🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_490
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 490

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 485←Archive 488Archive 489Archive 490Archive 491Archive 492→Archive 495

Tokyo Reporter

The Tokyo Reporter is used 136 times on Wikipedia, mostly about pornography and crime. The site's info page states that it offers "salacious news bites on crime and culture from Japan." I didn't find a staff page on the site but it appears to be run by a single person. He has written for other reliable sources, but I think this site falls under WP:SPS. मल्ल (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism falls under WP:TABLOID, so it would make sense for sources based on such reporting to be treated similarly unless they show evidence of doing additional fact checking on the original reporting. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:48, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
It's not a self published source.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/japans-most-salacious-crime-news--and-the-american-who-publishes-it/2016/04/21/150720b2-0740-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html
Washington post wrote about it.
Tokyo Reporter#The Tokyo Reporter
The journalist who runs it also writes for New York Times.
It seems to not have any unverified events at least. 61.45.122.36 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The Washington Post article (archive for anyone needing it) makes it clear that it is self published. "He trawls through Japan’s weekly tabloids in search of juicy tales about the Japanese mafia, its roaring porn industry and steady stream of macabre murder cases. Then he translates the stories and posts them on his site."
If the site is posting translations of other sources I would suggest just using the original source, sources don't have to be in English. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:40, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Great, but some japanese sites have locks on their archive and require subscriptions to reach archived news, so this might be ok to use in special cases if the Japanese original news is behind a paywall? 61.45.122.36 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Skimming a few recent articles I would say no, the articles only cite the publisher and not the specific article, it would not be appropriate to use them as a translation or mirror source. Jumpytoo Talk 04:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:PAYWALL, one should not reject a source because it is behind a paywall. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Do we know if Tokyo Reporter has permission to publish translations of these paywalled articles? It would seem rather strange for companies to paywall articles and then let a third party translate and publish them for free. Unless we know that they have permission to do so we should probably not link to them at all, per WP:COPYVIOEL. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I've been working on Manon Lescaut and Adaptations of Manon Lescaut, both of which currently cite some info from this article by the English National Ballet. I've been asked to get some consensus about whether this is an appropriate source for FA or FL. They've collected a lot of details on different adaptations; it would be possible but kind of annoying to re-source it all individually. This is my first time posing this kind of question at RSN so let me know if I'm doing anything wrong.

To carry over some of the discussion that already occurred at the Peer Review: the main concern raised is that the url marks it as a "blog" post, and it's not a recognized publication venue. Personally, I don't feel like it's exactly a blog in the WP:UGC sense: it's published by the professional media team of the English National Ballet, and they appear to often write about dance/performance history in their "news" when they promote related productions (like this article about Giselle). Since the ENB is a non-profit cultural institution, I'm willing to consider them subject experts. I'd feel even better about it if it had a byline, but that's the case I'd make for it, anyway.

Since they are typically promoting their own performances, I'm not asking if this would contribute to notability, just whether it's sufficiently factually reliable to be a high-quality source for FAs or FLs. Thoughts? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

They're obviously not independent, but I don't see why anyone should doubt their reliability. I don't believe these are blogs in the meaning of WP:BLOGS, these are articles by ENB. I think the 'blog' in the url is just how the website is structured, rather than showing these are blogs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hypebeast as a scource

Is this article from Hypebeast (company) an RS for Mia Lee.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

From searching the archives, this publisher was previously discussed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 340#hypebeast.com. Left guide (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
It's an interview, so not independent but reliable for her replies. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

dailynk.com

This source is used 393 times on Wikipedia. According to them, they are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Another link. They post only negative news about North Korea and are clearly used as a propaganda tool of the United States and South Korea.

The source came to my attention because of a recent news story they published, where they wrote that North Koreans aren't allowed to say "I love you" to each other.

I don't think this source is suitable for use on Wikipedia. TurboSuperA+[talk] 02:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide any specific evidence of unreliable reporting? Also, the article you cited does not actually state what you claim. - Amigao (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes:
DailyNK, the Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG), and the South Korean government all fraudulently claimed the law allowed executions of consumers of forbidden media. The Diplomat (this source actually lists several examples of DailyNK not being factual, I just chose one)
and
We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the use of anonymous sources and information that cannot be verified. Media Bias / Fact Check
Also, the article you cite does not actually state what you claim.
Which one? TurboSuperA+[talk] 03:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
WP:MBFC is already a WP:GUNREL source and does not fly for establishing unreliability. We also need something a bit stronger than just an opinion piece published in The Diplomat for evidence of unreliable reporting. - Amigao (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
WP:GUNREL applies to sources used in articles, it doesn't apply to talk page discussions.
We also need something a bit stronger than just an opinion piece
Two things: 1) Are you disputing the author and saying that the law in question does in fact allow executions for consuming media? Because that is what this is about, whether the DailyNK is factual. You're attempting to move the goalposts.
2) What do you mean by "a bit stronger"? Be precise so that you can't move the goalposts again. TurboSuperA+[talk] 23:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
To be more specific, can you provide WP:RS-based evidence (preferably from WP:GREL or even academic WP:BESTSOURCES) that address the reliability, or lack thereof, of said source? For instance, it is worth mentioning that DailyNK has been used by others for many years by WP:GREL sources such as WP:REUTERS, WP:NYTIMES, WP:THEECONOMIST, and WP:WAPO for their reporting on certain North Korean issues (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).- Amigao (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
can you provide WP:RS-based evidence (preferably from WP:GREL or even academic WP:BESTSOURCES) that address the reliability
The Diplomat is listed at WP:RSP as GREL.
DailyNK has been used by others
Remember that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, because WP:UBO says: For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. (emphasis mine) DailyNK is always used with attribution and sometimes with a comment that the claims can't be verified:
1: The surge in rice prices, cited by DailyNK, a North Korean defector website (www.dailynk.com), ... This report also could not be independently verified.
2: This one only mentions DailyNK as a defector outlet, it doesn't actually cite it for any information or facts: Other information comes from defectors and refugees who have left the country, outlets like DailyNK with contacts inside the country and public statements by relatives abroad
3: In this article DailyNK is used with attribution and its claim is immediately disputed.
4: According to The Daily NK ... The Daily NK site said.
5: This article attributes statements to individual people: says Lee Kwang-baek, the head of DailyNK and of UMG. ... As Lee Chae Eun, a North Korean escapee journalist at DailyNK, puts it ... According to DailyNK... says Ha Yuna, DailyNK’s editor-in-chief
6: ...according to DailyNK,
7: DailyNK, an investigative website, estimates...
8: ...says DailyNK, a news outlet with informants there.
9: DailyNK, a Seoul-based news outlet, reported...
10: This one doesn't mention DailyNK.
11: according to DailyNK
12: DailyNK published an article Thursday that claimed...
Thank you for finding those links, because they show that in every single case where DailyNK is used it is used with attribution. This means that the RSes who use them are not sure that what DailyNK is saying is factual.
Furthermore, North and South Korea are technically at war. We wouldn't use Russian sources on internal matters in Ukraine, we wouldn't use Indian sources on internal affairs in Pakistan, so why is it acceptable to use South Korean sources on North Korean matters? DailyNK is specifically an anti-NK and pro-SK source. While bias is allowed, we should be aware that DailyNK exists only to report on North Korea, so it isn't biased in the same way that the Jacobin is, for example. At the very least, if DailyNK is to be cited on Wikipedia, its claims should always be attributed, and extra care should be taken when it is being used for claims about North Korea that no other outlet is reporting independently. TurboSuperA+[talk] 02:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
How exactly would we know if they were using it if they weren't attributing it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
It is how they are used: every single claim is attributed, the claims are not central to the article, sometimes the source comments that the claims could not be verified. Can you tell me why you think DailyNK is factual?
In the previous RfC most editors commented that DailyNK is not reliable and that additional considerations apply, I am not sure why it was closed as "No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" when there's a consensus that claims should be attributed to them, at least.
I think it is time for a new RfC. TurboSuperA+[talk] 07:34, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but if they were being used in any other way, we would have no idea. If they hadn't attributed it, we would not know, because we are not psychic. If the NYT looked at them for some mundane detail about NK and didn't attribute it, we would not know! How would we show use by others WITHOUT attribution?
There really are no generally reliable sources on North Korea. In an ecosystem where you can be imprisoned for speaking out, you cannot use freely spoken sources, which makes all originally reporting sources about NK marginally reliable by default. However, I do not think this is worse than the rest.
The last RfC had few comments and weighing the actually comprehensive ones it comes out to about even I think it's an accurate reading of the discussion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
There really are no generally reliable sources on North Korea. In an ecosystem where you can be imprisoned for speaking out, you cannot use freely spoken sources, which makes all originally reporting sources about NK marginally reliable by default. However, I do not think this is worse than the rest.
We shouldn't be adding unreliable and poorly sourced information to Wikipedia, full stop. Just because "there are no good sources" that doesn't mean that dubious claims get to be included.
think it's an accurate reading of the discussion.
OK, so we at least agree that claims from DailyNK should be attributed, per the RfC? TurboSuperA+[talk] 08:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's generally unreliable. I think it is perfectly fine to use in many cases.
If it's anything contentious, sure. If it's like "NK built bridge" or "NK built a park" (see below example), probably not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • In the article Capital punishment in North Korea Daily NK is used as a source for the alleged executions of a number of "unnamed men and women".
  • In Dog meat it is used (with attribution) to say that the North Korean government fixed the price of dog meat.
  • In Pyongyang it is used (without attribution) to say that supporters of Kim Jong Il said that Seoul should be called "Kim Il Sung City" and Pyongyang should be called "Kim Jong Il City".
  • It is pretty much the only source cited in the section Human torpedo#North Korea, without attribution. The other source (used once) is the Chosun Daily, which cites a blog written by a defector.
A lot of the times the Daily NK is used for uncontroversial statements or it is cited alongside another source, but some of the time it is used for claims that no other source is reporting on. This is why I think it should be a "considerations apply" source, with special attention to be paid to whether they're the only ones reporting/claiming something, and to make sure the source is attributed when used. I think that is reasonable and in line with how we handle sources of similar quality/reliability. TurboSuperA+[talk] 08:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
This is how journalism works; it's not like Wikipedia or textbooks, where sources are shown using footnotes, or papers where you might use parenthetical references. This means they nearly always use "According to X source", "Y said", "Z wrote A; A has not been independently verified" to cite where they got their material. I haven't looked into the actual source (Not my area, though I tend to trust Parakanyaa's judgement) but this line of argument is a non-starter. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
They don't always attribute a claim, not when the news article treats the claim as fact. Only opinions are attributed. Take for example this paragraph from a Guardian article:
The rioting was as surprising as it was appalling. It was mostly carried out by local people who were not members of formal far-right organisations. Some rejected the far-right label, carrying banners that read: “We’re not far-right, we’re just right.”
Notice how the fact that they were not members of any formal far-right organisations is underlined with a link to the source? They didn't write "according to Hope Not Hate" because they believe they are relaying a fact, and not an opinion. That is called saying it in their own voice.
On Wikipedia, we distinguish between attributed claims and claims in one's own voice, both when analysing what a source says and when writing Wikipedia articles. TurboSuperA+[talk] 02:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
This article on the homepage seems pretty positive to me. Of course given the reliance on anonymous (by necessity) sources, editors should be cautious for using it for controversial statements. Ca talk to me! 13:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The issue with North Korea is that generally recent news/information only goes to the outside world if the government publishes it, or through anonymous sources/defectors. There is no way to independently verify unless you just so happen to have another anonymous source that also happened to be there. And articles that rely on a anonymous source are more likely to have errors.
That being said, I think with care it can be used with attribution simply because its the best we will get. As others mentioned, care should be taken with controversial statements, and editors should be careful to avoid taking one off incidents and conflating it to a country wide policy (ex. the I love you article only cites a single incident. There is nothing else to support that it is a nationwide crackdown and not the officials at the factory having some unrelated beef with the victim) Jumpytoo Talk 05:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Reporting in North Korea is always going to be difficult, due to the near impossibility of confirming anything. Socialist critique of capitalist commercialisation of love is a real thing, and youth groups in cults of personality are usually the most ardent. So is it believable that something like this could happen, maybe, but as Jumpytoo even if this is actually true it's one event in one factory.
Other reliable sources use DailyNK as a source, but usually do so with attribution again likely due to how difficult it is to confirm events from with North Korea. Caution and attribution of anything contentious is probably the best idea, and when it comes to minor events just because something is reported doesn't mean it has to be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The White House

