault Olympedia for doing the same thing. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 11:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that the official Olympic report, every English-language report from when he competed, and even some Serbian newspapers referred to him as "Dragomir" – I don't think it's even accurate to say its an error. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1. Describing the people who run the site as mere "hobbyists" is a very, very inaccurate label. As has been explained to you already by historian Bill Mallon himself, the group is composed of ~25-30 members of the International Society of Olympic Historians who are academics, published experts, former Olympians and historians. Mallon himself, who has written dozens of published historical books on the history of the Olympics, and received numerous honors for being one of the preeminent Olympic historians, performs most of the statistical updates. For any biographical changes, the site has an extensive, week-long peer-review process in which all 30 historians and experts are required to review the biographical data, several others are required to edit it, and Mallon reviews and edits the final version. That is an insanely thorough peer-review process among historians that I doubt the vast majority of reliable sources even approach for their content. Olympedia is clearly reliable. And I'll add that many of the tiny "errors" list (12 out of probably 1 million+ pages) mentioned by FOARP are not actually errors, such as him deciding himself that Olympedia is wrong since we weren't able to find any further sources under the name they gave for a pre-internet athlete, or them (accurately) having the maiden name of a female athlete which she competed under and FOARP deciding that that's an "error" since she later married and changed her name. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Bill Mallon would appear not to be an indendent source on the topic and the International Society of Olympic Historians is an amateur association not a professional one (you and I are both welcome to join it tomorrow despite having no higher qualification than a bank account). Which would make sense because Bill Mallon is an amateur historian not a professional one, he doesn't actually meet the standard for subject matter expert on wiki... Unless I'm missing something none of his work has been published by academic presses. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  he doesn't actually meet the standard for subject matter expert on wiki ... none of his work has been published by academic presses Mallon is very clearly an expert. Policy states that someone is an expert if their "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". Are you suggesting that McFarland & Company, The Globe Pequot Publishing Group, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, and Saunders are all not "reliable publications"? As all of them have published his many books. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  No those are not in context reliable publications, those are mass market presses. I also think you're mixing his publishing in medicine with his publishing on Olympic history, the only Saunders book I see is "Ernest Amory Codman - The End Result of a Life in Medicine" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  those are not ... reliable What??? These are academic and scholarly publishers? How is something like McFarland & Company or The Globe Pequot imprint Scarecrow Press unreliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Lets take the emotions down a notch, there is no reason to be getting worked up here. Those are mass market presses (Scarecrow was stripped by Globe Pequot to just its name and eventually not even that) and you do appear to be conflating his publishing on multiple topics. Work with me here, show me a peer reviewed article in a university journal or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Do you have any sources describing Scarecrow Press as some unreliable "mass market press"? From all the descriptions I can find of them, they're academic and scholarly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  You said it was published by The Globe Pequot, an imprint is not a publisher its just a trade name. It also seems like you're picking one little thing to focus on while ignoring almost everything else, for example whether or not you're conflating his publishing on multiple topics. Remember he can published by both of those presses and be neither an academic or a scholar but simply an adult non-fiction writer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  His sports books were published by Globe Pequot/Scarecrow Press and McFarland, while his medical books appear to be published by Wilkins and Saunders. I still don't see why Globe Pequot/Scarecrow Press is unreliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Do you understand the distiction between academic, scholarly, and adult non-fiction? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also, we are not citing these books and Olympedia is not clearly written by Bill Mallon. FOARP (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  "Describing the people who run the site as mere "hobbyists" is a very, very inaccurate label" - "Hobby" is literally the word that Mallon himself uses here. FOARP (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4. There have been so many issues identified with this source and its reliability we should stop using it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's generally reliable for sports stats like Olympics results, dates, etc. Plus this source has been used in academic research and sports media. And the IOC's Olympic Studies Centre promoted it as a reliable resource for Olympic info. Frankserafini87 (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 - I haven't seen any major continuous issues from Olympedia. What major issues have been found? I can't help but feel that this has something to do with WP:LUGSTUBS and WP:LUGSTUBS2. KatoKungLee (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 or 5 I find the arguments that this source is unreliable to be compelling but the formatting is throwing me a bit here preventing me from arriving at a clean numbered !vote. From their about page[1] it really is a more hobbyist group even if there are some professional participants. Note that the International Society of Olympic Historians is an amateur association, not a professional one... There is no membership qualification other than the ability to sign a check. There are also real questions about Olympedia's independence from the IOC, they seem to have had a very real if complicated relationship which ended in the freezing of the site. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Their contract with the IOC has been renewed. FOARP (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification, it would then unambiguously appear to be "Not independent of the International Olympic Committee (IOC)." however else we find about its reliability... So I will repeat my confusion/frustration with the formatting of the question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  What would help on the formatting front? There is an option 6 if you want to make a bespoke !vote. FOARP (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think its too late for any changes, lets just go from here. I think in general we agree that this source is probably fine for statistics supplied by the IOC but less than awesome for non-statistical information. On the statistics side I also don't see why we wouldn't just use the IOC's stats directly if Olympedia is just copying them without any edits, but thats more a due weight question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  FYI the issue with the formatting of the options is that you have made it unclear what to select if one believes that the source is both non-independent AND generally unreliable. The former is Option 5, but the latter would be Option 4. ~2025-34572-30 (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the horse has already rather bolted on that one, for which please accept my apologies, but you can simply just state that in your !vote if it is your view. FOARP (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1. I don't see any reason this wouldn't be reliable. If we were to downrank a source for getting the names of a handful of people out of thousands wrong I we would not have any sources. Also, some of those don't even seem to be wrong? Generally reliable is not infalliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  @PARAKANYAA: and on the question of independence from the IOC how do you find? Perhaps I was wrong above to say it was too late for any changes... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Are we going to be using them as a source on the IOC itself? I don't see why that would matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  Presumably we're going to be using them for a source on the Olympics, which is entirely controlled by the IOC. There is no indepedence issue which would apply to the IOC but not the Olympics in this context, there is no Olympics independent of the IOC unless we're talking about really really old ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  I mean to me that's like saying that any study that receives a grant from any major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from the governmental healthcare body and so cannot be trusted on healthcare. There can be no source on the Olympics that is 'independent' in this context, even the news, but that's clearly not what we mean by WP:INDEPENDENT. They seem to have editorial independence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  They would appear to receive 100% of their funding from the IOC... And any study that receives a grant from a major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from that governmental healthcare body but it stops there, there is no wider "cannot be trusted on healthcare." WP:INDEPENDENT instructs us to ask "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" and the answer here is clearly "closely affiliated with the subject" when it comes to the Olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  There are plenty of academic studies and sources that are 100% government funded and yet completely independent of the government. What matters is if their editorial decision making is independent of the funding they receive, which I see no reason to suggest otherwise for this source. Katzrockso (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Then why does it say "or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Go read the section WP:IIS that explains what that means. Katzrockso (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  The section begins: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (e.g., advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• {outdent}
• By this logic, would it not be the case that any sports network (or hell, probably any news network big enough to have a sports division) was non-independent, e.g. ESPN, since that has a "financial or legal relationship to the topic"? They're not financially isolated from the topics they cover. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, agreed. If they have a broadcast relationship with the league their coverage can't be considered independent for wiki purposes. Remember that there are still plenty of uses for non-independent sources, it isn't like they can't be used they just have some stipulations that come with them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  I do not agree with that. Banning all news coverage from contributing to sportsperson notability would be ridiculous, and is not what I get from my reading of the independent sourcing guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  It wouldn't ban all news coverage, just those with a broadcast relationship with the league or team which is a small minority of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's all news coverage from anything non-local, which doesn't contribute to notability anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  No it isn't, leagues and teams generally have exclusive or regionally broadcast relationships. Thats already how its written and broadcast relationships are both legal and financial. They come with non-disparagement and promotional agreements. See for example Olympics on NBC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  I disagree that the "financial incentive" in sports broadcasting is only limited to there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Where is that quote from? And again this is already the standard, this is already what we do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  I meant to type "financial interest" (WP:ISS "no vested interest [...] "develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic"). And according to what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  According to WP:IIS which Katzrockso brought up. Thats the explainer, so "according to literally that" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't agree with the idea that "any study that receives a grant from a major governmental healthcare body is non-independent from that governmental healthcare body", at least if you're excepting healthcare. They cannot be divorced unless you can also divorce IOC the company from the broad cultural event that is the Olympics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  So you would say that a publication financed by the National Football League was an independent source for information about NFL games and players because they exist in a broad cultural space? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Depends on if they have editorial review and the nature of their coverage. I would not call them independent from the NFL's company workings but specific players and games, perhaps. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  The way its written they need both editorial independence and a lack of conflicts of interest/vested interests. A financial relationship is clearly laid out as counting as a vested interest. See above. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• {outdent}
• Yes, with regard to the company, but the IOC does not own the people who have contributed to the Olympics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  This would not cover information about people who have contributed to the Olympics which isn't about the Olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Why would it not? The independence issue would be the same there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Because Olympedia does not cover information which is not about the Olympics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  The people that compete in the Olympics are independent from the IOC because the IOC does not control them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  We are not discussing those people as sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but I am saying that a publication funded by the IOC with editorial independence would be independent from the people who have competed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  It would not count as independent coverage of anything those people did at the Olympics or awards awarded by the IOC or constituent organizations. Everything else would be on a sliding scale of how related to the Olympics it was. It would never count for notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't accept that, but I've never seen a description there longer than a paragraph or two, so it's not going to count for notability anyway? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  You are of course welcome to propose changes to the relevent policies and guidelines, but please respect the consenus now that you are aware of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Well, good thing we have unambiguous guidance at NSPORT that explicitly states governing sports orgs are not independent of players. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 and a primary source It is good for statistical data, since it's from the IOC itself, but that's where the buck stops. It's also a primary source for said data, so doesn't contribute to notability in any way. In short, for everything else like biographical and personal info, get some better sources. If you don't have anything else, then sorry, but your person is not notable. My question that honestly has felt relevant for years is: why is the sourcing for sports subjects so terrible all the time? Silverseren^C 01:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Can you explain how it's a primary source? Katzrockso (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 and a primary source: I find the arguments by Silverseren and Horse Eye's Back to be compelling. I would also very much not have to go through so much WP:BLUDGEONING; I find fifteen comments in one RfC to be excessive. Let someone else get a word in, please. Finally, this is Yet Another Example of an RfC that would have benefited greatly from a pre-RfC discussion about what questions to ask and what options to include. Perhaps we can work that a bit more deeply into the guidance for RfC authors? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6 / Option 1: The source is generally reliable. 12 cherrypicked incidents of largely misspelled names is hardly a evidence of inaccuracy when it comes to biographical details. So truly there are 2 examples of errors in biographical data, which amounts to "generally reliable" when it comes to biographical details. I think it's obvious the source is reliable for sports statistics data as well (see WP:USEBYOTHERS in e.g. [2] [3]). This source is obviously not independent of the IOC in the strict sense, as it has a contract with the IOC. So consequently, it can't be used to establish notability on things like e.g. International Olympic Committee. However, this does not mean that the source is non-independent of any Olympic athlete. Katzrockso (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also, it is absurd to claim that this is a primary source - compiling information from news reports by definition makes it not a primary source. Maybe a mix of secondary and tertiary source would be the best designation.

  The examples of errors in biographical data listed include an error that is now corrected. I didn't think we here at WP:RSN called sources unreliable for errors that were corrected - that's literally a sign of editorial policy in action working. Other than that, precisely no evidence has been offered to suggest even the slightest bit of unreliability for their biographical information, so it seems like it's all based on feels or something. I find a group of historians (which get WP:USEBYOTHERS: search Bill Mallon's name on Google and you'll find him being cited by The New York Times, ESPN, etc for claims about Olympic history) is generally reliable for this type of information. Katzrockso (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5, which, to my mind, is a special species of Option 2 (additional considerations apply). Compendia such as this do often rely on information from family (per FOARP), and probably sometimes the subjects themselves, and as they don't cite sources, we are left placing trust in what is collated. That this method generally produces information that is broadly true is certainly the case, as is the case for Who's Who (any version). Like Who's Who, the issue isn't so much that there are errors, but that this collation is therefore akin to a self published source. There is no clear biographical research and editorial process. Unlike Who's Who, I am not convinced the issues are so serious as to go straight to option 4, especially since the stats are taken, largely without synthesis, directly from the primary source. But there needs to be a suitable caution, particularly about the biographical information. And to forestall the obvious objection to possible loose wording on my part: I am not saying it is a self published source. Rather, the issue is that the independence of the biographical information is unclear, and there is no clarity that there is any suitable editorial process that addresses this. There should be better sources (and if there are not, the subject is not notable anyway). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5 (or, at the very least, Option 4 for biographical information) With a heavy reliance on self-proclaimed experts, multiple examples of inaccurate information being published (such as the Frank English case) and a lack of a clear editorial policy, we should not be using this for anything other than pure sports-statistics data. While uncited, [[4]] is also another example of how this source has published numerous inaccuracies. Let'srun (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  Why is an error that has since been corrected being held as "inaccurate information being published"? The entire list of "multiple examples of inaccurate information being published" are names discrepancies (plausibly explained by reliance on official Olympic reports) and things that have since been fixed or are accurate.

  @FOARP why did you evaluate Alexander Cudmore as being in the "wrong regiment"? His veteran headstone application from 1945 lists him as a private in Company K in the 6th Infantry. Katzrockso (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  1) Frank English was fixed in response to our AFD. Do we typically rely on sites that use Wikipedia to fact-check them? No.

  2) Their site says that he served in Europe with the 6th. He may well have served with the 6th, but it wasn't the 6th that deployed to Europe in WW1, it was the 140th Infantry, which was formed by merging the 6th with the 3rd. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  Just because they fixed an error that was first spotted at Wikipedia doesn't mean they're unreliable, and further, worthy of deprecation – an extraordinary measure that only the very worst of all sources receive. Whether his 6th regiment was known under the title of "140th Infantry" in Europe or not is such a very, very minor detail. The outright deprecation of an immensely helpful, expert-run source with hundreds of thousands of entirely correct entries just for that and, at most, 10 other similar, extremely minor alleged "mistakes" (many of which aren't actually mistakes), would be one of the most ludicrous things I have ever seen at Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  But Beanie, as WP:NOTSOURCE notes, wikipedia is not a reliable source, so why should this site get a pass for effectively doing exactly that? Let'srun (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  this site ... [is] effectively doing exactly [what Wikipedia does] – what on earth??? Describing Olympedia as "effectively Wikipedia" is a stunningly-awful interpretation of how they work. Does Wikipedia restrict its editing to 30 academics and historians known for their expertise on the subjects? Does Wikipedia require, for any biographical update at all, all 30 of said academics and historians to review the change, including several to edit it? Does Wikipedia, after all that, then require one of the very top historians on the subject to further review and edit the proposed change? I don't think so. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  It's an unfortunate fact that because the title of the website has -pedia in it, people are incorrectly assuming that it is an open wiki that anyone can edit. Katzrockso (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  They are self-described hobbyists, not professional historians, a la Citizendium. Let'srun (talk) 18:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Again, comparing them to "Citizendium", another website that anyone could edit, is completely ridiculous. Citizendium did not require a select group 30 academics, experts and historians to review every single proposed edit ever across a week-long review process. And that the group have called themselves hobbyists is irrelevant and does not remove their status as experts. People like Mallon are clearly historians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  We don't know who wrote each of the biographies though, since there is no byline on any of them, and no published editorial policy. Let'srun (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  You have been told, over and over again, Olympedia's editorial policies. Bill Mallon is involved in the editing of every single biography. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• {outdent}
• Every single one? Modern summer Olympics can have 10,000 athletes competing and they've been going on for a long time... Their self provided statistics suggest that they have 174,104 biographies which doesn't seem possible for one person to be substantially involved with, even as a full time job let alone a hobby. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  The site has basic profiles, such as this (with no biography), and then entries with actual biographies, such as this. Mallon said he is involved in the editing of all written biographies. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  All written biographies would appear to be 43,507 articles, so we're still well over the abilities of a single human editor to substantively review. Also I pulled the wrong number before, its 194,421 not 174,104. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  @FOARP the headstone application gives the exact dates that are in the Olympedia article (1917-1919) Katzrockso (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  And? FOARP (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

  So his veteran headstone application from 1945 lists him as a private in Company K in the 6th Infantry from 1917-1919. Katzrockso (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• I'm at option 3. There aren't grounds to deprecate it. Deprecation is an extraordinary measure that we use for sources that are reckless or flagrant in their disregard for accuracy. The OlyMADmen, whoever they might be, are not that; they care about details that no other source cares about, and they're completionist. They're not out to gather clicks regardless of the truth. Option 4 is as unjustified as option 1 is. But it certainly doesn't meet my personal reliability threshold for biographies and shouldn't be used in them.—S Marshall T/C 23:51, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 I don't think we need to say anything one way or the other. I don't think removing birthdates from thousands of Olympians will improve Wikipedia. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1, it is a reliable source. Strongwranglers (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5/4.4meter4 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Why? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Based on the opinions of those voting above for options 5 and 4. I agree with their assessment as to why this source should be deprecated as unreliable. I've also caught occasional errors over the years of editing and interacting with that source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
      • Why does the "occasional error" in an expert-run source with hundreds of thousands of entirely accurate entries warrant deprecation, an extreme measure reserved for only the worst sources that are so terribly inaccurate that they are never to be used? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
        • I didn't say that was my only reason. It's only one contributing factor of many. See the reasons given above by others which I agree with. Green Lipstick Lesbian in particular said it well. I don't need to say anything more than my thinking is the same.4meter4 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
          • So I see ~10 "errors" which mainly aren't errors given as a reason. Then I see, as a reason, FOARP declaring that some of the information comes from the subjects themselves (who, naturally, would be the most knowledgeable for information on themselves), that its run by "hobbyists" (who also happen to be some of the world's most prominent experts on the subjects), that they "lack a clear editorial policy" (which is a completely false statement as Bill Mallon directly detailed to FOARP an incredibly extensive process that involves a week of review among 30 historians and academics to make any change to the site), and that there is "no sign that [Mallon] write[s] or edit[s] all or even most of the content on Olympedia" (also untrue as Mallon told FOARP directly that he is involved in the vast majority of statistical edits and all biographical edits), and that it is a "terrible source". Am I missing anything? What did GreenLipstickLesbian say that indicates Olympedia is unreliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)
            • Respectfully, this is meant to be a survey of opinions not an inquisition. You don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the process by rehashing points we can all read. Other editors may reach different conclusions and find different arguments more persuasive than others than yourself. We should all be able to participate without the diatribe. I don't want to comment more other than to say that I find the opinions of editors above arguing for options 4 and 5 to be persuasive, and I agree with those opinions. I'm not going to change my mind.4meter4 (talk) 01:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 Olympedia is generally reliable. It satisfies WP:USEBYOTHERS as shown by Katzrockso. Bill Mallon is an acknowledged expert in Olympic history. Although Olympedia contains some inaccuracies, this is inevitable for any source of such volume. It is receptive to criticism and willing to correct its entries, which is a sign of a high-quality source. Kelob2678 (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 A quick glance at the website's about section states that the people who created it are dedicated historians, meaning that the vast majority of them, or at least enough so that contributions by the others can be thoroughly vetted, have the knowledge to make a reliable depository. There could be certain areas where the reliability could be placed under scrutiny, but overall it seems to work fine. interstatefive  22:33, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

  Being dedicated to a project doesn't mean someone is a reliable source, in fact often it means the exact opposite for fan led projects such as this. As been pointed out here, Olympedia has a working relationship with the IOC, meaning that at the very least it should not be used as a source on any articles specifically dealing with them. Let'srun (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, I agree that this source should not be used on articles about the workings of the IOC or the IOC itself. A person who happened to be an Olympian is not the same thing. Katzrockso (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  The clear financial interest and relationship between the IOC and Olympians has been recognized in hundreds (probably thousands) of AfDs by now. NSPORT also explicitly rejects coverage from any governing sports body as nonindependent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  So you are suggesting that the relationship between the IOC and Olympians is the same as the relationship between Olympedia and Olympians? Frankly that doesn't make sense Katzrockso (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  ...yes. Because Olympedia is not independent of the IOC. JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  That type of far-reaching evaluation would affect literally every publication, a web of connections that impinges on the reliability of everything. Is The New York Times not a reliable source for anything that Blackrock has an interest in because Blackrock has ownership in the NYT? The idea that Olympedia is editorially dependent on dead Olympians is not credible. Katzrockso (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  That isn't far reaching its very basic and is the standard we've applied evenly across the article space for a long time now. If Blackrock has ownership in the NYT then the NYT's coverage of Blackrock+related isn't independent. There are plenty of ways to use non-independent sources and we do it all the time, but it would clearly not be independent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  No, I agree that NYTimes wouldn't have independent coverage of Blackrock. What I disagree with is saying that the NYTimes has non-independent coverage of anything that Blackrock might have interest in. That would imply that e.g. the NYTimes coverage of China is non-independent because Blackrock has connections to / interest in China. Katzrockso (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody has said that... And thats not an equivilent here... The equivalent here would be Blackrock hosting a global investment competition... And coverage of those investor's participation in the competition by the NYT in that context would absolutely not count as independent coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Even setting aside whether I agree with that, the New York Times could provide perfectly fine independent coverage on those investors outside of the competition and their coverage on those investors in other contexts wouldn't be permanently tainted by the existence of that competition. Katzrockso (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  Olympedia by definition has no coverage which falls outside of the context of the Olympics. There is absolutely zero coverage in any other context here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Unless someone's birth date is suddenly defined as part of their Olympic career, this is false and you know it to be false. Katzrockso (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  That birthdate is only being provided in the context of the Olympics. Take it down a notch unless you want this to turn into a discussion about your competence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  As HEB said, this is how independence is already assessed on Wikipedia. And Olympedia has an even closer connection than your Blackrock example since it is specifically funded by the IOC to cover Olympians; the more apt analogy would be a company buying the local community newsletter and instructing it to report on company activities. Of course there will be a vested interest in providing extensive coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

  We are getting completely off-topic with this independence stuff (no need to continue to disagree only on a non-substantive issue since the question as asked in the RfC is a masquerade for a different question), the relevant question here is reliability. Katzrockso (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  Assessment of independence is literally a subsection of one of the options. And you're the one who focused this thread in that direction... JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  I replied to a comment speaking about reliability, you replied to me by veering off-topic and focusing on the independence aspect of the RfC (which is precisely why this RfC is ill-formed by mixing several questions together). Katzrockso (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Sure, I agree that this source should not be used on articles about the workings of the IOC or the IOC itself. A person who happened to be an Olympian is not the same thing. This is directly invoking independence. JoelleJay (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Please read the context of the comment I am replying to there, which begins with Being dedicated to a project doesn't mean someone is a reliable source. That comment that I replied to was in response to a comment that states There could be certain areas where the reliability could be placed under scrutiny. Reliability is always in context and that was the object of discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5. Option 4 for BLPs. Biographies do not have sufficient information on provenance, and the stated editorial policy of "sending drafts around to the email listserv" is nowhere near professional enough, to consider them reliable by default. And of course it is not independent of Olympics topics. JoelleJay (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
• Option 6: Olympedia is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED website by Bill Mallon and a small collection of hobbyists. It likely should be considered a reliable self-published work "by an established subject-matter expert" (Mallon) whose work in this field has been previously published, and thus usable on Wikipedia. But BLP and Notability guidelines on all self-published sources should be followed. Appears to have past COI relationship with the IOC. This puts my !vote somewhere in the realm of Option 5 as well. PK-WIKI (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  @PK-WIKI, AFAICT we can't see who the author of a given biography is, so it's impossible to know whether it was written by an actual expert versus amateur/hobbyist (or someone with a relationship with the subject). This is especially a problem when there doesn't appear to be meaningful editorial control. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  If each edit has to be approved by the board, how is that not meaningful editorial control? Katzrockso (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  Profiles being sent out to an email list of mostly amateur volunteers to look over before posting is not editorial control. It's frankly no different from an article going through AfC. JoelleJay (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Source for that claim? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Other than the fact that you do not like the "mostly amateur volunteers" (perfectly valid), how is this different than numerous other sources listed on WP:RS (having the group of editors 'look over before posting')? If it turns on the expertise of the group, that's the relevant locus of discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  RS employ professional journalists/scholars/etc. to write and edit articles according to defined standards. Amateurs are by definition not professional; in the (unlikely) case that an amateur is still considered an "expert", we would need to actually know that they (or a professional) were responsible for editing an amateur's submission. All we have for evidence of "editorial control" are Bill Mallon's Wikipedia comments stating profiles are sent around the email list. This is not how editing happens in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Option 6 - generally unreliable. The source is self-published, it isn't possible to see what is written by supposed experts and what isn't, and it isn't independent from the IOC. Cortador (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 and not technically WP:PRIMARY (especially for the biographical content), but it's not a strong source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option 5, with reliable statistics and unreliable biographical info, although as a second choice I'd pick option 1 over #3 or #4. As the OP in this Olympiedia RSN discussion last July, I don't think it'll be a surprise that I'm leery of Olympedia's biographical details. Surely much of those could be obtained in better sources, perhaps the ones Olympedia sometimes itself cites. But the statistics, which are being published by the IOC now, are fair game. Every source has occasional errors, and I've yet to see convincing evidence that there is a systemic problem.
  To some of the comments above, Olympedia's independence from the IOC doesn't matter in the context of whether it's a reliable source or not. For the most part, Olympedia is a database of statistics—not a press release, not sponsored content, not some other sort of non-neutral content. Plus, no one in their right mind would think that the IOC, which operates the largest and most well-known sports competition on the planet, has picked Olympedia back up to promote the Olympics. This is not the sort of source that WP:INDEPENDENT (which helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject") cares about. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1, though Option 5 is a reasonable compromise. I'm really not convinced by the accusations of inaccuracy, non-independence, etc. I'm with those who have said Olympedia isn't an ideal source, but it has most of the hallmarks of a reliable source (e.g. editorial review) and seems to have a decent track record for accuracy. So even though I don't love calling them reliable, I can't support calling them unreliable. Toadspike [Talk] 23:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  What is their editorial review process? And do you not think that an entity controlled by the IOC and funded specifically to profile their Olympic athletes falls afoul of our explicit PAG that governing sports organizations are not independent of their athletes? JoelleJay (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Olympedia)

The opening of this RFC was prompted by this story in Swimming World Magazine discussing the IOC's renewal of their lapsed contract with Olympedia. Particularly it repeatedly describes the people who run Olympedia as being hobbyists engaged in a "hobby", and it is obvious that they are at the very least in a business relationship with the IOC. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

If the general reliability of the sports statistics is not controversial, I think they should probably be excluded from the RFC. From skimming the previous discussions, the main open questions seem to be how reliable the biographic content is and to what extent it can establish notability. If there hasn't already been a pre-RFC discussion, would you be open to changing the format of the question? —Rutebega (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The biographical data and the independence issue, yes. The pre-RFC discussion are all of the discussions linked (and many more on AFD). What format do you propose? FOARP (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This horse may have already left the barn, which is OK, but I would have suggested something like:

Question 1: is Olympedia a reliable source for biographic details other than sports statistics?

Question 2: is Olympedia independent of the International Olympic Committee for the purposes of assessing notability and neutral point-of-view?

This would allow everyone to separate their answers (as you have in your preferred option) or answer only one or the other. People can also !vote "sometimes" or "it depends" (with explanation), which the closer can consider appropriately. There are no options unlikely to be supported by anyone, and nobody has to explain their second or third preferred option.

This is only a valid formulation in cases where the two related questions are not contingent on one another. I think this is such a case, because a source could reasonably be reliable but not independent or independent but not reliable, so there is no chance of a consensus outcome that contradicts itself. If the questions are contingent, an alternative is to provide options that answer both, but only with combinations that are coherent. As a more generalized example, this could look like:

Option A: Generally reliable

Option B: Generally unreliable

Option C: Generally unreliable and deprecate

but not

Option D: Generally reliable and deprecate

As an aside, I think it's also important to clearly distinguish between interpreting policy and interpreting consensus. With a few exceptions (notably WP:DRV), participants in a discussion shouldn't be asked to gauge consensus, only to assess proposals on their merits, in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. RfCs should not generally ask "is there consensus for...", as this is a question only the closer can answer (consensus can change, after all). Likewise, if an overwhelming majority of participants wind up picking no consensus, you could have a nasty paradox on your hands. When necessary, just leave an option for no change or similar. The distinction matters substantively because deferring to existing consensus over new analysis undermines the current discussion and unduly privileges the status quo.

This is just my proposed approach to drafting an RfC aimed at being easily understandable and yielding a clear, useful consensus moving forward (as well as being brief and neutral as all RfCs must be). I'm open to any feedback even if it doesn't influence or pertain to this particular RfC. —Rutebega (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

P.S. @FOARP did you intend to add {{rfc}} to this discussion? —Rutebega (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The only time I've used Olympedia as a source was on Chris Chan, to provide citations for his birthdate and an Olympic award he received. Do opponents of this website also oppose it being used to cite birthdates and awards received? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I think they want it to be discounted for biographies. Katzrockso (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Then I'd oppose such discounting. Olympedia's the only source which gives his exact birthdate. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Something being the only source for something does not make it a reliable, independent, secondary source. FOARP (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Can't argue with that, I guess. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 16:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Only sources that repeat information found in other sources are reliable? What?? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

From my understanding of their comment, that's not what they said. They said that a source being the only source of information for something doesn't automatically make it reliable, not that only sources repeating each other are reliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

For those who have not seen it, I'd encourage the reading of [[5]] from the supposed operator of Olympedia, before !voting. Let'srun (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Flightconnections, Flightradar24 and FlightsFrom - reliable to verify airline routes?

There's been a bit of scattered debate about these three sources, from myself included, with some labelling these are WP:SYNTH or WP:SPS in the case of FlightsFrom. I have to admit, the waters are getting muddied every time the arguments crop up, so I think it may be time to put this to bed once and for all:

The use-case here is verifying the continued existence of an air route - eg. Wikipedia Airlines flies from DannersTown to Synthland seasonally (or not seasonally).

• FlightConnections seems to be a website dedicated to showing airline routes - there has been discussion (specifically between @Thenoflyzone and @VenFlyer98 that this source is WP:SYNTH. Personally my primary concern is there appears to be zero transparency as to where the website obtains its information, as I cannot find an About page anywhere. Example source: [6] to verify that the route YUL-LIR is operational (Guanacaste Airport
• FlightRadar 24 is a popular website for sourcing, but I personally agree with a number of others (such as @10mmsocket) that it's SYNTH - however, it's very similar to the above. Example use is [7] to verify that there are flights between Kuala Lumpur and Juanda (Juanda International Airport).
  • However, FR24 also has another part of their site which lists future flights for an airline - for example, [8] - unlike the flight history pages in the above bullet point, it's showing future flights. As with FlightConnections, my only thought here is where the data is coming from.
• FlightsFrom appears to be very similar to WP:AEROROUTES in that it publishes information about airlines starting, changing or ending routes - however, unlike Aeroroutes, its About page lists two people working on the website, so it would appear to pass WP:SPS. I've included it here because it's become the "go-to" source since Aeroroutes was labelled SPS, so I wanted to have clarity one way or the other to avoid any potential conflict or disagreement. Example use is [9] to verify a flight from Houston to Bozeman (George Bush Intercontinental Airport).

To clarify for editors, I don't know what the outcome here will be - apart from FR24 (flight history - not the future flights section), I don't really have any strong opinion... I just want to stop the back and forth between editors by having the discussion once in the appropriate forum, and deciding one way or the other - reliable or not. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I wouldn't say these sources were reliable, secondary, independent sources in any event. FlightConnections.com is a ticket-sales site associated ultimately with Kayak - very obviously not independent. Flightradar 24 is a flight-tracker website whose data comes from transponders and so-forth: clearly primary. The same is true of FlightsFrom - it's a ticket-sales website.

Please just stop doing WP:OR/WP:SYNTH to generate route-lists and recognise that WP is not a host for non-notable fan-content.

We can keep playing whack-a-mole with the incredibly bad sourcing that people see fit to use for flight information, or people can finally acknowledge that Wikipedia actually has policies for sourcing. FOARP (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

@FOARP, I agree with you that these are not secondary sources, per WP:LINKSINACHAIN.

When you say that the website is "very obviously not independent", what exactly is it not independent of?

I'd say (from the details you provide) that it's definitely not independent of Kayak.com, but surely the ticket-selling website is independent of the origin and destination airports? I wouldn't say fully independent of the airline., but perhaps also independent of any specific flight and any specific route? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Comment If I remember correctly there were previously removals about how FR24 wasn't a valid source, but flightsfrom isn't a ticket sales website because you can't book any flights on such websites, I genuinely think we shouldn't keep on bringing up about aviation sources because this has prolonged so long and it's already becoming harder to source routes ever since Aeroroutes became declared as not reliable and it will be more harder to source if we start to do one for many other sources, and the case about whether they're secondary is making it look like we're reaching to the point like we're trying to see where a source receives it's information from rather than if it publishes routes/aviation updates that did happen and become true or misinformation that was never planned Metrosfan (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

And for the record, if we are gonna count a source as non-independent because it receives information from the airline itself or another source that depends on it, it's basically near impossible to label a source that isn't a secondary sources because all sources rely on source that use information from the airline or at most use a source dependent on it Metrosfan (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The information it's showing you comes direct from transponders onboard the planes themselves. In what way is this not primary? It's the equivalent of using ATC radio traffic as a source. FOARP (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a note that there’s two parts to FR24 - the flight history which very much comes from transponders, but also the second bullet point where they appear to list future flights. I’d argue they’re almost two separate sources, since they would likely get their data from different places. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

That also is information direct from the airlines per what it tells you on the page. It's (at most) only as reliable and independent as the corresponding airline web-page. Per the disclaimer: "The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers. The data is provided as is, there are no guarantees that the information is fully correct or up to date. Changes and errors may occur. Therefore Flightradar24 cannot be held liable either for the accuracy of the information or for ensuring that the information is up to date at all times. Some of the flights presented may be charter, cargo, ambulance or other types of flights not available for passenger travel.". It even tells you that these are not necessarily regular flights (see underlined section). Clearly a primary source as there's no actual analysis or comparison going on. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I am largely unknown for the case of FR24 as I do think that FR24 does kinda fail to reach certain requirements so I won't comment on that. However for FlightsFrom and flightsconnections I would say they are reliable, as they update routes each month based on schedules and they do sometimes even list some routes updates or new routes that AeroRoutes didnt end up covering Metrosfan (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Quick reminder that Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. A source can be 100% independent and also primary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for finally bringing this up. I’ll quickly go over my reasoning for saying FlightConnections was WP:SYNTH: Thenoflyzone (talk · contribs) was using it with a start date. When clicking on the link, it just shows who’s flying the route, but when it’s a route starting multiple months out, you have to click over the calendar to find the first flight. Additionally, FlightConnections doesn’t tell you if it’s a new route, returning route, seasonality…It’s not like a news article where that info may be outright stated. Assuming a route is beginning off of FlightConnections is SYNTH since we’re assuming that’s the actual first date and that isn’t stated by the source. As for using it for existing routes, I’m not too sure. I will say that I pretty much agree with all of the points FOARP (talk · contribs) has made. I just feel sites like these don’t provide enough information for route beginning/end dates since it isn’t outright stated when it begins or ends (especially FR24 because it could be a one-off or charter flight), and since it isn’t outright stated by the source, that meets the definition of WP:SYNTH (specifically the “Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source”). I just don’t think they’re reliable enough for the sake of the tables. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC))

I do not agree with VenFlyer98's assessment. There is nothing WP:SYNTH about flightconnections. I'm not combining multiple sources to imply a conclusion. It's one website clearly listing which airlines fly what routes. All the information is easily available without taking additional steps. We have to be careful here, because airlines don't necessarily announce every single route they operate in a press release. Some routes are simply added in the schedules without much fanfare, as is the case with WestJet from Montreal to LIR and ADZ. It's the same when airlines remove routes. Ex. Emirates to Damascus. That doesn't mean we shouldn't find other reliable sources and include these informations on Wikipedia. Not doing so will render information on airport pages incomplete and unreliable. Is this what we want? I don't think so. Thenoflyzone (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Without commenting on the reliability of the sources for a second and addressing the incomplete lists - that is what is required by Wikipedia policy, namely our Verifiability policy… content only belongs on Wikipedia when it can be sources with reliable sources. This is why there’s an RfC shortly about these route tables at WP:VPP, so that might be a page to add to your watchlist. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I get that, but what I'm trying to say is that flightconnections is a reliable source. I'll also add that I don't think flightconnections falls in the same category as FR24. I agree that FR24 shouldn't be used as a source, because we can't really determine if a flight shown on FR24 is a scheduled or ad-hoc charter flight. We don't have to worry about that with flightconnections. It lists only scheduled flights available for sale to the general public. So apples and oranges. Thenoflyzone (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

While I understand your points, here’s the other issue I have: the link to FlightConnections in the future. Let’s say an airline launches a route and we use a FlightConnections source. 6 months later the airline cuts the route. Maybe they announce the cut, maybe they don’t. At least if the reference is a news article or some kind of article that says they launched it, then at least if the destination is kept in the table it’s sourced. The source for FlightConnections at this point wouldn’t be accurate because it wouldn’t show the airline flying that route anymore. It would mean we’d have to keep checking back to the FlightConnections source to see if it’s still accurate. Along with that, what if we have a seasonal route and someone looks at a FlightConnections link during the season the flight doesn’t fly? They may think the source is outdated and remove the flight which wouldn’t be accurate. Again, that’s just my take. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC))

Let's take a concrete example. Transat from Montreal to Toulouse. Transat currently doesn't operate this route because it is summer seasonal. Flightconnections clearly mentions this See: https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-yul-to-tls. So I don't see how someone will remove the route when the source clearly mentions "from Apr to Oct", with future dates available to book on top of it. Thenoflyzone (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are you using a 3rd-party ticket-sales website with algorithmically-generated content? In what way is that at all appropriate sourcing? Even with that, this source does not in fact state that Transat only flies April to October. Instead it states "Air Transat flights start in April". FOARP (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It does list "April to Oct" under Transat. If you go to flightconnections.com, and they type in YUL in the departure airport, followed by TLS in the arrival airport, if you look on the left side of the page, it clearly states "April to Oct" under Transat. Thenoflyzone (talk) 12:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

That is WP:OR, anytime you have to do that much work its no good. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia editor is not making their own conclusions or synthesizing sources by inputting fields and looking at the results. That's absurd to call that original research. There is absolutely no requirement that something can only be verified with a direct URL to the data. "Doing work" does not mean a fact is unverifiable. — Reywas92^Talk 16:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are inputting fields you are doing OR... Sources need to be readily usable without manipulation. That is in fact how verification works on wikipedia, the data needs to be found at the source in the quoted form without manipulation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable, in the sense that it must be possible for an editor to find a reliable, published source that directly supports this material. Followed by A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of this policy against original research. What you are describing is definitionally OR.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This was a specific example to refute VenFlyer98's claim that seasonal routes pose an issue. They don't. Your argument holds no water. The links I am inputing in wikipedia lead directly to the final webpage listing all the airlines that fly a route, with the proper schedules well into the future, not just 7 days like FR24. All of this is verifiable data. Thenoflyzone (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I was not making an "argument." I was quoting our policies against original research. But do explain how those "hold no water."?⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I just did. And I have read your link about WP:OR. What I described above isn't that.

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online.""

Care for me to explain more on how your argument based on your policy holds no water ? I can do this all day. Thenoflyzone (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

If not online where else is this source published? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I don’t understand, in a discussion about the reliability of websites, making the point that the source doesn’t have to be online to be reliable. These are websites, their content is either online or they don’t have it. FOARP (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this was a bit of an... interesting... thread. That is to say, I would like to strongly second @Horse Eye's Back, @VenFlyer98 and @Swatjester in that what they are describing is OR. However, I wouldn't call something like this OR. Everything is listed in plain text. As long as you can directly link to the result you're seeking to include in the article, and reader need not enter any information to obtain the same results, I'd say it's good. I'm not commenting on whether or not I believe these sites to be RSs... that is a complicated question and one which I'm not nearly intelligent enough to opine on. All I'll say is that they may be fine to use as long as it is for simple, easily-verified information and perhaps with a requirement of direct attribution. MWFwiki (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

"may be fine to use as long as it is for simple, easily-verified information" I would actually agree with that... But to me that means that the source is essentially unusable because such a source is basically never due (attributed or otherwise), if we can easily verify the information using a stronger source then that stronger source should be the one used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Thenoflyzone, it's possible that editors need to see a screenshot of the website, with the "Apr to Oct" part circled, so they can find it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You are mistaken, two people does not mean that it passes SPS. Still a SPS, do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Wait, validating a source is valid gets us $200? Excuse me while I open another 300 RSNs… 🤣 Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Dollars... Donairs... Doll hairs... Something like that... Either way SPS isn't contingent on there being only a single person involved. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Are there any examples of the sources used in context? Why do we need to verify... airline flight routes? Denaar (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Answering my own question, we've got two examples in context Guanacaste Airport, Juanda International Airport. Each article has a list of Airlines and their Destinations... and I just question why this detail is needed; it's not static information but rather something that will consistently change, requiring it to be monitored and updated. I wouldn't expect Wikipedia to be a place to go to verify airport routes. So why are we including the information? Denaar (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

They apparently exist because people want to use Wikipedia to make their itinerary for travel plans and also for last minute changes in routes. Which, you know, is not what Wikipedia is for. Go to WikiVoyage or, perhaps, these sites themselves if you need that information. There's no reason for it to be here. Silverseren^C 21:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I guess it's been discussed a few times, with previous discussions noted here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Layout_(Airports)#Airlines_and_destinations. Denaar (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

It has been discussed a few times in the past, and I'm about to start an RfC on the topic at WP:VPP shortly, but there's a related RfC ongoing at the moment hence the delay. I'll make sure to ping you when it goes up. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

As someone who mainly edits the lists, my only answer as to why they’re there in the first place is because that’s how it’s always been. There’s been a few discussions on it here and there and I wouldn’t be opposed to a new one. VenFlyer98 (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not about travel plans (or at least not just about them, though I don't recall seeing anyone personally attest to looking up the Wikipedia article for the airport nearest them and using its contents to plan their next holiday). Airport connections both reflect and create economic effects in the surrounding area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There are a number of editors stating just that at the WP:VPP thread (now on a sub-page) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I remember one saying they used a Wikipedia article when coping mid-journey with a cancelled or delayed flight, and another saying they used other, non-air-travel Wikipedia articles (lists of landmarks) to make travel plans, but I don't remember anyone saying that if they lived (e.g.,) in London, they went to Heathrow Airport#Airlines and destinations to figure out what cities could be reached by air. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable, inappropriate, and ridiculously primary to boot I don't think you can get more primary than literal transponders on the planes. It's basically like using raw data to make a claim in an article, which is highly inappropriate. Originally, I wasn't going to say the sites were unreliable, per se, since they were just regurgitating said data, but since it appears they're not only doing that, but also combining said data in unknown ways to get their overall output, that means they're actively doing data synthesis. And they are not reliable sources for doing that. These sites shouldn't be used anywhere on Wikipedia at all. They're honestly worse than Aeroroutes, which is an impressive accomplishment. Silverseren^C 21:09, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  Aeroroutes was absolutely impressive, and yet we can't use it now. I understand the why, but flightconnections and aeroroutes can't be dumped in the same category as FR24. On top of it, flightconnections, unlike aeroroutes, isn't a blog, so in my opinion, there is no valid reason I see that prevents us from using flightconnections as a source. Thenoflyzone (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

  They are random people's websites. Meaning they aren't reliable sources. Silverseren^C 00:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. The argument seems to be "airline routes are notable, therefore there must be reliable, independent, secondary sources, these are sources about airline routes so they must be reliable independent secondary ones", rather than looking at what the sources actually are. Sometimes the thing you are trying to write about just isn't notable. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  abcnews, cnn, abcnews, etc. are random people's websites too. It doesn't matter who they are. As long as the info is verifiable. And on flightconnections, it is.Thenoflyzone (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  It might not be notable to you, but to a lot of people, it's notable. Who are you to decide what is and isn't notable? Thenoflyzone (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's not a good argument at all. The news sites that you quote are run by multiple people with strong editorial controls. A one- or two-person enthusiast/fan site is completely different. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Prove to me that flightconnections is a one to two person fan site. Thenoflyzone (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Or that the info it provides is unverifiable. Thenoflyzone (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  That’s not how WP works … per WP:Burden and WP:Onus it is up to those wanting to include material to prove the positive (ie that the source IS reliable). It is not on those challenging the material to prove the negative (ie that the source isn’t reliable). Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Flightconnections is neither WP:SYNTH nor WP:SPS. It collects its information (airline flight schedules) from multiple sites selling airline tickets. It's as simple as that. It is completely verifiable data and is 100% accurate. What more proof do you need. Thenoflyzone (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  We don’t want proof - we want reliable sources. Big difference. See WP:TRUTH. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  So far, I have yet to see a valid reason why flightconnections isn't a reliable source. Thenoflyzone (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  It is absolutely on those challenging the claim to prove their point. You haven't shown me one shred of evidence claiming flightconnections is a fanboy site, unverifiable and/or not a reliable source. I, on the other hand, have shown on multiple occasions that this particular website is very much a reliable source. Thenoflyzone (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  (Technically, WP:BURDEN requires an editor only to provide one source that they believe to be reliable. They don't have to prove that it's reliable to have fulfilled BURDEN.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

  What "editorial controls" would you even have over flight schedules? This is not a newspaper and is not opinion pieces or reporting, nor can only newspapers with editors be used in articles. Articles can use data, and there is no actually presentation that this data is false. — Reywas92^Talk 16:04, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  The same we expect of any RS, I'm not seeing how this topic would differ signficantly in any way. Why do you want to apply a different standard to these sources than those for other topics? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think it's a different standard. These sites say that X airline runs a flight from A to B at a certain time, and they know that because the airline says so, sells tickets for it, and is tracked as such. That's perfectly reliable data with no concern for bias or fabrication of facts. Is something inaccurate about this? — Reywas92^Talk 17:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  All sources are required to meet the same editorial standard... You appear to be saying that standard doesn't apply to these sources because of the information they cover. Is there something I'm not getting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  And I believe these do meet that standard: the website has appropriate controls to ensure that when it says X airline flies from A to B, that it's an accurate statement. Do you think these websites are just making things up? That they are happy to allow incorrect information to be presented? — Reywas92^Talk 22:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Reywas92 and Thenoflyzone here, the sources lists what airlines fly on a route and it shows what destinations a airport have, unlike AeroRoutes it doesn't publish articles and it was only a tab of destinations list Metrosfan (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Where can I find more information about their editorial policy and staff? Maybe I'm just missing what you're seeing... Also remember that reliability on wiki requires more than accuracy, no amount of pointing out how accurate a SPS is for example will make it not a SPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't self-published material, it's republished material, making data from airline timetables, booking portals, transponders, and other sources accessible. This isn't a blog, podcast, book, or forum post by someone making their own claims or sharing their research, it's simple data already published elsewhere. They don't name their staff because staff aren't coming up with their own reporting or commentary. Yes, FlightRadar24 has a podcast, and I would not cite that! But the website as a whole is not merely a banned SPS, and it's perfectly reliable for verifying that an airline flies a particular route. — Reywas92^Talk 01:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• {outdent}
• Whether or not material is republished or not has nothing to do with whether its self published or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I have a website. Nobody other than me decides what information is or is not published on that website. That website is unquestionably self-published.

  Transport for London publish lots of factual information about the services they operate, including details of planned weekend engineering works [10]. That information is:

  • Primary
  • Reliable
  • Not-self published

  They also make this information available via an API [11] meaning that (if I had the technical ability) I could incorporate TfL's weekend engineering work information as part of my website. I would be republishing TfL's information. Would that make TfL's data:

  • Secondary? No
  • Self-published? No
  • Unreliable? Not if it is unaltered.

  The questions for this discussion are thus, (1) are airlines a reliable source for the flights they operate? Unquestionably yes. (2) Are the websites in question republishing airline data without material modification? I've not seen any evidence to the contrary. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  If a self-publisher republishes something it becomes self-published. It would also be unreliable because we would have no way of knowing that it was unaltered without access to the actual data posted by ToL... And if we have access to the actual data posted by ToL why would we use your scraped version of the data? Nothing in your analysis here supports the use of these sources as RS, you actually appear to be digging their grave with great enthusiasm. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  If a self-publisher republishes something it becomes self-published. That doesn't make any logical sense at all, otherwise my quoting the New York Times on my website would make the New York Times self-published, which is very clearly ridiculous.

  It's true that we need to know whether the quoting and republishing is accurate, but you don't need access to every bit of source material to do that. For example, if I accurately republish 100 facts from a given source and 95 of them were proven to be accurate when verified and the other 5 could not be easily checked but were exactly as plausible as the 95, what are the chances of those 5 being inaccurate?

  What we have in this case is evidence that when these sites have been checked, literally everything they claim to say has matched reality. In what universe does that make them unreliable? Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  The hypothetical quote from the NYT on your hypothetical page is self published... That doesn't make the NYT self published, I have no idea how you are making that jump. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  My website is self-published. The quote from the NYT is not self-published. If I can be relied upon to quote the NYT correctly then the information in the quote from the NYT has the exact same reliability it has on the NYT's website. You are arguing that 100% identical information is reliable when published by source A but unreliable when published by source B, even when B cites A as the source, there is evidence that source B reliably republishes source A and no evidence that source B unreliably republishes source A. That is simply not credible. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes it is... You are the publisher of the content on your site, not the NYT. Anything you republish becomes self published content. The NYT is only the publisher for the stuff they actually publish, if you're quoting, scrubbing, or ripping off the NYT they're not the publisher of what you publish, you are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  So you are saying that I publish the New York Times? I'm sorry but your arguments are getting even more detached from reality. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  If you were to scrape and publish entirety of the New York Times each day yes you would be self publishing a pirated copy of the New York Times. No we would not consider your pirate mirror to have the same reliability as the New York Times. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  If you're just going to double down on redefining reality then there is no hope of a good faith discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  What I am describing is how we currently do it... AKA reality... If you created such a NYT mirror site we could not use it as a RS. If you disagree then do it, copy paste the NYT and start adding your copy pasted site to articles and see if anyone objects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  We don't use it because there is no point in using it when the original source exists (and a large-scale copy would be prohibited under the linking to copyright violations), nothing to do with reliability or self-publishedness.

  When we know that source b has accurately reproduced source a, then that information in source b is, by definition, exactly as reliable as source a (without implication for information in source b with other origins). If this were not the case then we would not be able to use any quote of a third party. For example the NYT regularly quotes primary sources whose reliability we have no way of independently assessing (e.g. "Fire chief Joe Bloggs said no injuries were reported", "local media named the suspect as Jane Doe", "Posters predicted a landslide victory for the Sensible Party") but your version of reality would disallow all such information, regardless of reliability or DUEness. However that is very obviously not the reality we actually live in. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• {outdent}
• The NYT is not self published... If it was we would treat the account published by them as self published, no matter who was quoted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but that completely misses the entire point. Thryduulf (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  The entire point is that we treat the accounts published by the SPS under consideration here as self published, no matter who was quoted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Except it isn't. The point is that you are arguing that a reliable source becomes unreliable if quoted verbatim by a different source. This is false.

  • An accurate quote of any source is exactly as reliable as the original source.
  • Quoting a reliable source does not make that source self-published, regardless of who is doing the quoting.
  • It is possible for self-published sources to accurately quote other sources (of all reliabilities).
  • Primary sources can be reliable.
  • The primary sources in question here are reliable for the information they provide.
  • There is no evidence that any of the sites quoting the primary sources in question are doing so inaccurately.

  Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  "The point is that you are arguing that a reliable source becomes unreliable if quoted verbatim by a different source" I never argued that, you are clearly confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, you have argued exactly that, e.g. You are the publisher of the content on your site, not the NYT. Anything you republish becomes self published content. and that's just the most recent. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That means exactly the same thing as "we treat the accounts published by the SPS under consideration here as self published, no matter who was quoted." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Quoting a source verbatim does not change the nature or reliability of the quoted source, regardless of who does the quoting. If you disagree with that you need to explain how it changes the reliability of the source.

Note also that being self-published does not automatically mean a source is inherently unreliable (evidence: WP:EXPERTSPS among others). Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• You seem confused about our WP:RS policy and how it would apply to abcnews, cnn, abcnews, etc., is this your first time encountering it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Best summary yet @Silverseren. I fully agree. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yet again, FR24 and flightconnections cannot be bunched into the same category. Just because both websites have the word "flight" in them doesn't make them similar. Yes, FR24 is transponder based live information website. That is not the case with flightconnections. Thenoflyzone (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Silver seren, the data synthesis on airline trivia isn't even limited to external sites, it's explicitly endorsed for editors to perform themselves... JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

• All reliable These are all widely-used, highly respected sources. I have seen no basis to believe their content is likely to be incorrect or unreliable. This data is generally compiled from information submitted to the FAA or other entities and published in timetables to reflect actual flight schedules and movements. There is literally nothing wrong with using "raw data", nor does a source providing raw data affect its reliability. These may not establish notability, but that does not mean they cannot be used generally for verification. A source being a primary source does not mean it is unreliable or unusable, it means it should be considered carefully for bias or omissions, which is not an issue for straightforward data like this, which is routinely used in articles. This is yet another roundabout way to delete airport destination tables by systematically attacking the numerous sources that can verify them, despite there being no legitimate issue with accuracy. Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Reywas92: can you support "widely-used, highly respected sources" or is that your personal opinion? Even if marginally reliable I'm not seeing widely used or highly respected for any of these so I'm wondering what I'm missing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  Flightradar24 at least is a major company recently valued at $500 million, and our article says "The Guardian considers the site to be 'authoritative'." The other two import some of the same data. — Reywas92^Talk 16:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  The quote says authoritizative for flight tracking, which isn't what we're trying to use them for. How would importing the same data as another source ammount to widely used and highly respected? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Reywas92 I suggest you read WP:AGF - as I've made abundantly clear in my message, there is no "ulterior motive" so stop suggesting there is such. There have been arguments about the use of these sources, so this is the correct place to discuss their inclusion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:13, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think you need to use quotation marks there but you're right, my apologies. Reywas92^Talk 16:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  The arguments against flightconnections hold no water. Period. Thenoflyzone (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a thought. What if we use the airport website as the main source for all destinations for the table. I mean they are the ones that know the flights after all and most airports have a list of destinations on their websites. It seems fairly simple instead of running around trying to find something that mentions the route we are wanting to edit in a vague article. It’s not the airline themselves stating the route rather the airport which seems to make sense to me. DesignationJazz07 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2025 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. However not all airport websites have a destination list that they serve, and furthermore, they might not list every single airline that operates a same route. I still think it's a good idea however. Thenoflyzone (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This is true unfortunately. I was looking at the Lincoln, NE airport website for example and they didn’t have a list of the destinations but provided an article with announcements of Breeze starting flights. Could we hypothetically combo both, the airport websites that list all their destinations, as well as articles the airport pages that post on their websites who don’t have the destinations list? I hope that made sense. Basically to the airport website that has no destination list, we use the article announcements they list instead? Yes? Maybe? DesignationJazz07 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Think the problem is reliability. The airport websites just aren’t reliable enough, as you both mentioned. VenFlyer98 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes I think so too. But I'm wondering if the airport sites themselves could be help fix some sourcing issues if they are posting specific articles. Now this only would seem to work for route resumptions or beginnings as I doubt the airport websites would post route ending. So yeah definitely a reliability problem trying to implement at a mass scale. DesignationJazz07 (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Why wouldn't the airport website be reliable? [12] and its corresponding linked [13] are perfectly reliable – this is the exact kind of source we would want to use that verifies everything. I know many airports don't have this kind of a page, but we should be using this wherever possible. — Reywas92^Talk 22:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

• So, what I'm gathering from this discussion thus far is that the editors involved in this topic area don't understand what reliable sources are on Wikipedia and are extremely dedicated to pushing the entirety of such trivia ephemera into articles (or their own separate articles like the destination lists). Silverseren^C 23:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

  What I'm gathering from this discussion is that there are many editors who should know better who are failing to distinguish the concepts of notability, reliability, primary/secondary source, independent source, and DUE. This is not helpful to anybody. So lets set out some basic facts:

  • Primary sources can be reliable, and indeed are almost always reliable for statements of fact about the source.
  • Primary sources do not confer notability, but can be used to verify information about notable topics.
  • Not every bit of information in an article needs to be independently notable.
  • Whether any particular information is DUE or not is unrelated to the reliability of the source it is found in.
  • Information can:
    • Unverifiable and UNDUE
    • Verifiable only in primary sources
      • and DUE
      • and UNDUE
    • Verifiable only in non-independent sources
      • and DUE
      • and UNDUE
    • verifiable in independent secondary sources
      • and DUE
      • and UNDUE
  • Reliable sources can be:
    • Independent or not independent
    • Primary, secondary or tertiary
    • Commercial or non-commercial
    • Published by an individual or an organisation
  • Unreliable sources can be:
    • Independent or not independent
    • Primary, secondary or tertiary
    • Commercial or non-commercial
    • Published by an individual or an organisation
  • The current consensus of the English Wikipedia community is that lists of airline destinations can be DUE for inclusion.
    • There is a vocal portion of the community that dislikes this consensus, but unless and until the consensus changes that is not relevant.
  • Whether a given airline flies between Airport A and Airport B is a matter of fact, not opinion. There is therefore no requirement that sources be independent or secondary.
  • An airline is a reliable source for whether that airline flies from Airport A to Airport B, and for whether those flights are scheduled or chartered. They are not independent, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of facts.
  • Aircraft transponder data is a reliable source for whether an aircraft flew between Airport A and Airport B on a given date, but not whether that flight was scheduled, charter or something else. They are not independent, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of facts.
  • Schedules published by an airline are reliable sources for whether that airline intends to operate flights between Airport A and Airport B on dates covered by that schedule. They are not independent, but that is irrelevant to the reliability of facts.

  If anybody disagrees that any of the above is factual, please present explicit evidence that it is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, we aren't discussing the airline websites. We are discussing some websites run by random people that are synthesizing transponder data with other unknown data in unknown ways. So it's both primary and not. The original transponder data would be primary, but then they are using it in a way that makes it not. And they aren't reliable for being secondary reporters in the latter manner. So the websites in question are not reliable sources. Silverseren^C 01:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  As has been pointed out multiple times, that's both true and untrue depending which part of which site you are talking about. Thryduulf (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  If we're talking about FR24, it literally tells us that "Some of the flights presented may be charter, cargo, ambulance or other types of flights not available for passenger travel.", and this is being used as a source for what are and are not regular flights.

  Why not just use the airline website if that is the information we wish to use? FOARP (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I am happy to use airline websites, which is what has been done all along for many lists with a references column, though not all of them have an easy-to-link route map or timetable. FR24 data does usually have a flight number and history that is identifiable as a regular passenger route, though that type of page has not been extensively used since a route is usually not tied to a particular flight number. Context and what is being sourced to what matters – we are usually not stating facts that relate to precise locations of plane transponders anyway. — Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Just a reminder that I deliberately put examples of where and how these sources are being used in the original statement, with the intention being that these are the use-cases to be discussed. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Also, just a thought - the current guidance at WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT is that airlines and destination tables may only be included in articles when independent, reliable, secondary sources demonstrate they meet WP:DUE, which is based off the most recent RfC on the topic - so arguably, using airport websites as sources would go against this previous consensus. Now, given the current inclusion of full route tables, I'm personally also of the opinion that they should be used - from my reading of this guidance, the use of secondary sources is specifically to ensure notability of the routes being included, not due to any reliability concerns (which would of course be nonsense). But for now, they would go against that consensus, so I'd suggest we not try and add them for now.

  Given the impending RfC on what to do with the route tables, which will explicitly not discuss the sourcing guidelines as previously agreed during the WP:BEFORE discussion, we can have a second RfC specifically on the sourcing guidelines following the first one's conclusion so that these can be amended if required. It may well be that we decide to keep the route tables - then it would make sense to change the sourcing guidelines so that the lists are complete... whereas if we decide to summarise, it could make more sense to keep the guideline as is, so that only notable routes are included. Personally I don't know what the outcome will be, so we'll have to see. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  I never realised all these proper news websites follow WP:DUE. Yes, when i think of foxnews, the first thing that comes to mind is a "neutral point of vue".....lol Thenoflyzone (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Again - Fox News is deprecated per WP:FOXNEWS, so I'm not entirely sure it's a good example here. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:27, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

• Any editor who truly believes that abcnews, cnn, abcnews, etc. are random people's websites should have their competency questioned.
  Per FOARP, these sources should be deprecated/removed on sight. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:01, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  Fortunate for me then that we are not discussing my competency here. Oh and btw, last time I checked, Rupert Murdoch is a random dude, and foxnews is one of this websites. I rather read what's on flightconnections than on that guy's new sites. I guarantee you it's more accurate and verifiable. Maybe you should get your competency questioned. Thenoflyzone (talk) 20:13, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

  OK, let's quit the personal attacks from both sides. It's worth noting that Fox News is also deprecated per WP:FOXNEWS. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Snape2324 following our discussion on their talk page. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Danners430. Snape2324 (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about this entire situation, I’m starting to think another RfC may be needed for the inclusion of destination lists. When I think about it, so many airport articles have unsourced destinations, there’s always discussions about what sources are reliable…with WP:NOTTRAVEL, I really think a new discussion on the lists is needed. VenFlyer98 (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Already in the works :) Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate you being on top of it, Danners! VenFlyer98 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

So what’s the consensus on these three sources being used for airline routes? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about FR24 but for flightsconnections it might be where it's counted as unreliable Metrosfan (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment - just wanted to give a couple further examples of how FR24 is being used. This is from Dr. António Agostinho Neto International Airport:

By 18 December 2024, an average of 4 flight departures per day was recorded.
By 17 April 2025, an average of 11 flight departures per day was recorded, all by TAAG Angola Airlines and nearly all to Angolan destinations.

To me, this seems an OK use of FR24, since we're giving statistics based on data... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:11, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Well... Firstly, the two references are for the same FR24 page retrieved on different dates, so without an archive they are unverifiable a posteriori. Secondly, I don't see any mention on the cited FR24 page that would verify the "all by TAAG Angola Airlines and nearly all to Angolan destinations" claim. Thirdly, FR24 doesn't explicitly give a daily average, though I guess that could be allowed under WP:CALC. With those caveats, I guess this is just about acceptable, yes. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Not reliable, per the extensive reasoning above by @VenFlyer98, @Silver seren, et al. If certain details can't be sourced directly from RS then they do not belong in an encyclopedia. And even info that would be nominally acceptable through WP:CALC is not BALASP if you're making a whole table column out of calculations not present in any source. JoelleJay (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Not Reliable (ie secondary) per @JoelleJay Dw31415 (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Whether something is reliable, and whether it is secondary are completely independent questions. I benefits absolutely nobody to conflate them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair point but RS often gets used to refer to the policy. I’ll take another look at the question and RFCBEFORE Dw31415 (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Why would there be any need to use these sources as primary sources? Wouldn’t the airlines be better primary sources? I could edit my vote to say they are reliable primary sources, but not secondary sources if that’s helpful. Dw31415 (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

What does "certain details" mean? WP:CONTEXTMATTERS – different types of sources can be perfectly appropriate for different types of content but suboptimal for others. These sources just put airline schedule data in visual formats and there's no reason to believe they are unable to verify straightforward schedule- or route-related content. — Reywas92^Talk 16:51, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

All details must be supportable by RS... if the only sources supporting certain flight schedule details are SPS like the sources above, then those details are not encyclopedic. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Except the information on those sites is not self-published any more than my publishing data from an official API on my personal website would make the data in the API self-published. My website including a copy of an FAA accident investigation report does not make that report self-published. There are only 2 relevant questions:

1. Is the data on these websites being changed in any way from the data supplied by the airline?
2. If so, does that materially impact the reliability of the data for the purposes to which it is being put?

Only if the answer to both questions is yes can we say that the websites are unreliable for the factual information relevant to this discussion. Nobody has presented any evidence that the factual data differs from that supplies by the airlines in any way other than presentation and formatting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

ADS-B data are not being "published" by the airline, the aircraft itself is periodically transmitting its ID/position/etc. in real time and this gets automatically aggregated on the site via crowdsourced transponders. Just like an app that collects location ephemera from its users' personal radar detectors to generate a map of police activity isn't "republishing" a "work" from the PD... Primary, automated electronic signals aren't exactly audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party... JoelleJay (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That's beside the point though - is there any evidence at all that the factual data published and/or republished by these sites differs from reality? Those who oppose the use of these sites have written a massive amount of words without actually addressing the relevant questions, when it would be far easier to just demonstrate that the data is not a reliable reflection of reality if it were - despite multiple requests to do exactly that. The longer this goes on the more I'm becoming convinced that the reason we aren't seeing proof of unreliability is because they are actually reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe that the raw data is being altered by these sites such that they fail to reflect reality – so in that sense, they are reliable. The question is whether they are suitable for the claims they are being used to verify. If FlightRadar24 shows a particular airline and flight number as having flown from airport A to airport B on a particular date, or being scheduled for a particular date, we have no reason to doubt the data point. But can we conclude from that data point that there is a regularly scheduled commercial flight between those airports? Can we conclude that the flight is marketed by the airline that operated the aircraft (as opposed to being operated on a wet lease or similar basis on behalf of some other airline)? Can we conclude from the absence of a data point that a previously scheduled flight has been suspended or terminated? All of those would be WP:SYNTH. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this really is the crux of the matter for FR24 (and other tracking websites) - it’s not in dispute that their data is accurate and reliable… it’s whether it’s suitable to be used as a source to verify whether a route exists and is regularly flown by an airline. I would agree with Rosbif73 that using this tracking data to verify this specific thing is SYNTH.

However, it’s worth remembering the second point I put in my initial question - there is also the separate section of the FR24 website which lists upcoming flights on a specific route. I would argue this is a distinct source from the above, as it’s not SYNTH based on flight tracking data… but I’m also not sure about whether it should be used or not, as I can’t work out where this data is coming from. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems likely that the upcoming flights section of FR24 is generated from data provided by the airlines, perhaps intended for booking systems, travel agents, whatever... Regardless, we have no reason to suspect that the data is unreliable. However, it remains a collection of individual data points, and drawing conclusions from such data points remains SYNTH in my opinion. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

From one data point we can't conclude anything, but it's not synth to conclude that if there are multiple flights each way every day that this is a regularly scheduled route (that comes under simple calculations). Again a single absent data point tells us nothing, but no data points for a month does. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Flights occurring every day on a given route is highly likely to imply a regularly scheduled route, sure, but not verifiably so: the data is only visible over a short time window and doesn't tell us whether the flights happened the previous week or will happen the following week – yet editors are citing things to single data points or, worse, using the presence or absence of data points to cite that one route is seasonal and another is year-round, for example. That sort of claim could only be verified on these sites by retrieving data on a regular basis and comparing over time, which is rather a stretch for WP:CALC. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Extrapolating business practices from scheduling data (or the lack thereof) is not in any way a simple calculation. A route being "regularly scheduled" isn't some subjective, observational description, it's a legal designation. As Rosbif said, this is not verifiable from flight data. JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The requirement that content be published is integral to WP:V. If the only sources that are actually publishing these data are automated, user-generated fan sites, then those data are not reliably published. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Otherwise I could go set up my own Wordpress site right now pulling from the same transponder data, making the same flight claims from it, and then say here that my website is a reliable source. Which is obvious nonsense. Silverseren^C 19:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If the source data is published, which if you can mirror it it very obviously is, and reliable (and it very obviously is reliable for what it is) then it doesn't magically become unreliable by being quoted verbatim. Whether it verifies what it is being used to verify is a very different question that is independent of its reliability. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

So if I got an RFID reader and started tracking the movements of the local orca pod on my blog, you think this would be a reliable republication of data from the research org that put ID tags on the animals? We don't consider preprints to be RS even when they're intentionally made available to the public by a reputable institution, but a site that aggregates user-generated reports of the raw, automatic transponder data an aircraft transmits to ATC is not only merely "republished"—because the CSV data strings extracted from those electronic signals correspond to an aircraft ID and flight number assigned "published" by an airline and were "made accessible to the public" by virtue of being detectable by civilians with certain equipment—but has the "meaningful editorial oversight" and "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" to qualify as a reliable source on the operation of regularly scheduled routes... Which would mean we could also use these sites as the source for an accident the instant an aircraft's QNE appears incompatible with normal flight. JoelleJay (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• FlightRadar24 is reliable for the narrow purpose of verifying that a route is active over the upcoming days. It is essentially a primary source and may be used within the limitations of WP:RSPRIMARY. It should not be used for notability or the status of a route beyond the few days ahead that are published. (changed my vote from above after reading discussion) Dw31415 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, this is what I have come to as well. I don't think it's proper (from a Wikipedia policy standpoint) to infer from a plane flying between two particular places on a given set of dates (i.e. today, tomorrow and the next 3 months we have data that confirms a route was flown) that there exists a concrete 'route' flown by an airline on a regular basis. Seems like a result of the strictness of the WP:NOR policy. Katzrockso (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  That's not useful for inclusion in any of these articles though, Dw31415? I agree with your meaning here, but you're basically still arguing unreliable with it, since our articles are not meant to be breaking coverage of day to day changes on a subject matter such as this. So if they aren't reliable for long term route status (and I agree they aren't), then they shouldn't be used at all. Silverseren^C 18:29, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  This question is starting to feel like a koan: Is a source reliable about something it’s silent about?

  But seriously, I do hesitate to say FR24 is unreliable. I think @Danners430 is planning a broader RfC on what should qualify a route for inclusion, maybe that will settle the question. The question seems to be whether we can infer a route exists from several days of operation. That’s a slightly different question than posed here (and one I don’t have a strong opinion on). Dw31415 (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Catholic News Agency

Can CNA be used without attribution as a source on controversies relating to the Catholic church? See FBI Richmond Catholic memo investigation which relies on it as the main secondary source for FBI investigations of traditional Catholic extremists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I would not recommend using any of the EWTN publications without attribution in general... On controversies relating to the Catholic church I would avoid them all together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, a good number of the writers for the Eternally Confused Network seem to have had too much sacramental wine to drink. I would not consider them reliable for anything beyond the weather report. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think we should avoid making insulting religious jokes. It looks like about 15% of the world is Catholic, and that means something like 15% of the editors reading this section could be Catholic. We need everyone involved in Wikipedia, not just vocally non-religious editors.

Looking at the FBI Richmond Catholic memo investigation article, it says that the FBI considered adherents of Traditionalist Catholicism to be at-risk for domestic terrorism. According to Traditionalist Catholicism, at least some of these people aren't Catholics any more. Based on that, this sounds like a case of "Media group A investigates former/anti-A members". It's probably a case of WP:RSBIAS, rather than being unreliable.

As a more general statement, I would accept a media org like this for objective facts about the in-group (someone was given an award, became a bishop, or whatever). Sources in the in-group usually know what's happening in the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

They are still Catholics, just schismatic ones. They are hostile to the church authorities but practice a more extreme (?) version. As there is a left/right issue here and EWTN is to the right they'll probably have some sympathies. Secretlondon (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

That's not what our article says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure which bit you are challenging. If it's whether they are Catholics - they are not in communion with Rome, but practice pre-Vatican II rites. Secretlondon (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You said "They are still Catholics". The article says "they are not regarded by the Holy See to be members of the Catholic Church". Membership in an organization (any organization) is determined by the organization; therefore, if the organization says they are not members, they aren't. I therefore think it's fair to say that they aren't members of the Catholic church/not Catholics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

You get catholics that are not members of the Roman church at all such as Anglo-Catholics (who are certainly not trads). Catholicism is a set of doctrines rather than a membership organisation. It's a bit like the way Mormon fundamentalists sects are still Mormon. Secretlondon (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines Catholic (as a noun) as "a member of a Catholic church, especially Roman Catholic." They give no definitions based on beliefs instead of membership. But even if it's "a set of doctrines", who decides which doctrines matter, and how do we know that these non-members subscribe to the relevant doctrines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

(This is pretty deep in tangent land; feel free to reply on my talk page if you're willing to keep explaining this to me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

"a member of a Catholic church, especially Roman Catholic." means that you're wrong and Secretlondon is right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I've looked closely at CNA's website. It doesn't seem to be a conservative as EWTN itself. Secretlondon (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I should be very careful not to offend myself then, given that I am Catholic. But I seem to recall something about telling the truth being an element of Catholic teachings. Publications that stretch the truth do not seem to recall that item. By the way, your attempt at stratified sampling logic for the 15% is probably inaccurate. But that is a separate issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Per their about us page, it's not clear what kind of editorial policy they have, but they have an editor-in-chief and other editors per their contact us page. The editor-in-chief Ken Oliver is described in his biography as "a former White House director of specialty media, news editor at NBC Radio, and evening news producer at Radio Martí, among other positions in journalism and public policy." The organization also is cited quite a lot by NPR ([14] [15] [16]. The New York Times cites them too, but always precedes it with "conservative outlet" or otherwise qualifies their citations; [17] [18]. I would attribute their claims about contentious (more exceptional) facts, but as Whatamidoing above noted, it doesn't really need attribution for less exceptional objective fats. Katzrockso (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Should it be added as WP:MREL under WP:RSP? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPCRITERIA, what have you got? And please don't start new rfc:s etc for the purpose of getting it on RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not particularly familiar with this noticeboard, but I don't think that a source getting discussed once typically merits an entry on the WP:RSP, per WP:RSPCRITERIA.

However, I did quickly find discussions from September 2025, one from June 2020 and a brief mention here in November 2022, so it might be warranted. Katzrockso (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The "brief mention" in November 2022 is just a link to the June 2020 discussion, with a claim that it has "been deemed unreliable" that I don't think is justified by the June 2020 discussion. A quick glance over the June 2020 discussion suggests that it is considered reliable (for the claims in the relevant article), and the source is currently used in that article.

I'd summarize past discussions as:

• June 2020: deemed reliable for serious/criminal accusations, and is used in the article
• November 2022: incorrect claim that June 2020 said it wasn't reliable, as part of a list of other/unrelated religious media
• September 2025: deemed reliable for the claim that a bishop said something, but undue and so not used in the article

I don't feel like this is enough to justify an RSP entry, though we may get there eventually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your evaluation, was just collecting the relevant mentions. I'm not sure what the line for including something on RSP is Katzrockso (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Usually, we're looking both at the difficulty of the disputes, the number of them, and the frequency. There's no need for an RSP entry if it's obvious to everyone that a website is reliable or unreliable, or if a source only comes up every few years. On the other hand, if we've had two separate fights in two months (not just the same WP:IDHT editor twice), then it might be helpful to pursue an RSP entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It depends, as always, on what you are using it for. They have a US right POV. They will reflect some US right concerns such as traditional masses, which can be weaponised against the church in Rome. Secretlondon (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

They are reliable for mundane claims in the Catholic Church like bishop appointments, writings/opinions of recent popes and bishops, canonizations, canon law... They also seem fine with respect to criminal acts by individual priests and bishops (CSA scandals and others) but I would use other more mainstream sources for this out of caution. They are not reliable for the truth of miracles, dogma... Don't use them for social policies where they are incredibly biased like abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, transgender issues, anticonception... (they will not misquote popes, bishops or priests on these topics but absolutely don't use them for anything else). Rolluik (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Things like bishops appointments etc you can get from the Vatican rather than from them. They do have a conservative POV compared to some other Catholic media. Secretlondon (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I second that they're reliable for the mundane, I wouldn't take it further than that though. Snokalok (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that there was a mini-debate about the term "catholic" above, please be sure you are sitting down before you read the page List of Independent Catholic denominations. That is all long and messy issue, and the resulting debate will produce not much beyond gray hair for those involved. I will have no further comment. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Most academics in religious studies will therefore just use self identification and it is what Wikipedia in practice also does. Rolluik (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the helpful comments. It’s clear there is not total consensus on the limits of its reliability but I think we have consensus that it can be used for mundane facts about the Catholic Church and consensus that it should be avoided for contentious topics. I am interested in the fact that at least one editor felt it should be avoided for US culture war topics. The article mentioned above probably falls into that category as it is a minor focus for conspiracy-minded Trump supporters. The source has been added to a related page, Paul Abbate, and I’m going to assume that because that’s a BLP it’s even more of a red flag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: Editors involved in the above discussion might be interested to note that this source has now been added to the Southern Poverty Law Centre article, without attribution, in a section about the FBI using SPLC definitions in investigating TradCath extremists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

So far nobody in this discussion or any previous one has found any evidence of CNA engaging in poor fact-checking practices. Unless I am mistaken, all prior criticism has come from this source being biased in favor of Catholic social teaching and matters related to the church. Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES that is not a valid argument. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The modern – and little known – miracles of Padre Pio These are the sort of things I mean: most of the article is attributed to their source and it is fine if we do the same but this "Known around the globe as simply "Padre Pio," Saint Pio of Pietrelcina has been called one of the "most active" saints in the Church, and continues to work miracles for those who pray through his intercession." we absolutely can't cite this source to say that Pio continues to do miracles even though this is in CNA's voice.

For abortion: Resource page see also this complications page for example for breast cancer it leaves out context and implies the opposite of our Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis.

In most cases where CNA is used, editors have used their brain so most citations and text in the Wikipedia articles is good. The text of the article FBI Richmond Catholic memo reads fine (reliable and not biased) to me but CNA (and other Catholic sources) does seem overused, so cutting some minor points only sourced to them is certainly possible. Rolluik (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Finally. Some actual problems. I see the page contains blatant misinformation about abortion and breast cancer. I don't disagree with you in yout analysis of Padre Pio, but the stuff related to abortion is on a resource page, rather than in any articles. Can you find similar misinformation about abortion in their articles? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If you can find more serious problems, I would say to use this source with attribution on a case-by-case basis. IIRC, mainstream sources regularly cite CNA, so they are covered by WP:USEBYOTHERS. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

[Tangent] About the abortion–breast cancer thing: If you look into that, I think that you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Our article doesn't do a good job of explaining it at the moment, but the effect depends on the population (e.g., age?) and what you're comparing against. The simplest case is if you imagine identical triplets with differing outcomes:

• A gets pregnant at age 20 and has an abortion: Lifetime breast cancer risk of 100% baseline.
• B gets pregnant at age 20 and gives birth: Lifetime breast cancer risk reduced to 90% of baseline.
• C doesn't get pregnant at age 20: Lifetime breast cancer risk of 100% baseline.

The protective effect of B's "early" pregnancy is statistically significant. The statement at the CNA website is therefore not exactly wrong: If you compare matched pregnant women, some of whom get abortions, the ones who give birth will have a lower lifetime risk of breast cancer. Alternatively (because multiplication works in both directions), the ones who get abortions have a higher lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, I think the CNA webpage is also significantly misleading, because the difference is due to the full-term pregnancy, not due to the abortion. (I agree with Secretlondon below that for Wikipedia's purposes, it's also irrelevant, because their webpage is not a WP:MEDRS source.)

BTW, this isn't specific to abortions. The teenage pregnancy rate has declined. Hooray, right? In a few decades, the number of breast cancer cases will go up in direct proportion to the number of teenagers 16+ who aren't having babies now. This isn't an argument in favor of teenage parents, but it probably is an argument in favor of public health planners putting the teen pregnancy rate into their forecasting models. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The Padre Pio article would be reliable for a statement that Pio of Pietrelcina is another name for the subject. A source might not be reliable for any possible claim, and yet that does not make it completely unreliable for all possible claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If the statement comes in the context of fringe coverage how could it be reliable? Any claim that miracles are real (and not just beliefs) is of course as fringe as fringe as fringe can get, its generally disqualifying of the source on the topic which in this case would be Padre Pio in-toto... So no good for the "also known as" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Because WP:RSCONTEXT means that sources can be reliable for one thing and not for another. We are supposed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article. This source is reliable for the name. It's not reliable for "____ provably happened through divine intervention". The subject of the statement being made in the Wikipedia article isn't Padre Pio in general or miracles; it's Padre Pio's name(s) alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In general we wouldn't use a fringe article in that context except for limited aboutself because it essentially backdoors a link to the fringe content in. I think we can use them for a lot, but anything that related to miracles is a no for me... Don't think I'm going to change your mind though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I can imagine editors preferring to use a different source, but that doesn't make this one actually unreliable for that particular statement.

As an example, I was looking through some sources about sexual harassment allegations. I found several things in them that aren't related to the allegations that I'd like to cite those sources for. As there's a dispute at the article right now about the allegations, I don't plan to edit the article, but even if we decide to exclude the harassment allegations, those sources might be useful for the history and prominent successes of the org.

A while back, an editor tried to get a specific newspaper article banned as a BLP violation, because the headline implied misconduct by a politician, even though the thing the article was being cited for was merely which town the politician lived in. Even if the complaint never makes it in the article, the newspaper article isn't a backdoor to BLP violations.

It's the same principle here: a source is reliable (or not) for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article. You don't have to use it if you don't like the source for some reason and have an alternative at hand, but you shouldn't say that it's unreliable in such a case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Its either unreliable or undue, but there is no case in which it would be appropriate to source any piece of information to that article. If a higher quality source can't be found the info can't be included, we simply don't use fringe sources for claims which no other sources support (especially outside of the context of ABOUTSELF which wouldn't apply to Pio). We are not going to make an exception for this source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

His name is not a fringe theory, so Wikipedia:Fringe theories doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

It is only being provided in the context of a fringe theory, specifically the miracle theory. If this really is the only source which says that about the name then WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and this source is nowhere near good enough for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

People's names are not exceptional claims that require extraordinary evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Why would the claim not be exceptional if it isn't supported by any other source? If a single source says that the subject is also known as Tom and all the other sources say only John then the Tom claim is clearly exceptional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Because saying what someone's name is isn't "extraordinary" or "exceptional" information. WP:ECREE is for allegations about cold fusion or that Wonderpam is a cure for all cancers. It is not about someone's name.