I feel this has been overdue for a bit, but I think the reliability of the White House, specifically the second Trump presidency should be questioned. The thing that did it for me was the whole transgender rat thing that got reported a while back. Just want other editors opinions on this. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The White House will always self promote, regardless of who the occupant is, and it should not be considered RS except maybe for press releases of appointments and such. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Was there ever a time when white house wasnt strictly political?
the real question is other orgs under the executive branch, esp. under the current presidency Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Have we been using the White House as a reliable source for anything that isn't WP:ABOUTSELF? If not, we do need to generate a solution to a lack of a problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think there is a WP: on it somewhere that its only usable for ABOUTSELF. Metallurgist (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Governments are generally only usable as WP:PRIMARY sources for their own statements and positions anyway. That's not something unique to this administration or government - they're simply not structured like a RS due to the lack of editorial controls and fact-checking, and none of them can really be said to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In some cases individual parts of a government might be reputable if they have clear independence and a reputation themselves, but because governments change hands frequently even that is a fragile thing - any hint that a new administration is doing things that would threaten their independence or change the core policies that earned them their reputation would prompt a re-assessment. But a government itself? It's not a RS and isn't generally even attempting to be. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Is anyone on Wikipedia attempting to use WH statements as RS? Cortador (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Sure, e.g. for List of presidents of the United States, West Wing, Macon Phillips, and various articles about who's in what office. In general I'd regard it as a bad idea to declare a source questionable because of its publisher, that's only one possible evaluation factor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, attempts have been made to use questionable statements as facts using the WH as a source. An example is stating that antifa is officially declared a domestic terrorist organization. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. Honestly we need to be treating the White House as WP:GUNREL. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,
This is my first time using this noticeboard, so apologies if this is the wrong place for this question.
I recently stumbled across the Naval Cover Museum while conducting research for USCGC Dione. I was interested to know if the website would be considered reliable or not. I've found this list of contributors who seem to largely have some form of qualifications. I'm most interested in Greg Ciesielski, as he wrote the website's entry for Dione.
I am mostly interested in its note that Dione was awarded the American Campaign Medal and the World War II Victory Medal. I cannot seem to find this information elsewhere on the internet. I know other ships that participated in World War II received awards including the two mentioned above, but again, I cannot find any other mention of Dione receiving the two awards on the internet.
Would this website be considered a reliable source, especially for a piece of information that I cannot find anywhere else? PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 19:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Seven News Australia (7NEWS)

Hi,

I wanted to double check 7NEWS and realized that despite a well crafted article that states they're the highest rated show in Australia, there have been no discussions about them as a source. Based on what I can see, they appear to be generally reliable, but could some editors weigh in as to their assesment? Especially Australian editors?

Thanks! Crs5827 (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Being highly rated doesn't necessarily equate to being reliable. I use them sometimes, but if there are better sources available (e.g., ABC News (Australia), The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald) I use them. TarnishedPathtalk 22:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I asked! It might be correlated, but also might not. And I can't find much available that discusses 7news's reliability in either direction. I just included that they're highly rated because it was surprising to me that the highest rated channel in AUS hasn't been discussed at all. Crs5827 (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
@Crs5827, in additon to what @Boynamedsue discussed below. There was also a situation, in which Seven taking part in the culture wars, championed the cause of alleged rapist Bruce Lehrmann by having a feature interview with him; paying him for the interview, including by provision of cocaine and hookers and then lied about paying him. See https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-05/lehrmann-defamation-seven-network-spotlight-reputation-damage/103667290 for an example of the blowout. TarnishedPathtalk 08:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll give this a read. Crs5827 (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
7News didn't cover itself in glory during the African gangs moral panic, I would use with care on that topic. That goes for most Australian media though...Boynamedsue (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, to give more context about a specific incident, they framed a meeting of far right extremists setting up a vigilante group (my bolding) “They have come together to help average Australians deal with what they are calling an immigrant crime crisis,” the report said. “They’re hoping to create a kind of neighbourhood watch.” and then when challenged on this stated Seven News has reported on many meetings in the past couple of weeks held to discuss the African gang violence crisis, including governments, community leaders and police. Sunday’s meeting was newsworthy, so it was reported.
Reliable sources (and sources like the Victorian Police force) are exceptionally clear that no "African gang violence crisis" has ever existed in Australia. Given this extreme bias and anti-factual statement, they should be treated as unreliable for race and crime in Victoria between 2016-2018 and should be used with care on race and crime in general.Boynamedsue (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
This is good to know. Thank you! Are you aware of any fact checks published by other outlets you could include here? Crs5827 (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
There's a lot about this specific incident, some of it in academic sources, for example this one. This one is more general on the panic and mentions Channel 7, but it's paywalled and I don't have access so can't vouch for it.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Yikes. That's quite disturbing, but not surprising unfortunately. I appreciate you sharing it. Crs5827 (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
No problem, like I say though, it does not discount it as a source. But for older stuff, we should be looking for non-news sources in any case, and for newer stuff, per @TarnishedPath:, we need to be careful on culture war type articles. I've also seen criticism of its coverage of trans issues, but that was from an advocacy organisation. Even so, it would suggest the existence of a POV (which in itself does not disqualify, but needs to be considered). I think attribution in these controversial areas is going to be a minimum.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
In general I avoid usage unless there are no other sources. TarnishedPathtalk 08:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
The second one via Informit is from Green Left and is therefore also available online: Crnogorcevic, Leo (27 July 2018). "African gangs scare campaign: there must be an election coming". Green Left. No. 1189. ISSN 1445-4556. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Crs5827 (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm skeptical about the statement 'no "African gang violence crisis" has ever existed in Australia' as an argument against a media outlet. A "crisis" is just a label, it's in the eye of the beholder. Alaexis¿question? 14:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I live in the concerned state and there was no crisis, only a moral panic driven by certain media outlets. TarnishedPathtalk 22:20, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
(Not an Aussie but down the road a bit). Just from their web site and a few sample articles, they look resoundingly average. Is there anything in particular that it's being used for that raises questions? Daveosaurus (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I agree, they seem average. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something? And was surprised they hadn't been discussed. I've come across them a number of times in a few articles i'm working on. I realized I knew nothing about them so searched the board and saw they've never been discussed on RS, and thought it might be good to rectify that.
Thanks for taking a look! Crs5827 (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
In general, if it's a news organisation we can treat it under the general guidance for that type of source (WP:NEWSORG). Time to publication is a factor, breaking-news is less accepted, exceptional claims would require exceptional evidence, and editors should take care to separate fact, opinion and analysis. I don't think this noticeboard would want to discuss every possible source out there, so there's not to much point unless there is a dispute on some specific claim or the usual practice of evaluating each source critically with consideration given to the more general guidance is clearly deficient in some respect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 19:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

There is an old saying on Wall Street: You never see one cockroach. If News7 has faked one story, they have probably done so a few times and may do again. I would banish them for good. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on this. They seem to vary significantly from the consensus so far at least, so it would be helpful if you could add more detail, and provide some clarity on which story you allege that they faked. Crs5827 (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
They paid for an interview, then said they had not. So they have no problem in lying through their teeth. That is enough for me. End of discussion. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I am new here, but my sense is that if you want an outlet to be banned as a reliable source, it's going to take more than that.
I don't agree with you or disagree with you. I'm just trying to get assesments on this source as I couldn't find much in my quick search prior to posting this. Crs5827 (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
@Crs5827, we do have RFCs to determine consensus sometimes after a source has been discussed a number of times. However, underlying any assessment of consensus is our guideline on reliable source which states that [a]rticles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
A source which pays for interviews, including by way of provision of hookers and blow, and then lies about it strikes me as antithetical to a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". TarnishedPathtalk 22:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good to know. I am, again, not advocating one way or the other. However if you and/or @Yesterday, all my dreams... wanted to begin an RFC I wouldn't want to get in the way, of course.
My comment was only meant to state that it seemed @Yesterday, all my dreams...'s comment was insufficient to create a policy of not using 7News as a source, not that I disagree (or agree) with the comment. Crs5827 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
@Crs5827, running an RFC on this page is generally frowned upon until a source has been discussed at least three times. Otherwise discussions here are general feedback on whether particular sources are reliable for specific usages. TarnishedPathtalk 01:09, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Celtic Warrior Workouts

Celtic Warrior Workouts is a YouTube channel with over 1 million subscribers, owned by Sheamus. Does it pass as a notable media for Filmography section of articles? This specific IP user has added it to several articles; e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]. --Mann Mann (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be asking whether Celtic Warrior Workouts should be included in the filmography sections of the Wikipedia articles of those involved. That is a completely different question than whether Celtic Warrior Workouts is a reliable source, which is really the only thing this noticeboard is designed to handle. Left guide (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
It is reliable only for the opinion of its creator. So if the creator says "the druids used to do Tai Chi", we can say "Shaymus of the youtube channel Celtic Warrior Workouts believes the druids did Tai Chi." but not "The druids did Tai Chi". However, the opinion of Shaymus is unlikely to be WP:DUE for any article as Shaymus is not an established expert on any particular topic, and his channel is not a reliable source. I would delete the additions, and open a discussion on the discussion pages of the relevant articles to see whether any independent sources have included mention of the relevant fitness instructors taking part in this youtube channel.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Afghanistan International

I'm currently doubting that whether we should trust this source, even though located in UK (Remember: We have The Sun listed in RSP as deprecated), there are some doubts on whether they could really describe facts on e.g. [6], where probably misreaded the UN documents which generally use "postpone" instead of "rejected". Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Although the UN uses postponed, it's true to say that the Taliban say asked for the credentials to be transferred three times and three time the UN hasn't granted that request. The more common way of saying that is that rejected the request, the UN is using diplomatic language but that doesn't mean that reporting on the events has to use that exact same language.
They appear to be a standard WP:NEWSORG owned by Volant Media[7] who also owns Iran International. They're reported as having Saudi backing[8] and are less than friendly towards Iran, but biased doesn't mean unreliable (see WP:RSBIAS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested How does this situation be different from applying US visas? For every US visa applicants, they're actually rejected after interviews when they got 214(b) or even 212(a) notes, but when they got 221(g), are they rejected? Really no, they are refused, but not rejected, they still have chances to successfully got visa after sending additional materials to embassy/consulate's e-mail, or probably they just need another interview. Another likely situation is just for our WMF, which applied WIPO observer status every year since 2020, still not successful, but did WIPO rejected WMF? I see nothing to support calling so: A/61/10, which didn't really say WMF has been "rejected" but rather "decision had been postponed..." WMF still have chances as per se.
From my first-hand view of this site, the Afintl looks like a word playing institution on reporting intergovernmental relationships, here's another example: China on Friday urged respect for Afghanistan’s sovereignty... But when reading MFA's conference remarks, neither Chinese nor English explicitly said "urged", they just said that China respects Afghanistan’s ... sovereignty and... Most likely, China eventually don't have interests on how other countries should respect those or not. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
News media summarises what they're reporting on, they do not have to quote everything. Afintl choice to frame it as rejection is biased, but not unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree ActivelyDisinterested's view on the news site - biased doesn't mean unreliable. While their words seem misleading (assuming that it is true), I haven't seen other signs of media manipulation exist, such as clickbait. I think the "word playing" issue can be explained by their media bias. Saimmx (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
@Saimmx So, add this source to RSP as No consensus? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
The RSP has a set of inclusion criteria, see WP:RSPCRITERIA, I doubt this source would meet those guidelines. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
If WP:RSPCRITERIA is the case, then I agree not adding Afghanistan International to RSP. Saimmx (talk) 05:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, for a record, I need to express my comment after seeing that the author suggested that the media is unreliable: I think Afghanistan International is generally reliable, since it fits "a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team". I don't think Afghanistan International is WP:QUESTIONABLE just because of the wording issue as the author suggested: So far, most editors agreed their use of "rejected" is appropriate, at least not inaccurate. Saimmx (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Is BNamericas a reliable source?

BNamericas seems to be used as a sources in about 247 articles in Wikipedia [9], including some high level entries like the articles El Salvador, Venezuela, Belize, Nicaragua, Tijuana, Brasilia etc. BNamericas has news and content in English, Portuguese and Spanish.

From what I have read (Spanish and English) BNamericas provide reliable information and I have not detected any bias other than the slight business-positivity found in most outlets that are not aligned with left-wing or green politics. My impression is that BNamericas operates similar to Wood Mackenzie but with a geographically-limited scope rather than an industry-limited scope.

That is my impression, but it would be good to have others opinions/evaluation on the matter. Ingminatacam (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there any current disagreement about the source? It should be reliable in it's area, that's to say business and economics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
User:Ca rejected Draft:Grupo_Minero_Las_Cenizas writing this "More in-depth sources are needed. Additionally, bnamericas does not seem reliable.". Ingminatacam (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Ca what's your thoughts on bnamerica? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
bnamerica seems to be one of one of those company directory websites which pull their data from who-knows-where. In any case it is of limited use to the draft article as it is a simply a company directory service, with no in-depth coverage of the company. Ca talk to me! 13:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Ca, have you actually read the articles of BNamericas? It contains both basic information about companies as well as more in depth analysis on current business developments. Just because an user does not know where they collect they data from ("which pull their data from who-knows-where") does not mean its not reliable. Seems like a classic example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ingminatacam (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I have taken a deeper look into the source, and I should not have dismissed it so quickly, given that it seems to have long history and produces more than just company directories. That said, I would say knowing "where they collect they data from" is quite important. If they are simply pulling data from official websites, it is of no use citing BN americas instead of directly citing official websites. I did not really see any WP:NEWSORGs citing the platform. THe best I could find is mining.com. In any case, the page only has one paragraph of coverage on Grupo Minero Las Cenizas. It could be easily replaced. Ca talk to me! 11:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC: encyclopedia.com

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Result is Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply, and the specific considerations are what the original source for the content was.

There is a clear consensus that Encyclopedia.com is a content aggregator, they don't write their own work. The various people in the discussion agreeing with that use that information to grade them between 1 and 3: I count 4.5 1s, 13.5 2s, and 4.5 3s (approximately, there are many '1 or 2', '2 or 3' opinions), so a clear supermajority of opinions for 2, but let's focus on what we have agreement for. There is general agreement that most of the sources Encyclopedia.com uses are respected and reliable (with a few exceptions such as various encyclopedias of spiritualism); and that they are reliable for that aggregation (with the exception of the discussion nominator who is not sure); and others brought up that many of those respected and reliable sources are difficult to access otherwise, so Encyclopedia.com is a useful and usable convenience link.

So, editors are encouraged to look for the original encyclopedia source of the Encyclopedia.com article and use that as the reference with a via=encyclopedia.com parameter or "via encyclopedia.com" in the reference text. (I can find this source under the “ or double quotation mark icon "Cite this article" link at the upper right of most Encyclopedia.com articles, others said they could find it under the horizontal line following the article. This is not the same as the individual mostly non-encyclopedia sources sometimes listed in various formats at the end of the article; for example the Jenny Randles article the nominator uses for their first example is from Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology not The UFO Encyclopedia leading the entries in the Sources section.) Existing references to Encyclopedia.com can similarly be converted - not deleted! - in this fashion. Then that original source can be questioned if needed, for example I see multiple users saying Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained seems less reliable than other sources, including other Gale encyclopedias which seem more reliable. --GRuban (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Is encyclopedia.com ...

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Survey (encyclopedia.com)