We're not talking about a situation in which other sources disagree. You said If this really is the only source when invoking the idea that his name would be an exceptional claim for which extraordinary sources would be required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

An assertion about someone's name could absolutely be "extraordinary" or "exceptional" information, especially if it comes in a fringe context like the alternate name of an alledged miracle worker or magician. If we're not talking about a situation in which other sources disagree then there is no reason to use EWTN, use one of those actually reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

There are three relevant cases:

• Other sources exist, and editors may prefer whichever ones they want.
• Other sources don't exist, in which case editors need to use whichever one does exist.
• Other sources disagree, in which case editors need to give WP:DUE weight to the various views.

The irrelevant case is the one you're talking about:

• We have a source saying that a man who lived in the 20th century has a name, and the idea that a person had a name is so extraordinary to you that you beleive we need really exceptional sources to prove that he had a name. NB not "that he performed a miracle". Just that he had a name.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

That a person had a name is not the claim being made, you're repeatedly engaging with imagined text vs what I actually wrote and what we're actually talking about here. I think that the productive portion of our discussion has run its course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The claim I suggested as appropriate for that source is "The Padre Pio article would be reliable for a statement that Pio of Pietrelcina is another name for the subject."'

So, yes, literally "that a person had a name". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure we don't need an RfC for this? These conversations seem to be extended. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

But hypothetical. RSP entries should only be created when there are real disputes affecting real articles. What we've got here is one editor objecting to any use of a source that says something positive about a religious claim, and another editor convinced that all sources are reliable for something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, so like two opposite extremes? Interesting. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

For abortion and breast cancer we would only use a reliable medical source anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Warning: I feel obliged to say that much of the discussion here is either incoherent or amateur at best. Readers are warned not to draw conclusions from it. An example is the discussion of causation without reference to the work of the fellow| who dominated the field for a while. His work is now considered so so but the discussion here reflects the fact that some people here need to take a class on evidential reasoning. I do not have time to teach a class here, but all would be advised to take a class before making comments. And before relying on any medical source please consider its Jadad score. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  WP:MEDPRI discourages editors from citing clinical trials, so editors therefore have no need to apply the Jadad scale, or any of the many alternatives, to evaluate the trial themselves. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Editors should instead, when possible, cite a medical school textbook or a peer-reviewed review article that has already evaluated the subject (not just a single trial) for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  Then I must have misread the attempt at analysis above. I will go and have a talk with my optometrist. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is not generally considered a reliable source for factual claims, as it's a late-night comedy/news satire program. However, it can be used to reliably attribute opinions or criticisms expressed on the show itself (e.g., "John Oliver criticized Air Bud Returns for [specific reason] on Last Week Tonight").

In this case, would it be appropriate to cite the segment where Oliver criticized the production of the movie in the reception or legacy section? This avoids using it for verification of facts but highlights the commentary.

Edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_Bud_Returns&diff=1324074058&oldid=1324073943 RayScript (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

its undue, reliability is another question. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Is it undue? Oliver's coverage and relationship to Air Bud Returns (including that he has done "tirades" about it) has been covered by The Wrap, which RSP tells us is a reliable source for entertainment news. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

as a joke, to push the entertainment WP:GOSSIP. if this shows up in more places, it would indicate dueness.
of note, many of his antics are regularly covered and make headlines, and are noted as such on wikipedia, so it could be a strong possiblity this does end up becoming due User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:07, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

It's Pop Media, but I wouldn't say that it's quite unreliable, it's just effectively video essays for people who go on Bluesky. As a crash course on a topic, his work is usually partisan but factually solid. Snokalok (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

i'd almost say his work is tertiary, in that he reports on secondary analysis, but he has recently been using journalists to do their own reports and analysis. There are a few deep dives.

not sure about how to define editorial control, would remain uncomfortable using the show currently. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The edit would be fine in a reception section, but not in the production section. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

It's actually not always factually solid either-particularly when it comes to contentious topics. Oliver has made comments in the past about gender affirming care which are incorrect--things like noting puberty blockers are reversible and safe (which they are not and can inhibit bone development leading to early inset osteoporosis and a lower IQ) See NIH study from 2022 on bone health and puberty blockers here: Impact of gender-affirming treatment on bone health in transgender and gender diverse youth statement from the Endocrine Society here: [[19]] PubMed "The impact of suppressing puberty on neuropsychological function: A review" Questions around puberty blockers and their effect on brain function [[20]] Oliver has made similar flubs and claims around other aspects of these issues while confidently and authoritatively making statements to his audience that can be fact checked and on occasion are wrong. But for something like airbud/pop cultural critique I see no reason that he shouldn't be allowed to be referenced--although I'm sure there is some policy I am unaware of refuting me. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Then you're getting into WP:MEDRS range, and I don't think anyone's making a case that he qualifies for that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

No they definitely aren't I was just giving an example of an area where I know for a fact he has dipped his toes into misinfo--I have absolutely no issue in using him in a pop cultural-reference sense. Agnieszka653 (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You’re listing primary sources, but as you can find on the Puberty Blockers page, several systemic reviews and medorg statements have found them safe and reversible. Those trump your primary sources Snokalok (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I would not call the review or Endocrine statement primary, but the former is contradicted by newer and more voluminous reviews mentioned in that article (though mainly on short-term reversibility) and the latter doesn't contradict reversibility at all; it only states that bone development is affected and even says that other studies found it reversible. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Oddly, given their notable history of getting sued and (IIRC) a 100% win rate, and now it's a running gag to point out whenever HBO legal censors them... it's reasonable to assume that Last Week as a news/event analysis show discussing events as reported is totally fine. It gets into "John Oliver said..." when it's clearly his opinion versus reporting (like his intro/outro stuff, "And now... this").

WP:RS on context of how it's used. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

i think it appears to have very high editorial standards, but its a very orange to apples comparison.

we really simply dont have fitting guidelines for premium cable news sketch comedy shows with deep dives for half an hour sad time with john oliver yet. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:07, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The issue here is less about the reliability of the facts the show relays, and more the tone and the overall satirical package in which those facts are presented. The edit which gave rise to this discussion is a great example; having watched that segment, I don't know that it is strictly speaking particularly faithful or elucidating to say that Oliver "criticized" the production team in question. I'm not a religious follower of this show, but as I recall, after every season, in the off months between November and February, they produce two or three of these joke segments on a light-hearted takedown of something that's really a non-issue in the grand scheme of things. The entire point of these bits is that the subject matter isn't really anything a reasonable person would get so worked up about, but Oliver (or at least his screen personality) presents as lacking the perspective/opinion that they are below intensive scrutiny and gets way too emotionally invested in, for example, the legacy of a series of direct-to-distribution movies about a dog that plays basketball. It's supposed to blur the line about how much the audience is supposed to care about these issues and what constitutes reasonable indignation, versus histrionic ire directed at topics nobody should be too preoccupied with; it's a kind of self-effacing humor in that respect.

The problem is, this technique is also reflective of rhetorical methods utilized in the show proper, when it is legitimately trying to draw attention to major social ills, scandals, corruption, dirty politics, inane public policies, poor moral leadership, misinformation campaigns, and any of the other serious and heavy topics which are the man subject of the regular airings of the show. It is very much a part of the normal ebb and flow the show to punctuate horrific facts and dismissive or descriptions offensive commentary around them with hyperbolic, sarcastic, or purposefully obtuse comparisons. Indeed, this satire is often laid directly over the topic in Oliver's discursive style so thick that if you read a particular quote about a given subject, and removed both context and the live tone of the commentary, you can easily end up presenting statements that are the exact opposite of what Oliver and the show are clearly trying to impart.

In short, I think the show, as a kind of secondary/tertiary source re-(or re-re-)relaying information is probably more reliable for factual accuracy and presentation of facts without distortion than 2/3's of the current news media environment. But is it particularly useful for encyclopedia writing? Unfortunately, I think the heavy reliance on unspoken subtext and the disputable intention inherent in the shows approach to satire presents major issues in that regard. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the point where Oliver shows an overly sexualized horse or fornicating rats, agrees with you, says "of course I'm not a fucking reliable source, you nerds, but you can quote me that this horse wants it," and finishes with, "And now, this..."

I do agree with you, as a regular watcher. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Haha--just so: Oliver would probably be the first person to deflate the idea that he should be treated as a reliable source. And you and I might actually listen to him do so and think "I understand why you are saying this, but I think you are probably more intellectually honest and scrupulous about how you present the reality of a situation than nearly all the talking heads that might have tried to reach me this week." But critically, and I think Oliver would agree with this, when you choose to speak truth to power by assuming the role of a kind of public jester mixing humor into your your social criticism to make the darker realities a little bit easier to grapple with, you become a less-than-optimal reference point in drier treatments of the things you discuss. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Its his job to right great wrongs, but his satiricism and nonneutrality are close to impossible to use as is on wikipedia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:57, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• It's sort of complicated. There is some coverage indicating that it's unusually reliable for a satire program, but it also tends to describe it as advocacy or opinion:

• During this era of repoliticisation of humor (Nieuwenhuis & Zijp, 2022) certain satirists have veered into journalistic satire; a subgenre where the host and writers of satire shows embrace some traditional values of journalism like factuality, political relevance, and holding the powerful accountable (Koivukoski & Ödmark, 2020).
• In this way, Oliver’s satire functions more like “advocacy journalism” offering corrective measures to the problems he satirizes (Kilby, 2018). Beyond encouraging specific actions, his “investigative satire” also works to transform information into opinion (Brewer, Young, Lambe, Hoffman, & Collier, 2018, p. 1424).
• With three Peabody wins, sixty-eight Primetime Emmy nominations (and twenty-eight wins), several Writers Guild, Producers Guild, Webby, GLAAD, and Critics Choice awards under its belt, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (LWT), has retained its position as the leading voice on international news and policy, structural issues, and other rather solemn topics that would not be considered entertaining for a primetime show. With long investigative pieces that build on the work of other journalists, LWT challenged the idea that viewers are not interested in stories lasting twenty-odd minutes without any commercial breaks.

tl;dr it's opinion, though high-quality opinion, and should only be be used with attribution. Citing it with attribution in the reputation or legacy section is the appropriate use for a source of this nature - the only question is due weight; weigh it relative to the other sources being cited, check to see if it has secondary coverage, consider how much focus the bit it's being cited for has within the show's own coverage, etc. (Well, I guess that's not that complicated; that's how it usually is with sources like this.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

If reliable sources (i.e. not Oliver's show) cover his commentary, it might be due to mention. Maybe there's a situation in which you'd then cite the show itself as a primary source, but I can't imagine where this would be necessary - if 3rd party reliable sources have mentioned Oliver's commentary, the relevant information to describe Oliver's commentary will be available from those reliable sources without citing the show itself. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Per Mr. Oliver, "This show is among other things an opinion outlet. And while our staff works incredibly hard to research stories before we write something and vigorously check our facts afterwards, we're also not the news". (Bari Weiss 31:33) I agree especially with Aquillion's thoughts that it should both be treated as opinion.

I did find one RS source in which your claim is somewhat supported by: WP:AVCLUB, which is considered reliable for film, music and TV reviews (though this technically isn't a review). It states: "[Summer and Charlie] were selected to play the titular Bud(dy), although as a disgruntled Oliver points out, the dogs don’t really look alike". https://www.avclub.com/john-oliver-audition-air-bud-returns John Kinslow (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why we are talking about this, when the question of whether Monty Python's Life of Brian is a reliable source remains unresolved. My view is that we can use the non-cartoon bits, but all the UFO stuff is covered by WP:FRINGE--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

The show is not a RS for facts. It's a comedy show after all. As for a RS for what the show talked about, sure. However, in that context it's a primary source. Is it notable or DUE that Oliver talked about something on the show? That would require independent 3rd party sources to establish the weight. Such comments may be DUE in context of an article about Oliver or the show. It's almost certainly not going to be DUE in other articles. If some coverage in Oliver's show results in significant coverage then we should be citing the 3rd party sources that provide the coverage. Citing Oliver's show directly could also be done in such a case as a reference the same way we might cite a passage from a novel when using a RS discussing the writing style of a particular author. Springee (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

To me, Last Week Tonight's reliability doesn't actually matter for the purposes of your question, RayScript. If the segments are worth a mention in Air Bud, you should add the information with a citation to reliable sources that have written about the show's fixation. Then, if you need to quote something specific from within the show, WP:ABOUTSELF applies. (Whether a sentence or ten is UNDUE or not is outside the remit of RSN; that should be tackled on Air Bud's talk page.) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

References

military.com

This was a well respected journalism site. In June 2025, it was bought by Valnet and gutted to maximize profit - firing employees, reducing pay, changing focus. The new owner said: "Forget the ‘newsroom’ concept—we are a simple and honest editorial operation." A lengthy expose in the Columbia Journalism Review has the ugly lowdown. The owners of Valnet go their start in the online porn business, launching sites like Jugg World and XXX Rated Chicks. They do not have a reputation for reliable journalism. It is (probably) no longer a trustworthy source. Currently used in 2,000 pages, though most of it is the old site. -- GreenC 17:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the typical behaviour from Valnet. Certainly the site after June 2025 shouldn't be handled the same as it was before, as it's a completely different operation now. At best it's WP:RSEDITORIAL per their own admission. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Very much agreed and the site may need to be evaluated in a formal RfC at some point soon. - Amigao (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Maybe in two weeks because Valnet may be laying off employees at anytime. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Cortador (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that I would consider Military.com unreliable post-acquisition. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games have a write up on the questionable reliability of Valnet: WP:VALNET. It seems they consider all Valnet publications except for Hardcore Gamer to be either unreliable or situational. In regards to the perennial sources list, it seems that WP:SCREENRANT and WP:POLYGON (May 2025–present) are both WP:MREL.

Per this TheWrap article, I find it likely that Valnet publications could be churnalism. The Military.com layoffs in September 2025, as reported here in TheWrap also raise some concerns (in addition to the CJR article you mention). I concur with @ActivelyDisinterested that given that since the newsroom staff have been let go and seemingly replaced by freelancers that the site June 2025-present should be treated differently.

After a quick perusual of their articles, here are some I found a bit concerning. I did notice that all of these were written by writers who's first article was in September or November of this year.

• The Origins of Veterans Day GPTzero believes it's 73% AI generated, and I agree it seems so
• $77M For Veterans: ‘Woke’ Biden-Era EV Funding Finds New Home Somewhat misleading headline (the funding remains in the VA, it is simply being diverted) and the sourcing seems a near direct rephrasing of a VA press release.
• Hackers Take Over Times Square—and No One’s Data Is Safe Very misleading headline and reads very much like an ad for NordVPN

John Kinslow (talk) 13:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I reported this a few weeks back, when the Valnet acquisition was first announced and several former writers made it clear there was no more editorial control or rigor to the site. Archived discussion at WT:MILHIST. Of particular note: According to the Military.com News Guild, which is the website's union/collective bargaining unit, the new ownership are "moving away from hard news", and "has begun to publish articles by freelancers who have little-to-no journalism experience" and it's clear that has actually occurred in practice. Agree that it’s time to deprecate post-acquisition content. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Seems like we will need an RfC. I've added a reminder for two weeks. Furthermore, is there any concern now or future about spam, gambling and porn site links, poor maintenance, etc.. given the motive of the owners and layoffs it will probably deteriorate. And do we want to drive traffic to them. If so, it can be considered a dead site and replaced with archive URLs. If that is decided, post a bot request to WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 16:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

  We should act before Valnet closes some publications. Poor XDA, they were the best Android tweaking people. Ahri Boy (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Agree that we should divide coverage into a before and after and treat as a dead site with archive URLs added where they aren't already. Pity really. PS what other business the owners may engage in is not of concern to my analysis, I believe that in general a pornographer could do as honest a job at owning a paper as an industrialist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Wayback's struggling with the CJR link, so for those few (and proud) asking for an Archive.today backup... --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Ancient histories

Is there currently written policy anywhere on the use of ancient histories? I'm seeing editors at AFD citing the Book of Song and Zizhi Tongjian for supporting articles on Ancient Chinese figures. What are our thoughts on using ancient histories published from the 5th to 11th centuries as the only basis for building articles (ie zero coverage in 19th, 20th, and 21st century sources)? In my opinion anything published in the ancient world requires training as a historian to properly interpret and evaluate. For that reason, I don't think this type of material should be the primary basis for any article. This of course would not be limited to just these two sources. I would think anything published pre-1800 should be viewed in this way. Obviously using these as supplementary materials, and carefully citing them in a limited way should be allowed, but I don't think we should be able to count these as WP:SIGCOV in notability discussions or have a large amount of text verified only to them. Thoughts? Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

SIGCOV is about how much (usable/encyclopedically relevant) information is in a source. It would be a bit silly to say "well, the source has five thousand words, but it's not significant coverage" – as if 5,000 words were some trivial amount of coverage. If you want to say that it doesn't count towards notability, then leave SIGCOV out of it, and just say you don't think that attention from the historical world makes any difference to modern-day notability. You'll have to find a way to square that with Wikipedia:Notability#Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time (attention over centuries isn't "a sufficiently significant period of time"? – you may have your work cut out for you there), or you'll have to find a different thing to complain about. For example, maybe they're not reliable. Or, much more promisingly, ancient works are not actually usable as secondary or tertiary sources.

As for date-based arguments, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)#What is "recent" scholarship in history? suggests that anything before the 1990s should be discouraged (to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the details), and I believe that there's another view in the community that says that historical theories/stores before the mid-20th century (1950s? 1960s?) should be assumed to not meet the modern scholarship. (That is, if someone wrote in 1885 that John Smith once wrote ____ in his letter home, then the simple facts are probably fine, but you don't want to accept conclusions in that old source, such as "and so that proves that it was reasonable for only married men to be able to vote" or "and so that proves that biological sciences were commercially important in the development of chemistry" or whatever; at most, you want to use it to say that John Smith once wrote something in a letter). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing You sort of answered my question, but didn't quite get where I am coming from. I am asking what do we do with articles being built only from ancient histories. In this case 5th century to 11th century sources (which I am potentially seeing in a few Chinese nobility articles), and where no modern sources have been found? That to me seems problematic because A. Modern readers of ancient texts may not have sufficient training in interpreting historical documents to interpret them properly, and B. Ancient histories are not necessarily reliable histories (some of the writers writing on topics they had no first hand knowledge of, etc.) I would think older histories might be better interpreted as WP:PRIMARY documents even if they are histories of earlier time periods because of the translation difficulties across time and culture. These type of sources need modern historians engaging with the histories themselves to properly use and interpret them (and also fact check). Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The same thing that we do with any other article that isn't already WP:FINISHED: We try to improve it.

It sounds like, in this case, the next step is to determine why we haven't yet found any modern sources. Could that be because no modern sources exist, or is it more likely that modern sources exist but we can't find them (or read them)? Is it likely that the sources are in Chinese and we're searching in English? Or that the sources are offline and we're searching online?

If we think that's the main source of our inability to improve it, then the usual thing to do is to add a maintenance tag and wait (for years, even decades) for someone who can find the sources to discover the article and improve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Ya, I don't agree with that. I think deletion is the route to go (and the policy backed route) in cases where no reliable materials can be found. We don't assume sources exist, and articles shouldn't be built in the first place until multiple reliable sources are in hand both for verifiability and nobility policy compliance. 4meter4 (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

"Where no reliable materials can be found", or just "When no reliable materials can be found online, by me personally, given my own limitations, such as the fact that I don't read Chinese, and our article at Book of Song says 'There are no known full translations to English', so I'm neither able to read that source nor to find non-translated information related to the contents of that source"?

We don't need to "assume sources exist" in these situations. We have evidence that sources do exist, because you're complaining that the sources you've been given are not the Right™ Kind of sources.

I think you've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia's ruleset is imperfect and doesn't always fully describe reality. The claim that notability requires secondary sources is one of those unfortunate gaps. It was written back when many editors thought that secondary was a fancy way of spelling independent, and when the WP:SECONDARY policy literally defined a secondary source as second-hand information – thus making any old rumor, and every single newspaper report, be a policy-defined secondary source. We have IMO a more accurate understanding of those words among experienced editors now, but I think there are two fundamental facts to keep in mind at AFD: The first is that the words in the GNG don't necessarily represent the original intent behind the GNG. And the second is that articles will be deleted at AFD whenever we feel like it, and kept at AFD whenever we feel like it, even if "the rules" say the result "should" be the opposite. You can call it whatever you like (Jury nullification has a nice ring to it), but I think it's better not to worry about it too much. Do your best, let others do their best, and if the result is wrong, move on to something else. If they get it wrong on this article, there are 7,097,737 other articles waiting for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think age of a source matters to notability, no. More recent sources supersede older ones if they disagree, sure, but that doesn't mean that older coverage doesn't represent significant coverage contributing to overall notability. I've had someone try to argue before that one of my actress articles isn't notable because the decades of coverage of her took place in the first half of the 1900s and there hasn't been anything since then. Which is nonsense. We have WP:NTEMP for a reason. Otherwise, you could say any currently notable subject isn't notable anymore in 30 years if no new sources are made about them during that time period. Silverseren^C 05:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Silver seren I agree with that, but we aren't talking about the same thing. It's one thing to take a newspaper clipping from the 19th century about an actress in a play which is not so far outside our language, culture, worldview, and in general conceivable conception of the world that it can't be well understood today. It's another thing to read a document made in 5th century China where the culture is completely alien because nothing like it has existed in centuries. Understanding/interpreting meaning then becomes a skill that one has to spend years learning by studies in universities training to read those type of documents. It's just like someone learning to read Ancient Greek and interpret the Bible, and learning to exegete a passage correctly and understand the 1rst century Greco-Roman culture and its Jewish context within the document. One can't even properly understand the document and what's being said without the right cultural subtext/context that isn't even in the document but would be readily familiar to the author and its intended audience. This includes literary genre and the unique ways those tyoes of documents were stylized and structured and what that construction meant in terms of interpretation (it's not like modern writing). That's the type of work historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, and other scholars spend years learning in graduate school and after. It isn't something a lay person can do. It takes highly specialized skills. I'm not an expert in Chinese 5th century literary genre but I do know it's a thing, and it's a thing requiring many years of education to do properly.4meter4 (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

And yet we do allow editors to use their own personal translations of non-English sources and summarizations of their contents, even for languages such as many Asian ones where a direct translation isn't really possible and requires interpretation of what the words actually mean. Again, all of this still sounds like an NTEMP argument. If Wikipedia manages to last long enough, society will likely continue to drift linguistically and culturally. Would you then argue 100 years from now that the oldest of sources you're willing to allow for use right now no longer are good sources because they've become too culturally disparate? Silverseren^C 06:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Sigh, I think you are misunderstanding the point. We can reasonably expect editors to use scholarly sources made in the recent past competently because they are written in a time and place which we can understand without needing specialized education and training. Scholarly lit written for modern audience is something we can use. What we can’t do is place a reasonable expectation that editors will be competent at correctly interpreting materials from outside a culture they do not know or understand such as Ancient China. That requires specialized skills. I don’t think anyone without a degree in Ancient Chinese literature or history can be trusted to use a 5th century Chinese document accurately. If you haven’t been trained in it with a masters or doctoral degree at a reputable institution you simply won’t be able to do it without significant errata. Since we aren’t subject matter experts, we therefor have to rely on scholarly engagement with ancient texts and work by modern scholars published on those ancient text. We should not be attempting to interpret them on our own because that isn’t something we are competent enough to do under any circumstances.4meter4 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren, by policy medieval and ancient sources are considered primary and therefore do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

What is the age cutoff then to be "ancient", JoelleJay? How do we determine that line? Is it different for different parts of the world? Is it a sliding scale of age where previously secondary sources turn into primary once they pass the age limit? Wherever that dividing age line is, what exactly defines the difference between a written source on one side of the line vs one just over the other side?

In short, where is the policy/guideline where all of my questions above there are defined, as such a definition would be necessary to make any claim about what sources even count as "medieval" or "ancient"? Silverseren^C 20:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The cutoff for "medieval" is generally considered to be around the late 15th century. In practice, I think editors of history topics tend to use a later cutoff. Regardless, in order for any source to be considered reliable it would need to be evaluated for its reputation for fact-checking, peer review/editorial control, and vetting by the scholarly community to qualify as non-self-published; that would automatically rule out the vast majority of texts before the 1700s. To be an expert SPS the author would still need to have been published in reliable, independent publications, so that's out as well. At best, old text could be considered WP:RSEDITORIAL, which is still primary and thus ineligible for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's confusing then considering the context of what's being discussed here. I agree with you on the self-published issue, as that would apply just as much to older sources as they do to current ones. Except the two Chinese sources this entire thread is about aren't self-published. They are official history documents made by the government. They are, in all likelihood, biased in what they cover and how they cover it, sure, but wouldn't an official government book series about the nation's founding and historical events be considered a proper source, JoelleJay? Silverseren^C 21:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The relevant policy is still the one that states all ancient works are considered primary sources. I would also not consider the official histories to be truly independent, though that's a different discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thousand year old texts are not reliable sources for anything and can't provide notability for our purposes.--Boynamedsue (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  All sources are reliable for something. Many sources are reliable only for a statement like "Such-and-so document contains the following words: _______", but all sources are reliable at least for that much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• So, what exactly is the age limit for sources, Boynamedsue? And is that a moving limit that then makes formerly reliable sources unreliable as they go outside that age limit? How exactly do you determine that point? What do you base any rules of age related reliability on? Silverseren^C 20:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

  There can be no easy criterion, given the lack of extant copies and questionable translations I mentioned below. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing here that a 1000 year old source might be considered reliable in order to provide notability for an article?

In terms of how old is too old to use, that would depend on both the field and the individual topic. In anything regarding history, I would probably put a practical limit around the 1840s, though much published after that date will still be unusable. The methods used in modern history and the development of knowledge since that period means that we should be using modern historians interpretation of older historical texts rather than using them directly. We shouldn't, for example, use Suetonius to source details of the life of Augustus, but instead cite authors that interpret Suetonius. Historians of the distant past simply did not follow the methodology of modern history and so are not reliable sources. Our use of them for article immediately becomes WP:OR as we are taking a position on their accuracy that we are not qualified to take.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, although your intuitive comments are almost correct, you have given the crowd here no solid basis for your assertions, e.g. a discussion of the Rankian approach to modern historical analysis etc. And if any ancient doc is significant there will be many many debates on it. My point about translations below is of course crucial. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we need a discussion of the Rankian approach to interpret WP:AGEMATTERS to say that a thousand year old source shouldn't be used. We give primacy to academia, and sources from before professional academia existed will always be suspect in any field. The point of the accuracy of translation is true, but perhaps unnecessarily complicates things.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think 1500 year sources go well before Age Matters. We may be heading towards a heated agreement on the avoidance of ancient sources. But I should mention that in various cases there is scholarly dispute about the interpretation of ancient sources. One concern was the use of 1840 as a year. I do not think there is any definite year that far off. But let us leave it there. Cheers Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it is probably the case we agree in practical terms. The rough cut off of the 1840s is the limit where I might read a source and consider it in a field of history where I am more or less a subject matter expert (and there is only one of them, really). Apart from the question of method, I can't see how our guidelines on reliable published sources can be applied to texts written before the advent of the modern publishing industry.

In linguistics it would be further back, back to the Grimms and Sir William Jones in the late 18th century. Though of course, this would always be used with attribution and care. However, unless I am an expert in the topic at hand, I would rarely add anything written before the 1950s.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It's about changes in modern scholarship. No simple cut-off. Ancient history requires historians to analyse. We need to find modern sources. Secretlondon (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• I think one issue to remember is that in most cases we do not have the original item for 1500 year old type sources but some hand written copy, at times in a few different languages, eg Galen among others. And the translations can conflict. So using them is "possible" with extreme care but very tricky. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• They have limited use for about self... But nobody should be using a source even a hundred years old for serious history. Even the 1980s is too far back to get generally accurate information in most historical disciplines. As they are not reliable sources outside of the context of aboutself they do not contribute to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

We had a long discussion on the issue as it applied to classical Greco-Roman sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_479#Classical_sources_(Herodotus,_Plutarch_etc)), which resulted the WP:GRECOROMAN entry on RSP. I would consider its advice to also apply to classical Chinese sources Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I concur. What's the process for getting something like that added for classical Chinese sources?4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I would support a parallel entry on WP:RPS classifying the kind of sources queried here as WP:PRIMARY. I would also note that, if this is accepted by others, the Book of Song and Zizhi Tongijan would not be able to provide WP:SIGCOV and as such the articles you queried probably do not pass WP:GNG as they stand. However, you almost certainly should take this to WikiprojectChina before initiating any deletions, especially if you don't speak Chinese. It may well be that some of the topics are actually quite well covered in Chinese paper sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Good advice. I would imagine that modern Chinese scholarship has been done in Chinese language publications on many of these topics, but they may be more easily accessible to those in China.4meter4 (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ancient texts cannot be contributory to notability as they are, per policy, considered primary. Further examples of primary sources include: ... medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings.

There is also no possible way to judge the reliability of ancient texts that have not been secondarily analyzed by actual RS, so those are by default unreliable as well as primary. JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The inherent problem is that the policy contradicts itself. WP:Primary says Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Older sources, speaking on event long after they happened, are definitionally secondary as they provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. They have a whole host of other problems, from age to transmission, but to call them primary is factually incorrect. That's not to say they shouldn't be attributed when used, and used with caution, but for a whole host of other reasons. ~2025-37597-99 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict itself, it clarifies how "primary" is defined for Wikipedia's purposes. This is also aligned with how modern historians treat ancient histories as primary sources[21], since the ancient authors' treatment of prior sources is radically different from what we would currently consider "secondary analysis". It's especially important on Wikipedia to require any information from these books to be filtered through modern scholarship to avoid OR. JoelleJay (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You've cited a class syllabus for a 200 level class, which is about as far from reliable as one can get. I'll point to Livy: The Composition of His History by T. J. Luce as an example of academically published work, where he calls even the sources Livy drew from as secondary.

The issue is that this is not the universally held position you're making it out to be, and is an extremely complicated and nuanced topic. It isn't hard to find academic sources which uncritically cite ancient authors, and that you should have to cite a some random work to say "Plutarch said X" or "Livy said Y" instead of just citing them is nonsense. Nothing about that is WP:OR, since and editor is only repeating material inside the work, identical to how any other source is treated. Plenty of ancient authors are reliable, like Pausanias or the Geographica of Ptolemy, and others very much aren't, like Herodotus or the Historia Augusta. Editors should instead look at what various historians say about the individual reliability of each source, and how they are treated by said historians, rather than simply dismissing them out of age. ~2025-38588-60 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You are also confusing "uncritical citation" (which these historians certainly are not doing!) with endorsement of the source's reliability as a whole, and conflating pronouncements of reliability with the issue of these sources being primary. You can read my other comments linking to, e.g., the Cambridge History of China, which explicitly lists all of the texts mentioned here as "primary sources". Academic sources are written by historians who are actually qualified to interpret primary sources for the individual claims they make. Wikipedia editors are explicitly forbidden from doing this. JoelleJay (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

that you should have to cite a some random work to say "Plutarch said X" or "Livy said Y" instead of just citing them is nonsense Citing a modern perspective on what Plutarch said is exactly what we expect of editors. The article on Ptolemy's Geography that you linked literally calls these sources primary and does not cite any of them inline without an accompanying modern source addressing the same material. JoelleJay (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no contradiction in there, you simply misunderstand wikipedia policy and guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

At least for Zizhi Tongjian, I do not see why it could not be considered a reliable secondary source, it deals with history hundreds of years away from when the author lived/wrote the work so by nature it cannot be primary, and it is well regarded as reliable research material for the periods it covered, with many analyses & annotated versions written by people over the centuries. Portions of it are still given to Chinese high school students to read to this day: [22], so it should be interpretable to some degree by native speakers.

Book of Song as part of Twenty-four Histories should also be fine, but I could see a primary argument made as it was only written 15 years after the fall of the dynasty it covers. Jumpytoo Talk 01:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If we apply the same rules to ancient Chinese texts as we do ancient Greek and Roman texts, then we shouldn't use it except, in effect, to quote it and no articles should be sourced solely to it. It's not a reliable secondary source, it is a primary source for our purposes.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, by the relevant WikiProjects and elsewhere, and no firm conclusion was reached. I will link the past discussions and provide a more thorough comment tomorrow. My initial response is that this is a very complicated issue and it is probably best to examine each source separately. Simple time-based cutoffs are often inadequate for this topic area, where "classical histories" were written and published thousands pf years after their Greek and Roman counterparts. Our typical metrics for what makes a reliable source (e.g. editorial oversight) may include many "classical" East Asian histories, while our typical definition of a "primary source" may exclude many of these histories. Toadspike [Talk] 22:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Another thought: We should keep reliability, due weight, and notability separate. I think I lean towards disallowing the use of these sources to establish notability, but I lean against calling them "unreliable" and I am certain that any East Asian article would be incomplete without relevant information from the "classical" histories if such information is available, even if it is only presented as a quote. Toadspike [Talk] 23:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I argue the opposite: they do establish notability (if they are secondary to the events/persons depicted). They are unreliable in that we can't trust them for the historicity of events/persons or can't ourself establish how reliable or unbiased they are (wp:OR). In practice that leads to the same conclusion: we can't use them to source an article/partial text of an article to. Whether that means we should immediately delete these articles/that material or wait till they get reliable scholarship added is a judgement call. If they end up at AFD and no reliable sources are added then that should result in deletion or a redirect. Rolluik (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think I agree with Rolluik. Significant coverage in an official history would indicate a subject's notability. However, the content of that coverage should at best be taken with a pinch of salt, and at worst be considered unreliable. It should not be the basis for an article, and certainly not the sole basis, at which point the article becomes essentially a WP:OR translation of the classical text. Rather, WP:HISTRS should be used. @Toadspike, I come out in hives whenever you link the Princess Changde AfD.... Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

If they are unreliable they can't establish notability... They don't just need to be secondary they also need to be reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd disagree, particularly in the case of people - a biographical chapter in one of the official histories would to my mind confer notability with respect to WP:ANYBIO criterion 3: The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. The official histories were the standard national biographical dictionary of the times. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Standard national biographical dictionaries are built from modern historical research methods. Conflating ancient histories with today's publications is a false analogy.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree, then. Notability is not temporary. That said, I think it is likely that most subjects of a ranked biography would have sufficient WP:HISTRS sources anyway to draw on for an article. I suppose my position is that I would not myself draft an article from scratch solely based on a ranked biography, but I would not recommend deletion were such an article to be nominated for AfD. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't so much a question of notability but a question of verifiability. We can't undertake the work of a trained historian because applying modern methods of historical research ourselves is a skill that can only be done by a subject matter expert. Even though many of us who volunteer have studied research methodologies (anybody who went to graduate school likely had to take at least one or two courses in it), we are a community of volunteers that have to set aside any credentials we may have as we don't vet editors backgrounds. In that sense, anybody who edits on wikipedia is an amateur and can't engage in WP:OR. Translating ancient documents in ancient languages to a contemporary audience so they can understand is a skill, and interpreting essential subtext (ie understanding what an audience of its day would read into a document that wasn't outright said, but would be essential to its proper interpretation and meaning by its author) is only something a highly knowledgeable historian would know to do who was a specialist in that particular language and culture of that historical period. The chances of errata in this area are too high if anyone not qualified (ie not a verified subject matter expert) does it. As such, we rely on modern scholars to do their necessary work in order for us to use these materials. Because these types of sources can't be used on their own to verify articles, we shouldn't be using them to create pages. That is why they indicate no notability. We need sources we can use as amateurs to have an article. Ancient document use absent modern scholarship requires original research, and that is something we can't do. Period.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4 I urge you again to stop using the word "ancient". Most of what we're talking about here is not ancient. Please also be more specific in your claims about "modern scholarship" and how it differs from the methods of traditional East Asian historiography, which in some cases was extremely similar to "modern scholarship". Toadspike [Talk] 18:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Whether the text is technically ancient or not, it still falls under our very straightforward policy that sources from the medieval period and earlier are automatically considered primary regardless of whether they cite other sources or are non-contemporary accounts. Modern historical scholarship is certainly not in the practice of interpreting old Chinese historiography the same as modern historiography. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You also seem to be arguing that all sources in literary Chinese should be discounted because no Wikipedia editor is qualified to read literary Chinese. I do not think I can be convinced of this. While some cases, especially very old texts, can be difficult to interpret, many are extremely straightfoward. It this regard it is a language like any other. See for instance the Princess Changde AfD, where several editors opined on sources written in literary Chinese. Toadspike [Talk] 18:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Leaving aside the point of whether or not that counts as a "a country's standard national biographical dictionary" where does it say that it confers notability? I think you might fundamentally misunderstand how notability works on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think I do fundamentally misunderstand; it is probably my wrong choice of verb. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria says: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards ... The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography). Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"likely to be notable" means that no actual notability is conferred by meeting that standard. You are arguing for a fundamental misinterpretation of notability, this isn't an "agree to disagree" situation you're just wrong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

May I ask, then, what is the wiki phrase that isn't "likely to be notable" but is something like it that does confer notability then (maybe it is "may be considered notable"?) Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a phrase which confers notability... As WP:N says "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Reliability is absolutely required for notability. Discussion in an ancient "encyclopedia" is indicative of further coverage in secondary RS existing, but as it cannot be used to actually write an article it is not sufficient to establish notability. ANYBIO is weaker than GNG and BASIC (it uses "likely to be notable" rather than "presumed notable"), and regardless, WP:N still requires secondary independent coverage in RS. If the only coverage that can be found is in ancient texts like Zhizhi Tongjian, then that is no better than a profile in a DPRK newsletter for the purposes of Wikipedia as it is not possible to write an NPOV, tertiary article on the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Past discussions: recent RSN discussion, recent discussion on WikiProject Talk China, 10-year-old discussion on WT:ZH. recent RSN discussion of Sillok/VRotJD and subsequent WT:KO discussion, both summarized at WP:VROTJD. Relevant AfDs are for example Princess Changde and Wang Ji. I encourage folks to at least skim over some of these (including the AfDs) to understand the various perspectives and the status quo. Toadspike [Talk] 10:51, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I also believe that something like WP:GRECOROMAN is needed for traditional East Asian sources. As user:Toadspike notes in the above-linked discussions, the use of these sources is particularly pervasive in Chinese history articles, with many of the more obscure ones being translated from zhwiki, which routinely accepts these sources. The problem is exacerbated by ill-advised placings of {{expand language}}. While this is all done in good faith, it is riven with the same issues identified above for other pre-modern sources. I am not suggesting immediate deletion of the vast number of articles affected, but we must put down a marker to stop the situation continually getting worse, and perhaps to start to improve it. Kanguole 13:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Kanguole, luckily we already have policy that states these ancient and medieval texts are automatically primary and thus cannot count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@JoelleJay You've made this argument several times, but the discussion I linked above on this exact question was inconclusive. (There was also clear opposition there to applying WP:GRECOROMAN to Asian sources.)

You link to a footnote in WP:PRIMARY that I have objected to in the past because it mischaracterized what its sources say. I assume you are referring to the phrase "medieval and ancient works, even if they cite earlier known or lost writings". Again, there was no consensus in the RSN discussion to apply this to post-medieval Asian sources, and even if there was, centuries of post-medieval East Asian histories written with the same style and methods as medieval or ancient histories, which makes this an arbitrary distinction. That footnote goes on to list three definitions of primary sources from reliable sources, none of which would apply to most Asian works of history (with the possible exception of those in the "Veritable Records" style). As such, I can't accept that this footnote means all traditional East Asian historigraphy is primary without an affirmative consensus somewhere saying exactly that. Toadspike [Talk] 21:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike, an informal discussion on RSN that got archived with no closure definitely does not override explicit, long-standing policy. Nor does it override the very well-established practice within history scholarship of treating these old sources as primary, both by university syllabi[23][24][25] and professional historians [26] (e.g. The Cambridge History of China[27], which explicitly treats Shiji, Hanshu, Hou Hanshu, Zhizhi tongjian, etc. as primary). The reasoning for this should be clear: secondary, modern analysis is necessary to contextualize and interpret the reliability of old texts, and this would be especially necessary for anything commissioned by a ruling government. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@JoelleJay Looking at the links you provided, only the Cambridge History claims sources covering history hundreds of years after the fact is a primary source (Zhizhi tongjian). All the other sources refer to "primary" sources under the more generalist term, for example the example primary source used in the second link for the "WEEKLY ANALYSIS OF PRIMARY SOURCE" assignment uses the records the words of an envoy sent by King Bu of Wa to the Liu Song court. In addition, page 403-404 of the "Early Chinese texts : a bibliographical guide" book you linked, it says that Taiping Yulan and Yunji Qiqian, both works from the 10th & 11th century are Sources which cannot be primary but are likely to be secondary, which goes in direct conflict with the assertion that all old sources are primary.

In addition, while I can find the discussion on the ancient text portion when that was added to NOR in 2010, I cannot find the discussion or consensus where medieval sources, which would cover the vast majority of old Asian works in question here, are to be considered PRIMARY. I can see it was added in this edit in 2021, yet I cannot find any corresponding discussion on the talk page either there or at RSN around that timeframe. This kind of change that makes 1000 years of sourcing potentially blanket unreliable is something that needs a consensus to back it up. Jumpytoo Talk 03:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We've never had community support for the idea that even hundred year old sources are generally reliable... What makes you think that such consenus exists for even older works? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

We also don't have anything saying hundred year old sources are generally unreliable and PRIMARY solely due to their age, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get here. We can judge the sources on their own merits and not automatically discount them because they are not from the current/last century. I can see some arguments on why these sources are not preferred (ex. claiming they primary because they are too close to the time period they are covering), but saying "the source is from 10th century = unreliable" is not something I support. Jumpytoo Talk 05:24, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That has been the practice the entire time I have edited wikipedia, upheld again and again in discussion after discussion. None of what you are describing are reliable sources beyond WP:ABOUTSELF. If you disagree then name a single source from the 10th century which has a standing generally reliable consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

..3rd century count? The surviving books of Arithmetica are pretty standard fare. (Mind you, they'are all Greek to me :P )

Arithmetica Infinitorum (1656) and Arithmetica Integra (1544) are a bit later than what you asked, but still good. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And where is the consensus that they're generally reliable? None of them seem to have come up on this noticeboard Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, are you questioning their reliability? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I asked for a "a standing generally reliable consensus" not to start discussions about random texts... Lets establish where we are before we look to the future. Do you know of any existing consensus that could help us answer this question? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, you asked if there were any texts which the community deems reliable... and given that these are cited in many articles, apparently without question, I'd say that's good enough. I'd love to see what an RSN discussion deeming any of those unreliable would look like. :) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Are they widely cited beyond ABOUTSELF? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Interesting enough, the non-ABOUTSELF citations are far superior in quality to the ABOUTSELF citations for these books.

Out of curiosity, HEB, are you familiar with these books? Because this (and the comparasion to The Peerage) are rather amusing to me - to pick a quote from Arithmetica, "A minus multiplied by a minus makes a plus" (translation by Heath). Is there anything you'd like to question about that source being reliable for statement? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you could provide those citations, almost all of the citations I see are ABOUTSELF. I'm struggling to come up with a scenario where we would need to use that source for that information, don't we have thousands or more higher quality sources to use instead? We generally prioritize the most recent reliable sources, if only because its from those sources coverage of the legacy sources that we learn how accurate the legacy sources were. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, speaking of Wikipedia only, citations for the magic numbers look OK; I should perhaps clarify though, that these sources are treated as general reliable by experts in the subject area. And while we do change citations to modern ones, when possible - we don't do it just for the sake of changing, we do it when there's a reasonable expectation that newer sources will be better quality. The newer sources in this topic are, at any rate, are not inherently better. They are certainly often far less detailed - there's a reason why it's common to use English translations of these old or medieval texts to learn the fundamentals of maths, even today - they are far superior to modern textbooks. And contain information often not found in modern textbooks - because why would you try and reinvent the wheel, and write something when you could just refer readers to the older books?

And HEB, that's an interesting argument, that we need to have modern sources judge "how accurate the legacy sources were". Are you aware of any fundamental shifts in basic algebra that have occurred on the past few centuries? Has changes to modern genocide scholarship stoped the sum of the interior angles of a triangle from summing to 180? Have changes in the global climate impacted the results of calculations in Arithmetica logarithmica? Does our new understanding of the role genetics play in cancer development impact how to solve a Diophantine equation?

Trying to use just age to determine if a source is primary or reliable is rarely ever that useful; it depends too much on subject matter. To create a spectrum, you can use much older sources in areas like maths than you ever could in an area like molecular biology or medicine - viruses weren't discovered until the very late 1890s, photo 51 is from the 1950s. That's very much a field where any pre-2015 sources are likely to be out of date in some way or another, and you need subject matter expertise to tell when. History texts are in the middle; I don't trust Raj era sourcing, but the basic facts in these old Chinese histories are a lot less disputed in modern scholarship than somebody learned in a more rapidly evolving field might expect. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

A shocking amount of my formal schooling was dedicated to Chinese history... You are misrepresenting the state of the field vis-a-vis the imperial histories. They are treated as political documents which reflect the politcal realities and desires of those who created them... Not objective works of scholarship. They're full of racism, bigotry, and ignorance on an almost comical level, would you really use one to say in wikivoice that Kazakhs smell bad, have no manners, and are unintelligent? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Given that I can find those exact statements in 20th century American newspaper articles about essentially any given ethnic group, and we'd still treat having an 1950s obit as evidence of notability/importance.... look, I'm not saying they're reliable for 10th century race relations. They have to be used with care- all sources have to be used with care. No work of scholarship is ever truly objective, they aren't reliable for every statement in them (goodness knows I've or-ed my share of claims out of articles". But in terms of "this historical figure was born here, to these parents, is credited with these important things, and died"/"they're noteworthy and we should have an article on them", then it's okay. But a simple "old sources are all bad", like you proposed in the beginning, is rather redictionist. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:03, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

there's a reason why it's common to use English translations of these old or medieval texts to learn the fundamentals of mathsWhat are you talking about? JoelleJay (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about my university education in maths? They were a standard part of the curriculum. (And an absolute joy - one of my professors was born in India and he gave us a lot of notes on Līlāvatī that the English translations missed) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 02:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

We still have 4500 citations to The Peerage. Usage by editors means nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That number pails into insignificance in comparison to how many times Wikipedia is used as a reference, even though it's against multiple policies. Usage on Wikipedia is a terrible argument for reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, whether or not anonymous editors on Wikipedia consider a source reliable is an awful indication of how reliable a source is. Unfortunately, following such logics leads to a deprecation of RS/N. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 00:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Policy based arguments are what should be used when considering the reliability of a source, usage on Wikipedia doesn't appear in any guidance or policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I am allowed to say that editors have not, to date, questioned the reliability of a source. "Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 01:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You can but silent consensus exist up to the point that it's challenged, and it certainly appears that there's been a challenge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

.... a serioues question to the reliability of my medieval math texts? Silly question, Actively , but you've noticed that I was off on a tangent with HEB about whether or not a ancient book could be reliable, right? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 03:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The syllabi all use the same historiographical meaning of "primary" as the Cambridge source. I don't know which bibliographical guide you're referring to; I only linked the three syllabi, the (apparently now 404) article on the Xiongnu which says The most important primary sources on the Xiongnu are, as briefly mentioned above, the Yantielun, Shiji, Hanshu, and Hou Hanshu. and the Cambridge source. I did find a work edited by Loewe sharing that title which helpfully lists the primary and secondary sources as the historians use them for one chapter, and as far as I can tell the earliest secondary source is from 1901. The context for the excerpt you cite is a commentary relating Thompson's analysis of the Shen tzu in which he is explicitly defining "primary" in relation to particular events recorded in various fragments; neither Thompson nor the editor is himself using these sources as "secondary" (as should be evident by Thompson providing clarifications for his usage of "primary" etc.), nor should we. And even if we were to a definition of primary that did not align with modern historiographical treatment, medieval sources still do not satisfy our criteria for "reliable" in any meaningful way. JoelleJay (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Discussions do not need a close to have consensus; most don't. The policy you cite still does not exist. The "medieval" thing, which I am still not convinced is supported by consensus or sources, is ridiculous. What methodological difference makes the History of Ming reliable and the History of Song unreliable? What makes the Veritable Records of the Joseon Dynasty unreliable up until 1500 CE, or wherever that footnote draws its arbitrary line, after which it suddenly becomes reliable? We have a featured article, Genghis Khan, which cites a translation of The Secret History of the Mongols three times (in conjunction with other sources). Cai Lun, another featured article, relies much more heavily on the sources you claim are unreliable. Are these uses inappropriate? Toadspike [Talk] 18:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, uses of those specific sources beyond WP:ABOUTSELF would be inappropriate... We would want to instead use modern scholarship which talks about those works to establish their relevance to the topic. There is no need to directly cite the obsolete source, if we do its a courtesy link in addition to the RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What makes such older sources so unreliable for statements of fact that it can only be used as ABOUTSELF, yet if a more modern source trusts that same source for statements of fact it's suddenly OK? For example The Cambridge History of China mentioned by Joelle earlier trusts these sources at their word, there is no commentary about if these sources are reliable or not and there is no in-text attribution. As WP:USEBYOTHERS says, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts. Jumpytoo Talk 01:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The CHC authors do not trust these sources at their word. They weigh them against whatever other sources are available in order to synthesize an account and identify what is uncertain. There are numerous remarks, both general and specific, about limitations of the traditional sources and the caution needed in using them. I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no in-text attribution" – the CHC chapters have extensive footnotes. Kanguole 12:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am looking at the footnotes right now for the volume (Vol 2) that was linked earlier, when they use sources such as 24 histories and Zizhi Tongjian they are simple WP:INLINE citations with no additional commentary. I even see footnotes like For biographies of major Tan family members, see Book of Jin 85.2217; Book of Song 45.1372–1373..., which suggest to the reader that the source is reliable to read as is. And I do not see any discussion about limitations of the traditional sources and the caution needed in using them, all source discussion I can see is regarding the modern scholarship. Please do don't try to confuse WP:INLINE citations which are always required and WP:INTEXT attribution which is when there is some concern that prevents using WP:WIKIVOICE. Jumpytoo Talk 19:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

CHC is written by SMEs who are qualified to interpret and synthesize primary sources. Referencing those sources to support the historian's commentary is not in any way an endorsement of their overall accuracy or even their accuracy for the specific claim being made. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

even their accuracy for the specific claim being made, by this logic CHC would be an unreliable source? Most of the book has no in-text attribution so that would mean the authors of this book are writing these supposedly dubious claims as fact? Jumpytoo Talk 21:42, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Modern sources do not trust those sources for statements of fact, thats the entire point... They use them within their limited context and primarily for OR which we aren't supposed to do here. The Cambridge History of China does not trust these sources at their word, you've confused yourself somewhere along the line. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we are coming to different conclusions about the same facts. Modern sources rely very heavily on traditional histories because they are often the only sources we have. Modern sources attempt to verify these histories where possible using other sources or other information, but much of the time they simply repeat what the histories say because we have nothing else to go off of. Is there more use with verification or acceptance at face value? I think your perspective is that a majority of information is verified by modern scholars, while I contend that a majority is simply accepted at face value. But this is impossible to quantify.

the Cambridge History of China does not trust these sources at their word: I ctrl+F searched the volume on Song political history (Vol. 5 part 1) for the abbreviations it uses for the traditional histories (page xxiii). The result: this volume of the CHC cites various editions of the Zizhi Tongjian over 1500 times. Clicking through the results, it seems many or even most of these footnotes are for the Zizhi Tongjian alone, with no other sources. This seems to be fairly strong evidence that historians often accept traditional histories at face value.

Re: racism and other biases – yes, these sources are biased. (In fact, all sources are biased.) I accept that on some topics these histories are more biased than, say, modern scholars. However, assessing biases requires nuanced discussion of each source and what topics/uses it can or cannot be used for, ideally based on what other sources say, rather than a blanket ban on this entire category of sources. Toadspike [Talk] 19:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Modern historians have the expertise to interpret these early primary texts. Whether a text is accurate for a given claim is their determination, NOT a Wikipedia editor's. If a statement in an early text has not been secondarily evaluated by modern scholars, it cannot be used on Wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Of course a list of source types considered primary for Wikipedia purposes is policy...?? The medieval cutoff isn't some hard line for "reliable-not reliable", it's a bright line for what is considered primary age-wise, with later texts still potentially (and in practice, very often) considered primary. Historians treat these texts as primary for good reason.

And for reliability, do you know what the editorial standards were for History of Ming or Song, their level of independent review, their reputation for fact-checking to the standards we expect of modern RS? Are you confident enough in the factuality of Mingshi to state, in wiki-voice, its narrative on the Mandate of Heaven, its claims about Zheng He's treasure ship, or its characterization of Ming triumphs?

Cai Lun is a great example of an article that explicitly only cites early sources when accompanied by a modern source: When applicable, this list identifies the relevant passage of early sources in addition to a modern citation. Do you think that maybe there's a reason that, in the "Sources" section discussing how Cai Lun is described in the Hou Hanshu and Dongguan Hanji, the citations are strictly to modern scholars, with the exception of a reproduction from the latter account alongside the modern citation? Maybe you could ask @Aza24 why they didn't just use those early sources directly?

AFAICT the article on Genghis Khan does not cite a single source published before 1951. As you noted, the translated, annotated version of Secret History from 2015 is only cited in conjunction with modern interpretations of its text. Perhaps @AirshipJungleman29 could explain why he didn't just use that translation at face value? JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Ancient and medieval sources are not WP:RS. They do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. (If anything, their reputation is the exact opposite, a reputation for not being accurate.) Because they're not RS, they don't contribute to notability and should not be used as a basis for articles or to support any statements in Wikivoice in any article. Very surprised to see experienced editors confused about this. Historians are RS for history, and that's about it. Levivich (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Avi Loeb

Q1. Avi Loeb's work related to UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy,

• Option 1: ... is that of an established subject-matter expert as described by WP:SPS.
• Option 2: ... is not that of an established subject-matter expert as described by SPS.

Q2. On UFOs / UAPs, xenobiology, aeronautics, and system / galactic astronomy, Avi Loeb is ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Q3. On high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology, Avi Loeb is ...

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable

Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Avi Loeb)

• On Q1 Option 2, on Q2 Option 3, on Q3 Option 2: Avi Loeb is known for frequently — and, thus far, incorrectly — announcing various mundane celestial objects might be space alien starcruisers, even seemingly suggesting Earth is about to be invaded by the space aliens.[28] Loeb is not an established subject-matter expert on the items listed in Q1 and his unfiltered writings and commentary on blogs, social media, etc., should never be cited, nor should his quotes and interviews be laundered through otherwise reliable WP:SECONDARY on these topics. Insofar as high-redshift astrophysics and cosmology, he should be used only to the extent reliable SECONDARY covers his peer-reviewed research.

• Loeb himself says his blog and social media are "detective stories" in which he just throws out possibilities because "the public loves detective stories". [29] This is incompatible with how we imagine SPS is used for established subject-matter experts.
• According to the Chicago Tribune, Loeb's scientific peers consider him "outlandish and disingenuous, prone to sensational claims, more interested in being a celebrity than an astrophysicist — not to mention distracting and misleading". [30]
• According to The New York Times some scientists are "now refusing to engage with Dr. Loeb’s work in peer review" due to his penchant for making outlandish claims. [31]
• In an article for Smithsonian Magazine, the author reports that other scientists "chuckled" at the mere mention of Loeb's name.[32]
• According to Jalopnik, his theories go beyond exploratory science and are are "worrisome" because of "how aggressively Loeb is sticking to his guns in the face of some pretty clear, science-based dismissals of his claims; going on to generously note that it's possible some of his theories about marauding alien spaceships are based on "shaky math and some basic errors of reasoning". [33]
• In a post to X, Washington Post science contributor Shannon Stirone opines that "Avi Loeb has gone off the deep end and as soon as the media recognizes that having Harvard attached to his name does not in fact give credence to his claims and stops covering this nonsense, the better." [34]
• In a post to X, Chris Lintott says of Loeb: "I am confident that he couldn’t distinguish a meteorite from a rock let alone an alien spaceship from a nodule." [35]
• In a post to X, Ethan Siegel described Loeb as "a prolific, but low-quality scientist". [36]
• Jason Wright has criticized Loeb and his penchant for making extraordinary claims to drum-up media coverage and of assigning percentile chances to his theories various comets are alien spaceships: [he gets] "plausible deniability of the bad-faith “just asking questions” variety... It certainly gets him lots of TV time and fan mail." [37]

Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

and, thus far, incorrectly This is claim about facts. Your claim, as it is written, is false. announcing various mundane celestial objects might be space alien starcruisers This is claim about facts. Your claim is misinformation – it is false. He did not claim that, he said it was a possibility and for Oumuamua maybe that it seems likely. Loeb himself says his blog and social media are "detective stories" Loeb described the collective scientific process to learn more about the interstellar object as akin to a detective story where more clues are found and analyzed. Where is the problem? some scientists are "now refusing to engage with Dr. Loeb’s work in peer review" Why would it matter what some anti-science stubborn scientists are doing? People ignoring the scientific method when it comes to rejecting or attacking research they find to be false and absurd has happened many times throughout history. "some scientists" don't get decide whether a person is a SME. author reports that other scientists "chuckled" at the mere mention of Loeb's name Okay, ignore all I said – I changed my mind...if they did indeed chuckle at his name, this case is closed. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• On Q1 Option 1, on Q2 Option 1, on Q3 Option 1: Loeb is in the same space as SETI investigating the question of intelligent life in the universe. And SETI is not fully acceptable all scientists, "Critics argue that SETI is speculative and unfalsifiable". Criticism of Loeb is criticism of SETI. He does not "claim" rather investigates possibilities, known as the scientific method: a theory that is testable. Some professional peers are upset with Loeb because he is frequently appealing to a popular audience and makes claims - in the popular sphere - that is speculation. This is not uncommon in the sciences: the anthropologist who dresses like Indiana Jones and appears on History Channel is often derided by his "serious" peers. But just because Loeb is also popularizes science, this does not inherently make Loeb's professional science work unreliable. -- GreenC 01:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

"This is not uncommon in the sciences: the anthropologist who dresses like Indiana Jones and appears on History Channel is often derided by his "serious" peers." In fact, History Channel is considered generally unreliable (WP:RSPHISTORY), and you'll have a hard time wedging the theories of David Hatcher Childress ("the anthropologist who dresses like Indiana Jones") into the Incan Empire article. Chetsford (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding. The mere fact a scientist appears on History Channel does not invalidate their entire corpus of work. I actually was thinking of a different person BTW who is not important, but it's such a common occurrence when a scientist crosses into popular culture they take hits from their peers, happens all the time. -- GreenC 16:40, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 for both Question 2 & 3. There's to much criticism of Loeb by independent sources for him to be reliable for statements in wikivoice, but his attributed statement may be worth inclusion if reported on by other sources. No answer for Question 1, I don't believe he's relevant without secondary sourcing so his selfpublished work is irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• On Q1 Option 2, on Q2 Option 3, on Q3 No Opinion: Alongside the secondary reporting on Avi Loeb losing any potential credibility it the areas of Q1 and Q2 highlighted by Chetsford, as I've mentioned in previous discussions, Loeb has also publicly attacked and attempted to discredit mainstream scientists in these fields and leading experts in these fields because they have been critical of claims. This shows that he is active in staking his claim to fringe positions, and does not want to engage in the academic process in these fields, instead choosing to try and litigate discussion in the popular press. As to Q3, I am unfamiliar with Loeb's claims in this area, and as far as my understanding goes it's all magic to me so I can not make an assessment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. Repeating what I said re yet another post by Chetsford mentioning Mr Loeb: WP:SPS says "Note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources." -- so that's already covered and requires no denigration of the professor's whole work. Assuming that by "galactic astronomy" Chetsford means Galactic astronomy i.e. stuff about the Milky Way, I object to censoring Mr Loeb's posts like The Particle Accelerator at the Center of the Milky-Way or Death by a Gamma-Ray Burst from a Milky-Way BOAT -- although I won't insult other editors by pretending they don't have the sense to take the ET bits lightly. I'm not !voting according to Chetsford's multiple-choice pigeon-holes though, I'm only supporting WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Mr Loeb's CV is here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

  That's a good point. I agree but I'll vote nevertheless. However, don't fully understand what you mean at although I won't insult other editors by […]. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I merely meant that I feared I'd be rude if I posited that others are not being sensible if they don't take the extraterrestrial bits lightly as I do. (I'm a nonbeliever.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

• On Q1 Option 1, on Q2 Option 1, on Q3 Option 1: He is the head of the world's largest scientific UAP research project and has written dozens of papers on the subject, including as peer-reviewed papers in journals (in addition books and essays in publications like Scientific American). He's a subject-matter expert as described by WP:SPS and whether he should not be up for numerical vote but be assessed based on policy (/ arguments based on policy). He is a highly cited scientist with major impact and responsibilities, and has an impressive track-record of scientific publications that substantially contributed to progress in the history of science. There is no reason to negate him being an expert, it seems to be bias such as quotes being misunderstood or taken out of context and such quotes about things people disagree with or dislike about him being used as a "reason" to negate Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policies are not overriden by count of opinions of users disliking somebody (neither about whether some of his colleagues – an unknown fraction and so far low count – accuse him without any substantiation more interested in being a celebrity than an astrophysicist), see WP:NODEMOCRACY. --Prototyperspective (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"the world's largest scientific UAP research projec" This is incorrect. So-called "UAP research" is a pseudoscience like chiropractic, crystal healing, and ghost hunting. Ergo, there are no "scientific UAP research projects". Whether Loeb is the head of the world's largest pseudoscientific research project I have no idea. Chetsford (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's a novel legitimate scientific field, including a University research center, a NASA research program, studies in the journal Nature, and novel AI-based sensor systems (incl. described in peer reviewed journals; example).

What an absurd reasoning to begin with. For instance, nothing supports your argument other than your personal nonexpert subjective opinion. Moreover, whether it's a scientific field or not is irrelevant to the question whether Loeb is an expert for that topic. History of xyz is also not a scientific field but people can be experts in it. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay. So, anyway, ufology is a pseudoscience. Summarized by Brian Keating: "UFO true believers aren’t just wrong. They’ve built a techno-cargo cult around fake physics". [38] Since it's a fringe belief and system of junk science, we typically treat it according to WP:FRIND. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Harley Rutledge did not perform pseudoscience. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Apparently you still think ignoring other people's points with So, anyway, would make for a strong argument. Or that random quotes of random people you agree with would be a sufficient basis for an argument about what we're discussing.

People complain it's junk science or 'pseudoscience' and – I guess not you – that real science would need to be done and rigorous scientific data be available, people go ahead and try – including building novel advanced sensor systems to gather new scientific high-quality data – and the same few but loud people dismiss it as "junk science" or whatever ––> ergo nothing that deviates from their potentially quite uninformed nonexpert opinion can ever become a scientific research field.

However, it's not about your opinion …or a small handful of essays that you agree with.

That UFOs should be scientifically studies is not a fringe view and various types of doing so aren't either considering, for example, that, as mentioned earlier and ignored, even an official NASA panel is studying the subject.

Moreover, see the part Fringe sources can be used to support text that describes fringe theories provided that such sources have been noticed and given proper context in mainstream sources.

• And regarding Brian Keating, he also said you have Avi Loeb and Gary Nolan, you know, rigorous professors due to full studio scientists and those that say it's impossible to believe that these advanced civilizations crashed you know after navigating their whole way across the entire galaxy […] a lot of these things are I think basically pandering to like 'oh they're not there, here's you can just dismiss it because the video quality is crappy, they wouldn't crash land if they're such expert pilots and they wouldn't allow themselves to be seen' – those are completely illegitimate arguments against it (fairly bad argument but whatever) and The expectation for high-definition evidence ignores the reality that any visiting extraterrestrials might not prioritize or possess technology compatible with our expectations, much like how Jane Goodall wouldn’t expect gorillas to capture her research on iPhones. […] The essence of scientific skepticism lies not in what extraterrestrials might discover but in the evidence supporting their presence. Ultimately, faith cannot replace facts. I despise when people say, “I want to believe”. No, one should want data, not faith. The demand for irrefutable proof remains paramount, underscoring the necessity for a grounded, empirical approach to the UFO phenomenon. As you can see, he is able to engage rationally and seems to support scientific research of UFOs.
  Reminder: What that guy said, meant or believes is entirely unimportant. so if you do reply to my comment feel free to ignore that part but please not the rest again.

Prototyperspective (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. This RFC has a confusing organizational structure. I am visually finding it very difficult to get a reading on what the responses are by each commenter by bundling three questions into single answers with similar names and number structures. This was not thought through. Each question should have been looked at separately in its own subsection to keep conversation targeted on a single question, and to easily follow responses. This whole thing seems very disorganized. Also, I'm not seeing any attempt to discuss this RFC by the nominator at Talk:Avi Loeb prior to creating this thread. A notice about this RFC should be placed on that talk page. That should have happened at the time this discussion was opened at the very least (really a notice should have placed long before about the noticeboard threads above as well.) Some of these fundamental notification lapses and structural issues are bordering on Bad RFC.4meter4 (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Discussion (Avi Loeb)

• Avi Loeb has been, and is being, discussed, in multiple simultaneous and historic threads here and across the project (e.g. here, here, here,[... here], etc.). Loeb is cited across the project, in articles like Fast radio burst, TRAPPIST-1, Search for extraterrestrial intelligence, Unidentified flying object, Fermi paradox, The Age of Disclosure, Astrobiology, Timothy Gallaudet, Directed panspermia, Interstellar object, etc., etc. Centralizing these discussions in a formal RfC maximizes editor efficiency. Due to Loeb's extremely prolific contributions across media, and the frequency with which attempts are made to introduce him as a citation into the project, it's not possible to treat every specific outlet in which he might pop up and treating him as an outlet himself also maximizes editor efficiency. Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Wrong question. We have seen the same pattern again and again. A well-respected scientist spends decades doing sound scientific work and being published in peer-reviewed journals. Suddenly they pivot to supporting fringe science (Creationism, UFOs, cold fusion, free energy, antivax, magic cancer pills, etc.) in the popular press, becoming very rich in the process. This leaves us once again dealing with editors citing them. The right question is based upon dates. When did they abandon science and become a creationist, UFO nut, etc? That's when they stopped being an acceptable source. The reason they are paid the big bucks to promote bullshit is their reputation and prior work, but that doesn't make them a better source for our purposes than the people who are promoting free energy from a perpetual motion machine without doing good work in science for many years beforehand. We should figure out the date they sold out and started pushing pseudoscience and let that decide how to treat them as a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's an unreasonable position. That said, I would posit that Loeb has never been a subject-matter expert on UFOs / UAPs, extraterrestrial intelligence, etc. He works in a very particular area of plasma physics. Because he deals with "space stuff" doesn't mean he's an expert on UFOs anymore than we could say a geologist is an expert in classic cars because they're both "ground stuff". Chetsford (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Does anyone have any examples of Loeb discussing UFOs, intelligent ETs or any other fringe subject prior to 2015? Talking about habitable zones, markers for life or even SETI as long as he doesn't claim that they found intelligent life don't count. Plenty of legit astronomers talk about those things. As far as I can tell Loeb started pushing fringe theories in 2016 or 2017.

Has he done any peer-reviewed science after 2017? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Has he done any peer-reviewed science after 2017?

Yes. Anyone saying otherwise is flat out fibbing/lying:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=CvQxOmwAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like he is still doing peer-reviewed science, but most of it is about UFOs. Looking at the list (newest to oldest):

1 Paper about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (another name for UFOs)

2 Paper about dark matter but not about dark matter in our solar system (see below), so this looks like legitimate science.

3 Paper to 3I/ATLAS - an object that Loeb speculates might be an alien spacecraft.

4 Paper about dark matter, but not about dark matter in our solar system (see below), so ordinary science.

5 Ordinary physics paper as far as I can tell. Avi Loeb proposes that the star HD7977's flyby of the solar system 2.5 million years ago may have triggered a shower of comets, which is a scientific hypothesis, not a UFO theory. See[39]

6 Black holes (a kind of dark matter) in our solar system. See below for how this relates to UFOs

7 Another 3I/ATLAS paper.

8 A paper on spherules recovered from the ocean. According to [40] Loeb claims that these spherules are evidence of alien technology.

9 More dark matter in our solar system. See below.

10 Interstellar objects in our solar system. He doesn't actually say they are UFOs, so this is legitimate science. On the other hand, we have maybe three examples of such objects, and Loeb thinks that they all might have signs of alien technology.

11 Another 3I/ATLAS paper.

How does dark matter in our solar system relate to UFOs? See https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Lab.pdf

"We are confident that our understanding of the universe is incomplete, because we label two of its most abundant constituents as 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', for lack of a better knowledge of their nature. We only know that dark matter induces attractive gravity like the ordinary matter we find on Earth, whereas dark energy induces repulsive gravity - triggering the accelerated expansion of the Universe. If an extraterrestrial technological civilization was able to harness these unknown but most abundant cosmic constituents to fuel the propulsion of its engineered vehicles, the Galileo Project telescopes would not detect the standard exhaust plumes that usually surround human-made crafts."

My conclusion: It looks like we can assume that anything prior to 2015 is legitimate science, but not that everything recent is fringe. We will have to look at each paper on a case-by-case basis. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like he is still doing peer-reviewed science, but most of it is about UFOs.

I think you are overselling how much of his work is "UFO" a fair bit. If you expand the page to 2016, then look at just 2017+ data, I see about 420~ papers, a mix of mostly him and him as co-sponsor. Some very heavily cited and all over the astronomy space, as well as some UFO/UAP stuff.

This seems to be the titles of all the works: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Very_Polite_Person/sandbox&oldid=1325359016

At a glance, 8, maybe 12, 14 are UFO related? Out of 417~? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"We will have to look at each paper on a case-by-case basis. " I'd customarily agree with your conclusion, Guy Macon. We're in a difficult position in which a mob is being regularly ginned-up on Reddit to flood the UFO page-du-jour with ChatGPT-generated arguments as to why Avi Loeb's Medium posts, social media posts, interviews, etc. are those of an "established subject-matter expert". As the coalition of the sane is largely adherent to our contentious topic restrictions in a way burner accounts need not be we're left with nothing in our quiver. That should not excuse us to cut corners, however, in this case we can safely and correctly assert that there is an absolutely overwhelming preponderance of evidence chronicled by multiple RS like the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Smithsonian Magazine, etc., that Loeb does not operate in the same solar system as mainstream science. Loeb generates an absolute deluge of content. If every Medium post claiming an alien starship is heading toward Earth and you should book your vacation before it's too late requires a two-month RfC before we can excise it, we may as well just throw in the towel. No one has time for that. Chetsford (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This is probably already covered by WP:Exceptional. Loeb does have some works that would be considered reliable, but given his later work I don't believe his selfpublished works should be considered reliable for statements about UFOs or possible alien life as such statements are inherently exceptional. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Good point. It's the SPS material that is about UFOs and claimed to be from a subject-matter expert that accounts for most of the problem. In one recent case, his self published source (on his own site) was labeled as a transcript of an interview with a local Fox TV station. Zero evidence from Fox that it actually happened. Another editor claimed that this made it a secondary source and not a SPS. On the one hand, there are a lot of things that happen on local TV that never get published anywhere else, but on the other hand I would wager that if I emailed Loeb and impersonated a Fox reporter he would do the interview and publish it without checking whether I am real. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Zero evidence from Fox that it actually happened. False. FOX 32 Chicago published the interview on YouTube. +this if I emailed Loeb and impersonated a Fox reporter he would do the interview and publish it speculation (and I very much doubt it) but let's assume this is the case for the sake of the argument: it would indeed be better to use the actual source with the transcript just being part of the reference (to make it easy to read/search through it as text). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

If the transcript accurately matches the interview, then it's as reliable as the interview on FOX 32 Chicago. You could cite the YouTube video, and include the transcript as a courtesy link. Whether the quote from Loeb is due inclusion isn't a verification matter. Personally given the criticism of Loeb on this matter I wouldn't assume that it's due. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Pageantopolis

• pageantopolis.com (dead domain)
• https://sites.google.com/view/pageantopolis-by-donaldwest/

Pageantopolis.com is a defunct site that I would call a self-published fansite, but I'd like a second opinion before removing it from (more) pageant articles. The self-description lists one contributor and a Yahoo email address for contact [41]. They had published many long lists of pageant appearances or winners, which don't seem to have any sources noted. They are now used in many articles on borderline topics such as one of two sources in Miss Perú 1980 and Marina Mora, the only source at Ana Orillac and Vanessa Holler (nominated for deletion), etc. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I think I know the answer – just need to hear some feedback from the community before next steps. Which would include revising the text at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources for starters, which currently says it's a useful source for facts about pageants. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. There seem to be a lot of questionable sources listed as reliable on that page, and it even seems to confuse primary sources with non-independent sources. You would certainly have my support in revising it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

You are correct. Should be removed from Wikipedia. Rolluik (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: I noticed after creating this inquiry that a Google Sites project exists with the same author and the same title [42]. Maybe this was created after the domain went defunct. It is used at Best Model of Turkey and probably elsewhere. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus building that this is not a reliable source. I'm updating WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources accordingly, today. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

In case you needed more support, the site is unreliable and shouldn't be used for anything. I see through Wayback and it eventually defaulted to a gambling wesbite. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Celebretainment.com and their reprints

I ran across celebretainment.com in Sydney Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It looks like a blog/scraper, apparently to showcase the owner's content management system and to provide celebrity news pieces to clients' newspapers.

In Sydney Sweeney, it was used for [43]:

at a rural lakeside home that she says her family has inhabited for five generations.

She was active in numerous sports: "I was in every single sport possible...I was on the soccer team, the baseball team, the snow slalom ski team, I was wakeboarding." Sweeney said she had a wakeboarding accident as a child when the edge of her board propelled backward and sliced the area next to her eye, leaving a permanent scar.

Note that the Bristol Herald Courier is just reprinting the Celebretainment article. Digging deeper, it appears scraped from from https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/tv/features/sydney-sweeney-white-lotus-euphoria-b1997058.html

I see 28 other celebretainment.com references in use in English Wikipedia. I don't think it should be used at all, but it's worth checking to see if the source of the scrapped content might be used instead. - Hipal (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the site is down so had to go to Wayback to even look at it. Shows that it is run by this company which simply churns out content. No sign of editorial oversight so I would label it a blog and consider it unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the House of Commons website a primary or secondary source?

Hi, is this the right place to ask whether a source counts as primary or secondary?

Is the House of Commons website a primary source or a secondary source when it comes to how many MPs sit for different parties? The specific page in question is here. We are discussing this at Talk:Your_Party_(UK)#How_many_MPs_does_Your_Party_have?. I contend it is a primary source and we should prefer secondary sources. Rambling Rambler contends that it is a secondary source in this context. Some broader input on this question would be of value. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• I would say it's a secondary source. MPs do not belong to the HoC as such, they are employed by the Government and merely work there. The HoC website is reporting on which party the MPs have indicated to the HoC that they officially represent - thus, I would say secondary. An MPs own website, for example, would be primary. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. My perspective would be that I look at WP:SECONDARY and it says, "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." I don't see the HoC website as doing that: they're repeating what they've been told by MPs, they're not reporting on the MPs. If you see what I mean. Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes there is nothing to synthesize, analyze, evaluate, or interpret. Or sometimes that operation of synthesis/analysis/evaluation/interpretation isn't explicit in the text, but occurred in the production of the secondary source. For example, Mariah Carey's birth certificate gives her date of birth and is a primary source for her date of birth. A journalist interested in writing a cover story about Mariah Carey may find her birth certificate on a genealogy website and use that as the basis for stating her date of birth in a newspaper article by saying Mariah Carey was born on 27 March 1969 in Huntington, New York. Obviously I think we would all consider this a secondary source, even though the factual statements found in the secondary source are indeed the same factual statements found in the primary source. Katzrockso (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

It does not matter. It is a reliable source for it. Rolluik (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Primary, if not an SPS. However, it is about itself, so is usable. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Primary and not selfpublished, but this is WP:ABOUTSELF so it's completely reliable. Note that although secondary sources are preferred that's doesn't mean primary sources can't be used, or preclude that a primary source might be the most reliable source to verify a certain piece of content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be primary as it is compiled and produced by the UK government--but I do not think that should be a reason to disqualify it or demote it. Anything government related and publicly shared should be considered a strong source. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I recently raised a similar question on the original research noticeboard about a statement by US politicians published on congressional websites but which are basically press releases, which I noticed were used heavily in a couple of articles. I think this kind of thing is reliable for uncontroversial facts but per ABOUTSELF. But the particular case at hand is slightly more complicated because the official primary source contradicts secondary reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

should this source be reliable?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § should this source be reliable?

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

https://biblehub.com/ Stackper (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

No. Just cite the bible (with the version) for any quotes from the bible. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

isnt biblehub more than website with bible verses? Stackper (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It almost certainly lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so it cannot be cited for those things. While in theory we could link to it as a host for Bible verses, better hosts for that exist, so there is no reason to do so. Even for attributed opinion, it is unlikely to be WP:DUE given how much higher-quality commentary about the Bible exists. --Aquillion (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

How about following the instructions at the top of this page and telling is what you want to cite it for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Can be used as christian studying tool

https://biblehub.com/q/Matthew_22_21_on_church-state_divide.htm

can also be used as definition of words in Greek/Hebrew Bible

https://biblehub.com/greek/1.htm Stackper (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That last one is just Bible Hub copying public domain works like Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek–English Lexicon. Don't cite Bible Hub. Cite the original works. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

how is biblehub telling definition of Greek words copy of that Stackper (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Like Wikipedia, Bible Hub isn't a reliable source, but the sources it cites may be, so use those instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am confused as to why we even need to use this Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

what about the fact biblehub feels like encyclopedia about christianity?

https://biblehub.com/q/Matthew_22_21_on_church-state_divide.htm Stackper (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Please tell us the article you are proposing to edit, the specific text you are proposing to add, and the citation you intend to use. This noticeboard isn't a forum for vague ramblings about what you 'feel' about a possible source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump you rang? Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

https://biblehub.com/q/how_does_deut._6_4_align_with_the_trinity.htm

wanted to cite this as intrepretion of deut 6:4 of proof of trinity in old testament

Trinity#Old Testament Stackper (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

No. Not unless you can find evidence that biblehub.com's own analysis is being widely cited in recognised WP:RS sources. And I'd have though that it should be possible to find much better sources for a statement like that. If you can't, it is almost certainly undue anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

will you add biblehub in perennial sources list Stackper (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No. It's not perennial. win8x (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

If a source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable, or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":

is biblehub frequenlty discussed Stackper (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

i get it, instead of using biblehub for defintion of greek words use some greek english lexicon

but which websites are reliable for greek english lexicon, hebrew english lexicon, and aramaic english lexicon of the bible Stackper (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Should Slate be included in the perennial sources list?

Slate was on the perennial sources list until it was removed on March 9, 2023 by @Levivich. Discussion regarding this removal was held on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 8#Slate, where it seems they note that the three RSN discussions (1, 2, 3) never actually discuss the reliability of Slate.

Since then, two additional discussions on Slate with its name in the title have been posted to the noticeboard:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 396#Slate's "Future Tense" columns (3 February 2023)
  • Users @Red-tailed hawk and @DIYeditor opine that Slate's Future Tense column published in collaboration with think tank New America and Arizona State University is WP:MREL. @Red-tailed hawk notes that while the Source Notes column is commonly used on Wikipedia, he brings up some examples in Future Tense inconsistently distinguishes between fact and opinion.
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 461#Slate (magazine) and is it reliable? (15 December 2024, note this discussion was started by a sockpuppet)
  • Silver seren seems to believe that within "US politics and culture", it is "commonly considered reliable".
  • Horse Eye's Back trusts their long-form content but suggests additional consideration for their Life column.
  • Doc Strange seems to regard Slate's coverage on pop music and their music critics (Chris Molanphy and Carl Wilson) as reliable.
  • JPxG seems to believe Slate is factually reliable and of high quality but is perhaps biased.

Given that it seems to meet WP:RSPCRITERIA, should Slate be added to the perennial sources list? I am not sure whether the first discussion qualifies since it discusses a specific column rather than the source itself.

If it doesn't qualify, would it meet the criteria if I were to open another discussion on the source? Per Special:Search/insource:"slate.com", there are 13,372 articles that cite Slate; hence, I think there would be some value in writing up some guidance on the consensus of Slate's reliability. John Kinslow (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Indeed I do consider Slate, and Molanphy and Wilson in particular, to be reliable when it comes to pop music criticism and history. I have not seen any examples of their music writing being inaccurate or unreliable. I was quite taken aback in that discussion when another editor brought up "edgy opinions" when what was being discussed was anodyne music coverage that was demonstrably not edgy (Billboard Hot 100 chart positions, a comparison of a music video with an Oscar nominated film, and a genre description). I have no opinion of Slate's content outside of music topics such as music criticism and music history, as those are the only topics I utilize Slate for as a source on Wikipedia. Doc Strange (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If the question is only about whether it should be included in the RSP, then it would be better asked on the RSP's talk page (WT:RSP). This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Especially since the upcoming restructuring will mean that we shall shortly be free of the constraints of a tiny little table row. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the heads up. I posted it here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Should Slate be included in the perennial_sources list? This discussion can be preemptively closed now if necessary. John Kinslow (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think Slate is 'perennial' enough. This is really only for sources that have been discussed over and over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Justice Denied

I'm planning to make an article on Clarence Boggie, a lumberjack who was pardoned in the 1940s. I want to use this source for info on Biggie. How reliable is this source? Nighfidelity (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

According to About Justice Denied, it is “produced by volunteer writers, editors and other persons located throughout the United States and other countries. Hans Sherrer is Justice Denied’s editor and publisher[.]” (The final period is missing in the original.) These do not seem like strong indications of reliability.

There are other, better sources on Clarence Boggie. For example, try searching on Google Scholar and WP:TWL. John M Baker (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Complex magazine

Apologies in advance if there has already been some discussion about the magazine as the only discussion I could find which directly referenced it was Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 472#Sophie Rain in which it was briefly mentioned and called an example of "several less-than-"ideal" sources". I've also not made a thread here before.