  • Option 3 Encyclopedia.com is a content aggregator. It may be a good source from which to identify sources, but in no case should it be used to directly reference content. A cursory review of some of their entries exposes deep problems if we simply port them over directly as references:
  • This entry [10] on UFO enthusiast Jenny Randles we're using to source her biography. It is based off four books by Randles herself, and a fifth book by ghost detective Jerome Clark.
  • This entry [11] is merely a reprinting of the Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained. If we use it as a RS we will be greenlighting the introduction of assertions into Wikipedia like "[once] a necessary degree of telepathic affinity [occurs] ... a real ghost can appear".
  • This entry [12] makes the factual assertion that "Reiki is a gentle and safe technique, and has been used successfully in some hospitals."
  • Their article [13] on Uri Geller makes the factual assertion that "As a boy he performed feats of stopping the hands of watches through paranormal means."
  • Their article [14] on Lemuria is sourced to three books by noted crank James Churchward.
And so forth. Chetsford (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
@Chetsford, just a heads up that right now your survey response appears along with the RfC question at WP:RFC/A, as you posted them together (i.e., with only one signature under both, instead of separate signatures for the question and your response). FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Oops - thank you! Chetsford (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
This is like saying we can't use any Gale database (which we have access to through the Wikipedia library) or we can't use JSTOR because some of the sources they reprint aren't reliable. Jahaza (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
If an encyclopedia.com article is sourced to Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia, wouldn't it be better to just source Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia? Chetsford (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
That's exactly what I did, but I used the encyclopedia.com URL and put "via encyclopedia.com" at the end of the reference. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2/1ish. Encyclopedia.com is perfectly fine to use when and if it is simply republishing other reliable sources as Hemiauchenia says above. For example the 1911 encyclopedia, JE, etc. Andre🚐 19:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Many of its articles aren't simply republications. They're compilations of content from multiple sources and the specific content in an article drawn from each source isn't identified. So some articles are a mix of crank sources and reliable sources and the content is stirred together into one big bowl of slop. For instance, its entry for Chiropractic [15] is sourced to two references: The Oxford Companion to the Body (good) and Dynamic chiropractic today (bad). Chetsford (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't disagree but isn't that an argument to make it Option 2, not 3? It is sometimes OK, but not always. Andre🚐 19:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
"isn't that an argument to make it Option 2, not 3" Well, right now, you're leaning to Option 1. "It is sometimes OK, but not always." I could see a 2 argument narrowly constructed so that single-source republications where the single source is itself RS are usable, whereas multi-source aggregations are unusable. It's probably not an argument I'd support as my experience has been encyclopedia.com generally is not used in a GF way and the presence of an insane source republished on encyclopedia.com is used to rehabilitate and legitimize that source. But I could understand the argument at least. Chetsford (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 is generally reliable. I have not perused the whole of encyclopedia.com and I could concede that the % of reliability is unknown to me, but all the times I've used it for e.g. JE or 1911 type topics, I haven't seen a problem with it and it cites its sources and they are occasionally high quality academic sources. Which is why I am leaning 1ish because even an option 1 close is not a blanket endorsement as even gold standard sources often commit errors. as to your comment that it generally is not used in a good faith way, could you give any examples that would help? Because I am coming from the opposite type of familiarity with it as a source in different areas, ie old history stuff not chiropractors. Andre🚐 20:10, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
"I have not perused the whole of encyclopedia.com" A very high standard to !vote anything but one, indeed.
"even gold standard sources often commit errors" I sort-of don't feel we're risking unduly maligning a "gold standard" source in this discussion of "encyclopedia.com". But I digress. Chetsford (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say encyclopedia.com was a gold standard source. I said that even clear Option 1s are not perfect in all respects, and it therefore follows that a mediocre source that occasionally is unusable, could still be a 1ish. Are you saying that more than half of the content on encyclopedia.com is junk? I've seen it used a nontrivial number of times in a good way. Andre🚐 20:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
"Are you saying that more than half of the content on encyclopedia.com is junk? " I would !vote 4 if I thought "only" 49% of the information being pumped out by a single source was junk. Ainsi va la vie. Chetsford (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
OK, but like 4, 3 is tantamount to almost never or rarely using it, or presuming by default it should not be used for any purpose, including weight. Whereas in my experience it is a good guide for weight as a tertiary source that often cites other academic sources. An option 3 would trigger a mass removal of it for many benign things. Do you have an example of a problematic usage of it (as opposed to problematic content that nobody ever used because it was obvious junk)? Andre🚐 20:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this is correct. The Oxford Companion to the Body entry seems to be citing Dynamic chiropractic today in its bibliography, but there is not an entry on encyclopedia.com that is drawn from the text of Dynamic chiropractic today. There are also other entries in the encyclopedia.com article drawn from The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health: A Guide for Seniors and Their Caregivers and Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, 3rd ed. You can very clearly tell which reference work the entry is drawn from by looking at the very bottom of the entry under the thin grey line, just above the coloured line and cengage rating of the next entry (if there is one). Again, I think we should be citing the underlying source, and then using encyclopedia.com as a freely accessible link to the reference material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
No, every single entry on encyclopedia.com is from one encyclopedia. The citations are the encyclopedia entry's original citations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Also, further, disregarding the specific source, the entry on Lemuria and Mu would obviously be sourced to primary source works by cranks. What else would you expect? Is there non-crank primary research on Lemuria? If it was citing secondary sources, those secondary sources would be citing the same. When you get into research on fringe topics the primary sources will obviously be what they have written. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Lemuria was suprisingly originally a scientific hypothesis back in the 19th century, so yes, but your point stands for Mu. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, Lemuria as in the equally notable esoteric concept of Lemuria, which is so basically and baselessly divorced from its scientific origins that it is effectively a whole other thing; I meant in covering its esoteric conception. But yes I see your point haha. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
The Lemuria and Mu entry, and several others previously mentioned, are from Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained. It is the Gale encyclopedia that uses Churchward, rather than encyclopedia.com. Whether cited via encyclopedia.com or just from one of the physical editions I don't think we should consider Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained a reliable source.
Also some of the webpages at encyclopedia.com actually have entries for multiple different encyclopedias on one page. For instance the chiropractic webpage has entries for Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine Turner, Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine, The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health, The Oxford Companion to the Body, and College Blue Book (as well as four entries for dictionaries). Each of these is a superate entry, not just one source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't care or know whether that book is or isn't, it probably isn't, but any source that talks about the esoteric conception of Lemuria or Mu at all would cite primary source claims by people like Churchward, because that is inherent to the concept. No non-fringe writer has ever believed in Mu. I would expect any RS to refer back to the primary claims they analyze. And yes, that is why you should specify the encyclopedia you cite in the ref, it just sort of stacks them. But they are clearly separated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
So some articles are a mix of crank sources and reliable sources and the content is stirred together into one big bowl of slop. For instance, its entry for Chiropractic [61] is sourced to two references: This is not correct. The page has a number of different sources on it (more than two), but they are separated and labeled by source, not mixed together in a "big bowl of slop". Jahaza (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per Hemiauchenia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 encyclopedia.com is a collection of encyclopedias, some of which will be reliable while others will not. When referencing material on encyclopedia.com you should cite the original source, and include the URL to encyclopedia.com as a courtesy link noting that you've done so with |via=encyclopedia.com. This is the same way of doing things as MSN or YahooNews when they aggregate news sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
    Looking at the supplied examples I don't think Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained should be considered a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Are we sure of the integrity of encyclopedia.com in its republications? I've been leaning to moving to Option 2, but on further examination I don't think the re-publication integrity / accuracy of encyclopedia.com can be assumed. The entry on Jenny Randles [16] is sourced to Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. A review of the original source, however, finds no such content [17]. So, were I to adhere to the evolving principle here (attribute the quoted source and link to encyclopedia.com), I'd be introducing content cited to a false source. What am I missing? Chetsford (talk) 21:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
    Have you checked the other editions, perhaps? Andre🚐 21:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
    Might be due to differences in edition between the one encyclopedia.com is drawing from and the edition archived at archive.org. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Insofar as I can tell from Worldcat there is only one edition. This is made problematic a bit by the fact encyclopedia.com provides no other information on the provenance of its sources (i.e. author, ISBN, publication date, etc.) just a title that may or may not be shared by multiple publications. But as of now I have no idea where the content currently on encyclopedia.com for this entry is coming from. Randles is mentioned in multiple places in this volume, she just has no standalone entry. Is Cengage aggregating content into forms that don't exist in the original work (maybe by AI)? I don't know. This problem is putting the standard that's evolving here in tension with WP:V, in my opinion. Chetsford (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
This amazon.com book cover [18] says "fifth edition", implying there have been at least that many editions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe she was in early editions but was then removed from the 2000 edition that's present at archive.org. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Academic encyclopedias do this all the time, yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
So yeah, I agree that if they are somehow distorting in their publication I'd go down to a 3, but let's determine what happened there. I do not think Cengage uses AI, they are simply a republisher AFAIK. Andre🚐 21:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
"let's determine what happened there" I've tried running ten different, unique phrases from the encyclopedia.com entry through Google and each time I only get the encyclopedia.com entry. This level of ambiguity about the provenance or verifiability of a source seems extremely problematic for something we're rubber stamping through for a BLP. I'm extremely uncomfortable. It's entirely possible I'm missing something; encyclopedia.com's decision not to provide any information on the origin of their content other than the book title does create the potential for omission in a check. Chetsford (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
If you type "Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology" "randles" into Google Books you get back the 1991 and 1994 edition as others have noted below. So far, I still believe Gale and Cengage are reputable academic publishers, and encyclopedia.com leans to 1ish, but strictly speaking it is aggregating other encyclopedias and similar types of work that are mostly OK to use, so it is perhaps a 2 in that it can occasionally republish something not great, such as "Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained" as noted above. But a 3 is overkill as it would effectively force some reliable material to be made less accessible. Andre🚐 04:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
@Chetsford There were multiple editions of the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. She only had an entry in the 1991 edition, not the 2003 edition which is on archive.org. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
You can see the top of it here [19]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes sense then. This experience with the level of ambiguity and confusion that arose due to the paucity of information encyclopedia.com provides on the sourcing they're using has been deeply troubling and, for that reason, I think I'll rest at a 3 for now. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
The Randles entry in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (2001, 5th edition, Vol. II) is found here and here and here. A simple text query of "Randles, Jenny (Jennifer Christine)" in Archve.org reveals multiple copies. Surely we haven't forgotten basic query skills. Note also the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology is edited by J. Gordon Melton and others. Wikipedians shouldn't quibble if those editors use "bad", biased, or primary sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Option 1 as reliable as whatever the source book is, which is reliable 99% of the time since it is only sourced from academic books, but even in the world of academic books there are a few weird ones. It does not alter the content at all, but very annoyingly it never specifies which edition of the book it is sourcing from, and sometimes one edition will have something and the other will not due to content updates. But a free link is good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I personally avoid citing encyclopedia.com copies, for the sole reason that I prefer sources that have page numbers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I would not trust it, given that quality control issues are uncertain. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2: It's a web-based repository run by Gale of mainly originally print encyclopedia articles, including Encyclopaedia Judaica, Dictionary of Women Worldwide and Contemporary Authors. The fact that some encyclopedia articles may be less reliable than others, or that Wikipedians may dislike encyclopedias about fringe beliefs does not mean encyclopedia.com in its entirety is an unreliable source. In cases where a single entry consists of multiple articles (e.g. Chiropractic has 9 distinct entries), more care would of course be needed to ensure the intended article is referenced. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • 1 or 2. Basically per Animal Party. There is no claim they are not doing what they are doing, giving entries from various published encyclopedia. Did you actually look at how to cite it? Press the cite tab on the page for its suggestion. Any cite is going to cite to the the material via encyclopedia.com, and you can argue over whether that material belongs and it is going to vary (medical claims are widely different from other claims, for example, and exceptional claims are too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  • 1 or 2. Also, we need to re-write these categories, so that "3" sounds a lot more like "Routinely gets lots of facts wrong" than "Contains some claims that I disagree with", because it's actually true that "Reiki is a gentle and safe technique, and has been used successfully in some hospitals". Altmed techniques that do nothing are safe. Nobody has ever been harmed by having another person quietly hold their hands next to them, and when the medical problem is that the patient feels lonely and uncared for because the doctors and nurses are always rushing off to the next patient, or that the patient is feeling touch deprivation, then reiki is probably not only one of the safest nothings you can do, but it might also be effective at making the patient feel like someone's finally paying attention to them. Maybe someone should do a study on reiki for hospitalized patients in restraints. Having a hospital sitter say "Hold still so I can fix your aura" might be more pleasant for a confused patient than "Hold still. No, you're not in jail. No, you haven't been kidnapped. You're in the hospital. Do you want to watch some TV?". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 with the | via=Encyclopedia.com parameter when applicable, as in this simple one-author book template: <ref>{{cite book |last1= |first1= |date= |title= |url=[put encyclopedia.com article url here] |location= |publisher= |isbn= |via=Encyclopedia.com}}</ref> 5Q5|✉ 12:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Probably shouldn't be listed, Option 1 otherwise. As others have noted this is simply an aggregator which publishes no original content. Most of the content is sourced to academic publishers of well borne credentials such as OUP, CUP, Columbia, Gale and the like. Personally haven't come across any fringe sources in my extensive usage of the site. It's an electronic encyclopedia, so it not giving page no.s or editions is not really an issue as the online version of the data (from OUP, Gale etc.) it cites likely lacks those in the first place. Not going for option 2 as no broad usage of a fringe database has been shown despite some instances shown of the paranormal etc. being covered from the POV of its proponents, that is an issue with the sources themselves (academic publishers when compiling such topics in the form of encycs etc. also tend to do the same); here the fringe policy already applies to even the academic sources undergirding this aggregator. We really needn't list this at RSP though (as good as listing Google Books or The Free Dictionary), the issues with the underlying sources (mostly academic) can be considered separately. Option 3/4 will deprive us of much value, option 2 may lead to discoruaging users from citing academic content as such I cannot support any of these. Gotitbro (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
    And wouldn't you know it, recently happened to use encyclopedia.com to add info to John Mearsheimer from Contemporary Authors (not freely accesible anywhere else). Simply shouldn't be restricting source databases if the core WP mission of free access to knowledge is to be upheld.
    PS: Google was listing in its Knowledge Panel a random person as the subject's spouse. Added the correct info to the article and sent an error correction to Google both using encyclopedia.com. Gotitbro (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • No rating but add a note along the lines of "it's preferable to cite the original source of information. The reliability of information is inherited from the original source." Alaexis¿question? 20:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Chetsford. Also, its a Wikipedia:TERTIARY source, there should be actual secondary sources for any bit of verifiable data in the article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
    TERTIARY does not say that tertiary sources are unreliable or shouldn't be used. Andre🚐 19:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
    agreed, but if there is info we wanna cite to encyclopedia.com, we can just look up the secondary source it cites, and evaluate reliability of the secondary source. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
    You said that there should be secondary sources for every bit of verifiable data, and I don't agree. Primary sources may be used carefully, and tertiary sources may explicitly be used for analysis according to policy. Read again what it says about tertiary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source Policy doesn't lay out what to do when information is in a tertiary source but contradicted or absent in a secondary source. There are some situations where tertiary sources are less reliable than secondary sources, and some situations where tertiary sources are basically as good as a secondary source. For example handbooks and compendia where reliable academics write shorter treatments of their books or journal articles as chapters of a different work, the reliability goes with the author. Or some reference encyclopedias such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which are just fine to use for anything and are generally reliable and go toe to toe with journal articles, and provide detailed bibliographies. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others. Within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others. There is nothing in the policy that says you must replace tertiary sources with secondary sources for every single fact or analyte, as long as the article itself has secondary sources in general. Andre🚐 19:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
    Encyclopedia.com doesn't primarily cite secondary sources, it reprints tertiary sources, so you can't easily trace what it reprints back to secondary sources, even if you wanted to. You could trace what it reprints back to the original tertiary source, but it would still be tertiary (and in many cases, we'd still be using an electronic Gale reprint of a tertiary source that is originally a print source.) Jahaza (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
    ^ This. If Encyclopedia of Whatever is a traditional encyclopedia, it is a tertiary source, and it remains a tertiary source no matter how many times it gets scanned/uploaded/photocopied. See WP:LINKSINACHAIN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
    “You must buy a 200 dollar out of print book if you want to cite it, rather than use a free version from the publisher”. Also, most encyclopedias do not do that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3: The only way I can read Option 2 is that in some circumstances it could be ok to cite encyclopedia.com directly, without including a reference to an underlying source - which I do not support. However, I see a few !votes for Option 2 that include language like "When referencing material on encyclopedia.com you should cite the original source" - which I do support. Hopefully the closer can synthesize these Option 2 and 3 votes to reflect this overlapping perspective NicheSports (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
    When you are citing databases/aggregators like encyclopedia.com, the expectation is always that you cite the underlying source (the database can be mentioned in via/website parameters). We don't, for example, expect editors cite the Internet Archive but not the book/work itself! Gotitbro (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 encyclopedia.com is an electronic copy of encyclopedias from some generally reputable publishers. Of course there may be a few bad apples or outdated books but usually you wouldn't go wrong using them as a reference material. Editors should remember to cite the actual book as the source and only use encyclopedia.com as the courtesy link as per WP:SYNDICATED. I disagree with any other option because that starts implying that Oxford University Press, Columbia University Press, Cengage, and Gale books are unreliable, which is clearly bollocks. Jumpytoo Talk 02:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1/2 Ah the good old days. I think on some topics they are reliable. On others, less so. Encyclopedias on niche topics are often all that is readily accessible for constructing an article. It is preferable to dig deeper into the sources used, but that doesnt necessarily rule out the encyclopedia in question. They generally have strong standards and editorial review, even if certain topics may be sparse.Metallurgist (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Encyclopedia.com only hosts encyclopedia articles of varying quality. It is not a source in and of itself. The underlying encyclopedia should be judged. I would give the same rating as WP:ACADREP. ―Howard • 🌽33 09:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2/3 I see no reason to ever cite Encyclopedia.com when there are sources to cite directly instead. In my view, it's similar to citing a Wikipedia article that's referenced. Particularly if Encyclopedia.com has a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources they themselves are utilizing. That should be an instant non-starter argument for ever citing Encyclopedia.com. Cite the references it uses directly, particularly since you should be confirming what Encyclopedia.com is claiming is stated in those sources in the first place. SilverserenC 01:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    As far as I know, nobody has provided an instance of encyclopedia.com ever distorting a source that it cited. So I don't see why people should generally be verifying everything printed in it as long as the source it cites is a reliable one. Andre🚐 01:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Because it's free and accessible which academic books are not? Generally sources that people can read are preferred if they are free, legal, and identical in content. It is a 1-1 mirror of reference books, mostly from Gale Research, Oxford University Press, among others. That's like banning any digital source acquired through the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library because we can't be sure it's the same as the print original. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 per ActivelyDisinterested and Howardcorn33. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:55, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 I think it's reliable but acts as an aggregator. It mainly publishes articles from other sources. It can be used along with supporting references. I would not cite it as the main ref.
Definitely not Option 3 or 4 as I have not seen any evidence of them fabricating info.
Overall, I think it can be used as a quick reference but the cited sources on their entries should be used as the original sources. Frankserafini87 (talk) 00:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - As noted by others Encyclopedia.com is a content aggregator and it is not suitable to use some of its entries, which should be evaluated on a case by case basis and if better sources exist, they should also be preferenced. TarnishedPathtalk 08:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - Encyclopedia.com's certain entries seem non-academic and takes too informal of a tone. For example:This entry suggests that their editorial oversight seems minimal to non-existent. Besides based on the precedent established by WP:BRITANNICA, it follows that a seemingly lesser quality of a source than Britannica should also be cited with additional consideration and attributions. Kvinnen (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
    ....those aren't entries at all. They're site blurbs. it's just saying hey, here's what's on the website. There is no original content on encyclopedia.com. Encyclopedia.com is just a bunch of Gale and Oxford University Press books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 – Encyclopedia.com republishes other sources, and there doesn't seem to be significant doubt that it does so faithfully. As to whether those other sources are reliable, they have to be evaluated on their own merits. Without significant doubt that these are faithful reproductions, to decide that Encyclopedia.com is unreliable makes as little sense as deciding that the New York Public Library is unreliable because we don't believe all works contained in the library are reliable. Graham11 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (encyclopedia.com)