The particular article used was this one which was used in the 2025 Stockton shooting article. I'm not concerned with the accuracy of this article in particular, just the magazine as a whole. I removed the citation as another source already had basically the same information and Complex didn't appear to be the most trustworthy in general. Raskuly (talk) 06:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I know on BLP pages it is contentious and a lot of editors will not use it but in some cases I can see it's appeal for pop culture adjacent subjects. However I do not think it's appropriate for a page based on current events and would probably a suitable alternative source. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Video games considers Complex to be reliable in regards to video games per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#General gaming with three discussions. WP:WikiProject Albums also considers it generally reliable in regards to music, though it doesn't list any discussions: WP:RSMUSIC.

I imagine based on that it's reliable for gaming and music, but I agree it's probably not appropriate for current events. Music in particular notes that the sources listed shouldn't be used for BLP or for controversial claims. John Kinslow (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

(Archived, then re-posted to close) Tech for Palestine talk page discussion around the usage of PirateWires.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The median reliability score assigned by editors was 2.5.

If I had to write a blurb for WP:RS/PS based on this discussion, it would be:

PW is occasionally noteworthy for its strong libertarian or right-wing commentary on politics, economics, society, and technology; and interviews conducted directly by a contributor. It does not clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion. Some of its factual claims have been criticized as obviously false (such as the pseudoscientific promotion of bloodletting for all men and some of its coverage of Wikipedia and Reddit) or borderline antisemitic conspiracy theory (certain coverage of George Soros). Claims are often inflammatory and poorly sourced, with no known fact-checking or correction-publishing process. More reliable sources should generally be used to verify or replace PW as a source of fact. PW has a conflict of interest when reporting on Peter Thiel.

Given that this outlet often criticizes Wikipedia, many participants pointed out that it's important not to let our own opinions about Wikipedia or the way it works being good or bad cloud our evaluation. Some editors felt personally slandered by this source, and were able to point to evidence of this. Discounting those instances of personal involvement, there is still evidence that PW simply gets some facts about Wikipedia wrong, often in an inflammatory way that serves the viewpoint of the author.

Participants also pointed out PW is rated "mixed" for factual reporting by Media Bias / Fact Check, which also notes an unserious tone in some of its editorializing and prioritization of commentary over objective reporting. The citations to PW in reliable sources generally treated its assertions as claims, not facts (but didn't question interview quotes); unreliable sources tended to repeat PW claims as facts. Some PW contributors previously worked for outlets that have promoted misinformation. -- Beland (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

---

discussion is mostly about piratewires, which is affiliated with michael solana.
previous discussion here: [44]

appearing to be cited in a few other articles, but hasn't been used much yet. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Obviously not a WP:RS; they don't seem to have any editorial policies, but beyond that they clearly lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They're a personal website usable only for WP:ABOUTSELF description of their own activities. The only in-depth coverage I could find is here and here. The Atlantic piece describes them as eg. participating in something with the trappings of a classic pump and dump. Also note the description (there and elsewhere, including on its own site) as a "media company", which is very vague in a way that seems to specifically avoid anything that might claim an actual responsibility towards fact-checking. Business Insider describes their outlook (in a quote) as "information warfare of one tribe versus another." Trae Stephens, a partner at Founders Fund (where Pirate Wires' founder works at his day job), described Pirate Wires as a kind of daily affirmation for Silicon Valley. None of this suggests that they are actually doing any fact-checking or that they care about accuracy, and certainly not that they have a reputation for either of these things. --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a previous discussion in archive 465. Personally, publishing Soros conspiracy theories disqualifies a source from being generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Definitely not a reliable source, per consensus in previous discussion. Their reports might be noteworthy though where there is reliable secondary coverage of it, eg "'Wikipedia editors colluded to delegitimize Israel'". JNS.org. 2024-11-03. Retrieved 2025-09-04. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires' reporting on this story has corroborated other reporting, has been corroborated by other reporting, and has been widely cited by reliable sources. Editors should consider it WP:RS both on this topic and in general.

The article in question, by Ashley Rindsberg, "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative," 24 Oct 2024, confirmed and expanded reporting from the prior June 26 by Gabby Deutch, "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia" at the *Jewish Insider*.

Since then:

• 25 Oct 2024: Len Sander, writing for the Berliner Zeitung, cited Rindsberg in "Bericht: So soll Wikipedia von Anti-Israel-Aktivisten unterwandert worden sein."
• 11 Nov 2024: Rabbi Shraga Simmons, writing for Aish, cited Rindsberg in "Weaponizing Wikipedia against Israel."
• 4 Dec 2024: Debbie Weiss, writing for The Algemeiner, cited Rindsberg in "Wikipedia’s Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative."
• 12 Dec 2024: Ohad Merlin, writing for the WP:JERUSALEMPOST, cited Rindsberg in "Wikipedia suspends pro-Palestine editors coordinating efforts behind the scenes."
• 7 Mar 2025: Margi Murphy, writing for WP:BLOOMBERG, cited Deutch at The Jewish Insider in "'Edit Wars' on Middle East Page Raise Tensions on Wikipedia."
• 20 Mar 2025: Aaron Bandler, writing for the Jewish Journal, cited Rindsberg and Deutch in "Gaming the Wiki System."
• 4 Aug 2025: Eden Cohen, writing for Unpacked, cited Weiss at The Algemeiner in - "Anti-Israel activists are rewriting Jewish history on Wikipedia — here’s why it matters."

While this was going on, Rindsberg produced two related reports at Pirate Wires, "Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” Enforces Sweeping Ban on Pro-Hamas Edit Gang," 27 Jan 2025, and "Portrait of a Digital Propagandist," 26 Feb 2025.

I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting.

Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages for Jack Dorsey 577 days ago and Bluesky 383 days ago without apparent contention. The page on Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 367 days ago, also without apparent contention.

Consequently:

• To the criticism that they "don't seem to have any editorial policies" and related, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The notion that neither does any other news outlet listed above would be absurd.
• Pirate Wires in fact does "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as evidenced by the citation and corroboration above.
• "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors for commentary and reporting.
• The Atlantic article cited above as criticism suggests that Pirate Wires may have become unwittingly involved in a crypto pump-and-dump. Even reliable sources sometimes act on a bad scoop. The Atlantic's characterization, assuming that it's correct, it is not disqualifying given the realities of journalism.
• Wikipedia describes The New York Times as "a mass media corporation." "Media company" means that the company works in a range of media. It is not a suspicious label.
• The Business Insider quote cited above as criticism indicates only editorial slant, which does not contradict a positive assessment of Pirate Wires' reliability.
• The suggestion that the site is "publishing Soros conspiracy theories" is unfounded. Pirate Wires published another report by Rindsberg, How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Wikipedia, on 6 Jan 2025. I am unable to find a RS characterization of this report as a "conspiracy theory"; judgment to that effect constitutes WP:OR.

Pirate Wires has accomplished WP:RS-quality reporting here and deserves due credit for it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't constitute OR, as that deals with article content. It's literally in the first sentence of that page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The 'evidence' the give is that there was connections between Soros and people at the WMF, but absolutely nothing to show that Soros actually backed them to get into those positions or that those people acted in Soros' interest. The typical connect the dots even if there is no prove of anything that comes from conspiratorial thinking. So again that they published such an article should disqualify them as a reliable source. That they might be right at times is beside the point, even a stopped clock. Sources are meant to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Publishing what amounts to lots of connected pins in a notice board is hardly a good sign of that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the policy which says that if a media outlet publishes an article about Soros that you believe unsound, then none of their reporting on any topic should be regarded as reliable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The policy would be WP:V reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I described the issue with there reporting and showed why it shod be considered conspiritorial. If you agree with it you should show how the source has the reputation that policy asks for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I did, documented overhead. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I think this discussion should have been linked on the T4P talk page so the people discussing there could have had the opportunity to comment here. Anyway, as far as I can tell there has been a lot of opinion expressed about PW not being viewed as reliable by some editors, and even some opinion saying essentially, "Look! They said a thing I disagree with about Soros" or some similar expression, but no real evidence of other reliable sources discussing Pirate Wires in such a way as to deem them unreliable. The extremely detailed review above on the reliability of PW I believe would serve to place PW in an RfC as GREL or at the very most they might need attribution. PW is doing some excellent reporting in the truest journalistic sense, and it seems as if that makes some uncomfortable, but until it is demonstrated that PW is actually unreliable, with specific evidence from a reliable source, then PW is reliable and can be used and cited without attribution. Lastly, bias in a source, if there is even such bias here, does not constitute unreliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I never said I disagree with what they posted about Soros, I said it was conspiratorial rubbish and then gave specific reasons why it was. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, posting conspiracies whether that's about Soros or Trump (and whether we personally agree with it) isn't an indicator of a generally reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Lacking other sources disparaging such a reputation, we cannot come to our own assumed opinion that such a reputation is unreliable, especially not based on one story. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The first and most important check of a sources reliability is an editors own good judgement. Blindly restating everything you find online is the thing that would be against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• The default is no reputation; as RS says, anyone can create a website and claim to be a reliable source - that doesn't make them one. None of the sources provided above really establish that Pirate Wires has a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; most of them are WP:BIASED and aren't WP:RSes themselves, and some of them don't even mention Pirate Wires. A single brief story in a hot-button cultural dispute that was picked up by a handful of friendly outlets and blogs is obviously not enough to establish that a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  The default is not GUNREL. As I've said, I think I could be persuaded that attribution should be required for PW, but other than that, there is no evidence of unreliability beyond some WP editor's opinions expressed in this thread. What PW has said might hold bias as well, but there is no reporting on their having been factually inaccurate or failing in terms of proper fact-checking. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

The default for websites with no reputation is indeed GUNREL; anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. Do you genuinely believe that a random website with no reputation could be cited for anything? We don't usually take the time to formally categorize every non-WP:RS, of course, but most webpages are non-RSes, and certainly Pirate Wires is unusable. The fact that you feel that you might be persuaded that a low-quality website with no reputation, no indication that they have any sort of editorial controls, and a single story to their name that most mainstream press dismissed as more back-and-forth allegations between partisans might require attribution falls under WP:SATISFY. They're a low-quality partisan blog who has done nothing but flood the zone with unverified allegations, a single one of which was picked up only by similarly biased sources. That's not enough to satisfy WP:RS. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and every discussion has clearly indicated that they're not an RS; I will, obviously, remove them instantly on sight any place I see them cited directly. If you disagree and somehow think they pass WP:RS, start an RFC, but you'd be wasting your time - you would be better off looking for actually usable sources instead. --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I have already addressed all of these criticisms, having mapped out the corroboration and citations between Pirate Wires and several other news outlets, including two green WP:RSPS and others deemed acceptable. I repeat that no one has challenged Pirate Wires' reporting on this story, which should be part of the context required by WP:RS considerations. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

As I already said, a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources isn't really an indicator of WP:RS. And one of the sources you listed there does in fact challenge it; Bloomberg covers it as follows: Conversely, an initiative named Tech for Palestine allegedly began in the spring of 2024 coordinating editing of Wikipedia pages on its Discord server. The allegations were first reported by the Jewish Insider. Note two extremely important points. First, they frame it as unproven allegations (and they put it in the context of back-and-forth allegations between two sides accusing each other of misdeeds on Wikipedia); that is, in fact, a challenge. The wild disconnect between the way it's framed there and the way it's framed by Pirate Wires itself is what a challenge looks like. And second, note that they studiously attributed it to Jewish Insider, which implies that they do not consider Pirate Wires itself to be a legitimate source. WP:USEBYOTHERS isn't just about whether other sources are discussing a source, but who is using it, and how they frame it. And finally, of course, the lack of a published editorial policy is still fatal; we do, in fact, have to assume that it lacks one, especially given the lack of any real indication that they have a reputation otherwise. Lots of topic areas have these low-quality partisan blogs that flood the zone with sweeping unproven allegations; I think that we should take the perspective that Bloomberg has, as the most high-quality unbiased / independent source that has covered this, and only touch things from them via secondary sources. Even then, it is important to contextualize any allegations they make according to the bias of the sources reporting them - again, actually read the Bloomberg piece. Try reading it from the perspective of someone who is seeing it as the only source on this topic. It doesn't say or support what you're implying at all - it covers it as one of a list of unproven allegations pumped out by squabbling partisans. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was cited by Aish, Jewish News Syndicate, The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, and Jewish Journal. Unpacked cited The Algemeiner. Describing PW reporting on this as "a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources" hinges on all of those outlets being WP:BIASED and indifferent to PW's supposed lack of substantiation. This is not a responsible description of either the initial or subsequent journalism.

Several others picked up on the Jewish Insider material, one of them being Bloomberg, and a couple more drew from both. This establishes that the account of T4P's abuse is WP:DUE. Between the confirmed reliability of Pirate Wires' reporting and the DUE nature of the story, it should be included in the T4P article at substantive length and Pirate Wires given deserved credit.

Regarding the "lack of a published editorial policy," again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not only is it not "fatal," it's not even relevant to determining reliability. WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies."

Repeatedly calling PW a blog will not turn it into one. Rindsberg is obviously not self-publishing. The site lists Harris Sockel as "Lead Editor," which implies the existence of subordinate editors. The site describes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture," emphasis mine. They have made a strong case for accepting that description at face value. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Pirate Wires is a blog, and not a very good one at that. It should only be considered for use in line with the restrictions of WP:SPS and frankly its writing staff has no great expertise in anything so WP:EXPERTSPS is unlikely to come up. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:USESPS: "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." Pirate Wires employs multiple reporters, and the author of the reporting in question is not the editor. Pirate Wires describes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." Even The Atlantic article cited overhead as criticism of PW concedes that the editor aspires to hard-hitting journalism. The citations and corroboration documented overhead indicates that they have succeeded. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  According to this logic all I need to do is get a friend of mine to write some guest posts for my blog to make it a reliable source. Pirate Wires isn't hard-hitting anything. It's ideologically motivated twitter-churn. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  That would only establish that your friend wasn't self-publishing. How much of the reporting in the Rindsberg article under discussion was sourced to Twitter? Also, how are you privy to his motivations? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, since this has dragged on off-and-on for a while now, perhaps we should just have an RFC. --Aquillion (talk)

I'm usually the one telling people not to open RFCs, but I can't see the two sides of this coming to any consensus through normal discussion. The perspectives are just too dissimilar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. I'm not convinced by arguments above defending the site's integrity or prominence, & despite previous attempts to explain what a conspiracy theory is, refusal to see one as such does not change the reality of the case. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  You neither established that the reporting on Soros sunk to the level of "conspiracy theory," nor explained why, if it did, that would disqualify unrelated reporting that was cited by multiple WP:RSs and a couple of solidly reliable WP:RSPS. If there was a RS describing Pirate Wires reporting on Soros as a conspiracy theory to put up against its solid and cited work on T4P, that would be something. But your opinion versus that work is not persuasive. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

• Per Butterscotch Beluga should be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF and via reliable secondary coverage (e.g. their interview with Jack Dorsey which was rereported elsewhere) but probably not reliable for much else.
  I used to listen to their podcast, though haven't for probably a year or thereabouts. They clearly have some form of editorial controls and a gatekeeping process, though I'm unclear if there are conventional firewalls between the owner and the reporters or the reporters merely function as scribes for the owner's ideas. I see no evidence they have been specifically identified for uncorrected errors in reporting, which is to their credit. That said, their approach seems to be a style of quasi-gonzo journalism which is probably not appropriate for use as referencing for the limited purposes of our encyclopedia. That fact is not a slight on them, just a point of observation.
  Most importantly, however, searching Google News for the unique phrases "according to Pirate Wires" and "Pirate Wires reported" I don't find solid examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS outside of a very small handful of instances. (For full disclosure, their "senior editor" has cited me by name to make unflattering and, in my opinion, erroneous representations of my actions on WP in his writing in other publications so this should be taken into context in weighing my comment.) Chetsford (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  i suspect consensus for piratewires would find it somewhat reliable, but have concerns about establishing dueness.
  at best, they probably should just be attributed if they need to be used. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with @Bluethricecreamman that attribution should likely be required, but otherwise I think PW has been well documented in this discussion to be generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Reliability of Pirate Wires

Relevant WP:RFCBEFORE: The section above, Talk:Tech_for_Palestine#2025-08_Pirate_Wires, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#Pirate_Wires?

What is the reliability of Pirate Wires?

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations apply
3. Generally unreliable
4. Deprecate

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 2: making this per aquillon. editorial controls for PirateWires is mostly the wealthy benefactor/Silicon Valley investor Michael Solana, and the Soros story seems concerning. I think this is an SPS source regardless, and usage should be by attribution only. In general, PirateWires by itself cannot establish dueness, and relevant policy WP:BLPSPS should apply if they do any gonzo-style hit piece on a person. When it is cited by other mainstream sourcing, that could indicate dueness, like in the TechForPalestine canvassing coverage, but only as much as the mainstream sourcing is mentioning it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2.5 if there is a 2.5 option, i'll vote same as chetsford and bob. At the end of the day, it seems hyperpartisan opinion, and its framing is hard for use in a neutral way on an encyclopedia article by itself. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 1: @Tioaeu8943 made a compelling argument for its reliability here, and I endorse it. The arguments against its reliability lack substance or actual claims of factual inaccuracies, and seem motivated by ideological differences (which shouldn't guide reliability discussions). Jcgaylor (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 Publishing Soros conspiracy theories is not the sign of a generally reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

You keep repeating this line. What, specifically, in the article is a "conspiracy theory"? Jcgaylor (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I explained this in the section above, you're free to disagree with my assessment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I read that above discussion (and the archived one discussed in it). You did not articulate specifics about what made the article conspiratorial. You asserted a similarly conclusory statement. Even the bare bones you do provide isn't accurate, though. The article lays out, in-depth, how leading figures of the WMF and Wikipedia have received funding from Soros and his many ventures throughout their careers. That substantiates its headline. The article also argues, using direct quotations from Soros and WMF/Wikipedia executives, and fact-based research on events, that the governing philosophy of these executives aligns with the policies openly-championed by Soros.

Whether one agrees with the comparison between WMF/Wikipedia ventures and the governing/political philosophy of Soros is a matter of personal opinion. It simply isn't true, however, that the article is "conspiratorial" or fails to explain how key WMF/Wikipedia leaders have received financial support from Soros.

If the basis for labeling PW as unreliable hinged on this one article being "conspiratorial", it lacks a strong or objective foundation. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

As I said you can disagree if you want, but nothing you've said changes my mind in the slightest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

My goal isn't to change your mind. As part of this RFC, I'm making the case for finding that PW is reliable, and explaining why arguments against a finding of reliability lack credibility or foundation. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

As I said in the before discussion I think opinions on this source are so dissimilar that we basically talking at odds with each other. Your argument showing how all the little lines add to to something is the exact issue I have with the article, but for you it's why it's reliable. If you wish to add anything more to your own comment please do, but I don't see anything useful coming from further discussion happening under mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

In the above discussion, you claimed the PW article failed to demonstrate how WMF/Wikipedia executives received funding from Soros. A simply read-through of the article demonstrates that isn't true. Therefore, your argument that PW isn't reliable because this specific article is "conspiratorial", doesn't hold water.

This discussion, while not aimed at persuading you or I to change our positions, does contribute and is germane to the larger purpose of this RFC. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

It does hold water because it is quite self evidently true, any simple reading of the article shows that to be the case. This is my point - are opinions are so wildly different and to make discussion pointless, we both look at the same thing and see something quite different. Nothing I say will ever be satisfactory for you, and nothing you put forward will change my opinion. No, in your opinion my description doesn't hold water but you arguments only serve to firm up mine. So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show. That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow, or that they have been corrupted by the bad money man maybe? Absolutely nothing in the article shows that they are "Soris operatives" or operatives of any kind. Nor does it show that Soros backing is the cause of any of the initiatives at the WMF that the source is so ideologically opposed too. What it does do is hold up connection between those individuals and Soros and than say that other things are e because they are his operatives. That's conspiratorial thinking, the exact issue I have with the source. You see this very different, and will dismiss and diminish my comment but I will find your points as unconvincing as you find mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

"So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show[?]"

"That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow . . .?"

As I stated earlier, one's viewpoints on the value of the similarity between these executives and their ideological/philosophical alignment with Soros' views is a matter of personal judgment that you are improperly attempting to elevate to a matter of Wikimedia policy. Your personal views on the matter do not negate the fact that the article substantiates the factual allegations of its thesis: that people who have received financing from George Soros now work in leading roles at WMF/Wikipedia. That is indisputable, and, based on your reply, a point you concede.

As defined by Merriam-Webster, an "operative" is "a person who works toward achieving the objectives of a larger interest". The article, using the own words and actions of these executives, demonstrates what these individuals are working to achieve: various DEI initiatives, the Knowledge Equity principle, etc. Again, one's views on the author's condemnation of these efforts does not diminish the reality that these executives are working toward their own stated goals.

All of this to say, your and other's opposition to a finding of reliability for PW is not rooted in the lack of fact-based reporting, but in your opposition to the judgments of this one author of this one article the outlet published. In other words, it does not hold water under the policies and guidelines that are supposed to guide these reliability determinations. Jcgaylor (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Not my opinion, just an observation of the nature of the article they published and how it doesn't substantiates anything unless you consider guilt by association prove of wrong doing. But this is going nowhere we're just repeating arguments, and adding nothing to the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I read the article about Soros, could you address the following points?

1. And the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency by falsely labelling it the product of Russian disinformation. Is it really appropriate to outright call it false? Surely, the overall effect was very small, but it still could be large enough to flip a few battleground states.
2. Maher’s emphasis of ... word — “open” ... was about making “the world” an open place. ... Soros built a global political machine ... on the concept of openness I guess, Rindsberg tried to tie Maher to Soros via the word "open", but this is a post-WWII concept whose prominence is hardly related to Soros. Ngram
3. Another attempt at the same connection is done via Maher → Minassian → Clinton → Soros. This is standard conspiracy thinking.
4. Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid, giving nearly $10 million — has played a leading role in her ability to pursue this ideological platform. Per Open Secrets, Clinton received $770M in total, including $22M from Paloma Partners and $17M from Pritzker Group.
5. Democracy Alliance, a mega-donor fund co-founded — and primarily funded — by George Soros. I failed to fact-check, but I suppose it is very dubious that at least half ("primarily") of the contributions came from Soros. For instance, in this Politico article, it says, "The donor clique, which counts George Soros and Tom Steyer among its members."
6. Zack Exley is framed as a Soros operative, but the article failed to mention that he was the Director of Online Communication for the 2004 Kerry campaign.
7. The article claims that the WMF endowment is connected to the Tides Foundation, stating, Since Tides is a donor-advised fund, Soros could have used it to funnel money to the Wikimedia Endowment without any trace. The context is that the organization is a mainstream progressive one that spent $620M in 2020, which is far more than the $10M yearly from Soros.
8. We get to the direct link, Soros doubled down on his commitment to the Wikimedia Endowment with a direct $2 million donation. But Wikimedia received $120M that year.
9. But Soros’ statement spoke loudest. “My gift represents a commitment to the ideals of open knowledge — and to the long-term importance of free knowledge sources that benefit people around the world,” he said. Looks like an empty platitude to me.
10. While her repeated echoing of Soros’ language of openness may seem coincidental, in truth Maher has nurtured deep ties to Soros’ views Buried at the end of the article.
11. More on Maher, Her first real professional experience in NGOs began around 2008. The Wikipedia page about her said she worked at UNICEF from 2007 to 2010, at the National Democratic Institute (which got 97% (p.9) of its funding from the government in 2024, so she was akin to a civil servant) from 2010 to 2011, and at the World Bank from 2011 to 2013. Hardly a career of a professional NGO activist.
12. Ethan Zuckerman is also framed as a Sorosite, but the article failed to mention that he headed the MIT Center for Civic Media. The MIT isn't a Soros organization. Among other people mentioned, there were Melissa Hagemann, Eileen Hershenov, Rebecca MacKinnon, and Cameran Ashraf. Maybe some of them are professional Soros types; I don't know.
13. WMF recently noted that Wikipedia is among the most important content sources being ingested by LLMs, with one analysis showing that the site is one of the three most important sources for training data and among the highest for reliability. Doesn't explain that content ingested into the LLM is written by the editors, while the Foundation has relatively little control. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

1. There is no evidence to support Clinton's assertion that Russian disinformation determined (in a fashion required for the presidency to "be a product of" such interference) the outcome of the 2016 (or 2024) presidential election. The DOJ, Mueller's report, and the Senate report on the subject all agree that Russia did make efforts to influence the election, but did not find evidence of such success, and did not make that conclusion (1.). Some experts have said that it would be impossible to make such a determination, due to the countless variables that drive voter behavior and election results. We do know, per an NYU study, that despite the complexity of Russia's online disinformation efforts, its impact was very limited to highly-partisan right-wing citizens (2.).
2. As I stated in earlier responses on this thread, one's views on the nature of the parallel or similarities between the rhetoric of WMF/Wikimedia executives and Soros is mainly a matter of personal opinion. However, No one here is disputing the facts of what they said or the quotes the article uses. That is all sourced and verifiable.
3. Or, it is context to substantiate the professional proximity of the article's subjects. Again, you're discussing the bias or merits to the reporting, not the factual accuracy of the connection.
4. I'd note you cited organizational donors, not individual donors. Other sources cite Soros as the highest, or the near-highest individual donors to Clinton's 2016 election efforts, depending on how they associate donations between hedge-funds and other groups. (3. (corroborating the "nearly $10 million" claim and that this makes Soros a leading donor) ; 4. (this source places Soros' contributions at $25 million); 5. (noting that Soros and Sussman, founder and Chairman of Paloma Partners, donated roughly the same amount)) In any case, the amount claimed is corroborated, while the claim that Soros was the "biggest donor" is used by some other sources, depending on how they count and organize donations.
5. I, too, was unable to source the "primarily" portion of this claim, mainly because the clique is so opaque about its funding and donation history. The rest of the quoted portion is verifiable and widely corroborated.
6. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
7. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
8. An irrelevant observation as to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. This fact does provide context to the association between WMF/Wikipedia and Soros (the premise of the article).
9. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
10. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
11. Started working at UNICEF in 2007 --> "experience in NGOs began around 2008". Seems like a fair claim. If I was being nitpicky, I'd want to know what month in 2007 she started working at UNICEF. She has worked in the NGO sphere for 17 years at the time of the article's publishing. Calling her a "professional NGO activist" has a sensible foundation (though the article doesn't call her that). I'd dispute calling her a civil servant, though, but (like most of your points) that is a matter of personal opinion.
12. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. That he worked for that center has no bearing on the factual claims the article does make about him, nor would the addition of that piece of information substantially alter the information that is included.
13. Missing context. The article is discussing the implementation of Wikimedia's "Movement Strategy", which aims to alter Wikipedia's (among other WikiProjects) policies, guidelines, and practices. The author asserts that the Strategy is a manifestation of Maher's (and Soros') focus on concepts like "equity" (like altering notability guidelines to remove "barriers of access to content related to underrepresented communities" (6.)). The author then highlights the impact the Strategy would have by referencing the increased importance of Wikipedia itself. The author uses the WMF quote you cited to demonstrate the importance of Wikipedia in the modern world, not to say that WMF makes editorial decisions over Wikipedia articles. But your comment misses the crux of the article's (and the Strategy's) point. The MS, sponsored by the WMF, openly aims to alter the policies and guidelines that determine what makes it into articles (and all Wikimedia work product) in the first place. You may feel the Strategy and its goals are positive developments. But, the article doesn't make any factual errors on the subject.

In sum, none of your comments undermine the factual accuracy of the article's claim, which is what we're hear to discuss. Again, if the only argument against a finding of reliability is the canned line of "peddled Soros conspiracy theories", then that position lacks any credibility or foundation.

Jcgaylor (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think your dismissal of several points with "An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims", misunderstands what constitutes a conspiracy theory.

A collection of technically correct, but misleading statements are the connective tissue of conspiracy theories. The article's content is mostly stringing together a web of guilt by association - Someone worked for someone that Soros has given money to, therefore "[S]oros-linked operatives have spent the past eight years embedding themselves in top roles at wikimedia foundation and transforming the site into a tool for radical social engineering".

It recreates several hallmarks of other Soros Conspiracies, such as being behind a migrant crisis, globalism, attacking various NGOs as part of his "global political machine", & general fearmongering about progressivism & DEI.

If this is their "Editor-at-Large" &/or "Senior Editor", I fundamentally mistrust the quality of their editorial process & certainly consider them a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe the "points" raised above show the article to be misleading. Take number 6, for example. The fact that the article "failed to mention" that this individual was a comms director for the 2004 Kerry campaign has no bearing on the information presented, and would not substantially alter the context or meaning of the information that was included. It is an irrelevant aside that was, correctly, left out. If anything, its inclusion would have aided the author's point, considering that Soros spent roughly $27 million on Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush spending that election cycle (1.). Likewise with 7 and 8. Those claims were included to demonstrate that Soros has spent significant capital on WMF/Wikipedia. The amount of money Tides or the WMF raised/spent is irrelevant to that claim. Points like 9, 10, and 13 are personal gripes the commenter has with the article, not examples of misleading statements.

I think your dislike for the factual claims the article makes doesn't elevate the article to a conspiracy theory. If the article didn't mention specific quotes and initiatives from these individuals that are aligned with the governing philosophy of Soros, then, yes, it would be merely a string of guilt-by-association arguments. But, lays out specifics for the association, from the subjects themselves. This isn't a claim of a secret plot by powerful individuals. It is an article detailing the public statements and efforts of WMF/Wikipedia executives.

Likewise, citing Soros' open and proud support for wide-scale migration, global connectivity and interdependence, and his well-documented and significant funding of NGOs from across the globe does not make someone a conspiracy theorist. It merely means they did research to find his position on those topics.

One may not agree with the author's views on progressivism or DEI. One may not like that they cited Soros' support for migration and globalism. Neither of those positions have any bearing on the factual reliability of this article, let alone PW writ large. Jcgaylor (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

1. The article claimed "falsely", while your links support only a "no evidence" claim, adding that it "would be impossible to make such a determination". Hence using the word "falsely" is factually inaccurate.

4. Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid. None of your sources corroborated the claim of Soros being the biggest donor. Two out of three named S. Donald Sussman as such. Calling Soros the biggest donor is factually inaccurate.

13. With the concept of Knowledge Equity shaping not just Wikipedia but the LLMs that shape our future, there’s little doubt that the Movement Strategy has been a success. Based on the context of that paragraph, I interpret this "success" as an ability to significantly influence the content of Wikipedia articles. I don't believe this is factually accurate in the sense that the content would have been significantly different if the strategy had never been adopted.

In terms of people and funding, the issue is a framing which highlights the connection to Soros and downplays the connection to other people or organizations. For instance, misleadingly implying that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies by donating less than 2% of its total revenue. However, the claim is never made outright so the author maintains plausible deniability. While not outright inaccurate, I don't consider such reporting appropriate for WP:RS. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Exactly. That is why it is false to for Clinton to claim that Trump is president due to Russian interference. We typically call claims that have no factual support "false".
2. That isn't right. The second source you cited clearly states that Soros gave me to Clinton and her election efforts than Sussman. $25 million > $13 million.
3. As I laid out above, the Movement Strategy does and has impact the content included in Wikipedia articles, just not in the way you ascribe only to try to dismantle.

No, the author does not misleadingly imply that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies. The author does state that executives with a financial connection to Soros are driving Wikimedia policies in a direction that mirrors Soros' political ethos, and cites specific quotes, initiatives, and histories to substantiate this claim.

When you take away the strawmen, there is no reason to not support PW as appropriate for WP:RS. Jcgaylor (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

1. As seen by the linked article, Hillary Clinton never "claim[ed] that Trump is president due to Russian interference", she said that there is an "epidemic" of fake news (PirateWires' exact quote of "fake news epidemic" is not found in the article they're citing), referring to an incident involving the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. The way the article presents the matter though misleadingly implies she was referring to election interference, as seen by your assumption that she was.
2. You are misreading the number from the CNBC article, it says $2.5million, not $25 million .i.e. $2.5 million < $13 million.

Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

1. That is incorrect. I did not "assume" she said that; I know she said that. Clinton has repeatedly claimed that Russian interference, like the server hack, cost her the election. Here is one instance of her making that claim.
2. Perhaps you need to re-read the article. Here is the exact quote, "Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle." Again, $25 million > $13 million.

Jcgaylor (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

1. In the context of rape; There is a difference between a false report and an unfounded report. A false report refers to someone intentionally making up and reporting an experience of sexual violence ... An unfounded report means that a victim makes a report to a criminal punishment system, yet the system does not find enough evidence to support the claim So the article should have used the word "unfoundedly", not "falsely".
2. The top five donors together contributed one out of every $17 for her 2016 run: hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman ($20.6 million)[45] and Among Clinton’s most devoted backers, Sussman, who has given $13 million to Clinton’s Priorities USA PAC, according to data from the FEC and tallies from the Center for Responsive Politics, has emerged as perhaps the biggest.[46] Context for the 25M: Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle.[47] So this includes causes other than Clinton's presidential bid. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's try to keep to discussing the source and not each other. Unless editors have prove they want to submit to the appropriate venue let's drop the "all these arguments are ideologically motivated" comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I am discussing the source, while challenging the asserted arguments against its reliability as ideologically motivated. Jcgaylor (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Jcgaylor, this was a reply to my original comment about the general conduct of the RFC. I didn't mean to direct it towards you personally. But I stand by what is said either evidence should be posted at an appropriate forum or such personal comments should dropped, otherwise they could be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 3: As I said above, I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day (Thank you Kelob2678 for the in-depth analysis). - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The notion that the site promotes Soros conspiracy theories or critiques Soros's influence is not an uncontested fact. Please substantiate your claims with an example of the latter if possible from an RS. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm having issues finding anyone discussing Pirate Wires at all, besides themselves & a single interview with their founder & editor-in-chief Mike Solana from The Atlantic.

As most reliable sources haven't even acknowledged their existence, let alone analyzed their output, the best we can do is argue over their quality. Arguments for if their coverage of Soros reaches the point of conspiracy theories have already been laid out in detail in this RFC & above, so if you are unconvinced by those, I don't believe further discussion of the matter will be very productive in determining Pirate Wires' reliability. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 There is very little daylight between ownership and editorial and it functions effectively as a personal blog with a small clique of guest authors rather than a news site. It also tends to blend news and opinion freely. In addition to this it's sensationalist trash. I don't think deprecation is necessary but this is a generally unreliable source for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF statements. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  Can you point to anything to substantiate the claim, "there is very little daylight between ownership and editorial"? Does the fact that it has two staff editors alter that? If not, why not?

  The site has staff writers, and a long list of regular contributors. These are the trappings of a news outlet, not a personal blog, as other commenters noted in the above discussion when you brought up this point. Jcgaylor (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 I've no qualms about an organisation being called a 'media company' and there isn't a problem on WIkipedia with news services being owned by billionaires (or we'd have very slim pickings). However, there's no mention I can see of an editor or editorial board, or standards. There's no explanation I can see about how content of Pirate Wires is generated. More so, their terms and conditions scream in capital letters "WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SERVICES' CONTENT" - clearly 'read/use this content at your own risk', Pirate Wires is dodging the responsibility of fact checking. All that being said, their content is clearly followed and reported by undoubtedly reliable news outlets, in which case it's fair enough to use it. Certainly in the Tech for Palestine article there was a tendency towards over-reliance on one Pirate Wires article, which I wouldn't see as balanced coverage. Sionk (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

  To be fair to Pirate Wires the "We make no warranties..." text is standard boiler plate legal text, it just means "You can't see us for being wrong". Most websites have something similar posted somewhere, for instance the disclaimer at the bottom bofnthis page. It doesn't make a source reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

"Most websites", like Wikipedia, aren't fact checked. Wikipedia is written by any Johnny/Janey-come-lately that fancies editing it. One would expect a journalistic news site to have fact checking and stand by the content ofits articles. Sionk (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

AP has the same language in its TOS (§4.4). Like AD said, it is boilerplate language you'll find in most news outlet's TOS and shouldn't be considered in this RFC. Jcgaylor (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I was trying to link similar language on nytimes, wapost, etc. Not really enough to dismiss reliability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There is at least an Editor-in-Chief and a Lead Editor. The existence of a "Lead Editor" implies that it is highly likely that there are more editors under the "Lead". What, according to you, is necessary for you to understand 'how content of Pirate Wires is generated'?

Do similar norms exist for another site to which we could refer? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1.5/2 The source appears to have the correct parts to be a RS. However, it is also a rather new source so I would be careful how it's used. As a relatively new source we should be cautious about it's use and evaluate things on a case by case basis. In particular we should see if the evidence the source provides supports the claims being made. We should be cautious about conclusions, especially in cases where the presented facts could reasonably support a conclusion that is different than the one claimed in the article. Of course such caution should be used with many sources that include a lot of information interpretation/processing in their reporting vs just the facts news. Also, as a new source we shouldn't declare the site to be "unreliable" simply because we feel there isn't enough evidence or we dislike one of the relatively few articles they have published thus far. It appears it has a small amount of used by others thus is moving in the correct direction to become a RS. But, let's not kid ourselves, it's still a small, new source so it's probably best used as a supporting source or as an acknowledged dissenting view without that view being given Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 per @Tioaeu8943 and @Jcgaylor and for the general reason that some of the complaints seem to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT and less focused on accuracy of the reporting (or simply assert inaccuracy without demonstrating it). Coining (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 (preferred) - I'm apprehensive to actually place a label on the site for how new it is, but if we must have a decision, as others have highlighted there are questions around the editorial standard employed, which seem to support what I opened with in that there seems not to have been enough time to see the editorial team it says it has enact any sort of editorial action on its articles. The bias expressed through many of its articles, including what seems to stray way too close to the conspiratorial line, would indicate that any usage with need explicit attribution to the article author.

Now, I originally intended to go with option two, but after a perusal of some of their recent articles, spouting pseudoscientific nonsense such as advocacy for regular non-necessary bloodletting as it's what "men evolved to do in combat", should encourage nothing but derision of the site. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 3 - Pirate Wires does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS for a reliable source. It operates more like a personal commentary or opinion platform than a traditional journalistic outlet, with limited evidence of editorial oversight, a published corrections policy, or a consistent record of fact-checking. The tone and content sometimes leans toward sensationalism or coverage of fringe topics (including conspiracy theories), which may raise concerns about neutrality and reliability. Additionally, its coverage is primarily amplified by sources that themselves have questionable reliability. Overall, it falls within the scope of WP:GUNREL. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 3. Ultimately, the site's tendency to publish pseudo-scientific articles like the bloodletting piece Cdjp1 mentioned demonstrates that this is not a RS. When judging sources, we need to know that the sources rise to editorial standards, and Pirate Wires does not seem to meet any. As Aquillion noted, their one semi-notable story was not treated as credible by any high-quality independent RS. Bloomberg technically did so but even then they did not credit them directly. Which in turn says a lot about how Pirate Wires is seen. Genabab (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 - but noted with it's bias/editorial concerns. I think this is a good example of how the RS policy is broken. Is this genuinely a source that is constantly being brought up and used inappropriately by editors on various articles? I would use it the way PinkNews is, it's not a primary News Source, not really giving us notability, but it presents a point of view that may be appropriate to include occasionally in articles, or to flesh out the details of an article. Most the examples I've seen listed above seemed decently appropriate uses of this as a source. Denaar (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 2-3, context dependent. I wanted to take a look at the on-Wiki uses of PW to assess the impact of its content on the reliability of our articles. I found that in general, it is not used to support material in the main article space. Most of its uses are in back-of-the-house discussions about Wikipedia's policies and procedures. This is because a PW contributor, Ashley Rindsberg, frequently writes opinion/analysis decrying what in his view amounts to a left-wing conspiracy to influence Wikipedia. Others have already analyzed Rindsberg's flirtation with Soros conspiracy theories, and in general I agree that this is cause for a reliability concern. I want to do a bit more analysis to illustrate why. Take a look at this recent Rindsberg article titled "Wikipedia Declares Trump an Authoritarian", a version of which was cross-published by Fox News. Rindsberg's contention is that the Guardian article cited in support of this designation is unreliable because it was written in partnership with an Open Society Foundation-backed nonprofit. This funding, in Rindsberg's view, makes the Guardian article a priori unreliable, regardless of its factuality and crossover with other reliable sources (See 1 2 3 4). This is not how Wikipedia evaluates sources, and I think we are right to use criteria that takes factors like editorial standards and independence and alignment with other sources into consideration. Rindsberg's criteria for (un)reliability seems to be guilt by association with liberal media and lobbying circles or, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the mere unsubstantiated assertion that groupings of Wikipedia editors are "pro-Hamas".

He makes no effort to evaluate the arguments put forward by Wikipedia editors or the sources they cite, because his argument would be much weaker if he substantively engaged with the opposing argument instead of point-scoring with an audience primed to distrust liberal media inherently. The reality is that the acceptance of the Guardian article as a valid source for the claim that Trump's administration has been described as authoritarian was based on editors' assessment of the article's contents and an analysis of the general media environment, not because of the covert and malign influence of Soros. I think this is a strong illustration of the reliability concern with conspiracy theories which some in this thread have struggled to grasp: Conspiracy theories make a logical leap from an assortment of true but inconsequential information to a conclusion unsupported by the information they present. They fool people by glossing over their logical leaps to present a case that is on its face factual and appears to support a conclusion which does not follow logically from the facts. This is a clear reliability concern, and I don't think Rindsberg's articles should be used to support the claims contained within them in article space related to Wikipedia and its governance. That being said, these articles seem to mostly be used in talk page discussions and the like. I also find it concerning that Rindsberg targets editors he disagrees with, while seemingly refusing to participate in the on-site process of deliberation. This isn't really a reliability concern, but there is clearly a mounting effort by the political right in the United States to circumvent Wikipedia's governance in order to change its policies or the material that appears on the site.

Moving on to other article space uses, I found very few. In one instance, PW content was used in an article called "Transmaxxing" which editors overwhelmingly voted to delete. I think there is reason to be cautious around the use of PW to promote fringe or novel theories and analysis. On the other hand, its use in covering interviews with Jack Dorsey and Sam Altman seems appropriate. That being said, it's not clear to me that this is the best source out there for this content, or that there would be any great loss to Wikipedia if the source were determined to be generally unreliable. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 as just about every argument against reliability does appear to be "motivated by ideological differences" as user:Jcgaylor pointed out in an earlier comment. The factual accuracy and reporting integrity of Pirate Wires appears to be top notch, and has not been questioned by other reliable sources. No evidence has been presented to question this, just aspersions and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. The "Soros conspiracy" claim for instance could not point to any actual evidence of wrongdoing or reported factual inaccuracies on the part of PW, such weak arguments simply attempted (sloppily) to state that this was part of some broader false argument (again with specific evidence against anything specifically claimed by PW). I'd consider possibly requiring attribution, as I don't think there is much harm there, but otherwise as a source generally speaking, PW appears to be exactly in line with any other "Generally reliable" source as listed in the RS/P list. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 for reasons I cited at the noticeboard discussion, which I recapitulate here with adjustments to account for the topic turning to the reliability of Pirate Wires per se rather than the WP:DUE character of its reporting.

Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was extensively cited by reliable sources

The article in question, by Ashley Rindsberg, "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative," 24 Oct 2024, confirmed and expanded reporting from the prior June 26 by Gabby Deutch, "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia" at the *Jewish Insider*.

Since then:

• 25 Oct 2024: Len Sander, writing for the Berliner Zeitung, cited Rindsberg in "Bericht: So soll Wikipedia von Anti-Israel-Aktivisten unterwandert worden sein."
• 11 Nov 2024: Rabbi Shraga Simmons, writing for Aish, cited Rindsberg in "Weaponizing Wikipedia against Israel."
• 4 Dec 2024: Debbie Weiss, writing for The Algemeiner, cited Rindsberg in "Wikipedia’s Quiet Revolution: How a Coordinated Group of Editors Reshaped the Israeli-Palestinian Narrative."
• 12 Dec 2024: Ohad Merlin, writing for the WP:JERUSALEMPOST, cited Rindsberg in "Wikipedia suspends pro-Palestine editors coordinating efforts behind the scenes."
• 20 Mar 2025: Aaron Bandler, writing for the Jewish Journal, cited Rindsberg and Deutch in "Gaming the Wiki System."
• 4 Aug 2025: Eden Cohen, writing for Unpacked, cited Weiss at The Algemeiner in - "Anti-Israel activists are rewriting Jewish history on Wikipedia — here’s why it matters."

No one has contradicted the above or subsequent reporting

While this was going on, Rindsberg produced two related reports at Pirate Wires, "Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” Enforces Sweeping Ban on Pro-Hamas Edit Gang," 27 Jan 2025, and "Portrait of a Digital Propagandist," 26 Feb 2025.

I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting. Not even editors seeking to deem Pirate Wires unreliable seem willing to point to any fault in their reporting on this topic.

Pirate Wires has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past without argument

Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages for Jack Dorsey 577 days ago and Bluesky 383 days ago without apparent contention. The page on Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 367 days ago, also without apparent contention.

Addressing criticisms

• The above citations constitute a reputation for accuracy as expected by WP:SOURCE, pace editors insisting that it has not established one.
• To the criticism that editors cannot find stated editorial policies, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any case, WP:RSEDITORIAL notes that "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies." The aforementioned citations constitute adequate editorial judgment on their own parts and of Pirate Wires.
• The criticisms that Pirate Wires is a personal web page or blog do not comport with WP understanding of what those designations mean. "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors engaged in a wide variety of reporting. Blogs, with respect to WP, are associated with policy regarding WP:SPS. Rindsberg obviously is not publishing himself. Moreover, one of the staff at Pirate Wires is listed as Lead Editor, implying the existence of subordinate editors and an editorial review structure. WP editors can confidently regard Pirate Wires as a news organization.
• Several challengers to the reliability of Pirate Wires have invoked its reporting on George Soros, characterizing it as "conspiracy theories." I have three objections to this.

1. The characterization is not convincing. Rind'sberg's reporting on this topic is sourced, credible, and moderate in tone. I might ask for examples of long-form, sourced criticism of Soros's influence that they regard as non-conspiratorial upon which we might base a comparison, except that...

2. The criticism is not salient. One can find examples even among solidly reliable WP:RSPS where editors acted on bad scoops and pushed untenable editorial angles as opinion journalism. Even if the reporting by Pirate Wires on Soros was unsound, and as far as I can tell it's not, I don't see the rationale for dismissing all reporting by any reporter on the site as unreliable as a consequence. I concur with the remark overhead by Jcgaylor that some editors are improperly trying to elevate their opinions about this subject to the level of policy.

3. They are, after all, opinions. It would be another matter if a WP:RS had analyzed Pirate Wires journalism regarding Soros and deemed it conspiratorial. But none exists, so there's nothing to put up against the track record described above except the disputed judgments of these WP editors.

I maintain that Pirate Wires has demonstrated reliability and editors should regard it as WP:RS. It may be a relatively recent project and the editor may not be to everyone's taste, but it exemplifies everything that one would want an independent media company to accomplish. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Tioaeu8943, could you please re-format your post to better comply with conventional talk page layout? The pseudo-section headings disrupt the flow of threaded discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to create clarity, not disruption. What formatting changes would you like me to make? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I would not include any bolded text other than your stated !vote, and would generally follow the format of other editors, who have been much more concise. If you need to make extended arguments, consider summarizing them in your !vote statement, and then either start a Discussion section for more detailed back-and-forth, or utilize {{hat}} templates to collapse details on the page so that the flow of discussion is easier to follow. As a lot of this appears to be re-stating the arguments you presented in the pre-RfC discussion, you could also just point to that section, or link to the diffs where you first presented the arguments. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I unbolded the bolds. I'll study hat templates for use on another occasion; thanks for the reference. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

These references all seem to be opinion pieces complaining about Wikipedia's documenting of the genocide in Gaza. None of these speak to Pirate Wires as reliable - merely as ideologically convenient. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That is a wholly incorrect reading of the articles in question. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I went and double checked. No. It is not incorrect in the slightest. Some of the editorials are also in contextually non-reliable perennial sources such as the Jerusalem Post. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

"Contextually non-reliable perennial source" is an interesting way of describing WP:JERUSALEMPOST. Is this one of those contexts? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is. Claims about anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia are extraordinary claims about the Israel/Palestine conflict. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. When I said that the Jerusalem Post was contextually unreliable what I meant was that it was unreliable in this context as this context is closely related to IP conflicts. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The guidance on WP:JERUSALEMPOST says it "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia is not an extraordinary claim. Just look at what's happening in this RFC to responsible reporting that found it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2.5 Appropriate to directly cite for WP:ABOUTSELF, to cite with attribution for non-extraordinary claims about uncontentious matters that are not BLPs, and to indirectly cite via secondary coverage (for instance, coverage of their interview with Jack Dorsey could be used to the extent that it's covered in a conventional RS).
  A Google News search of the phrases "according to Pirate Wires", "Pirate Wires reported" and a few other variations finds limited WP:USEBYOTHERS. A search of Snopes and all the other usual places finds no instances of what it publishes being cited for errors or omissions. It has a one-year or greater publication history, a gatekeeping process, and a physical presence by which it can be held responsible for what it reports. Those three factors would generally put me at about a 2. However, I can't ignore the fact that I've heard (in listening to their podcast) some statements that cause me to question whether their reporters are pursuing unfettered reportage or merely acting as scribes for the site's owner's ideas. Moreover, it practices a novel style of digital gonzo-like journalism that, while fine, may not mesh its output well with the different needs of encyclopedia writing. Chetsford (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 per my arguments above. They don't have a published editorial policy, they've published conspiracy-theories and other clearly fringe material, and most importantly, they simply don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They've published only one story that attracted any attention at all, and based on the links above it was only really given credence in WP:BIASED sources, which is not a good way to establish a strong reputation; while biased sources can be used, we have to take their biases into account when considering how much weight to give them. Partisan blogs like this pump out poorly-vetted stories that are then picked up in slightly more reputable press that agrees with their biases; but if all they've managed is one story, and it isn't treated seriously outside of that bubble, that doesn't really speak to enough of a reputation to outweigh their clear limitations. Note that in eg. Bloomberg, the story is given only a brief mention, which clearly treats it as an unsubstantiated allegation that forms part of a back-and-forth partisan allegations from both sides - and crucially, Bloomberg doesn't even credit Pirate Wires as the source, suggesting that Bloomberg doesn't consider it reputable enough to even mention; the story there is that the biased secondary sources picked up on it (and it is still treated as an unsubstantiated allegation.) This isn't how high-quality sources handle a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, even before we get to the fact that source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would presumably have more than one unsubstantiated story to its name. --Aquillion (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/2.5 per Bluethricecreamman and Chetsford. Some reports might be due if enough decent secondary coverage and we don’t have enough RS criticism or failed fact checks to consider it generally unreliable, but it’s a hyperpartisan source that has not established a reputation for fact checking or editorial rigour. I have read the Soros article carefully as someone with some familiarity with the issues discussed there and I see several factual errors and a conspiratorial frame. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  I've just been spending a bit more time looking at the PW site. I'm struggling to find much content that might be called news. It's overwhelmingly opinion. On today's front page, looking for some actual piece of information, I see the (false) claim by someone identified as an "editor" that Charlie Kirk's shooter "was a deranged leftist". But everything I can see on the front page is an opinion item, including many reposted from other blogs (e.g. from Matt Orfalea' Substack - Orfalea is a YouTuber who has bylines in Zero Hedge, GlobalResearch and the Lew Rockwell site, and in no legit news sources).

  Staff writer Riley Nork has never written for any other publication. The editor, Harris Sockel, went from being a Medium blogger to writing three inconsequential pieces for Slate before starting at PW. The idea that it's a news source cannot be based on actually looking at the content. The only staff writer with any real experience is Blake Dodge, who does have previous bylines at Business Insider. But that's it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3. After examining USEBYOTHERS, both the links here and in-depth searches online, it's clear to me that PirateWires isn't widely cited by reliable sources, and it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, it's quite the opposite, as the publication is prone to pushing conspiracy theories and is mostly cited by other unreliable sites. I suppose we could use it for ABOUTSELF claims, but we have to seriously consider whether they are DUE. Woodroar (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  Please indicate which of the sources mentioned including The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, Aish, Jewish Journal, and Unpacked are not WP:RS's? Please also indicate where they are "pushing conspiracy theories"? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

  No need to bludgeon. Other editors have indicated at least one article many editors classify as conspiracy theory. Aish is not an RS for news; it’s a Jewish culture site. Re Unpacked: “The organization says its mission is to increase support for Israel and Zionism among the Jewish diaspora and "explore [Zionism's] complex history and achievements so that young people will recognize that Zionism is a story that every Jewish person can proudly embrace and cherish."” So at best a highly partisan source. RSP urges caution re the JP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I was only aware of Pirate Wires via their article How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. I don't see the article marked as opinion and yet it seems to be purely conspiratorial/fantastical, alleging without evidence that "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors has worked to delegitimize Israel, present radical Islamist groups in a favorable light, and position fringe academic views on the Israel-Palestine conflict as mainstream". So I'm surprised people are here suggesting it is a reliable source. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3, as this seems to be effecivly a WP:BLOG with little obvious "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per others above. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1, Pirate Wires is a reliable source per WP:RS and particularly under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which requires an editorial team "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing," which Pirate Wires has. There are objections on the RFC that say it should not be reliable due to the publication's biased viewpoint and framing (like the Soros piece), however, under WP:BIASED a certain political slant is allowed as long as the publication asserts, "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering," which applies to PW. Therefore, I would say that PW should be generally reliable for non-extraordinary claims and I think it would be reasonable to attribute when their bias comes into play per WP:BIASED but the default assumption should be that they are reliable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/2.5 per above, in particular Bob and Bluethricecreamman. Far too partisan/opinion-based and not enough editorial oversight to be GREL, but seemingly enough USEBYOTHERS/attention to their reports and interviews to not quite be GUNREL. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1/1.5 I am seeing a lot of IDONTLIKEIT here. Its important to be cautious and a little lenient in sources evaluating or criticizing Wikipedia. The Soros article, from what I skimmed, does not strike me as factually incorrect, altho I did not look into each claim. It is somewhat insinuating, but is it wrong to point out that A worked for B and B also contributes money to As new employer? Soros like many wealthy people does do shady stuff, even if it is ostensibly well-intentioned. There are legitimate criticisms of Soros, and there are bat guano insane conspiracy theories of Soros. I find it a bit ironic that there are complaints about a website backed by a billionaire(?) influencing it, which is itself complaining about a website which has received money from another billionaire.

From what I can see, Pirate Wires is not perfect, but they seem to be trying to be an independent outlet for investigative journalism that they feel mainstream media is not covering. This cannot be tucked into SPS, but isnt fully out there yet, which is unfortunate. They have work to do, but I cant entirely dismiss them as unreliable. And given the profile, it seems no RS has contested their work, albeit few have cited it either. But as a comparison, a newspaper in some random country would not be dismissed out of hand unless they have showed a continuous case of being unreliable. RS being evaluated by RS is somewhat circular. Much of their reporting should be attributed, however.

And its worth noting that much of the work in question to be used is that of Ashley Rindsberg, who previously worked for Internet Archive, and seems to be for open information access. He has contributed elsewhere with more clear editorial review, and been more widely cited than Pirate Wires. So he has been subject to editorial boards. He has been taken seriously by a number of sources, altho mostly yellow classed ones. So in that case, I would say his work is 1. Solana and others may be different: looking at the last discussion, the site is all over the place, but impossible to GUNREL. Metallurgist (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Since you mentioned it, I was interested in what he'd done with Internet Archive, but, besides helping build a bookmobile in Egypt (which was great) I'm having issues finding much else. (I'm not saying he hasn't, I'm just curious if you know of a way to see what else he's done for the Archive & when/if he stopped working with them)

All I can find when I search his name on the site is his book, archived appearances of him on a variety of conservative libertarian podcasts (The Rubin Report, The Andrew Klavan Show, & The Libertarian Institute) & a few videos he did with PragerU. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I thought I read he did a little more than just the Alexandria one, but I cant find it now of course. Metallurgist (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 or Option 1.5; it is extremely juvenile to punish sources with derankings for saying we suck. It's obvious that they have an editorial bias, and that they think we suck, and on this basis I would contest them being used to source in-depth analysis in the voice of the encyclopedia. Pirate Wires should not be taken as gospel for everything it says, and its claims (especially if they sound strange) should be verified. But this is a pretty basic part of competent editing; you should be doing this anyway. jp×g🗯️ 00:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Aquillion. Like Woodroar I also looked at the sources cited for the use by others claim, and they all fail RS or are very questionable. For example: the Jewish News Syndicate was cited multiple times to argue PW is option 1 or 2, yet JNS is primarily funded by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. Adam Milstein, who is tied to Canary Mission, also funds it, resulting in positive coverage of him in the outlet in an apparent quid pro quo, as noted in that Intercept piece. It also has an exclusive publishing deal w/the Adelson-funded Israel Hayom, which is set up to advance Netanyahu's political interests per RS reporting. Aaron Bandler runs the "Campus Watch" updates at Jewish News Journal which is routinely reposted by the CAMERA Israeli censorship operation, and worked for the far right Tucker Carlson founded Daily Caller and Ben Shapiro founded Daily Wire before he took up this gig. Others that have been for some reason cited to make the use by others claim are all in the same orbit of hawkishly pro-Israeli billionaire funded outlets of dubious reliability. I don't know why other editors are listing these names under the pretence that they are legitimate RS citing and using PW's reporting when that's not the case, and this is not a good basis for a use-by-others case. For that we would require RS reporting from credible RS outlets, and only Bloomberg fits this description, but they only made a vague general reference to Pirate Wires w/o validating its claims. This is clearly a WP:BLOG funded and run by Silicon Valley tech billionaires, and should be deemed GUNREL. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  These allegations make the ones by Pirate Wires of Soros look like they came out of Reuters. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Re Aaron Bandler runs the "Campus Watch" updates at Jewish News, that’s incorrect. It’s at Jewish Journal. Jewish News is UK-based and very reliable. I also note that the Forward describes JNS as biased but not unreliable. It’s true that much of the use by others mentioned in this thread is week, but don’t need to overegg the pudding. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Good point, inadvertently mixed that up – fixed now. Bandler/Jewish Journal was cited for USEBYOTHERS, and imo it's not overcooking the egg to point out that a person who worked for Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and runs "Campus Watch" is not RS for these purposes. The same for JNS, which again is funded primarily by Trump donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson and has an exclusive deal with Netanyahu's house paper Israel Hayom. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that a background in Daily Caller/Daily Wire is an indicator of unreliability. But right-wing, pro-Israel or hawkish funders isn’t necessarily an indicator of unreliability, just of bias, so unless there’s other grounds for dismissing JNS I’m not sure we can. I’m on the same page in that use by others is very thin here, just that we need to not overstate the case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I don't believe JNS is reliable source. They state as a fact that Anas Al-Sharif was a "Hamas terror cell leader posing as ‘Al Jazeera’ journalist", based only on the claims of Israeli military. Anas was indisuptably a journalist working for Al Jazeera and there is no evidence he was any sort of "Hamas commander [...] directing rocket attacks on Israel."[48] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Opt 1 - quick question - was this forum and/or process for determining what is or isn't a credible/reliable source ever formally adopted by the community? It's possible that I missed out on that discussion, but I think it's important to know, especially now that there are word limits. Link please? Atsme 💬 📧 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC) ^{Apologies, I forgot to iVote before asking my question. Atsme 💬 📧 17:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)}
• Important add-on to my iVote: See The Atlantic endorsement of Pirate Wires: "Mike Solana, a Peter Thiel protégé, has made his Pirate Wires newsletter a must-read among the anti-woke investor class—and a window into what the most powerful people in tech really think. By Christopher Beam Atsme 💬 📧 19:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is not a vote. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  ^^^ This user's comment is out of order. Of course my vote is an iVote. We don't have to keep repeating the same convincing argument. I made my choice. Atsme 💬 📧 00:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  The criteria for determining whether a source is reliable or unreliable adopted by the community are whatever is written in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources. The primary criteria would be reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with each of those words presumably taking the plain dictionary definition. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  There is no question about the criteria laid out in our PAGs, which were properly adopted and accepted by the community. Historically, we had WP:RSN created and maintained per our PAGs for this very purpose. This forum, however, significantly diverges from those policies and, to my knowledge, was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN. The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum effectively empowers a shifting consensus of whoever happens to participate at the time, resulting in the wholesale deprecation of sources at will. The arguments here are based on he said/she said and not rooted in factual, corroborated facts, but on individual opinions, an approach that stands in contrast to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the long-standing principle that reliability must be evaluated with respect to specific content, not by dismissing an entire publication outright. Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility, which inevitably rest on subjective epistemological assumptions, political leanings, and personal beliefs. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Given that the page that you are on is, in fact, RSN, the three letters of which stand for "reliable", "sources" and "noticeboard", and has done so since 2007, I fail to see how the community could adopt its replacement with itself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  The header makes clear While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. So if there is disagreement between editors over whether a source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (per policy WP:V) this is one venue that can be used for consensus building. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of the reliable sources guideline, that helps explain the WP:SOURCE part of the verifiability policy. Context matters is an important point, but it doesn't mean any source can be used just because one part of it is doesn't appear to be junk. The point of sources is that we can trust them without double checking their content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I appreciate the clarification, but WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS require source reliability to be judged in relation to how it is used, not by deprecating entire publications. Consensus discussions are valid, but per WP:CONSENSUS they must remain consistent with policy and cannot substitute for it. Using this forum to eliminate sources wholesale shifts us away from case-by-case evaluation toward blanket bans, which neither policy nor past community practice supports. Atsme 💬 📧 19:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Deprecation has had community support in widely advertised and well attended RFCs. Policy follows practice, if what you say is true then policy needs updating. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This isn't an appropriate forum to discuss user behaviour. Collapsing this before it gets out of hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:32, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• Atsme thinks fascism is left wing and has edited her obscure Wikipedia mirror Justapedia to reflect this belief. There's no point arguing her, it's a complete waste of time debating somone so far divorced from reality, including Wikipedia policy and consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is a personal attack and should be retracted. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Seriously? WP:CASTINGASPERSIONS Metallurgist (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Atsme may i ask, did you make this reply with an LLM? I know we are not supposed to test texts with gptzero due to the high false positive rate, but this text is unintelligible enough i checked, and its triggering a hit.

• per alpha3031, WP:RSN always pointed to here.
• this complaint about RSP process being made by shifting community consensus is literally applicable to every process here on wikipedia
• " Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility" - what? that sounds like AI.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I won't dignify your question with a response, adding that your talk page and editing patterns ironically resemble the work of earlier stub creating bots and early phases of AI, which speaks volumes to your question. Atsme 💬 📧 13:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Please stop sniping about this. Neither of you appear to be contributing machine generated glurge. Atsme's arguments are incorrect with regard to past practice and deprecation but in a very human way. As far as credibility we have multiple instances of PirateWires engaging in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories (the article originally in question and the Soros dogwhistles). It doesn't take an expert to make a determination that conspiracy theories are not credible. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Simonm223. Let's consider the facts: legacy outlets like the NYTimes & WaPo are known to publish contested narratives, and my comment is supported by this CJR review of Russiagate. If we’re going to downgrade PW for the arguments we're seeing here, that would mean downgrading quite a few legacy outlets as well. Also keep in mind, as WP:Systemic bias points out, narrowing the pool of sources only reinforces bias instead of addressing it. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS call for evaluating reliability in context, not blanket bans. Deprecating an entire source because some editors dislike its coverage goes beyond what our policy allows, yet here we are trying to eliminate yet another source, instead of focusing on content. It speaks volumes. Atsme 💬 📧 19:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Also sources should be assessed with total disregard to their political positions, to do otherwise would definitely be against policy. And again deprecation has community backing, if you personally dislike it you should try restarting that discussion separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm really the wrong person to suggest that we should use a conspiracy theory rag because sometimes NYT AND WaPo publish "contested narrative" since I'm generally among the harshest critics of use of news media on this platform. All this argument does for me is suggest we should be slower to use news media sources and more careful to ensure factual accuracy before treating them as reliable. It certainly does nothing to suggest we should use this conspiracy blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 made ANI thread for Atsme's AI usage. [49] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe attacking Atsme is inappropriate and believe Atsme's remarks about PAGs are appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• In this quote The Atlantic is not endorsing Pirate Wires. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• Opt 2-3 Where is their editorial oversight? Mike Solana, seems to consistently allow "blogish and sub-stackian" opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments. Are their news reports from accredited journalists, or venture capitalists? There was also some controversy over their reporting on the launch of Trump-Token DJT. Not a great look. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed. Fwiw the atlantic [50] seems to indicate PirateWires evolved and continues to act as mike solanas personal newsletter. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I read the piece you just shared from The Atlantic and it says, "[Mike] Solana stresses that the site is separate from the investment firm—[and that, Peter] Thiel has no editorial control". I think if anything, we should consider that Solana pieces might need far more scrutiny. However, other writers for Pirate Wires would appear to be perfectly reliable and we have not seen reliable sources countering that claim. The Atlantic does admittedly question the degree to which editorial independence is entirely happening in the case of Solana, "Whether [Solana's editorial independence is possible] while conducting friendly interviews with allies and taking orders from Thiel by day is an open question." Though again, even then they say "...is an open question", not simply "is not possible" or something more affirmative.

  Solana's background in helping Peter Thiel to get his book Zero to One published may show some conflict of interest directly when covering Peter Thiel or Thiel owned companies or ventures (See Palantir at the very least). So I would likely restrict Pirate Wires (Solana or otherwise) from being able to cover those directly, most especially when supporting sources do not exist. Solana does express resistance to the more typical right-wing Trump adulation though, "Solana was never exactly a Trump fan", so I think Pirate Wires just appears to offer a more "Libertarian" flavor of reporting here which, while biased, ought to be welcome and does again seem to be generally reliable when not reporting on Peter Thiel owned businesses or investments.

  As for bias in other ways, one factor that might be beneficial is that Pirate Wires does not take advertising dollars. We do not talk about this enough, but what if a source takes a lot of money from a big fossil fuel company for example, might they then go a bit softer when covering some climate change related reporting perhaps? I think it is certainly possible, and worthy of consideration at the very least. In the case of Pirate Wires though, again according to The Atlantic, Solana explained that, "news organizations went from comfortable businesses subsidized by classifieds to click-hungry digital-content machines reliant on display advertising" to far less relevant and even began going out of business or becoming consolidated into central behemoths because, "[social] media companies turned down the traffic spigot". In other words, their distribution channel was cut. Pirate Wires on the other hand has, "Paid subscriptions [which] are $20 a month or $120 annually—fairly steep".

  Lastly, "What makes Pirate Wires distinctive, [Solana] says, is its point of view, which leads it to report stories that liberal-leaning outlets might not." I hope we would not label a source less than "Generally Reliable" due simply to bias. That would not be right, nor aligned with the Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective", and I hope that the above demonstrates why at least when not coming directly from Mike Solana, or covering Peter Thiel for the COI reasons already stated, that Pirate Wires is generally reliable as a source. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• reliability comes from the editorial structure. there are dozens of NYTimes scandals and misinfo printed, same for any traditional paper with a long enough history. But we say its reliable because it has a well-established editorial structure. When we point out Solana is the editorial structure, we mean there is no real editorial structure, author=editor, suggesting WP:SPS
• if PirateWires is biased, its biased. that would probably go into option 2, where we note that they can be biased and piratewires coverage won't determine if it is WP:DUE. If they cover a story/slant nobody else covers, then its probably not due for inclusion in a wikipedia article.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4 FYI; Ashley Rindsberg has called me a "pro-Hamas" editor(!) in a Pirate wires article [51]. I have never supported Hamas in my life. I am a non-believer and firm feminist, I find the claim that I am "pro-Hamas" highly libellous, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  Are personal attacks against Wikipedians a factor for deprecation? Im legit asking, i think i recall someone saying breitbart did similar stuff and i know its deprecated. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

  I vaguely recall reading through the Breitbart stuff at somepoint but IIRC that was due to doxxing an editor, not simply disparaging one. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Editors involved in the canvassing effort described by PW have a COI with respect to this RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  ludicrous. And suggesting huldra is canvassing is a personal attack Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  If Huldra is not one of those editors, then no harm done. But she denies that she is pro-Hamas, not that she was involved in the activities described in the link she provided. If that reporting is accurate, then she's not a disinterested commenter in this RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:COI doesn't forbid participating in RfCs or other behind-the-scenes activities on Wikipedia. In fact, it encourages them: adding suggestions and sources to Talk pages, or using their COI to get quality photos and media. There's nothing wrong with Huldra adding her perspective here, especially since she's mentioned her connection. Woodroar (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Taking a step back, an unsubstantiated attack piece by a third party does not give an editor a COI. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  If we designated this situation as COI it would be a licence for sources to attack personally editors in order to neutralise their voices in discussions like these. While it is proper to inform the community that they’ve been personally attacked by the source (as Huldra did), we must give them the right to defend themselves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  At least they're being very open and honest about it. It's up to the closer how heavily to weight their comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I certainly has not taken part in off-wiki canvassing/TfP, but that article I linked to claim that I do. They have simply looked at how many articles I have edited in common with certain other wiki-editors. But that only shows we are interested in the same field! You could easily contruct similar charts with other groups of editors, say people interested in railways, mushrooms or castles. Or overlap with pro-Israeli editors. In fact, I have a huge overlap with....Icewhiz. Funnily enough, Rindsberg doesn't mention that. Rindsberg makes a lot of serious allegations, but shows absolutely zero proof. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's remarkable that @Tioaeu8943 is able to look at Pirate Wires literally manufacturing a conspiracy theory about our colleagues on Wikipedia and instead of saying "that's pretty clear evidence that Pirate Wires is unreliable" instead tells those people who were subject to this conspiracizing that they should keep their mouths shut. This is clear proof of Pirate Wires' unreliability. This is all that we see here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved. I am not surprised that some editors are now retaliating against being exposed in this way and appear to be trying to silence Pirate Wires reporting through deprecation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  "PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved." This isn't true at all. You should probably strike/retract this comment and I'll remind you that competence is required to be editing in this topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Unfortunately there was a lot of bad reporting (as with so much of the reporting about Wikipedia) and hyperbole about the Arbcom case, so there is a lot of misunderstanding about the outcomes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  It's generally not advisable to respond to criticism of a conspiracy theory targeting people with whom you might later be collaborating by saying "but it's true!" Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  The article barely mentions you, only in passing related to Nableezy and Onceinawhile, plus the table. It doesnt accuse you of being pro-Hamas, or even really insinuate it. Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not. If you think Rindsberg libelled you, have you pursued action against him? The article only uses "pro-Hamas" in the headline, while using "pro-Palestin(e/ian)" 13 times, so saying he libelled you as pro-Hamas is quite a stretch. Metallurgist (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  It says so in the head-line "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"; and I am not going to violate WP:LEGAL (and earn myself an instant ban). As for "Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not" that is exactly my point! (hence my example that I have a lot of articles in common with Icewhiz). Btw, he calls us the "gang of 40" ..google it (+ wikipedia, pro-Hamas). He writes things like "To evade detection, the group works in pairs or trios, an approach that veils them from detection. They also appear to rotate their groupings for the same reason" Huh?? I think most wikipedia-editors will see it for what it is: people interested in the same field happens to have a lot of overlapping articles. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  Pseudonyms are used to protect one's identity. I'm not aware of any libel cases filed by a pseudonym; please enlighten me. This venue is used from time to time to eliminate sources that go against WP's systemic bias, specifically conservative sources, be they on the left or right. All it takes is one article or two to start what I observe to be a logical fallacy downgrade in a forum that was never approved by the community - the proof is in the pudding. All the misinformation published by liberal mainstream media or legacy media is overlooked, like the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. What happened to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Atsme 💬 📧 15:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Where does the headline or body label you as a pro-Hamas editor? WP:LEGAL is about internal threats. How does it prevent you from pursuing an external libel case? Who is "us"? Metallurgist (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  No, it is not. Read WP:LEGAL, it is for any legal threat. And it is clear from the article, that it labels all 40 of us "pro-Hamas editors", and the "gang of 40" has become a fixture among pro-Israeli "twitterati", like Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Lir [52], Huldra (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  This is getting off topic, @Metallurgist, @Huldra, @Atsme. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  I believe my comments are relevant to the discussion on source legitimacy. The core issue is whether this forum’s process for deprecating or downgrading credible sources risks unfairly dismissing them due to a dominant consensus, potentially sidelining valid perspectives. This raises concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and conflicts with our PAGs. I'm focused on how we address this to ensure objectivity in our selection of sources. Atsme 💬 📧 14:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Yes this forum has community consensus, and in particular deprecation has had at least one major RFC if not more. If you have questions about any particular source you can raise them here, but if you have questions about the validity of the noticeboard I would suggest the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. Let's go back to this discussion. Provide the supporting diffs that clearly state WP:RSN is the venue for deprecating and downgraded sources in their entirety when there is no evidence that the use of a particular source that was cited to support material in an article is what is being challenged here now. Show me the article wherein PW was used to cite a particular claim or comment or material? If you cannot provide that information, then this discussion needs to be closed so that we can move on. I'm aware that WP:RSN is the venue for removing content per the consensus model, but unless you have a valid misuse of PW as a source in one of WP's articles, this discussion needs to be closed. I will state that separately rather than make it part of this thread. Atsme 💬 📧 21:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  I do not need to provide diff context is one aspect of RS not it's one absolute defining characteristic, and it doesn't overule what is found in V. That you have a personal distaste for how the community works is obvious, go read the documentation for depreciation it has all the links you require. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry... but you do need to provide the diff, otherwise you're just a talking text message that carries no weight. I have the policies and guidelines backing my comments. You have your opinion. Refresh your memory about the purpose of WP:RSN, and the purpose of citations used to support material; i.e. CONTEXTMATTERS, which is not about deprecating or downgraded entire sources just because the prevailing consensus at the time doesn't agree with a particular position, or what that source has published that was cited in an article – and that is exactly what this RSN is supposed to be about - not whether or not the majority likes it as a reliable source. There's no article in question here - this discussion is personal - and it has to stop. Atsme 💬 📧 22:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  You know full well how consensus works, and your IDHT about context matters won't change that all of this has community support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

  How is it off topic to ask for evidence of a claim made by a !voter? I dont see how one can read that article and conclude that Huldra is labelled as a pro-Hamas editor, rather than mentioned in passing, as any editor could have, which Huldra even reiterates (eg Icewhiz, etc).

  @Huldra WP:LEGAL says "that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself". How does this apply to pursuing action against a non-editor who you believe has defamed you? And again, who is all "40 of us"? You seem to be collectivizing 40 editors while denying that they should be collectivized? Which is it? Metallurgist (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  User:Metallurgist: I am just quoting what off-wiki sources say, "Pirate Wires' article, How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative, named 40 pro-Hamas editors." [53]. Or Wiki Wars" I identified a network of more than three dozen editors—whom I dubbed the “Gang of 40”".

  Rindsberg named us "pro-Hamas" and "Gang of 40", on the basis of having edited the same articles. To repeat: I have equally large overlap with some pro-Israeli editors, but Pirate Wires just doesn't mention that. Huldra (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  You may want to tag Shlomit Lir if you're bringing her up, as she as an en Wikipedia account, and actively edits in this area. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

  Isnt that bordering on canvassing? Metallurgist (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Had to look them up. They arent related to piratewires at all? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  @Metallurgist: It may border on canvassing but I don't know. My reasoning is that if you are going to bring up someone who edits in the community, it would be courteous to allow them to argue their actions. @Bluethricecreamman: no Shlomit Lir isn't involved with PirateWires. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  What is the username of the person? They have been sufficiently discussed wherein a ping might be appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  Huldra, did Pirate Wires ever contact you for comment before publishing "How Wikipedia's Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"? — Newslinger talk 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

  Newslinger Of course not: And the "sneaky" thing Rindsberg does, is that he

  A: list the most active "non-Israel-friendly" editors he can find, and how's that we edit lots of the same articles (so does a lot of "Israel-friendly" editors, but he doesn't list those), And since most of us have edited for years -we have lots of edits.

  B: list the off-site collusion by "Tech For Palestine" (TfP)

  C: combines A +B to make it appear as if there is a massive off-site collusion. But, as their own "investigation" showed, on p. 3 (out of 244): "The current conservative edit impact estimate for the group (based on available evidence) is 260 edits on 114 articles.(link) (bolding in the original)

  The simple, boring truth is that there is no major "off-site collusion" to edit wikipedia in an "anti Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" way. The one exception is TfP, and they managed a whopping 260 edits, before they were all banned, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  WP:QUACK Iljhgtn (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  "The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors must assume good faith from others." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 (2nd choice Option 2, 3rd choice Option 4); with no evident editorial policy, a lack of sources discussing the reliability of its output as a whole, and an apparent willingness to publish conspiracy theories and inflammatory accusations with little evidence, Pirate Wires falls squarely into the generally unreliable category. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2.5 - they're clearly biased but at the same time seem to be doing relatively serious journalism on some topics. But they're mostly a magazine of opinion articles, the closest example on the Left I can think of would be something like Current Affairs, so I'm not really sure how much they could be used in an actual article. Ideally Wikipedia would have some sort of proper policy on these sorts of things, because it feels like the real question about them is "are their views notable", and their reliability isn't really relevant.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• I am disinclined to consider valid an RFC the preceeding discussion(s) of which fail to provide the context required by the editnotice, more specifically, the part where it says and the claim it supports. That said, in general, we require positive evidence of both structural elements (non-SPS) and reputational elements, rather than the lack of evidence to the contrary, and in quick overview said evidence seems singularly unimpressive. For example, one article referenced above says the following: The existence of the TFP channel has previously been reported by Jewish Insider (JI), "The Wikipedia Flood" blog and a Pirate Wires piece that went viral. The publication is placed in the same sentence as a news organisation. It is also placed in the same sentence as a blog. Unfortunately not being psychic, I cannot say for certain why the Journal chooses to mention PW, the simplest reading in my opinion would indicate the 4 words following that mention give a clue. There are plenty of news organisations that mention subreddits with posts that go viral, I hope those proposing a GENREL RSP entry do not suggest that is the standard for "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" we adopt. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 PW functions more as a pro-tech, anti-establishment opinion platform than a neutral news source. Its coverage often targets high-profile figures and institutions, often in inflammatory terms, framing its mission as a rebuke to "modern publishing giants" and what it portrays as ideological conformity in legacy journalism.[54] The outlet began as a Substack newsletter before becoming a venture-backed site with a small staff. Editorially, it remains centered on Mike Solana, who has no background in journalism or editing yet retains near-total control. A Founders Fund partner has said the site largely mirrors Solana's personal views, with its content described as like "being inside [his] brain". Editorial independence seems minimal.[55] Instead of following conventional reporting standards, PW tends to push narratives opposing regulation, progressive movements, and liberal institutions. The Guardian has referred to it as a "conservative newsletter".[56] Media Bias / Fact Check rates its factual reporting as "mixed", citing reliance on opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments instead of consistently well-sourced journalism.[57] PW drew scrutiny last year when it published an unverified claim that the Trump campaign was launching a cryptocurrency. This was posted directly to social media, included a contract address and was presented as a scoop but lacked corroboration. No RS confirmed the story, and PW offered no sourcing transparency. Solana later admitted that he had not spoken to anyone in the Trump campaign and characterized the post as merely sharing information "via sources". This kind of reporting falls well short of basic journalistic standards.[58] As for Ashley Rindsberg, the author of several cited pieces, he also fails to meet RS standards. His claims about a supposed "Hamas network" running Reddit and Wikipedia are demonstrably false, as are many others across his blogging output. He has repeatedly pushed fringe narratives, including far-right talking points on COVID-19 and its origins, and has amplified anti-vaccine rhetoric.[59][60][61] He is also closely tied to PragerU and other fringe right-wing outlets. Combined with his frequent use of culture-war terms like "woke", his work clearly lacks journalistic objectivity. Neither PW nor Rindsberg should be treated as reliable, with the exception of WP:ABOUTSELF. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

  Can you show me the RS which supports this? Since it is 'demonstrably' false? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  According to Mediabias report you quoted the PW have had no failed fact checks in the last 5 years [62], their criticism has to do with bias which should be irrelevant.

  As to Rindberg's supposed anti-vaccine rhetoric, I didn't see vaccines mentioned in the 3 pieces you linked. The lab leak hypothesis is hardly fringe, considering that even the head of WHO called for further investigations into it [63]. Being right-wing is again a matter of bias and nor reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 20:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  Mediabias Fact-check assessed Pirate Wires as the following:

  "Pirate Wires often prioritizes editorializing over facts, reinforcing its ideological perspective. The site does not heavily rely on investigative journalism, often concluding opinionated commentary and industry perspectives rather than objective reporting.

  "We rate its factual reporting as Mixed, as it relies on opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments rather than consistently well-sourced journalism."

  Whether you consider PW a reliable source given this assessment probably hinges on how much weight you put on the value of speculative arguments vs consistently well-sourced journalism. My position is that a source with a strong right wing bias can certainly be reliable, provided that the stories they choose to cover are factually reported on, with good sourcing, and with formal editorial oversight. TROPtastic (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

  I dont think we use media bias websites when ranking these sources usually User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1. Primarily due to WP:USEBYOTHERS (Berliner Zeitung, TechCrunch, NDTV, Gizmodo). A lot of !votes above do not mention any inaccuracies and imo should simply be dismissed. I've carefully reviewed the list of issues u:Kelob2678 posted above but I find u:Jcgaylor's arguments convincing. Note that the (rather unsympathetic to the Pirate Wires) Atlantic article does not accuse them of publishing falsehoods. It's definitely biased but I found no reasons to doubt its reliability. Alaexis_¿question? 11:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  The conspiracizing about a "gang of 40" is obviously false reporting on its face. Not only would the inclusion of this as a source be repeating such falsehoods, it would be enshrining, in our articles, WP:ABF statements about other Wikipedia editors in good standing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  I assume you're referring to this investigation which has been mentioned in other sources that I linked. Which part of it is a lie and what makes you think so? Alaexis_¿question? 12:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding WP:ABF, how is it relevant? Are you suggesting that our sources should abide by Wikipedia guidelines? Alaexis_¿question? 12:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  The arbitration process exonerated many editors on that list of the collaboration and collusion that PirateWires accuses them of. WP:ABF is relevant because we would have to both assume that Arbcom got it wrong and we would have to be assuming bad faith in our colleagues in order to treat the assertions made by piratewires as factually correct. We have competing sets of facts. It ultimately comes down to a matter of trust. I trust my peers on Wikipedia more than I trust Ashley Rindberg. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  The Arbcom, as a subset of Wikipedia, is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Even if it were, it didn't (and couldn't) "exonerate" anyone. The lack of evidence and the evidence of absence are different things. Alaexis_¿question? 13:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well there's no evidence of "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" other then editors existing that the author ideologically opposes. While sources don't have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, you certainly do. So regardless of your personal opinions, I hope you can at least WP:AGF & give fellow editors the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence exists. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  I give my fellow editors the benefit of the doubt and follow WP:AGF. However this is WP:RSN and not AN and the idea that our assessment of sources should depend on what they wrote about Wikipedia strikes me as unserious. Alaexis_¿question? 20:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing that we should dismiss sources because they're critical of Wikipedia/its editors, but their coverage should be accurate & well supported.