  • Comment. Considering that it's a tertiary source that specifies the source of each article (see examples in the voting section), why do we need to assess the reliability of encyclopedia.com itself? Alaexis¿question? 20:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
We have over 15,000 references to encyclopedia.com Links Spamcheck, so some kind of RSP entry telling people to cite the underlying reference and how to clearly locate what the ultimate source of the text is would probably be helpful, but given that it's come up before at RSN I don't think we need a full and complete RfC to do that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree. Something similar to WP:YAHOONEWS perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
There's WP:NEWSAGG but the language is tailored to news aggregators. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
To be honest, Alaexis that's long been my thought as well. But increasingly, and just again today, I've encountered situations in which the mere presence of an encyclopedia.com entry is being used to justify content even if it's just reprinting utterly insane, bonkers sources. Relitigating this matter every time that occurs becomes an incredible time sink that could be remedied by a simple, clear, and concise entry on RSP. An indexed statement as straightforward as User:ActivelyDisinterested's !vote above would be welcome (I prefer a 3 conclusion simply because encyclopedia.com seems to hoover up content in an automated fashion via Cengage, as opposed to the more deliberate way Yahoo News does, but would be fine with a 2 explained in the way they've laid out). Chetsford (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Alaexis. This is a bit like saying we should vote on whether Google Books is a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
We (I) should get back to the idea that RSP needs a "platform" category, so that we can easily say "Don't look at the URL – look at the actual source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Exactly, the website has always been a particularly useful reference work for me to see the general overview of a topic. I have always looked at what and who was being cited, the url is immaterial as a content aggregator. Gotitbro (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reassessment request: ettoday.net

Unless someone provides evidence against ETtoday's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it should be considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline.

— @Newslinger, on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_298#ettoday.net

There are serious issues of fact-checking and accuracy among most Taiwanese media organisations. Therefore, in Chinese Wikipedia, Taiwanese media organisations are marginally reliable by default, unless someone proves otherwise.

In Chinese Wikipedia, on a discussion of news.ebc.net.tw in 2024, a Eastern Broadcasting Company media, someone has cited their violations of journalism ethics, escapeilly on living persons. Other people also discuss their tendency towards sensational reporting (which is common among Taiwanese media organisations). News from Eastern Broadcasting Company is, therefore, marginally reliable in Chinese Wikipedia.

However, on Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide#Taiwan, news from Eastern Broadcasting Company is reliable per a discussion in 2020, causing my confusion on enwp's assessment under the influence of Cite Unseen. I, therefore, request a reassessment of news from the Eastern Broadcasting Company.

I would also like to ping @JzG, Feminist, and Newslinger: who has discussed ETtoday before, and @SuperGrey: who maintains Meta:Cite Unseen (a gadget that performs reliability of various sources), and is active on zhwp and enwp both. Saimmx (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

The article about Taiwanese mass media you link to doesn't mention fact-checking anywhere. It mainly discusses how public trust in media is low in Taiwan, which by itself doesn't have anything to do with reliability. Half of that section is also missing sources. And even if this was all true, making a blanket assessment that one source is unreliable because others from the same country are unreliable isn't helpful.
The discussion on Chinese Wikipedia you link to has screenshots of comments section, which isn't good enough for a fact check. The RfC was apparently about Afghanistan (linked by OP), and the article link is dead. I found an archive link, and the article is about a bridge collapse in Italy. I don't see the connection, or what the issue with that article was. Cortador (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
If you are interested in explicit fact-checking issues among mass media in Taiwan, you may want to read zh:臺灣媒體亂象 (lit, "chaotic appearance among Taiwanese media") in Chinese Wikipedia, escapeilly the "未經查證" (lit, "failed to verify"), "涉嫌扭曲原意" (lit, "accusions of distorting original meanings"), and "造謠爭議" (lit, "fake rumour controversies") sections. Of course, there are some issues with the entry, but it's a good start.
---
Take the "accusions of distorting original meanings" for example, the United Daily News titled "美智庫學者：下任台灣總統 須接受九二共識" ("The next Taiwanese President need to accept 1992 Consensus, said a scholar from American think tank") when reporting a video. The "scholar" here refers to Bonnie S. Glaser, who responsed, "How do I get UDN to retract the story? Which idiot wrote it?", for its misleading nature (In the original video, Glaser guessed that Xi Jinping would like to ask the next Taiwanese President to accept the Consensus).
The screenshots of the comments section are people who complained about something similar to what Dr Glaser has faced - This rider was charged 239 NTD (100 NTD as tips included) in 600 metres when riding taxi. When the rider complained about it to the taxi driver, the driver then reported to the EBC, and they "report" that the rider refused to pay the taxi fee. And this one, the news "reported" that a factory creating counterfeit products - the fact is, actually, the two companies have a dispute on trademark rights, but the news failed to verify it (and it leads to another issue of mass media - unbalanced report).
These incidents are only a tip of the iceberg. Such misleading reporting is common in mass media in Taiwan. Or even, outright fake stories by news media is not unheard of (zh:腳尾飯事件). Saimmx (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
And in the discussion, there's a "news" about "earthquake prediction" from an "expert", and the expert denied the report with anger. Saimmx (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
How does the reliability of United Daily News have anything to do with the reliability of ETtoday, an entirely separate source under separate ownership? feminist🩸 (talk) 06:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I am talking about the reliablity of mass media in Taiwan in general. Saimmx (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
You keep linking to Wikipedia article again and again here, which we cannot use as a basis to determine the reliability of sources. At most, we can use the sources they cite, provided they are themselves reliable and assess the reliability of ETtoday.
If you want a blanket downgrade of sources from Taiwan in general, which is quite the ask for any country that doesn't have fully state-controlled media, you need to make a really good case for it. Cortador (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the connection, or what the issue with that article was.
It is, yes, unrelated to Italy or Afghanistan - the OP is reporting another incident. The OP was watching ETToday news of a politician dressing in swinsuits from her Instagram feed, and the OP questioned ETToday's professionalism and taste of reporting. While others didn't see the connection as well, they cited many other issues from the Taiwanese media. Saimmx (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
How does this effect reliability? Cortador (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Let me think about it - when reading how editors disscuss about reliability of mass media in Taiwan, an editor has addressed similiar issue like you, while another editor addressed issues on fabrications.
It is hard to make a balance, but I think sensationalism and bias among mass media in Taiwan should be noticed, and the inconsistent reliability on ettoday.net of enwp and zhwp is another point I am currently concerned about. Saimmx (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question: how does this affect reliability?
The links you provide don't mention ETtoday. If they do, please point out where. Cortador (talk) 09:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Enwp and zhwp have different reliability standards. While sometimes the enwp is stricter (e.g., pen name = unreliable), sometimes it’s the reverse. I would recommend you focus on ETtoday and its reliability, instead of asking enwp to accept this generalized “default to marginal reliability” rating. SuperGrey (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
And since you mentioned Cite Unseen — Cite Unseen can display reliability ratings from zhwp when there isn’t a enwp rating. Therefore, if you use Cite Unseen to check their reliabilities, you don’t need to bring them up here. Only the enwp-rated sources need “re-evaluation.” SuperGrey (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, I get it, thanks for explaintion. I feel that the discussion is going to some weird directions. But now it makes sense because of different reliability standards among two communities. Saimmx (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia community generally does not make a determination about the reliability of all sources in a geographic area at once. According to the World Press Freedom Index's 2025 rankings, Taiwan is ranked #24 with a score of 77.04, which shows a higher level of press freedom than many other countries with mainstream news organizations that are considered generally reliable per the news organizations guideline, including the United States, which is ranked #57 with a score of 65.49. I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to consider Taiwanese sources (as a class) to be more prone to sensationalism than, for example, American sources (as a class). If there is a specific article on the English Wikipedia for which a citation to ETtoday is being discussed or disputed, we could make a more exact determination about reliability for that particular use case. — Newslinger talk 06:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I think I paid too much attention to poor quality among mass media without considering other factors such as their different views on different communities. Maybe it is best to discuss media case by case on the English Wikipedia, as you suggested. Saimmx (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC: UFO content creators as RS for UFO topics

I'm self-aborting this RfC prior to significant other editor participation to workshop and reintroduce based on early feedback from PARAKANYAA. Chetsford (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Q1:Under WP:FRIND, is material from UFO content creators a reliable source for UFOs and adjacent topics including physics, aviation, armed forces, engineering, astronomy, government secrecy, and the paranormal?
With respect to UFOs and adjacent topics (including astronomy, engineering, physics, and political science) are UFO content creators covered by WP:FRIND and should they be used only to the extent they "have been noticed and given proper context in mainstream sources"?