  The claim of "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" is simply not true, their assertions are built entirely of the fallacious idea of "correlation = causation". An investigation without proper evidence to support their conclusion is nothing but an accusation, something unbecoming of supposedly reliable sources.

  So we return to @Simonm223's point above, PirateWires accused these editors of conspiracy without actual evidence, but you are defending the article's accuracy. I'm having issues parsing the idea that you can give editors the benefit of the doubt, while also defending an article that attacks those same editors authenticity with unsubstantiated claims. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  "is simply not true" is your personal opinion. The evidence is certainly not strong enough for Arbcom sanctions but it's not zero either.

  By way of analogy, if an editor adds promotional material to a company article I assume good faith in my interaction with them, explain the policy, etc. However I do keep in mind the possibility that they have a CoI based only on correlation.

  Considering the 1000-word limit I don't think there is a point in continuing this thread. Alaexis_¿question? 20:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

  I have edited as many articles together with User:Icewhiz, User:Davidbena, User:NoCal100, User:Tombah, and User:Gilabrand, and their socks, as I have edited articles together with most of the "gang of 40". Would you also say ... "The evidence is [] it's not zero either" that I have off-site collusion with any of them? Huldra (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  PS: when I mention "and their socks", that does not include User:Davidbena, (who I have never suspected of socking), but all the others are notorious "sockers".Huldra (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure you're not colluding with any of them. Alaexis_¿question? 07:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well, thank you. But the "evidence" that I colluded with all of them, is as "strong" as the "evidence" that I colluded with any of the other members of the "gang of 40". So why do you say the evidence there "isn't zero"? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I also don't find their correlation analysis particularly convincing (which is the same thing as saying that the evidence is not strong). However, this is irrelevant. I disagree with and can find flaws in many articles published by RS but it doesn't mean they are not reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 09:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

  So the "not convincing evidence" → reliable? I don't understand your logic here, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1.5: Reporting is cited by multiple WP:RSPS per WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is a newer source and should be diligently monitored, and Solana's eidtorials treated with caution, but its other writers are not WP:SPS. A public statement of editorial policy is not required per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Remarks about Soros do not rise to the level of WP:FRINGE. We should of course do our due diligence with individual cases of proposed use of this source, but I see nothing here to convince me that any kind of blanket warning is warranted. Marquardtika (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3: This is a blog that as others have noted has only been cited by other fringe outlets in the heavily partisan pro-Israel camp misrepresented by those going for option 1 as being legitimate to argue WP:USEBYOTHERS. What makes it all the more egregious is that they have published supposed "reporting" by an author who made videos for Prager U accusing editors in good standing here of being associated with Hamas and spreading their agenda, and that is the content editors want to cite it for on various pages here.--Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3: Per Aquillion and Smallangryplanet, who put it better than I could. Parabolist (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4: Per the many users pointing out conspiratorial content (Soros! Hamas!). Inflammatory, incoherent, non-journalistic blog. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:USEBYOTHERS is a pretty relevant piece of policy here. The reporting conducted by Pirate Wires has been covered by The Atlantic (multiple times), The Jerusalem Post, The Times of Israel, JNS, The Jewish Press, The Free Press, The Times of India, and more. If anyone says that the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, or any other Israeli based reliable publication that is covering this should not be included because it pertains to an "Israel Palestine topic," this is not a standard that would be upheld in any other context. Even if the only reliable coverage of Pirate Wires came from a single nation, which is not the case, it would be unreasonable to dismiss that reporting merely because the outlets are based in a country involved in conflict. Reliable Ukrainian sources are not rejected for covering a war zone, and the same principle applies here: the fact that much of the coverage is from Israeli publications does not undercut the applicability of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Some editors have suggested that WP:USEBYOTHERS carries less weight here because much of the secondary coverage is ideologically aligned or quotes Pirate Wires only to note its claims. Those points don't negate the policy. What matters is if the other reliable sources reporting on PW's work express doubt of PW's reliability or bolster it's reliability. In all of the reporting I found, even the ones not ideologically aligned with Pirate Wires, the reliability of PWs is not put into serious doubt. Reliability is what is at the heart of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Absent clear evidence of fabrication or systemic inaccuracy, these objections do not override the policy. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Unless I'm missing something, the two Atlantic articles presented aren't "using" or relying on the reporting of PW, but are mentioning/commenting on PW's reporting. For example "Pirate Wires, a publication popular among the tech right, has published at least eight stories blasting Wikipedia [...]" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  I think a few of the use by others examples in this thread are more just examples of PW being mentioned rather than used. Musk responded to their “report” making it noteworthy, so RSs summarised its contents, but that doesn’t mean they back its reliability, hence they use words like “the report alleged” (Times of India) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

  +1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3: It's a blog. Nothing has been presented to show how it's any more reliable than any other blog. That its reporting panders to what some people want to believe is true does not miraculously make it less unreliable. And there is considerable irony inherent in calling out perceived anti-semitism in criticism of the IDF or Likud while simaltaneously indulging in George Soros conspiracy theories. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ironic how? Soros is known to have mixed to critical views on Israel and has funded numerous outfits critical of Israel and promoting BDS. It does not surprise me that a source would be investigating both alleged anti-Israel activists, and Soros. This faff about conspiracy theories is ridiculous as everything presented in those articles appears to be true. At what point is an investigation not a conspiracy theory? Wealthy people fund things they like and against things they dont like. Others may disagree with that. Doesnt make it a conspiracy theory. Soros, Gates, Koch brothers, Musk, etc. They all do it. Metallurgist (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

  The irony being that constructing elaborate theories about how an extremely elderly European Jew is behind everything the conspiracists see as wrong in the world today is much, much more antisemitic than is calling out deliberate targeting and bombings of schools, hospitals, homes etc. of Indigenous people in Palestine. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  His organizations fund it. Do the research. Atsme 💬 📧 15:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Atsme is not wrong. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  I am of the understanding that doing one's own research is frowned upon around these parts. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  its frowned upon in article space. Talk and project spaces use original research to weigh what to include, and whether something is verifiable or not. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Question only, please don't count this towards words* @Bluethricecreamman Can you show me where that OR distinction is made explicitly in policy?

  Iljhgtn (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  The policy page. In the lead. Just read it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Right, the issue with accepting "do your own research" as an argument in projectspace is not because it violates COPO, but because it can be attached to literally any proposition regardless of truth value, in either direction, and thus has no epistemic use. Did space aliens build the pyramids? Do your own research. Is two plus two equal to four? Do your own research. Is ΛCDM the correct representation of the structure of the universe? Do your own research. It's not science unless you write it down and share it with the class, folks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3: Pirate Wires is more of a well funded blog than a proper newspaper. Although it has an 'editor-in-chief' and also an 'editor', PW is very informal, click-baity and pushes its ideology with no pretence at balance or fact-checking. While it is fun to read, in no way is it a reliable source in the way that a proper newspaper with proper journalists would be. Dualpendel (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 - Per WP:BLOGS the following are identified as forms of blogs: personal webpage, self published book, claims of being an expert, patents and newsletters. One can see that Pirate Wires is discernibly none of the above. It is ludicrous to call it a blog when it so obviously shares no characteristic features of one.

Besides their writers have a hierarchical structure, they are divided into 'editor in chief', 'editor at large' and 'writers'. What blog has a full-on editorial team as described above? Does WordPress? Medium? Any number of individually-written blogs?

No source has labeled them a "blog nor have they referred to themselves as such. Insisting on the descriptor "blog" seems to be a misguided effort aimed to discredit Pirate Wires and/or undermine the legitimacy of their content without reason. Kvinnen (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1/Option 2 Per the Atlantic article on Pirate Wires, The Atlantic mentions that journalists read the publication saying in the piece: "It has become a must-read among Silicon Valley’s anti-woke crowd, including some of tech’s most influential figures, and a grudging should-read for journalists and some on the left." The fact that journalists read Pirate Wires regularly makes the website more prestigious than that of a blog. In addition Solana has said his explicit goal is to report the news, once again per the Atlantic article: "Pirate Wires itself is a mix of opinion essays by Solana and others, interviews with major tech figures such as Jack Dorsey and Palmer Luckey, and reporting on tech and San Francisco politics largely from a left-critical perspective." While I do think anything Solana writes about Peter Thiel should be treated skeptically, I do not think every article Pirate Wires produces should be tarred with the same brush. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - I haven't seen widespread examples of WP:RS using Pirate Wires as a source itself, with most other mentioned sources using it as an example of polarized debates, not ascribing reliability to particular stories. It can still be situationally reliable for specific topics or investigative works, but I take a dim view of considering anything Media Bias Fact Check assesses as "mixed factuality" as a "generally reliable" source (for example, Daily Kos or Electronic Intifada).TROPtastic (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - This is certainly a very biased source and we need to be careful attributing the many articles that are obviously opinion and not reporting, we're more concerned with reliablility than bias, and the latter is a care we always have to take. I certainly don't think the journalistic bonafides to say Option 1, but as long as we're careful, there are niche things that can be taken from their reporting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Few are not biased. This one leans opposite our systemic bias which is why we need to keep it. Atsme 💬 📧 14:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Is this what you consider to be policy based logic? DN (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Absolutely. WP:NPOV states "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias (re: WP editors being biased), all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Bias in a source doesn't make it unreliable. Editorial bias comes from not choosing sources objectively. Atsme 💬 📧 15:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Obviously this is not a discussion about NEUTRALITY, though. It is a discussion on RELIABILITY. How does that reconcile your earlier statement of "This one leans opposite our systemic bias which is why we need to keep it"?

  In the context of this discussion, it seems to imply that you would label questionable sources as "reliable" under the auspices of neutrality, which is obviously not the intended purpose of NPOV. DN (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think Atsme was just saying that they might be biased, but that they are definitely reliable. She is free to correct me if I misinterpret her comment, but that is what I think she was saying. That also is true here. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 we need less hyper partisan garbage on wikipedia, not more. (t · c) buidhe 18:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if PW is "hyper partisan", however, any statements which might convey a tilt can always be attributed. That is not a sufficient reason to question the reliability of a source. Kvinnen (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  That is a good point, and a good reason for "Option 2" requiring attribution, but their actual reliability has yet to be proven to be anything but perfectly reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Whoever closes this discussion should take notice of how many Opt 3–4 iVotes are rooted in partisan bias and self interest–not a valid reason to downgrade or deprecate. Atsme 💬 📧 18:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  For sure. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  The opposite is obviously quite true as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Jokes on you because if it were up to me the vast majority of news sources would be rated option 2 or worse, since they are only reliable for current affairs and statements from organizations/people (i.e. not generally reliable for historical or scientific/technical subjects), and even then with significant caveats. This source engages in conspiracy theories clearly make it less reliable than the typical news outlet. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 2-3...maybe - I've stepped away from my busy schedule as a pro-Hamas Wikipedia narrative hijacker and powerful "Gang of 40" member as "documented" by PW. 

• I'm not sure which option is best suited to PW, whether case-by-case works best for this kind of source in practice rather than trying to categorize it, but it surely can't be 'Option 1', 'generally reliable'. That is very far-fetched, inconsistent with the evidence, the kind of claim PW might write in one of their stories. If I'm to believe that PW is reliable, I also need to believe things that I know to be false about myself, editors I know, how Wikipedia works etc. and I need to unironically forget the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.  
• Now, to be fair, getting things wrong about Wikipedia isn't very unusual, we've all seen it, and it's possible that only one of the PW writers struggles with things like fact checking, inference, casual defamation etc. But I don't think it makes sense for content generated by human writers prone to hallucinations, inference errors etc. to be labeled by Wikipedia as generally reliable given that we don't make that mistake for generative AIs prone to hallucinations, but perhaps less prone to the kind of inference errors and hysterical conspiracy-minded foolishness present in PW's stories.
• I'm also not impressed by use by others arguments in this case. As USEBYOTHERS says, "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." PW appears to resemble a disinformation vector, at least in part. Or perhaps an enshittification vector might be a more fun label. As a potential enshittification vector, perhaps it can help identify other vectors that credulously or maliciously spread disinformation as part of the outrage economy (or the booming Gaza war related distraction economy) or whatever for those interested in such processes. But for Wikipedia, perhaps its utility is limited to opinion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (or Option 1) - per User:Gjb0zWxOb. Clearly biased, and given the proportion of editorials it should be used with care (as with any source) and attributed for published opinions. I'm not convinced by arguments that a more extreme assessment of this source is appropriate. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Pirate Wires)

• Notice: This discussion is covered by the 1000 word limit on formal discussion in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. If you're at or near that limit then you're done.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Is that per RFC discussion, or per comment? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Per discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Noting that as of this comment, the participant word counts for the RfC are as follows:

• Bluethricecreamman 110 words Y
• Jcgaylor 1942 words N
• ActivelyDisinterested 541 words Y
• Kelob2678 1014 words Revised down to 996 words Y
• Butterscotch Beluga 150 words Y
• Simonm223 67 words Y
• Sionk 155 words Y
• Iljhgtn 157 words (excluding procedural question to SFR) Y
• Tioaeu8943 850 words (excluding procedural responses to my formatting suggestions) Y
• Chetsford 119 words Y
• Aquillion 266 words Y

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Revised count for Kelob2678 given their amendment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jcgaylor, you may want to trim your comments then down to 1,000 words or less in order to be in compliance with this, also I'm assuming this comment in its entirety is not counting for me towards my own 1k word limit? And any questions that are purely seeking clarification etc? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, somewhat bizarre question, but I think that Jcgaylor made some great points. Given that I made only 157 words of argument, in essence I have 843 words "left", could I "gift" him some of my "words" to be able to use towards the limit so that he does not need to cut back as much or anything depending? Otherwise, in theory, I could copy and past his replies in some cases, and just give him credit for the point, and effectively get to a similar result anyway, but I just wanted to see what the best course of action is in that case. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Given that most of Jcgaylor's comments have already been responded to and that they are significantly past the word limit, I would suggest that trying to cut them down at this point would do more harm than good and Jcgaylor should just step back from this discussion. The closer may choose to address this discrepancy of one editor having been afforded the opportunity to speak more than the rest however they see fit.

The question of gifting word count to another editor should probably be addressed to ARBCOM as an amendment/clarification of the word limit restriction. My gut inclination is that we probably don't want to go down this road as a community: having participated in formal debates outside Wikipedia where this was allowed, it introduces a lot more bureaucratic overhead, drama and gamesmanship, which I think would be counterproductive to the original intent of the word limit, which is to keep discussions focused and to the point. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, it had honestly not occurred to me until now, so I thought it would be prudent to ask. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, realizing I hadn't answered your other question: As for word count methodology, I've been excluding signatures and procedural questions. That having been said, I'm not aware of any ARBCOM- or community-mandated methodology, so I can't make promises about how other admins (or ARBCOM) will review counts when asked, although I expect that most of us will look to the spirit of the sanction rather than bean-counting words over the line (and this has essentially been the existing practice for AE word limits: no one gets sanctioned for going a bit over the line, but repeatedly and/or excessively going over the line does become evidence of a pattern of disruption if together with other problematic behavior). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I imagine especially after having been warned or notified. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Current word counts for Tioaeu8943 and Iljhgtn? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

ignoring the procedural responses, Tioaeu8943 is at ~1002 words.
Iljhgtn is at ~796 words. using the "~" because the word counter is slightly off and might be slightly overestimating based on formatting

admins likely won't care about going slightly over, but will get pissed off if there is a 500 word response that goes way overboard. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

out of date, see below

hacking convenient discussions and a word counter extension on this diff [64] (I dont know how to point it a a level 3 subheading), here are word counts it spits out.
Jcgaylor: 2,048 words, 13 comments
Tioaeu8943: 1,004 words, 9 comments
Kelob2678: 981 words, 3 comments
Atsme: 917 words, 10 comments
ActivelyDisinterested: 869 words, 15 comments
Iljhgtn: 804 words, 7 comments
Butterscotch Beluga: 678 words, 7 comments
Metallurgist: 504 words, 5 comments
Huldra: 485 words, 5 comments
Simonm223: 451 words, 9 comments
Bluethricecreamman: 446 words, 10 comments
Alaexis: 358 words, 7 comments
Paprikaiser: 349 words, 1 comment
Alpha3031: 287 words, 3 comments
Smallangryplanet: 273 words, 1 comment
Aquillion: 265 words, 1 comment
Bobfrombrockley: 238 words, 4 comments
Springee: 210 words, 1 comment
Gjb0zWxOb: 202 words, 2 comments
IOHANNVSVERVS: 199 words, 6 comments
Chetsford: 197 words, 1 comment
Sionk: 189 words, 2 comments
Rosguill: 132 words, 2 comments
Woodroar: 125 words, 2 comments
Eldomtom2: 93 words, 1 comment
JPxG: 91 words, 1 comment
Raskolnikov.Rev: 91 words, 1 comment
Marquardtika: 88 words, 1 comment
Hemiauchenia: 62 words, 2 comments
The Kip: 57 words, 2 comments
Darknipples: 52 words, 1 comment
Hatman31: 51 words, 1 comment
Cakelot1: 21 words, 1 comment
Newslinger: 19 words, 1 commentBluethricecreamman (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

word count in the poll as of sept 24th.
Jcgaylor: 2,048 words, 13 comments
ActivelyDisinterested: 1,160 words, 21 comments
Tioaeu8943: 1,037 words, 10 comments
Atsme: 1,035 words, 14 comments
Iljhgtn: 998 words, 12 comments
Kelob2678: 981 words, 3 comments
Bluethricecreamman: 788 words, 15 comments
Butterscotch Beluga: 713 words, 10 comments
Huldra: 640 words, 8 comments
Metallurgist: 637 words, 8 comments
Bobfrombrockley: 535 words, 7 comments
Simonm223: 530 words, 10 comments
Rosguill: 491 words, 6 comments
Gjb0zWxOb: 471 words, 3 comments
Alaexis: 358 words, 7 comments
Smallangryplanet: 349 words, 2 comments
Paprikaiser: 349 words, 1 comment
IOHANNVSVERVS: 312 words, 10 comments
Alpha3031: 286 words, 3 comments
Aquillion: 265 words, 1 comment
Chetsford: 215 words, 2 comments
Springee: 210 words, 1 comment
Sionk: 189 words, 2 comments
Woodroar: 125 words, 2 comments
Eldomtom2: 93 words, 1 comment
JPxG: 91 words, 1 comment
Raskolnikov.Rev: 91 words, 1 comment
Marquardtika: 88 words, 1 comment
Hemiauchenia: 62 words, 2 comments
The Kip: 57 words, 2 comments
Darknipples: 52 words, 1 comment
Hatman31: 51 words, 1 comment
Coining: 36 words, 1 comment
NotJamestack: 32 words, 2 comments
ScottishFinnishRadish: 30 words, 2 comments
Cdjp1: 25 words, 1 comment
Cakelot1: 21 words, 1 comment
Newslinger: 19 words, 1 comment
Gamaliel: 16 words, 1 comment
Peter Gulutzan: 14 words, 1 comment
Parabolist: 13 words, 1 comment
Visite fortuitement prolongée: 10 words, 1 comment User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Deduct 186 words from what you calculated as my word count. I was falsely accused of using AI & had to respond, & someone tried to cancel my iVote and I had to respond. These BS kid games are making me weary. Atsme 💬 📧 23:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Im copying and pasting from the word count tool, im not enforcing anything or trying any count correction like that.

also doubt admins care unless its clearly hundreds over limit User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Where is this tool? I'd like to try it too. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

SFR showed it to me. User:L235/wordCountsByEditor.js

it took me a while to figure out how it works and i dont think it does sections that well, which is why i use my sandboxes talkpage to paste the blob of text i actually wanna analyze User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Here's a novel idea, keep a word count for the initial statement in the iVote section, but create a talk page for editors to actually collegially debate the issues for a set time frame rather than silencing productive discussion. Imagine that! Atsme 💬 📧 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

A good idea. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

You would have to take it up with ArbCom as they placed the restriction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe you, but do you have a link to the 1,000-word cap policy so I can read up on it? I don't see it at WP:ARBPIA. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Word limits (1,000 words) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to bank my remaining ~800 and exchange them for the gift card, if no one minds. Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Word counts are explained by Brandolini's Law. Atsme 💬 📧 15:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

• As a general note for those who failed to read the header, "While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy." This is a noticeboard for third opinion and advice, but it might also be used as a place to form a consensus and WP:CONSENSUS is policy. That could be done here, on the village pump, or as a subpage of WP:RFC the location is unimportant. As to the perennial source list it also isn't a policy or guideline, the WP:RSP is an information page - a log of prior discussions and any consensus that came from them (and again where a consensus is formed is irrelevant because WP:CONSENSUS is policy). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
• It's important for editors who wish to "teach" others about our PAGs to actually become well acquainted with them. For example, there are levels of consensus, and the location is important, so please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels_of_consensus. The seriousness of RSP and RSN making local consensus determination to deprecate or downgrade entire sources requires a much higher level of consensus. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

  Well attended and widely advertised RFCs are not local consensus, (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If you believe the entire way that the community finds consensus about source reliability is wrong you should raise it on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Local vs WP:Village pump (policy) – see Wikipedia:CONLEVEL. Atsme 💬 📧 19:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah! yes the many places that CONLEVEL mentions the village pump. If you think that this community practice that thousands of editors, if not the majority of active editors, have taken part in over the last decade doesn't have community support you can raise it at the village pump, you should have no difficulty convincing other with your arguments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I do have to say I wish these were structured like AFDs, which are probably the best and most streamlined system for community input. Metallurgist (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Have there been any discussions on Pirate Wires before the above one? If not, this is a bad RfC. NotJamestack (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

"Pirate Wires?" - Discussion from earlier this year. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think this would constitute “frequently discussed” if it’s only two discussions. NotJamestack (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Their reliability was also a subject of conversation in WP:ARBPIA5. Edit: Actually, as you aren't EC, you should probably opine from this discussion.Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

NotJamestack, for any discussion broadly construed as israel palestine you need WP:XC (gave the prereq ctop alert just now but also this seems like a good faith enough comment)

personally did not care to start this rfc but the discussions beforehand kept alluding to needing an rfc.

Kinda doubt rfc is heading towards a conclusive consensus either tbh, good luck to whoever closes User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry NotJamestack I've removed you comment from the survey, as Bluethricecreamman said discussions relating to certain topics areas require extended confirmed rights (automatically obtained by an account being over 30 days old and having 500 edits). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Atsme, Iljhgtn, noting that you were basically at the word limit on September 24, you're clearly over the line at this point, please refrain from further comments. That you're doing so to defend George Soros conspiracy theories is also noted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Thx Rosguill – this is a question, not a comment: how did you tabulate the word count? Does it include iVote comments & the Discussions below? Atsme 💬 📧 22:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  My methodology was to look only at the RfC section (not including this discussion section), to exclude signatures/timestamps, and ignore anything collapsed. By this metric you're at 1,115 words as of my prior post. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  That count isn't fair because I was accused of using AI & had to defend against it, and was taken to ANI anyway. Do what you've gotta do, matters not to me. Atsme 💬 📧 22:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I can see, your response to AI concerns here totals at 36 words. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  For the record, I highlighted my user name, & copied my comments less my sig and the AI claim, but not the claim that my iVote was not a vote, which I responded to, so including the latter my total is 1010 words per word counter. Subtract my response to the claim that my iVote wasn't a vote, I actually did not go over the limit. Policy-based comments and facts that dispute misinformation should not be silenced. Atsme 💬 📧 02:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Atsme, I have been subscribed to this discussion for weeks now and have been glancing at it as it progresses. While I am interested in this, I have been trying to refrain from participating as I don't feel like I would be a good fit for this discussion. Despite that, I have taken note of your comments prior to this weekend along with the word counts. Regarding your word counts, you are correct that it is around ten words over, but are incorrect with regards to your last sentence.

  The Arbitration Committee has imposed the word counts restriction for a reason. It has nothing to do with facts and policy being silenced, but a remedy to attempt to resolve bludgeoning. To quote twice from WP:ARBPIA5: "The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity." ＋ "When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Arbitration Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community." The word limits are a remedy to try to resolve the bludgeoning that has occurred in the topic area. To add, violations would not be taken to ANI, but AE.

  (Speaking of your comments, why is one of them outside of chronological order? You have your second comment from the 21st under your comment from the 14th and it looks like IOHANNVSVERVS replied to it seven days before it existed. Would you fix the order?) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, Super Goku V, first thank you for your polite reply, for sharing your thoughts, and for helping confirm the word count. Honest opinions are much appreciated. The reason my comment's chronology doesn't align w/the dated iVote is why I stated "Important add-on to my iVote:" I wanted to ensure the closer sees it right alongside the original, rather than risk it getting buried in the thread. Chronological order is secondary. Atsme 💬 📧 14:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  I was trying to avoid participating in this discussion despite my interest in it, (due to being a poor fit in my opinion), but here we are. While I don't have a positive opinion on the user here, Atsme is pretty much correct on her word count. I did my own count and got 1,012 words total. (56+12+28+166+69+36+122+106+66+142+129+7+19+24+30=1012)

  My best guess at the moment for the counts being different is that her quotations were counted against her and that some of the symbols used were counted as words. (The quotes were decent sized, but I think it is 50-ish words off the top of my head, so quotes alone can not account for this discrepancy.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  ActivelyDisinterested, you're (just) over the line too. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'll stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

References (Pirate Wires)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are department of transportation maps primary sources about roads?

At M-65 (Michigan highway) and a number of other articles @TenPoundHammer: has objected to my addition of a "primary source overuse" tag on the grounds that department of transportation maps are not primary sources about the roads under the jurisdiction of that department of transportation. To me they clearly seem to be WP:PRIMARY but I am interested in hearing them flesh out their argument (they insist on a centralized discussion) and to hear what other people have to think. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

What aspects of the roads are the sources used to support? I would imagine that the primary source for most information on the roads would be the original plans for their construction (as-built plans would also be a primary source, but a much more usable one owing to their nature, IMO). The DOT's maps would be derived sources, based on either those plans or the results of independent surveys.

I suppose if the statements they're used to support is "this road is under this DOT's jurisdiction", that would arguably constitute a primary source, or at least something analogous to WP:ABOUTSELF, though a case could be made that the only truly primary source would be the legislation establishing the DOT... I don't think that's a strong argument, tho. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't make any analytical or evaluative claims about primary sources, so it isn't secondary at least as we count them. They also aren't at all removed from the subject, the department of transportation is the road's controlling body so whatever they say about the road is primary (we wouldn't treat it any differently from a company publishing a map of their stores). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The better question is whether the use is excessive given the subject matter, and whether the tag actually helps facilitate improvement of the article. GMG^talk 18:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:21, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

~24 of the ~30 citations in the article are to the Michigan Department of Transportation. I've seen excessive defined two ways... Either the majority of sources being primary or the majority of content being sourced to a primary source (both have support in P+G and are the same answer much of the time anyways), this would seem to fall under both majority of sources and majority of content. If tags don't facilitate improvement of articles they shouldn't exist, this is a tag for just this situation and it has community endorsement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If tags don't facilitate improvement of articles they shouldn't exist, this is a tag for just this situation and it has community endorsement. That's not responsive to the question asked. A tag can be useful in one context and not useful in another. The latter case doesn't invalidate the tag altogether, just the as-applied use case. WP:PRIMARY isn't a blanket ban on primary sources. The policy section enumerates seven different criteria for evaluating when to use primary sources. It's not clear which of these you think are relevant to this article. Point 3 would seem to be directly relevant: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.. Point 5 is also relevant: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. If DOT sources are primary then that's in play. Is caution warranted? What's the actual concern? Mackensen (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I find such tags useful because they let me know about an issue without having to analyse dozens or hundreds of sources. I'm not aware of any negative impact that such a tag could have, what am I supposed to be weighing the beneficial impact of a valid tag against if there is no harm? So far the only argument made against the tags is that they are inaccurate because DOT maps aren't primary sources... Hence this discussion, its a bit of a chicken and egg issue after all... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Tags are placed because a problem has been identified and needs to be addressed. They also serve as a warning to readers that the article may have issues. As discussed, relying on primary sources is not, by itself, a problem. Whether the DOT sources are primary or not is something of a side issue, because even assuming that they are you haven't indicated what the actual problem is, or the expected beneficial impact. Mackensen (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Its not a tag for primary use... Its a tag for primary overuse, the actual problem is that the article is not primarily based on reliable secondary sources and all wikipedia articles are expected to be so per WP:V and WP:NOR. The expected positive impact would be the addition of reliable secondary sources, the trimming of primary sources, or a combination of the two. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, for the thousandth time... what would a good source even be by your standards? And don't say "not my problem" or "I don't know". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

the department of transportation is the road's controlling body so whatever they say about the road is primary

I don't necessarily agree with that. Sure, a lot of what they say about the road would be primary, but there's lots of stuff they could say that isn't. Are they talking about details of the road's design or construction? The primary source for those would be the engineers and contractors involved.

Having worked with numerous DOT's myself, I know for a fact that the majority of the publicly available information they have is provided to them by engineers, surveyors, inspectors and contractors of various specialties. There's some information generated internally, but most of it isn't. Road routes are generally provided to them from surveyors or the original design engineers, who will contract surveyors and prepare an as-built document. Same for traffic light information, sidewalks, etc.

I'm not saying that citing them is never a primary source, but that it's not as cut-and-dry as you're making it out to be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:03, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless those engineers and contractors were independent of the department of transportation what difference would that make? If they're being paid by the DOT for the work they're doing they're included. A map of McDonalds published by McDonalds doesn't become secondary because it was made by a bunch of consultants and contractors working for McDonalds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking, municipal clients in projects like this aren't all that involved, except by receiving documentation and approving plans and estimates. The actual work of making it all happen is on the GC.

And as anyone who's submitted a plan to a DOT can tell you, you're lucky if they review any part of the document other than the cover sheet (because their project requirements and a high-scale, low detail overview of the site plan are on the cover page). I've been involved in contracts where the DOT didn't even do that much, and they later balked at a things like legal requirements for environmental impact studies, soil-density testing, or even a final cost that was 2% less than the estimate.

For context, I've worked on projects for DOTs in Florida, California, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, New York, Washington, Alabama and Missouri. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That isn't different than any other industry. None of that would make the map of McDonalds a secondary source and it all applies... McDonalds doesn't build its own restaurants after all, thats done by the GC on behalf of McDonalds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

So what you're telling me is that if I were to send you a bunch of links to newspaper articles about me because you were planning on writing my BLP, you'd reject all those sources as primary, since you got them from me? That's the exact same logic as your argument here, and I'm not seeing how it makes any sense at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If you published a map about yourself based on those newspaper articles that map would be a primary source in the context of an article about you. These maps aren't based on newspaper articles though, don't you mean more like if you collected accounts about you from your doctor, friends, employees, and whatnot but nothing was formally published besides your own piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I would have published an email collating the links. Just as DOTs publish maps collating as-built data.

These maps aren't based on newspaper articles though, don't you mean more like if you collected accounts about you from your doctor, friends, employees, and whatnot but nothing was formally published besides your own piece? No, because writing accounts about me wouldn't be the usual course of business for my doctor or friends or employees. At least, I *hope* they're not getting paid to write about me... (If someone named Charlotte writes anything about my sex life, I promise it's not true.)

The contractors, specifically the engineers, are in the business of producing (again: most of) the data you're getting from a DOT. And their means of publication is (drumroll please).... Submission to the DOT.

Again, this also very much depends on what data is being cited, and for what claim. There are plenty of claims, such as dates of repairs or improvements, names of engineers or contractors, project requirements, overall costs and the like that would make this usage a primary source. Hence why I asked above.

I also think that GMG raises a valid point. If the tags are only useful to you (as you indicated in that ensuing sub-thread), and are objected to by other editors (as is clearly the case here) then I would think that you might be better off dropping a note on your user page that you think this particular article is using too many primary sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

That email would unambiguously be a primary source in the context of a page about you. Submission to the DOT would not count as publishing for wikipedia purposes, see WP:PUBLISHED. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Submission to the DOT would not count as publishing for wikipedia purposes You understand that this was my point, right? If the DOT is neither the publisher nor the author, they can't be the source at all. They're just the host. Except for information they generated themselves, of course. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:04, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

So the DOT source is not primary, secondary, or tertiary its not a source at all? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

HEB, I've already laid this out multiple times. I would consider them a primary source for information that they generated: costs of construction and improvement projects, the requirements for those projects, the maintenance schedule and details for those roads, etc.

For things like the routes, construction details, mileage, etc., I would not consider them primary, as they're merely collating, verifying, synthesizing and hosting information which was produced by other parties. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And if "they're collating, verifying, synthesizing and hosting information which was produced by other parties" about themselves then whatever they publish about themselves is primary. You still haven't exlained why a map published by the X company depicting goods and services offered by the X company is not a primary source for information about those goods and services... We've always treated such sources as primary, this would be a massive change to how we do business. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You still haven't exlained why a map published by the X company depicting goods and services offered by the X company is not a primary source for information about those goods and services... No, I've been telling you why this isn't the same situation. But you don't seem inclined to listen. In any event, the consensus seems to be squarely against you, and TenPound's accusation of bludgeoning does seem to be accurate. You've made 28 out of 58 comments in a thread with 11 participants, and as best I can tell, you're alone in your position.

Please understand that I'm not saying this with any acrimony. I get where you're coming from, I really do. But I don't see any way this discussions goes your way. If I were you, I'd move on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You haven't actually explained how this is different from a company's map of its goods and services. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And I don't intend to. Please, take my advice. I promise I'm offering it in good faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:19, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't see the point of the primary overuse template. Primary doesn't mean unreliable, if the subject is notable then using primary sources to verify details is fine. The question would be whether the details are excessive, and that's not a verification issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:V explains the intersection of V and NOR as "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." so presumably an article based largely on priamry sources is both a V and NOR issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

"Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic." My point was if the details are excessive then there could well be a problem, but that's not always the case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

If the article is based largely on primary sources then the use of primary sources is excessive... But it can still be problematic even when the article is not largely based on them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it can be "excessive", but if there is no actual problem introduced by a large use of primary sources, the tag serves no purpose. Katzrockso (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That specific article has a number of OR issues introduced by the excessive use of primary sources, especially basing large passages on them. Excessive use of primary sources almost always introduces problems in terms of WP:NOR, WP:V, and/or WP:DUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

What are the issues with WP:NOR and WP:V introduced here? Katzrockso (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The route description section for example, there are a number of extended passages which aren't entirely verified by the given sources and are more or less original research. For example where in the given sources can you verify "From there, the road continues due north through fields"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Did you check every map or just the MDOT ones? Some of the non-MDOT ones do indicate terrain. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes the other given source is google maps which does not have a terrain layer with that level of detail, I am exceedingly familiar with google's suite of tools in this area and even in the premium versions they can't tell a field from a pasture, meadow, etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That sounds like you should tag those statements with failed verification. The same alleged original research could have occurred with an secondarily sourced map too. Or perhaps add the original research template, that would be more justifiable. Katzrockso (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

There were a number of situations were I did do that, they were all reverted just the same[65]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't able to quickly identify you tagging specific sentences with tags about NOR, only about the "primary sourced overused". Could you provide more specific diffs? Katzrockso (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested, OR policy requires us not to base articles on primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I quoted WP:V but the WP:NOR would say "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." I quoted V though as it's relevant to this noticeboard, rather than NORN. Either way primary sources can be used and are reliable, the question is whether those details are due or excessive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

NOR also says Policy: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Are the articles entirely based on primary sources? If so take them to AfD as secondary sources are need to show notability. That passage still doesn't change that primary sources are reliable and usable, only that you shouldn't use them for excessive amounts of content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, some are, and are assessed as GA. JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

When this has been previously discussed, I was assuming maps would be primary sources as used in these articles. But per the American Historical Association, whether a map is a primary source or not depends on the context, and arguably the published maps in question here are being used as secondary sources (edit: per their definition): "In the same classroom a student report might refer to a map to show the location of certain cathedrals, a route of pilgrimage in northern Italy, or the pattern of forests and cleared land in the Rhine Valley. These maps are used as secondary sources." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@The ed17: One issue here: Horse Eye's Back at no point has proposed a solution. The one time I did ask what their solution would be, they said, quote, "not my problem". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You're confusing Talk:U.S. Route 131/Archive 1#Primary source overuse which is about primary source overuse and Talk:U.S. Route 131/Archive 1#Exit list which was a failed verification issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm talking one below, where you argued that the exit list was "unsourced" and kept dodging the question when I pressed you on what a non-primary source that meets your standards would even be. And your responses were "you can't cite a road", "not my problem", and "That it can't be done without OR is not an excuse for OR." None of which addresses my point in the slightest or even makes sense. Why did you even bring up a random discussion from 2008 that I wasn't even aware existed and wasn't involved in? That feels like you're just making non sequiturs at this point. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:15, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes... The one titled "exit list" where neither the word "primary" or the concept appear even once. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue was that you felt the exit list wasn't sourced at all, which itself was wrong given that the article itself is heavily sourced to maps corroborating every intersection or exit. I said, Especially since most of the body of the article already informs the reader of most major junctions, and the exit/intersection list is considered a summary. and How would you use secondary sources to prove that two roads intersect? What sources would even exist in that case? If two otherwise-notable highways intersect but there is no secondary coverage of their intersection, would you still insist it be there, [citation needed] it, or delete it entirely? Those latter two sound ridiculous and are against the precedent of road articles. I didn't use the word "primary", but the general idea of what a source that meets your (and seemingly only your) standards for "not primary" would even be. And again, all you did was dodge the question and say "not my problem", the same way you're myopically focusing on one small thing in everyone else's response and still not grasping the greater idea that literally no one seems to agree with your take, no matter how many times you restate it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I told you very clearly that WP:V applied, that answered your question. I also told you that lists of intersections did in fact exist and were commonly used. You were the one who didn't respond, not me. Again the problem was not a primary source but the complete lack of a source for most of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This still shows your stubbornness and your desire to fabricate a problem where no one else seems to think one exists. I didn't respond because I felt I had nothing more to say at the time that would get through to you, and apparently I was right. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: I've told you multiple times, drop the damn stick and walk away from the dead horse. I've been there, trying to get someone to see my side of an opinion. But it's clear no one is agreeing with your interpretation, or even seeing any semblance of a problem whatsoever on any of the road and highway articles. You've also been warned to keep discussion of this in one place, and yet you're still bouncing across multiple talk pages again even after opening this thread. It's abundantly clear right now that no one is agreeing with you and you need to just stop.