  • Yes
  • No

For operationalization of this RfC, "UFO content creator" means a person principally known for appearances in UFO-themed podcasts/documentaries/broadcasting; speaking at UFO conventions; or writing popular texts on UFOs. It does not include persons writing on the topic of UFO belief or its history, distinct from UFOs as an alleged physical occurrence. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC); edited 02:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Q2: Is Nick Pope a UFO content creator within the meaning of Q1?

  • Yes
  • No

Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Q3: Is Richard Dolan a UFO content creator within the meaning of Q1?

  • Yes
  • No

Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Survey (UFO topics)

  • On Q1 Yes Option 3.
On Q2 Yes. Nick Pope is best known for dozens of appearances in UFO documentary-style films,[20] as emcee of "Ancient Aliens: LIVE on Tour!" (part of the Ancient Aliens entertainment franchise),[21] his numerous quotes in tabloids commenting on UFOs, and his non-critical, popular texts on UFOs (see Amazon author page: [22]).
On Q3 Yes. Dolan has appeared dozens of times on Coast to Coast AM, [23] has written numerous non-scientific books exclusively about UFOs,[24] and appears at UFO festivals like Contact in the Desert. [25] Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC); edited 02:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Q1 - oppose the question itself. This is impossible to give a "generally reliable answer" to by its nature, or any universal judgement here. We cannot deprecate declare generally unreliable all people who have ever written in a topic area by the same brush. People in any field have dramatically different reliabilities and usabilities, and the phrasing here is not clear. Some write for university presses, some self publish, some may be widely cited by others, and some are not. "Principally known" is not helpful; if someone is notable for say, being a physics professor, but does alien stuff on the side, which is mentioned in no RS, are they "principally known" for aliens? I would say no, but you might say yes. It is not clear cut at all to say "persons writing on the topic of UFO belief or its history" because in many cases these are heavily connected or synonymous with the history topic; how would you cover the history without it? I really don't see how we would separate them, and anyone could quite easily wikilawyer this to say anyone the arguer doesn't like falls under this. Are skeptics not also "UFO content creators"? Why is appearance on a podcast our reliability metric? How many times do they have to appear on the podcast before their reliability takes a hit? The other two questions I haven't looked into and do not care what the result is as I have never seen them used. From what I know probably not great sources. All of the examples below of Pope being cited are very easy to remove (stuff like him including something in a top 10 listicle or Nick Pope Says this) PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
"We cannot deprecate" Just in point of clarification, deprecation is not an option presented here as there's no technical way to add individual authors to the edit filter.
"I would say no, but you might say yes." Yeah, that's pretty much how WP works. Disagreements are discussed until consensus is revealed. The RfC merely asks the question if our existing FRIND guideline applies to UFO content creators, and its passing would have the very modest effect of simply affirming they don't exist in some evolutionary mainstream category of "edge science". As to who is a UFO content creator, that will still have to be decided on an individual basis (through Talk pages, etc.) as the situation warrants. Indeed, this may be the most modest RfC presented here in recent memory as Q1 has will have no immediate effect of RSPing any actual source. Chetsford (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I meant it in the generally accepted sense, not the Wikipedia sense... which was probably not a great decision on the Wikipedia board where that term is most relevant. Lol my bad.
That is not what the RFC is asking; it is asking if this extremely broad swathe of sources, of widely varying reliability and acceptance, are generally reliable, unclear/additional considerations, or unreliable. Your definition of "UFO content creator" in determining this is not useful. We should be worried about whether the writer has a reputation for fact checking, acceptance by others, and accuracy; from what little I know of Pope, I would say he does not. Why bother with a whole other kind of source classification specific to UFO writers, if we are still going to do it 1-by-1 on who is reliable or not? What does this RfC solve? An "economization" of RfC time is not always good - every case is going to be different. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
(Good questions, moving my response to Discussion so I don't bludgeon this space.) Chetsford (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
With reference to the updated version of the RfC: I do not think the classification of someone as a "UFO content creator" results in increased clarity on their reliability, so I still oppose the question.
Do they promote WP:FRINGE theories on UFOs, especially if they lack other signs of reliability? If so, they should not generally be cited for that material. As for the question of if these specific two writers are reliable, from what I know (very little outside what has been presented in this RfC), the case for their reliability here seems to be poor. But whether they are arbitrarily defined as a "UFO content creator" may correlate with unreliability but it is not how we should be deciding who to cite. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (UFO topics)

  • This RfC attempts to economize RSN time by aggregating decision-making related to voluminous, running discussions about individual UFO content creators and intense disagreements as to whether they're subject-matter experts or not. Insofar as the two mentioned here go: we have previously and extensively discussed Nick Pope (e.g. [26] [27] etc.) and his various writings and other commentary are currently used as a source across the project (e.g. Ilkley Moor UFO incident, Ilkley Moor, Flying Saucer Working Party, Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena, Narrative of the abduction phenomenon, Time-traveler UFO hypothesis, etc.). Richard Dolan has been less extensively discussed [28]but his writings are also cited occasionally across the project. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
  • In resp to PARAKANYAA, "What does this RfC solve?" Excising even one of these sources that currently infect our encyclopedia prompts immediate objection and, often, weeks of drawn-out, emotive fights that are then ginned-up into elaborate, albeit hamfisted, off-WP canvassing efforts. As one of many examples, we currently cite Richard Dolan as the sole source for the claim that Philip Klass defamed Stanton Friedman. My recent attempt to remove that resulted in a prompt objection and I self-reverted. There exists a belief by some of our fellow editors that ufology has evolved into a mainstream subject of scientific inquiry uncovered by FRIND and people like Dolan and Pope are SMEs. While the very modest construction of this RfC may seem too understated for what we typically do at RSN, simply affirming that UFO content creators are covered by FRIND (leaving open the question of "who is") will be a minor help. No, it's not a fix-all so, for editors who want silver bullets or nothing, it may not be satisfying. Chetsford (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    I get that, but I don't think this will help the problem. This will result in just as long out and dramatic fights over whether someone fits these bizarre criteria, focusing on issues that really aren't of much importance or carry weight when evaluating reliability, like podcast or TV appearances, rather than the important criteria, whether someone has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. These also seem very easy to wikilawyer into both supporting inclusion of bad sources (hey, the man who thinks the US government is being controlled by The Greys has never been on a ufo podcast/tv show, he's reliable) and excluding decent sources (writer who is published by a university press, is widely cited and doesn't promote the subject matter appeared as a guest on some garbage history channel show in 2005, he isn't) - principally known is one of those phrases that can be wikilawyered into oblivion. And something like writing a "popular text" on the subject matter as a strike against it is just baffling to me.
    Also every single example you gave of Pope being cited is him being cited a single time, except for the "narrative" article, where Pope is cited a total of 3 times for minor, easily removable statements, and the FSWP, in which he is cited twice for opinions that shouldn't even be there and seems obviously removable. While I assume there are more, the citing of this man for such surface level statements does not strike me as a dire problem; should it be removed? Yes, But I don't see this as enough of an issue to form a whole new category of source evaluation.
    About the Philip Klass claim: this is one paragraph, in a very large section mostly cited to other sources, cited to a dead link from a publisher that does not seem great. I can't see where the objection was, but I don't think the dispute over a single author's usage on one paragraph is worth this extremely complicated categorization system. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure a Yes/No as to whether UFO content creators are covered by our existing FRIND guideline constitutes an "extremely complicated categorization system" but this may be a question on which we'll have to agree to disagree.
    "to form a whole new category of source evaluation" There may be some confusion here. The RfC simply asks formal community affirmation that UFO enthusiasts are covered by our existing FRIND guideline. No "new category of source evaluation" is being proferred. However, out of a preponderance of caution and to eliminate any ambiguity, I've modified the construction of the RfC since we're the only two !voters thus far. Chetsford (talk)
    Not addressing the new phrasing (I need to think on it for a bit), but as for the old phrasing, my issue was that wasn't this RfC was asking. The RfC asked if the entire kind of this source fell into a binary set of categories which FRIND did not mention, based on the classification of the writer being a "UFO content creator". New phrasing does not seem on the surface to have this problem so I will think on that for a bit before perhaps modifying my response. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DragTimes for car acceleration figures

For List of fastest production cars by acceleration, the use of DragTimes as a source has been debated. YouTube itself is considered generally unreliable aside from official accounts of otherwise reliable sources, but in this case I feel it is short on peer review, and the channel itself states "Videos on this channel are for entertainment purposes only and do not necessarily reflect real world performance". Additions to the page using this source often get reverted, then reverted back because the source already exists in other entries. As I've discussed in the past, like at Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration/Archive 3#765 LT new fastest car?, I'd like clarity on whether this source should exist on the page at all. --Vossanova o< 01:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The "entertainment purposes only" is probably just a legal cover-your-butt type thing in case somebody sues them because they bought a car based on their review and it went slightly slower. Otherwise they do seem to do things in a professional manner. They also show the official time slips, which adds a lot of credibility.
On the other hand, they don't say whether the cars are 100% stock or if they have any modifications (especially tyres and fuel) or if they have been lightened (eg removing spare tyre, removing passenger seats).  Stepho  talk  23:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think that the "entertainment purposes" disclaimer speaks for itself, regardless of what the reasoning behind it may be.
And more broadly, anything on YouTube is inherently a self-published source, so unless it's posted by an established organization (MotorWeek, Car & Driver, etc.) it doesn't meet Wikipedia's overall guidelines.
Given that, I'd say DragTimes shouldn't be used on the page at all. --Sable232 (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Is theweek.in a reliable source?