@MjolnirPants:, @ActivelyDisinterested: Horse Eye's Back has been WP:BLUDGEONing the hell out of this idea since at least July, dubiously placing {{primary sources}} or other undue tags in a drive-by fashion on articles. And then when they're pressed, they either filibuster across multiple pages at once, or just shrug and say "not my problem". See the archives of Talk:U.S. Route 131 as an example. HEB's edits are bordering on disruptive and harassing at this point, and I would seriously file an ANI on them right about now if I had the spoons. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I opened this discussion because you insisted that I open a centralized one aka "please centralize discussions on related topics to one area" and I haven't edited a single talk page in the topic area since opening this thread[66]. Please retract. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so I was wrong on that. You still ignored literally everything else I said. You also edit warred The ed17 for no apparent reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The rest of it is wrong as well, Talk:U.S. Route 131 for example. Note that some here appear to agree with me that DOT maps are primary in this context, and you castigated an editor at Talk:M-218 (Michigan highway) who was of the same opinion as me so you know that you're not telling the truth when you say that no one is agreeing with me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Why are you so hung up on me being slightly imprecise with the US-131 talk page anyway? And that other editor was someone who as far as I know was seemingly unaware of you also holding that position before you joined that discussion. That's still only two people, with countless others having the same view as me, Imzadi1979, and as far as I can tell, anyone else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

So two editors who were completely unaware of each other told you the same thing and you think that both of them need to shut up and go away? Because you weren't being nice to that editor, you were treating them with the same hostility that you've treated me with... Like an outsider who needs to be run off. This would also mean that "But it's clear no one is agreeing with your interpretation, or even seeing any semblance of a problem whatsoever on any of the road and highway articles" was never true, you knew all along that at least one other editor had seen the same problems. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I fail to see how I am being hostile to you. I never told you or the other editor to "shut up and go away". JustARandomSquid has the excuse of being previously (to my knowledge) uninvolved in any road related content before now, and therefore unaware that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources established maps as an acceptable source. Which of my comments was "hostile" to you or JustARandomSquid? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:41, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You wrote "I would kindly suggest you drop the stick and stop editing road and highway articles,"[67] on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You found that hostile? Wow. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I found it to be equivalent to "shut up and go away" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

"Drop the stick" is a reference to WP:STICK, an essay about knowing when to concede a point. I never told you to "go away" entirely in the sense I don't want you editing Wikipedia anymore. I just suggested you take a breather from highway articles because they're clearly a source of contention for you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The reference wasn't in doubt, you linked it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

In case you care, I don't feel particularly 'castigated' or that you were hostile (unless "speedy close" is hostile, which would be a new one on me). JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't care about any behaviour concerns, take it elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment: As a cartographer, borders, roads, cities, all need to be cited like any other source. When looking for map layers to include, we tend to turn to the government agencies as authoritative sources on those things. Census data is generally considered to be reliable data, for example. When discussing a country like Western Sahara, if we choose to include it on a map or not is going to be dependent on the source we are using for borders. If I was making a map of roads for Wikipedia, there isn't a better source for roads then the agency in charge of maintaining those roads. Failing this, not most, but almost all the maps on Wikipedia need to be removed as either original research or for over use of primary sources. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact that we have an actual cartographer saying If I was making a map of roads for Wikipedia, there isn't a better source for roads then the agency in charge of maintaining those roads. is the sanity this thread needs. I have no idea why Horse Eye's Back came back after nearly five months to re-enter a fight they'd clearly already lost. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Overall, this example is just one of the never-ending stream of proofs that the primary-secondary classification is harmful to the encyclopedia. If the source is published and reliable, use it. Use it properly, but use it. Zero^talk 06:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The excessive use of just one source is definitely problematic in this article. Even if experts consider this to be a reliable source for information about roads, if the article uses that source almost exclusively, I question whether all that information is due for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Dueness and reliability shouldn't be conflated; one's not the other and the former isn't really in scope for this noticeboard. The original question was whether these maps are primary or secondary sources. The reliability of them hasn't been challenged. Mackensen (talk) 12:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not talking about reliability, I'm taking about information being due for inclusion. Cortador (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

While I agree with Mackensen in that I generally think that UNDUE questions should be resolved in another forum, this is not a hard question. WP:UNDUE, which is primarily concerned with majority and minority viewpoints, doesn't apply to something like describing a road's path. See e.g. "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." We aren't talking about a minority view or aspect. We're talking about a road taking a left turn at the river. It's a core part of an encyclopedic article on the topic. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't cite WP:UNDUE. Cortador (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing absolutely forbidding us from using primary sources, and indeed the distinction between primary and secondary sources can be fuzzy, and useless to discuss in many cases. In many cases sources which are primary, or at least arguably primary, might be the best ones to use. There are various other ways in which an article about the bare facts of a road might be criticized for being unencyclopedic, and indeed some of those might be helped by ADDING secondary sources with commentary about the road, for example, but this does not sound like a reliability issue. I think the policies being quoted here are not meant to be used in such an extra way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Andrew Lancaster, we do have policy forbidding us from basing articles off of primary sources. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. This especially becomes an issue on whether a given detail is actually BALASP if the only source reporting it is an official government record (which also makes the source non-independent). JoelleJay (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd go so far to question whether this topic is even notable. The only sources that aren't primary in the article are Google Maps, a road atlas, a book about bridges, a news article about the highway's opening, and one about a beautification project alongside the highway. That's only one source that offers something that qualifies for in-depth coverage. Cortador (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: are you asking whether it's a primary source or are you arguing against its overuse? It's hard to tell (since you mentioned both). M.Bitton (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I was only asking whether it was primary or not, unless I'm missing something this is the appropriate forum to answer that question but not to answer whether a given use is overuse but that second question seems to largely be based on the answer to the first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, you did mention addition of a "primary source overuse" tag. Whether a map is primary or not depends on the map. Which map are you referring to? A diff or a link to the article where it's used would be useful. M.Bitton (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Its linked, M-65 (Michigan highway) and we're talking about multiple maps on that page published by the Michigan Department of Transportation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Openstreetmap? M.Bitton (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I am refering to sources 1-4, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 14-26. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The first is indeed a primary source, the others are either inaccessible or dead links (the fact that michiganology.org hosts primary sources would suggest that whatever is being linked to could be a primary source). M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

And after all this time, this still doesn't answer 1. why this is a problem, or 2. what would be a better solution. No one else seems to agree with Horse Eye's Back on this point except for one other uninvolved editor who AFAIK has never crossed Horse Eye's path nor doubled down the way Horse Eye's is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• One thing's for sure, if someone is willing to go through all this argument over whether they get to place a cleanup tag, then they need to go touch grass. By which of course I mean go to Grass and improve the article instead of doing this. The whole thing is like three sentences. GMG^talk 16:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  @GreenMeansGo: you win the thread. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

   Comment: Just want to say when it comes to improving our maps, touching GRASS GIS is a real solution. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• I didn't read all of this but yes they're primary sources. They're also subject matter experts for the purposes of the self-published sources guidelines, and should be treated accordingly. If we're talking about a highway, it's a highway because the DoT (or whatever) says that it is, and literally for no other reason, so of course we can use their materials as a reliable source. Cleanup-tagging a highway article because it relies on the highway authority's publications is nonsense, there is no cleanup to be done. Of course there could be unusual situations with specific material (I don't know, a portion of a highway that's described as "dangerous" maybe?) but if it's just supporting basic information about the road, then of course we don't need third-party sources, they're just going to be referring to the highway authority's materials anyway because that's where the information comes from. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: I had the same assumption about them being primary sources, but I was then surprised to find American Historical Association support for them being classified as secondary sources. Their definition depends on context, but that context looks an awful lot like the one we're working within. This doesn't invalidate anything you've said, and I agree with all of the rest, but it was interesting food for thought for me. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

    @The ed17, that site is using a narrow application of "secondary" in the context of teaching and understanding history by interpreting how old cartographers chose the geographic/social features to depict on their maps and how that fits into a historical narrative (and it's not really clear what the distinction actually is in their "student report" example). But for our purposes an official government-commissioned roadmap is not temporally "removed" from what it is depicting: it is a direct, first-hand account of the roads and specific landmarks as they existed at that time, rather than a retrospective synthesis of e.g. settlement data and records of historical forest coverage to create a map depicting human migration trends 300 years prior. This distinction is also somewhat addressed in guidance from university libraries.[68][69] JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

    • @JoelleJay: I appreciate the thoughts, which are all fair points! Still working through the thought process over here. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed with Ivanvector. A primary source is the best source for some facts. Andre🚐 23:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• I would like to add another outsider viewpoint that there does not seem to be any real problem caused by using DOT sources on road articles and so I am not sure what real purpose in terms of the quality of the encyclopedia is being served by this controversy. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
• @MjolnirPants:, @GreenMeansGo:, @Ivanvector:, @CapitalSasha:: Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bad-faith_edits_from_Horse_Eye's_Back_(talk_·_contribs)..._again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Why are you tagging these editors? Cortador (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Because this is a related issue and I wanted them to be aware of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Don't care. Not going to a drama board over this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, official governmental maps are primary and also non-independent. Policy treats official records and reports of government commissions as primary. JoelleJay (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I am aware that HEB is being accused of conduct issues, but I might as well answer the question at hand. It's not so much the maps, or their publisher, but the age of these maps. The GAR where I commented had one from 1936. Going through old government records and basing an article primarily on, not just these, but their interpretations (however simple reading a map may be), smells like original research to me, and I don't like it. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and should be a summary of all information found in reliable independent secondary sources, not what an editor has dug up in an archive somewhere. I'm not diminishing these peoples' work, it's just... become a historian and start a journal or a website writing histories of highways, you know? JustARandomSquid (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• I don't have a firm view about whether these maps are primary or secondary (or tertiary) in the context of these particular articles. However, they are quite clearly independent sources for almost any conceivable use, except for encyclopaedic content about the maps themselves, I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• To also opine, yes they are primary sources, but it is unrealistic to expect things such as the route description or exit list to be sourced to secondary sources. Primary source overuse determinations should only apply to parts of the article where secondary sources would realistically by used (ex. the history or impact sections) Jumpytoo Talk 23:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Which begs the question: do these routes pass the WP:GNG test? M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  WP:GEOROAD implies notability so it would be a tough battle at AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 00:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, they are primary. And I think maps are horribly misused as sources on Wikipedia, with massive swaths of OR editor interpretation of them. Map use currently is running into the same issues that the entire roads topic was previously (and many other topic area for different reasons, such as sports BLPs). Ie walled gardens of usage promoting inappropriate sources and content, usually because of a group of Wikiproject editors trying to completely control the related articles.

If you don't have a secondary source for information like exits or routes, then they shouldn't be in the article. If your article is entirely about that topic and you don't have the secondary sources for it, then the subject is non-notable. Silverseren^C 23:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. It is not true that there is a blanket prohibition on primary source usage. It is a question as to whether reading a map is analysis. Sometimes it is, but a simple interpretation of a line meaning that this is an exit or whatever is not, provided that it is the same reasonable interpretation that everyone would make. Andre🚐 23:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for claiming things I never said? I never said that primary sources are bad or that they are prohibited. I said maps are bad and OR. They are also primary, per the OP question, but that's not the issue here. The issue is, as you just said, you have to interpret the maps. You interpreting them is OR. Period. If you don't have a source that actually states the information in text, then you shouldn't be putting it in the article. You're not allowed to interpret any other images either. You can't make claims about an image that isn't stated in a source in text connected to said image (such as an image description). Maps are no different whatsoever. Silverseren^C 23:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That's the point that we disagree on. Simply reading what a map says isn't necessarily analysis. And I believe the policy on image captions does say you can simply describe what is obviously depicted as long as you don't comment on the importance or meaning. Andre🚐 00:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

And yet most of these aren't "obviously depicted". The descriptions include details that aren't names on a map, but claims about the surroundings that aren't textually based. That's OR. Silverseren^C 02:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:ORMEDIA explicitly goes against this; any form of information is allowed and a straightforward reading would not be considered OR even if non-textual. Jumpytoo Talk 00:15, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

What is "straightforward"? You're not basing it off of any actual textual information, you're not summarizing anything. You're making an interpretation of what you consider a line on a map to be doing. You are making up wholesale things from the map and even its surroundings without the map even including explanatory text. For example, this terrible article that is a joke of a Good Article, which uses Google Maps to claim that it goes "through farmland". How do we know that that's farmland? Because it "looks like it", presumably. Silverseren^C 02:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm no maps expert, but what else would that be other than farmland? I'm currently staring at open fields with 90° corners and nice, orderly manmade rows. It's a textbook farm, and you'd find similar ones in many places around the world. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You do understand why "well, I can see it with my eyes" isn't considered a verifiable, reliable statement on Wikipedia? That's precisely the sort of OR interpretation that new editors unfamiliar with WP:V are frequently called out on. Silverseren^C 05:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that statements about the nature of terrain should not be cited to maps that do not have legends clarifying the type of terrain. Katzrockso (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The level of obviousness is determined by editor consensus. I think many people would say that something like determining that Road X intersects with Road Y at point so and so signed as X is obvious. I think that whether a piece of land is farmland might also be sufficiently obvious. I suppose a case could be made that a property lot map should be consulted but being farmland doesn't necessarily mean it is an active farm. E.g. I might say that a road goes through farmland because I can see a big stretch of land with grain silos and a few barns and a bunch of fields as Ed says cut into perfect squares. A better sentence than farmland might be that it goes through a rural area. Do you think that you need a secondary source to say that a road intersects with another one or leads to a destination like a city in a certain compass direction? Andre🚐 04:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

No, but I do think you need an actual textual statement for saying that something was built, created, or changed about a road and using two maps at different time points to make such a claim is wholly inappropriate. Unfortunately, this GA road does that repeatedly in its history section. I am also quite interested in how "completing the pavement surfacing of the road in 1945" can be sourced to a map. Is this literally trying to use a claim of "well, I see pavement" on the map? Silverseren^C 04:59, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I can concede that it might be a "bridge too far." I can't think of how we would know that it was completed in that year unless I guess, that there is a 1944 map that shows it as a dirt road, but even then, it could have presumably been completed in 1944 and they just printed the map earlier in the year? Maybe you could do it if a map was printed on Dec 31, 1944 showing a dirt road and then the 1945 map has paved roads? Andre🚐 05:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Such "inferring something from comparing two time periods" WP:SYNTH issues are not a problem unique to maps, one could make the same error to use your example is if you had two textual descriptions of the highway road surfaces where one time period said it was gravel and the other said was paved. Jumpytoo Talk 06:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it a SYNTH issue and not a map observation issue. It is reasonable to use map 1 for the road is dirt in 1944 and map B for it is paved in 1945 but the synth is the conclusion of when it was paved, not contained in either source. That could happen with textual sources the same way. Andre🚐 06:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the thing I was saying. Looking at a map to list highway exits can be ok. But writing a detailed history of a road starting from the 1930s by comparing old government maps you've found in an archive is OR or SYNTH — that's exactly what a historian should be doing and therefore exactly not what a Wikipedian should be doing. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I interpret the policy as anything that could go in an WP:ALTTEXT to be fair game. In this case you provided including the farmland part as part of the textual description could be OK, but it's also something I could see challenged with a WP:NOTBLUE rationale. Jumpytoo Talk 05:55, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Reason (magazine)

Reason is currently listed as "generally reliable" on the list of perennial sources based on these three discussion: 1 2 3 None of these is a closed RfC. In the second discussion, a majority of editors considered Reason to be generally reliable, but RfCs aren't decided by majority vote.

The list entry states that Reason is "generally reliable for news and facts" while also stating that the magazine "primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles". I don't think this is particularly helpful - how are we supposed to separate supposed news and facts from opinion in a magazine that doesn't primarily publish news articles? To name an example, here's the 2015 article that led me to check what the consensus about Reason. It makes statements like "But California, New York, and New Jersey always rank near the bottom of these lists as intrusive, red tape-bound hellholes". I suppose that's not a fact, but opinion.

It also states this: "Florida is the freest (or least unfree, depending on how you look at it) state in the United States? So says North Carolina's John Locke Foundation in its First in Freedom Index, which drew data from a range of sources and found that the state where alligators help keep the yowling, roaming kitty population under control is also notable for officials who generally stay out of your way." Florida officials staying out of your way is again opinion, but the Index claiming this is probably a fact/news. The problem here is that once we have to start disseminating what subclause in a given piece is fact and which one is opinion, we doing original research.

This article is of course from 2015, so I checked out their three most recent article as of the making of this post: 1 2 3 Samples from these articles, in order:

"But just because a policy is popular doesn't mean it's good. CAFE standards have long outlived whatever usefulness they might arguably have once had."

"On its face, the second strike was a war crime. "I can't imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water," former Air Force lawyer Michael Schmitt, a professor emeritus at the U.S. Naval War College, told the Associated Press."

"She is the archetypal political figure utterly convinced she would be president of the U.S. if only the voters stopped listening to social media and instead received all their news and information from the traditional media's credentialed experts."

Should we state that CAFE standards are outdated or that the Trump government is committing war crimes based on these article? Probably not, though these could be included as opinions - but attributed opinions don't have to clear the same bar as facts anyway.

TLDR: Based on the three previous discussions, I question that there actually is consensus that Reason is generally reliable, especially considering that that claim is not based on a properly closed RfC. Even if there was, stating that a magazine that primarily publishes opinion pieces is "generally reliable for news and facts" strikes me as a pointless assessment if identifying said facts goes against Wikipedia policy because it would require discarding parts of an article as opinion while taking others as fact. Lastly, I don't see any situation where a piece of news warrants inclusion in an article while Reason is also the only source reporting on it, making it unlikely that "generally reliable for news" is ever going to be relevant. Cortador (talk) 06:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the issue here: do you take issue with the fact that they publish a number of opinion pieces that aren't explicitly labeled as such or that we might have to determine whether a statement within an article is a fact or an opinion? Katzrockso (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that describing an outlet that publishes opinion pieces as "generally reliable for news and facts" is a useless way of describing a source, and I want to hear what other editors have the say regarding Reason. Cortador (talk) 10:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't we describe a number of outlets that publish large volumes of opinion pieces as GREL for news and facts? Katzrockso (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The RSP doesn't require a RFC for inclusion, see WP:RSPCRITERIA, if you believe something on the RSP isn't summarised correctly you need WT:RSP. As to reliability the first, and most important, step in judging the reliability of a source is an editors own good judgement. Determining if something is opinion or a statement of fact is part of that, and certainly not OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Dissecting a given source and diving it into fact an opinion only works if the source already has bounds e.g. if the issue of a newspaper has a labelled opinion column and also news articles that are not opinion pieces. Diving information within a piece is OR, because it means coming to a different conclusion that the source did. If that wasn't the case, we would never label any source as unreliable, because there is probably always something in every source that is factual. Cortador (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to perform OR on e.g. talk pages, indeed much of this noticeboard involves what would be classified as OR. Katzrockso (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Determining the nature of what you are reading is needed for basic comprehension, it's not OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to separate fact from opinion for basic comprehension. You can comprehend a text without ever knowing whether any of it is factual. Cortador (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see anything in Wikipedia's policies that says that a clear consensus doesn't count unless it is in the form of a "closed RfC". In fact, it is only one of ten ways of arriving at a consensus listed at Wikipedia:Consensus, and isn't even the main method that we use. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for comment says "If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance." (Empasis in original). The consensus was clear the last time we discussed this. WP:REASONMAGAZINE clearly reflects that consensus. It is OK to ask to revisit an existing consensus (I sometimes do that myself) but starting out with the argument that the existing consensus somehow doesn't exist when it clearly does is a nonstarter. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  The consensus was anything but clear. During the last discussion, two editors supported deprecation, three called it generally reliable, and three stated that additional considerations apply. That's not even a majority supporting general reliability. I don't know how you can arrive at the conclusion that the "consensus was clear". Cortador (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  one voter for deprecation was cbanned by wikipedia community, not meaning to discard that vote, but i weigh it less.

  i am curious about why we are saying its generally reliable, when it seems many are calling it an opinion piece that has additional considerations for dueness concerns.

  edit: turns out the summary describes it really well
  There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight.

  i see nothing wrong based on that discussion. if we need to reweigh new evidence, please present. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:48, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Who is the second !voter for deprecation? I can only see the CBANned editor picking that option. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I believe they are counting Spudlace, who did not !vote but commented "It's generally comparable to other sources that we use (with attribution). I wouldn't mind deprecation but I just don't see it happening." Not sure how to interpret that, which is why we only count actual !votes. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. So that discussion actually had one CBANned editor in favor of deprecation, three in favor of general reliability and four stating 'other considerations', while providing a range of interpretations, several of which would be applied to a GREL source.

  I'm no longer the biggest fan of Reason (it's been too hard libertarian for me, including many of the things libertarianism is often rightfully mocked for), but I'm not seeing any real argument for it being anything but a generally reliable source.

  I wouldn't take their political analysis at face value, but I don't see the problem with citing them for facts or attributed opinions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  I mean also none of those were actual votes as someone noted in the discussion. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

By my count (please double check at [70]) the !votes on the question I asked were:

Generally reliable for facts

Generally reliable (blocked user)

Generally unreliable for facts, opinions are likely to be WP:UNDUE

Generally not reliable

Generally reliable

Generally reliable

Generally reliable for facts

Apply extreme caution

Generally reliable

General unreliable

Generally reliable

Generally reliable

Generally reliable based on the evidence given above

Generally reliable but rather opinionated

Use with caution and may require attribution

That's 10 generally reliable, 3 generally unreliable, 2 use caution. Subtract one GR if you don't want to count the banned user, Add one GR if you want to count me (I didn't vote on my own question but of course I agree with the words I myself wrote).

The exact question I asked was was:

"There have been some recent discussions about whether Reason Magazine is a generally reliable for news, facts, and as an attributed source about itself for commentary, analysis, and opinions. I would like to float the following to see if there is consensus for it. Suggestions for wording changes are invited.

Reason Magazine and the associated website reason.com are generally reliable for news and facts. Reason has a self-described libertarian bias and much of the content is commentary, analysis, and opinions. Statements of opinion should always be attributed and considered to only be reliable sources on themselves.

Is the above an accurate description?"

Interesting that zero respondents answered the actual "Is the above an accurate description?" question...

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

That is not the last discussion, which is what you originally referred to. Even then, if nobody confirmed that they agree with the statement (i.e. "reliable for news, facts"), that should not be in the summary then. Cortador (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

My mistake. If you want to add the two people who commented at [71] add one more for generally reliable and one for deprecation from a since-banned user (See [72].) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Here a great example of Reason doing good journalism (copied from an earlier discussion):

And yes, they also publish a boatload of opinion which we should never cite as fact.

Compare the following claims in various sources:

• "The United States goes through over 500 million plastic straws every day, according to Eco-Cycle, a United States-based nonprofit recycling organization." Source The New York Times
• "In the United States alone, 500 million plastic straws are used each day, according to campaigners." --Reuters
• "We use 500 million plastic straws every day in the U.S. alone" --Time
• "With Americans using 500 million straws a day, the National Geographic calls them 'one of the most insidious polluters' because of the harm they cause to sea life." --The Guardian
• "Millions of straws are used once and then discarded in the United States each day, with some operations like the National Park Service saying some 500 million straws are discarded a day." --San Fransisco Chronicle
• "Every day Americans use — and almost immediately discard — up to half a billion plastic beverage straws. At least, that’s the figure widely used by environmental activists to explain why people should embrace going straw-less. It’s not clear where that number came from, but it seems credible..." --Los Angeles Times
• "Approximately 300-500 million plastic straws are used in the United States each day. " --Los Angeles Department of Sanitation (and they passed a law based on that number...)
• "Every day, Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws" --CNN
• "Americans throw away 500 million plastic straws every year, according to the National Park Service." --ABC News Los Angeles
• "It is estimated that Americans use 500 million straws per day" --USA Today
• "It is estimated that Americans use, and then dispose of, 500 million straws every day." --The Washington Post
• "The National Park Service estimates 500 million straws are used by Americans each day." --Fox News

Now let's look at what Reason said about it:

• "News outlets writing about this issue—from CNN to the San Francisco Chronicle—unfailingly state that Americans use 500 million plastic straws a day, many of them ending up in waterways and oceans. The 500 million figure is often attributed to the National Park Service; it in turn got it from the recycling company Eco-Cycle. Eco-Cycle is unable to provide any data to back up this number, telling Reason that it was relying on the research of one Milo Cress. Cress—whose Be Straw Free Campaign is hosted on Eco-Cycle's website—tells Reason that he arrived at the 500 million straws a day figure from phone surveys he conducted of straw manufacturers in 2011, when he was just 9 years old. Eco-Cycle skews a bit more radical, with their "Be Straw Free" campaign -- sponsored in part by reusable straw makers -- that urges the adoption of glass or steel straws. Because we all know how good steel smelting is for the environment."[73]
• "The original bad-straw-stat sin was the claim that Americans use 500 million straws a day, a number that popped up in just about every news article, blog post, or government press release on the topic before Reason revealed that its source was a small phone survey by a nine-year-old... the kid who gave us that 500-million-straws-a-day figure told USA Today, 'Why I use this statistic is because it illustrates that we use too many straws. I think if it were another number, it still illustrates the fact that there is room for reduction. That's really my message.' "[74]
• "The bigger issue is that claim that Americans consume 500 million straws a day. This stat, we know now, was produced by a 9-year-old boy; more reliable estimates put straw consumption at 175 million per day."[75]

Other news outlets have talked about the bogus 500 million figure, but only after Reason broke the story.

The National Park Service and Eco-Cycle both took down the pages after everyone started making fun of them, but at the time NPS clearly said that they got the number from Eco-Cycle, and Eco-Cycle linked to the 9-year-old's research. The news outlets simply didn't bother checking, and either gave the number as if it was an established fact or attributed the number to the Park service / Eco-Cycle as if those organizations came up with the number instead of getting them from the 9-year-old. Also, only Reason tumbled on to the fact that Milo's Be Straw Free Campaign is sponsored by reusable straw makers.

The good news is that Wikipedia gets it right.[76][77]

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Omitting Bloomberg from India-Pak Conflicts

Recently, Bloomberg wrote an article which contained fake news regarding the Indo-Russian SSN deal. This was instantly fact checked by an official Indian handle.

The same news network didn't seem unbiased post the Indo-Pak conflict, when it bluntly pushed the Indian CDS to confirm the PAF claims of IAF losses during the Shangri-La dialogues, while no such hard and direct questions were asked to his Pakistani military counterparts despite the IAF making a similar claim regarding PAF aircraft losses as well.

As such, I would argue against adding Bloomberg sources in Wiki articles regarding Indo-Pak conflicts. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source which says that Bloomberg wrote an article which contained fake news? The official Indian handle is hardly an independent reliable source in the matter after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Press Information Bureau (PIB) is the official nodal agency of the Government of India regarding press topics. It's stance is the truth if the matter concerns Indian deals and issues such as this military deal.

Any RS will only cite it as a source. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Unless of course the truth is classified, then their stance is an official lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The truth wasn't classified but available for everyone to see from 2019. They simply made up a false and misleading report which they were forced to rectify after the fact-check, thus proving my point. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You dodged the question, does the PIB ever lie, mislead, or withhold information for operational, national security, or strategic reasons? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Didn't dodge but ignored, because it doesn't matter in this context.

If you are suggesting that they lied in any point of time, then the onus of proof is on you. I have already proven my point. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You claimed that they always and unfailingly tell the truth, to the point that whatever they say is the truth... the onus of proof never left you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I never said that. I only said they state the truth when related to Indian deals and issues such as this military deal.

There are no national security risks for correcting/not correcting Bloomberg. So the basis of this argument is wrong.

That's why I ignored it. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Have they been delivered? Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

A couple of things: A government fact-checker is useless, especially one commenting on matters regarding the government it belongs to, you are not doing yourself a favour by calling this "fake news" i.e. fabricated news when even the supposed fact-checker calls it just "misleading" (which isn't great but different from an outright fabrication), and news outlets are not obligated to ask the same questions to both sides of a conflict. Cortador (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

We need more than the Indian government says it's false to bar the use of a source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

If the bar to bar is some government official tweets a negative thing about a story we will run out of RS before Christmas... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Even if the PM and President issues official statements it should not be enough, independent third-party party RS needs to say it is making up stories. Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Can we have the retraction? Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

A government fact-checker is the most important source when talking about stuff related to arms deals such as this one.

Also, if a so called RS can't bring itself to act impartial and ask questions of similar gravity, sensitivity and magnitude, such as multi-million dollars worth of military equipment destroyed, to both the parties, then it is indeed being non-neutral and biased. This can't be disputed.

I am not asking to outright dismiss Bloomberg as an RS, not anything on such lines. What I'm suggesting is not to include it only on topics related to Indian Military and Indo-Pak conflicts. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes we get that. The problem is that the only "fact" they seem to have gotten wrong is that this is a new deal, rather than a redrawing (a delay) of an old one. Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Bias does not preclude a source from being considered reliable; we seek accuracy, rather than fairness, in sources. Neutrality is expect of Wikipedia, not of our sources. See WP:BIASED. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The fact-check proved accuracy is missing. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

You indicated above that when faced with a criticisms of the accuracy, Bloomberg made a correction. Per WP:NEWSORG, we consider the issuing of corrections to be a positive sign toward the reliability of a source. Basically every source will make an error at some point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• One bad report (if it was indeed bad - I haven't checked) is not enough to exclude a source, much as I would like to exclude news reports from any "serious" articles, but Wikipedia editors in their infinite wisdom have decided to allow them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  Fine, but I'm atleast expecting a depreciation of this source in the aforementioned topic(s), or atleast a note to be careful/cautious on citing this source for the same. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 06:34, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  A depreciation of an outlet based on one possible error is very rash, even if the depreciation is in one topic area. Katzrockso (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Goverments are reliable for their own words and positions, they don't get to be arbiters of fact. They are inherently political and biased to their own position. Has any other third party criticised Bloomberg for this claim? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  Goverments are reliable for their own words and positions - See, this is the case here. Any third party would only cite it as a source.

  Not only did they cite the value wrong ($2B instead of $3B), but also falsely attributed to the statement of the Chief of Naval Staff Dinesh K. Tripathi and stated "commissioning of the attack submarine would be expected soon" to justify their false report.

  The CNS clearly gave the statement regarding the upcoming indigenous SSBN, not the Russian SSN. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone got the number of billions wrong. See my analysis below. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  I thank you for giving so much of your time for an extensive analysis on this issue. But as I said earlier, it's not limited just at this. They also falsely attributed to the CNS statement to justify their false report. Even the 3 Indian news reports you mentioned (Telegraph, NDTV & Firstpost) have openly written about sourcing their information from the misleading report of Bloomberg, believing it to be true. So it is Bloomberg who's still the main culprit, and the core issue remains.

  Hearing everyone's opinions, I've come down from my earlier argument for a limited topic-area depreciation. But I am atleast expecting a note to be extra careful/cautious on citing this source inside the aforementioned topic-area(s). Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Let's start with the fact that it wasn't just Bloomberg.

• "India seals $2 billion deal to lease nuclear submarine from Russia during Putin visit"[78] --Telegraph India
• "India Clinches $2 Billion Russia Submarine Deal As Putin Visits"[79] --NDTV World
• "A $2 billion-worth Russian nuclear-attack submarine lease is what India is going forward with as Vladimir Putin comes to town."[80] --Firstpost india

The geeky defense site Defense Express made a more nuanced report:[81]

"What Is Known About India's Leased russian Nuclear Submarine and Its Missile Capabilities

"India is set to lease the 36-year-old K-391 Bratsk nuclear submarine, which will be modernized and equipped with universal vertical launching systems. However, Delhi is subject to the U.S. CAATSA law, which allows for the imposition of sanctions. The Indian Navy will lease a russian nuclear submarine, which will join the fleet in 2028 for a period of 10 years at a cost of $2 billion. The agreement has already been officially acknowledged in Moscow, confirming that the lease is based on the contract signed in March 2019. It should be noted that the Indian media wrote about this agreement based solely on their own sources. It is known that Delhi wanted to acquire theShchuka-B nuclear submarine of Project 971. The delivery date was set for 2025-2035, while the contract value was announced at $3 billion. However, this contract was never fulfilled. Later, insiders revealed that it was the K-391 Bratsk. This is a very old submarine, which was commissioned in 1989. In 1998, it was removed from the standing forces, and in 2003, it was sent to the North-Eastern Ship Repair Center in Vilyuchinsk, Kamchatka, for repairs, from which it never formally returned."

So, it looks like sources told Indian Media one story, then later another story. Pretty normal, as long as corrections are posted.

Then there are the multiple reports of the Indian Government blasting Bloomberg (and maybe the Indian Media?) over this,,which is also pretty normal.

• "India debunks media reports of new Russian submarine lease"[82] --Naval Technology
• "Govt refutes report of new $2 bn submarine deal with Russia, calls it 'misleading' "[83] --The Economic Times of India
• "Govt fact checks report claiming India, Russia sealed USD 2-billion submarine deal"[84] --India Today

Seems like ordinary news reporting to me. Sources racing each other to be the first to report breaking news get it wrong because their sources got it wrong, Government complains about media, a geeky defense-related source gives out all of the geeky details about which submarine and what contract, Media goes back to their sources, find that the geeky source and the government was right, and publish a fresh bunch of reports based on the new info. None of this makes any of the sources unreliable. They appear to be just doing what news organization do.

BTW, this IRDW URL (h t t p s : / / i d r w . o r g / india-denies-any-fresh-2-billion-submarine-deal-signed-with-russia/ ) is a better source for the Indian Government statement rather than a post on X[85]. Alas, it hit one of our blacklists. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem seems to stem from the desire to be first with the news, as appropriate for a news organisation, rather than be slow but right, as appropriate for an encyclopedia. As Guy says above, "they appear to be just doing what news organisations do". We, as an encyclopedia, should not follow suit. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

We totally screwed up from the start. We should have started with an ironclad rule that nothing on Wikipedia can be newer than 48 or maybe 72 hours and invited anyone who doesn't like the rule to create an article on WikiNews or to work on a sandbox version that can only be viewed by extended confirmed editors. Readers would get a notice saying that Wikipedia is purposely 3 days out of date because we are an encyclopedia, and would stop looking to us for late breaking news. A reasonable exception would be some way to remove things that we know for sure are wrong even though we just found out.

A large percentage of the conflicts we have on Wikipedia are caused by trying to chase late breaking news. Alas, that ship has sailed and we have to many editors addicted to late breaking news for any such proposal to pass now. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The article OP is complaining about isn't cited anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I can see. They are complaining about Bloomberg's reporting on India/Pakistan issues, not about someone having uses a breaking new article. Cortador (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Self-published political endorsements without secondary coverage.

At 2026 New Democratic Party leadership election, a majority of the citations for the "Endorsements" section are WP:SELFPUBLISHED, almost always from a social media post or lengthy YouTube video uploaded by the candidate. WP:BLPSELFPUB says that such material cannot be unduly self-serving and does not involve claims about third parties, therefore I don't think these should be allowed on Wikipedia and should be supported by secondary sources, or not used in Wikivoice at all. I've been reverted twice now, but have not gotten any engagement on the talk page despite opening a thread before editing.

A secondary issue that I've yet to take editing action on (though I raised it in the above-mentioned talk page thread) is that the policy platforms are also poorly sourced, with no inline citations and presumed to be sourced to the candidate's official websites and not secondary sources. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 20:11, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Without coverage by independent sources, neither endorsements nor policy plans are due for inclusion. Both are effectively ads and inherently promotional. Cortador (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree. This is about DUEness not reliability. If there are further nuances to go into, maybe original research noticeboard is right one. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies and the referral to ORN. Discussion seems to have finally picked up on the article talk, but with a lot of WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 00:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Political endorsements, one of the criteria for an endorsement to be listed (both for individuals and groups) is: "cover[age] by reliable independent sources." If you look at the corresponding RfC Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 164#RfC on inclusion criteria for lists of political endorsements, it claims there is consensus for individuals' endorsements to be covered by reliable and independent sources. For groups, it claims there is no consensus and thus, should be decided by WP:LOCALCONSENUS.

I don't really think what you describe seems worthy of inclusion. John Kinslow (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

temp editor request

https://alchetron.com/Nikki-Hornsby is this reliable online source for Nikki Hornsby — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37610-23 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The information is user editable, such sources are not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable author used excessively on (especially Spanish, but the English version is concerned too) Wikipedia

Hello. This was originally put on the teahouse. I wanted to signal that an obscure historian named Aristides Herrera Cuntti (1952–2008), who has notably authored multiple google books works, among which Divagaciones historicas en la web, is, despite using the unreliable Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, being cited excessively on Wikipedia. Recently, his own invented concepts of "first/second/third Inca expansion" were added to Wikipedia pages (I have removed these mentions, as this idea stems from the Spanish Wikipedia article on Inca expansion, which largely uses Herrera Cuntti). This is very scary to be honest, especially the existence of a huge wikisource page, and I expect it has something to do with Herrera Cuntti 2000s Wikipedia work. While this author probably was very helpful to Wikipedia, I doubt that something like this would be tolerated today (publishing google books works to spread original historical research on Wikipedia which contradicts the rest of scholarship). Herrera Cuntti makes Inca expansion start at Manco Capac's reign, when in reality it started way later. He largely re-uses the historical narrative of Inca Garcilaso de la Vega. The problem: the latter is used for cultural interpretation, not for the historical events. If Wikipedia states this or that battle took place in exactly 1324 when only one, unknown, historian says so on the basis of speculation (for the date) and an unreliable chronicler wishing to push Inca expansion back in time, then that is profoundly disturbing. He was also a Wikipedia editor, which explains his influence, but this also isn't really positive, considering he most likely uses this influence to spread his works. Even though the issue isn't too important in English Wikipedia, I wanted to know how I can request this author and his works to be put on the list of unusable/unreliable sources (I forgot the exact name). Lastly, I wanted to show that this user has been blocked multiple times ([86]), which hasn't stopped him from being an influential Wikipedia user. One of the blocks says "Falseo de licencias", but I have not looked at the details of the issue. Regards, ~2025-38815-96 (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I can only find 8 citations of Cuntti on the English-language Wikipedia, [87] and nothing to indicate he has been previously discussed here. Accordingly, there aren't sufficient grounds to add him to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which only includes "sources whose reliability and use on Wikipedia are frequently discussed". As for the Spanish-language Wikipedia, they have their own policies and guidelines, and the English-language Wikipedia should not attempt to apply its standards to other projects. You will have to raise the issue there if you want it dealt with there.

Where Cuntti is cited on the English-language Wikipedia, it is certainly reasonable to deal with reliability issues through normal editing/discussion processes, and if this doesn't resolve the matter, bring up the specific problem here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Apparently, he was even blocked indefinitely but by some weird turn of events, following his death he was revered as a great Wikipedia editor. I just don't get how something like this can go under the radar. Where can I talk about this on the Spanish Wikipedia? I fear I might get ignored as a vandal, considering the glorification of this person over there. ~2025-38815-96 (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Cuntti died in 2008, so at this point, any block is a complete irrelevance. As for 'getting ignored as a vandal' on the Spanish-language Wikipedia, I've no personal experience, but if it operates anything like we do here, you will do better to just stick to discussing whether Cuntti's works should be cited, and leave the rest of it out - reliability is assessed based on whether works are cited elsewhere (e.g. in scholarly historical works, for material like this), and any on-Wikipedia behaviour of the author will have no bearing on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I have some limited experience of the Spanish wikipedia, my advice would be not to have a string of numbers as your username.Boynamedsue (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Vocal.media

vocal.media: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Vocal.media is a self-described platform for creators to share their stories and is owned by Creatd, a marketing company. There is little to no editorial oversight, and the stories are rife with promotional material (e.g.: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]) and outright fabrications (e.g. [93], [94], [95]). Clearly, this is not a reliable source, but it is cited in over 300 articles ([96]). Should I just go and remove them all, or should the source be blacklisted first? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Are Encyclopædia Iranica and Wing (2016) sufficient for stating that Shaykh Uways Jalayir and the Jalayirids had Twelver Shiʿi sympathies

Jalayirids Han5570 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Both sources are great, so if they actually say that, and it's not disputed by other sources, then yes. But that's not why you're being reverted... Can you please read the reasons this time? [97] [98]

Also, this quote about them being Shia was not mentioned in the Iranica link [99]. In fact, the Iranica link disputes the Jalayirids being Shia [100] says this;

• "Although certain scholars have imputed Shiʿite sympathies to the Jalayerids, the strongest grounds for this view lie in the dynasty’s preference for names such as ʿAli, Ḥasan and Ḥosayn and in the expressed desire of Ḥasan-e Bozorg to be buried in Najaf. It is true that Ḥasan-e Bozorg was also on excellent terms with Shaikh Ṣafi-al-Din, the ancestor of the later Safavid dynasty, at Ardabil, and that friendly relations with Ṣafi-al-Din’s successors persisted under Šayḵ Ovays. Yet at this early stage it is doubtful whether the Ardabil order itself can be described as Shiʿite in any real sense. The evidence of Jalayerid coins, on the other hand, suggest a more Sunni stance: the overwhelming majority carry the names of the Orthodox Caliphs, and only rarely does a coin, like that struck by Ḥasan-e Bozorg at Āmol in 741/1340, bear the names of the Twelve Imams."

HistoryofIran (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

j Han5570 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Kenyan media stories about Kenyan individuals not considered reliable

I have used their articles about a Kenyan rugby coach, and the main sources I have used are from Capital Group, which owns 98.4 Capital FM and Nation Media Group, which owns the Daily Nation. The feedback is that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources which can be verified. The sources present factual information, some of which is obtained from firsthand interviews, but because they may not be as visible or well known on Wikipedia due to the lack of visibility, their credibility is being questioned.

Additionally, Mozzart Sports, a news platform by betting company Mozzart Bet, is a key source of information for Kenyan sports, but the same issue of credibility appears.

How are we expected to publish articles and cite sources when it is unlikely that the individuals we are creating articles about, while notable, are not reported on much beyond local sources that would be considered 'niche'?

The article rejection states that 'Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified', but there are articles that are included in the article from the three sources mentioned above that are not in question. What sources should be considered 'reliable' in this case? ~2025-36586-94 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Tablet (magazine)

I was wondering whether the magazine tablet is reliable. I couldn't find anything discussing that in the list of perennial sources or the archives, though I could have missed something. I would guess it should generally be avoided when possible, it doesn't seem especially high quality. It was used in a source on the page One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, citing a book review written in Tablet. And there someone put the unreliable source? tag. So I was wondering if it could be used as a source for its own reviews. Sorry if I shouldn't have put this here! Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I have now managed to find Tablet mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 431. With the heading "Tablet (magazine) and article by Wharton statistician". It appears to mostly talk about the study in question, with limited mentions of Tablet's general reliability, but I thought I'd mention it. There's probably other mentions too but it's a slog to find them. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)