I saw this page being used for budget estimation of that film. Is it reliable enough? Babin Mew (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I've left a notification on WT:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force to see if they have any opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
No Indian website is entirely reliable, especially regarding fiscal information. Except Box Office India, but their coverage is limited to North Indian films. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Genuine question, why is no Indian website considered reliable other than the one you mentioned? (Arachnid's userpage | what did I do now) 08:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORGINDIA is likely something to keep in mind. - Amigao (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
ArachnidInner, because a lot of them have conflicting/contradictory information. Also, many cite Sacnilk, a non-reliable site per WP:FRUIT. Kailash29792 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Is Music Week considered reliable?

I read this page reporting about Lil' Wayne and YouTuber/musician CG5 having their songs available for game developers during the Game Developers Conference. Is this reliable or unreliable? Jibblesnark86 (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Music Week is IPSO-regulated (according to their site), names all their writers and editors, and the information in that article isn't anything particularly outrages. Seems fine to me. Cortador (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Funeral order of service

A date of death for Ricky Hatton, of 14 September 2025, has been sourced to this story at BBC News, which shows an image of his funeral order of service showing the dates "6th October 1978 - 14th September 2025". The BBC report itself does not give a definite date, but says only "The former world champion was found dead at his home in Hyde, Greater Manchester, at the age of 46 earlier this month." BBC News is obviously a reliable source, but is the image itself, attributed to "Frank Massey & Son Ltd" (presumably the family's funeral directors), also a WP:RS? I would argue that the image is either a self-published source and/or an unreliable source and that publication by BBC News does not confer any degree of reliability. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this kind of thing, but it's my opinion that it should matter whether controversy is reasonably expected. In controversial cases where a person's exact date of death has significant consequences, I think it ought to be "ironclad third-party references or nothing". But I don't think every case is like that. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Fair comment. But do you think an Order of Service, printed by a funeral director, is a WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
It is a self-published primary source. Self-published primary sources can be reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, they "can be reliable"? Is this one reliable? How can we tell? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I would not consider it reliable for the date of death. Go with what the reliable source (the BBC report itself) says. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. The Ricky Hatton article still boldly shows 14 September as a definite date, even without a supporting statement in the main body where the source is. I have deliberately withdrawn from the relevant discussion threads at both Talk:Ricky Hatton#Ricky did on Died 14th September 2025 and Talk:Deaths in 2025#Ricky Hatton, as I was being repeatedly accused of calling the family liars. So I am rather reluctant to make any more edits on this topic. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Journal of Scientific Exploration

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.
Option 4. All editors could have been satisfied by either option 3 or option 4, both of which had plausible evidence and argument. Slightly more are satisfied with option 4. -- Beland (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Is the Journal of Scientific Exploration:

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey (JoSE)

  • Option 3 or4. This Q4 journal [29] publishes the latest research into haunted houses. It has a well-referenced summary in our corresponding article about it that justifies this option. Contributors to the journal include a person [30] whose website we recently deprecated (WP:THEDEBRIEF). Some recent articles draw conclusions such as:
—"ghostly episodes are best conceptualized, researched, and addressed through a biopsychosocial lens and phenomenological approach, irrespective of the potential contribution of putative psi" [31]
—"A survey of modern-era field Egyptologists reveals a very high incidence of unusual deaths consistent with symptoms of haematopoietic cancer ..." and that this may be due to an "ancient curse" [32]
—If you cast a magic spell on water (AKA "informed water") there's a possibility those who drink it can be cured of COVID-19 [33]
Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC); edited 15:05, 4 September 2025 (UTC); edited 18:04, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
This looks more like an argument for option 4 than option 3. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
It might have some utility for social facts on the fringes but, you're probably right, and I have no particular objection to an Option 4 close. Chetsford (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (JoSE)

  • JSE has previously been discussed a few times here (1, 2, etc.) and is occasionally sourced across the project. I bring this up as there is currently a 1:1 AfD on a BLP (intentionally unlinked to avoid the perception of canvassing) in which one party is more-or-less insisting the non-listing of JSE at Perennial Sources makes it usable. While a RfC here may have immediate relevance, the occasional use JSE still gets across the project may give a definitive consensus more holistic utility as well. Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
    Leaving the AfD unlinked is probably a good idea, but if you haven't already you should notify the AfD of this discussion - so any participants there have the opportunity to have they say here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Have done. Chetsford (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Maybe you shouldn't link the AFD, but there's no reason for anyone to have to repeat the few seconds' work that it took me to find Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgina Bruni (3rd nomination). Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Though leaning 3 per the nom. But to choose between any of the four options, I need some clarifications. Studying fringe science itself obviously does not mean that those studying it are themselves fringe or publish such content. The current lede for the journal's publisher notes this to be the case as did the now redirected article for the journal (that it studies the subject) not that it promotes it. But from comments here I gather that this is the case. So is the majority of it devoted to the promotion of such stuff or it makes up only a small part of it and it actually does study fringe phenomenon in earnest? Gotitbro (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
  • If we set aside for a moment whether we believe the fringe theories or think they are important, the question is whether the journal is reputable. But reputable to whom? It:
    - has a long history of publication
    - is searchable through university library websites, Google Scholar, etc.
    - has an editorial board which includes professors at accredited universities (of which more below)
    - claims to be peer-reviewed, and I can't find anything saying it's predatory or lying about peer review
    - publishes contrary views and responses to criticism
    I was looking at the professors who have signed on and found this article about Idaho professor and bigfoot researcher Jeff Meldrum[36]. It shows the value of engaging with people who have ideas we might think are crackpot, as long as they show their work. A solution that leaves them completely out of the conversation is not good for the encyclopedia.
    In this AfD of an author, one question we have to ask is whether she is respected as an expert in her field. If we declare that the most reliable source in the field (I know, that says a lot) is not admissible to talk about her impact in that field then we can't have that conversation. Oblivy (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Catholic News Agency

This venue or source was vetted for its potential usability in this discussion, which accomodated it unproblematically with attribution. Its use has however now been contested at the Charlie Kirk page, here. The contested edit was as follows:

According to Bishop Joseph Brennan of Fresno a week before Kirk's assassination, Kirk had met him, and spoke about attending mass with his Catholic wife and children. In Brennan's view, Kirk was very close to converting to Catholicism. (Catholic News Agency article)

It is immaterial to me whether one wishes to accept Brennan's remarks in toto. What emerged from the discussion is that a majority of editors approve removing data that state (a) his wife was a Catholic (b) that Kirk occasionally attended Catholic masses (c) any mention that Kirk might have considered converting. (a) and (b) are commonplaces, and easily referenced from other RS. (c) Is what apparently annoys as a BLP violation from 'questionable' RS, mainly because the authority is a bishop cited by his brother, and another Catholic newspaper reporter. But the consensus is to throw everything out (a) and (b), even truisms, on the grounds (c) is unacceptable as either a BLP violation or unreliably sourced. (c) however is corroborated in part by Kirk's own words in an interview in 2021.

“Some of my greatest friends in the world are Catholic…I go to Catholic Mass every once in a while. I don’t take the Eucharist, don’t worry you don’t have to report me…The joke is that serious evangelicals become Catholic. And I’ve seen that happen. I’m open-minded, but I’m not there yet.” Jessica Kramer, Conservatism’s Inevitable Conversion to Catholicism, [37], at Crisis Magazine 16 June 2021)

I am asking for independent input on whether or not the Catholic News Agency is still reliable for such issues, as an earlier discussion suggested it was, with attribution. And whether Crisis Magazine itself may be used to the same end. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes and no. As written yes (in other words an attbuted claim) as a fact no. I think we can take it as read that the CNA will quote a Bishop accurately. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any problems with attributing it to Bishop Brennan. Though I wonder what arguments "the majority of editors" have against it. Alaexis¿question? 14:00, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
It struck me as more of an wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
No, not that, for the article is full of his attitudes to Islam, Evangelicalism, Protestantism and Judaism. My point is, why is a single reference to a Catholic nexus, his wife's Catholicism, his occasional attendance at mass etc, wiped out as 'trivia'?Nishidani (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Not really the place for this discussion, but I will give an answer. Because this is one Bishop's opinion of what Kirk might have done. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
For the record, as one of those suggesting that Kirk's passing comment to the Bishop was trivia, and undue, at no point did I "approve removing data that state (a) his wife was a Catholic [or] (b) that Kirk occasionally attended Catholic masses", and I would appreciate it if Nishidani stopped insinuating that everyone disagreeing with him over this is a part of some great anti-Catholic conspiracy. I made a comment on this particular content alone, as it happened to come up on my watchlist.
In my opinion, since by consensus WP:BLP policy also applied to the recently deceased, it is improper to take such a passing comment and present it as if it was evidence that Kirk intended to convert. Maybe he did, but until he had stated so directly, this looks far too much like an exercise in mind-reading, in a context where it might have been little more than politeness, or just musing about a possibility. In matters of faith, we require direct attribution to the subject, not inference from comments about things that might happen in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
They would be reliable for Brennan's words, whether that is due in the article will depend on how widely they were reported and how they were received. If this is the only source or other sources believe Brennan to be wrong, then the content may not be due. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • This is, as usual, a due weight issue and not a WP:RS issue. That said, I would say that it is undue here - WP:BIASED sources are usable but we need to take their biases into account in weighing them; if we give heavy weight something that is significant only to a deeply Catholic source, but not significant to other sources, we risk giving too much weight to that viewpoint. There's no particular reason why that viewpoint should be given so much weight on that article, so I would wait and see if the quote is picked up by other sources. A source affiliated with eg. Team Purple publishing a quote that says Team Purple is Awesome and Everyone Is About to Join It is inherently less weighty than it being posted by anyone else, because their bias naturally lowers their threshold of what it takes to make such quotes significant. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
The specific article fails WP:IIS because of conflicts of interest. CNA reports that a column was published by the LA archdiocese newspaper and provides a summary of it. It’s a generally reliable summary of what the column says, but the column itself is not notable because it is not independent. The column was written by a family member of the bishop. The family member author is involved per their own account as presented in the column: “To this day, I experience a special kind of joy when I learn of someone deciding to become Catholic, whether they be a celebrity or someone I know personally.” Mikewem (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree that in this case the question is more one of due weight/independence than notability... CNA is an EWTN publication and therefore is only marginally reliable... EWTN is a weird beast because they publish news but using a idiosyncratic biblical standard of truth rather than the sort of truth/factuality standard we normally encounter with news organizations, this will often lead to EWTN publications saying things that are bizarre and/or objectively untrue from a journalistic/scientific/medical perspective but are true in a theological sense if you subscribe to a particular brand of Catholic doctrine (even among catholics EWTN is rather fringe and controversial). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Yet RSN approved of using it in the one discussion we had, but that was long before the Charlie Kirk hysteria hit the fan.
I cannot see how WP:Undue applies, nor see the cogency of WP:fringe. Kirk was an outstanding promoter of fringe views and gave freely of his time to such networks. The core remark contested here was first alluded to by him in an interview he gave to the lunatic Church Militant in 2021.
To a text running to 10060 words I added a further 37 , i.e. 0.36%. Undue??
They spoke of something never mentioned in the text, his relations to Catholicism, as opposed to the two other branches of the Abrahamic religions. We have entire sections on his views re Islam and Jews Evangelicals
Of three items, two are indisputable, per multiple RS. That (a) his wife was a devout Catholic, and (b) he occasionally would attend Catholic masses. Trivia?
On the basis of the presence of a third item, his putative possible conversion, the whole text was wiped out.
That was very careless editing, because a tweak could easily have retained the 11 words on his wife's religion and his desultory attendance at mass. It is otiose to revert a complete edit when what you don't dispute can be conserved.
I am in principle opposed to conspiracy theories, Actively Disinterested. My mention of the anomaly of large space given to his views on his own faith brand, and Islam and Jews, versus the immediate expunging of that Catholic element, broke NPOV, apart from erasing mention of two issues he deemed important. Given my background (expelled for promoting 'atheism') it makes me laugh to have imputed to me a belief in an anti-Catholic conspiracy on wikipedia, or anywhere else.
Why is BLP invoked? Is it offensive to Kirk's reputation and memory to note his Catholic connections, as he himself did while alive. Bewildering.
Aquillon. Kirk was interviewed by a far right Catholic newspaper, and reported by Crisis Magazine in 2021 for this very content of his closeness to Catholicism. For all I know that kind of statement, as often, might be just politics, but his remarks stand. Many of Kirk's views are sourced to very biased outlets, as the page shows. I have deep respect for the several experienced editors contradicting me, but I don't think they are responding to the gravamen of my points, Alas. Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
But "he has a lot of Catholic friends" is very very far from "a Bishop believes he was about to convert to Catholicism." If the latter is WP:DUE, there will be more sources covering it than just Catholic ones; given the large amount of coverage Kirk has gotten in the wake of his death, a member of team XYZ saying "actually I think he was about to join my team" obviously requires a lot of WP:INDEPENDENT secondary coverage to be WP:DUE. If you want to write a more andodyne statement that he has praised Catholicism, find broader, more neutral sources and do that; the statement you are trying to add is much more specific and exceptional and therefore requires wider sourcing than seems to exist. It's not really that complicated - you clearly think the specific opinion expressed by Bishop Brennan is a big deal, which means you presumably believe it will eventually get more widespread coverage; if it does, that will make it obvious how due it really is. Set a news alert for Bishop Joseph Brennan and Charlie Kirk, and wait until that coverage appears, then add it to the article using that. You object to the large amount of text we give to his own faith and his views on Islam and Judaism -- but coverage for those things is broad (ie. we're not just relying on sources from within his own faith or from within Islam and Judaism), independent (ie. not written by a family member of the person whose statement is being highlighted), and WP:SUSTAINED, all of which establishes that due weight for them is high. Once sourcing like that covers this statement, it can be included. You say that you're only trying to add a brief sentence - but coverage of Kirk recently has been overwhelming; huge swaths of people have weighed in saying "actually Kirk totally supported whatever I care about." If we added every single such comment the article would be an unreadable mess. So we should wait for broad, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY coverage from high-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
@Nishidani: The 2020 consensus appears to have been additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts, I don't see any change there... Its still additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts. You seem to be ignoring the vast majority of that discussion and cherry picking only the one piece that slightly supports your argument... And then casting the aspersion that "but that was long before the Charlie Kirk hysteria hit the fan." as if everyone is actively changing their opinions about CNA because of what they said about Kirk... Completely inappropriate and you should strike. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
You wrote:'CNA is an EWTN publication and therefore is only marginally reliable. The 2020 consensus appears to have been additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts, I don't see any change there.'
[38] Catholic News Agency to be used for David Haas. Hass is a Catholic, and CNA reported in detail on him. It reported the embarrassing facts after EWIn purchased it, re Hass's predatory character, and outlined punitive measures adopted by the Church authorities.
I think this falls into the “best used with in text attribution” category. Reporting won’t be inaccurate, but it may be one sided. Blueboar
I would say it is probably reliable for fact. Buidhe
I would say reliable with attribution for statements by Catholic figures, handle with care for anything else,Guy
That was 2020. And that was what I checked before posting my edit on the Charlie Kirk page. CNA suddenly became totally unacceptable and unreliable. No nuanced reading and evaluation in 2020.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

casting the aspersion that "but that was long before the Charlie Kirk hysteria hit the fan." as if everyone is actively changing their opinions about CNA because of what they said about Kirk... Completely inappropriate and you should strike.

Stet. That's not an aspersion. An aspersion is a remark that damages another person's reputation. The hysteria around Charlie Kirk refers to the mediatic hullabaloo occasioned by his death, a fair description, and in no way can be construed as a reference to editors here. I don-t know how one comes up with things like the innuendo I am fighting an anti-Catholic conspiracy, or that I am smearing editors because I think the uproar over Kirk's death, like Diana's, is hysterical (not in the dialect sense of that adjective)Such misprisions are far too frequent in what should be closely parsed arguments on wikipedia, alas, in lieu of which bickering is baited. I'm no gudgeon.Nishidani (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Then what does "Yet RSN approved of using it in the one discussion we had, but that was long before the Charlie Kirk hysteria hit the fan." mean? Your use of "yet" and "but" seem to be suggesting things you now say they do not so lets get some clarity on this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Your use of "yet" and "but" seem (sic) to be suggesting things you now say they do not so lets get some clarity on this

Your sentence is completely obscure, since I don't know what is putatively being suggested. I can't be expected to provide clarity for a remark by another editor that lacks it. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm something may have been lost in translation... Lets just circle back to the main point, the 2020 consensus appears to have been additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts and its still additional considerations apply/marginally reliable in specific contexts unless I'm missing something... Consensus seems to be consistent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry Nishidani you've lost me, I don't see how my comment in anyway connects with conspiracy theories. Have you mixed up my comment with someone else? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
No need to apologize where I am the culprit. Mea culpa. I addressed you and alluded to the strange between=the-lines interpretations being given to my comments, such as AndyThe Grump's remark above:'I would appreciate it if Nishidani stopped insinuating that everyone disagreeing with him over this is a part of some great anti-Catholic conspiracy.' My apologies for creating your perplexity.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone contest that the bishop has stated this? Because that's really all the source is claiming. Cortador (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

CNA is part of the "Eternally Confused Network". At times they have argued that the world is 4,000 years old from what I recall. There should be no confusion about their lack of reliability on factual matters. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Aquillon.
A final note before falling silent again.
But I am not trying to add the Brennan quote. On the talk page and here I stated that the revert was flawed because, regardless of that anecdote (which began in 2021, not with Brennan's remark), he had a connection to Catholicism via his wife and his attendance of mass, in his own words. I again don't object to extensive mention of Islam, Judaism and Evangelism, but to rejecting an innocuous several words on his Catholic wife and mass attendance. That interests Catholics, and was repeatedly carried in their press, but that press is not 'mainstream, nor is 12% of the sourcing.

So we should wait for broad, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY coverage from high-quality sources

That is theory, not practice on wikipedia. The Charlie Kirk page has a large number ofsources that fail these criteria (Deseret News twice), The Arizona Republic 5 times, the large scale use of obscurer regional news outlets reporting details never taken up by the mainstream), and not a few are confessional, as is this Catholic source. But, back to the real world. cheers Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • This is an issue of WP:DUE (also WP:MINORASPECT and WP:VNOT), not of reliability. End of discussion. Not everything credibly reported needs to be shoved into a Wikipedia article. We don't need to vent our personal feelings about religious or conservative sources: that only gives more fuel to critics of Wikipedia looking for bias among editors. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
I am not Catholic, but as a pope watcher, I have read their content from time to time. They have solid reporting on issues in the Catholic world. If they are YECs or not is really irrelevant to their reporting unless talking about such a topic, which we wouldnt be doing anyway. That said, I am not sure a lot of this is DUE. He might have converted is irrelevant retro-CRYSTALBALL. I might have eaten a pizza tonight, but I didnt. Metallurgist (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Strictly Spoiler

I've been monitoring the Strictly Come Dancing series 23 article and noticed people have added the strictlyspoiler.com website. I've had a look at it and it reveals details about the results which this website appears to release earlier than the show's broadcast on Sunday evenings. I reckon this website should be considered an unreliable source. I also think as part of that claim is it might also be user generated. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s a blog, so not user generated, but definitely not reliable. John M Baker (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review

I am currently reviewing the article English claims to the French throne, which cites several books that are obviously reliable sources. However, I have doubts about four specific books:

As far as I know, these publishing houses do not employ a peer-review process, so I am unsure whether the above books should be regarded as reliable sources. I would be grateful for your comments on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Mortimer does seem to count as a subject-matter expert on English royal history for the purposes of WP:SPS; see examples like here or here, so whether the sources are actually peer-reviewed doesn't matter; we can count them as self-published. The Fears of Henry IV for instance returns 82 cites on Google Scholar, while The Perfect King returns 97. The Mortimer sources all seem fine at a GA level.
Heath on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. Google scholar returns 0 cites, neither monarchs' articles cite it, and there's plenty of scholarly sources available about both of them that could substitute. I would take issue with that one if I was doing a GAN review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Surely publication by Random House doesn't mean WP:SPS applies? It's one of the "Big 5"? DeCausa (talk) 08:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Sure, I'm steelmanning it: even if Random House had no peer review process at all, Mortimer's works would be fine because he's a SME. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah ok, got it, thanks. Never heard of "steelmanning" before but can surmise its meaning! DeCausa (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, Bloomsbury Academic (an imprint of which publishes Medieval Intrigue) says it's books are peer reviewed on its website here. DeCausa (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Mortimer's above books on Henry V and Edward III are respectively reviewed in these two works as part of surveys of recent historiography, both published by Yale:
DeCausa (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I understand that Mortimer's works are considered reliable, but Heath does not seem suitable for citation. I will keep this in mind as I complete the review. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

ADL removing content, following criticism on social media

[39] (t · c) buidhe 06:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This is about them specifically deleting their glossary [40], which being honest, was not very good and was, as they say, very often out of date. They were generally all really short (a paragraph at most) with no author, date, citations, or update history indicated and so were not very useful sources, so... can't say I'm sad to see it go. The ADL has a lot of good source stuff but this was always on the lower rung. We have 20 citations to it and all seem very replaceable. For an example, see this deleted glossary [41], versus the still-live backgrounder on the same topic [42]. The ADL also loves to randomly delete or "archive" (delete) stuff on their website, as does the SPLC, so at least they announced it this time.
Though the fact that this was all because of Kirk and because most people don't know what Christian Identity is... PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
A glossary is an index of words/terms regarding a topic with explanations. I don't think how the explanations being "a paragraph at most" is valid criticism here. Cortador (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
This is the reliable sources board for Wikipedia, where we are supposed to evaluate the reliableness of sources for our purposes, and their uncited, never-updated, undated and unattributed glossary entries were one of the least reliable or useful things they put out. It was the worst part of their website bar none and the fact that it is gone raises my opinion of their reliability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
So what relevance does the length of the entries have? Cortador (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Evidence they were not useful sources and so this isn't them deleting information that has much impact on us. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
It remains frustrating to see a once-valuable anti-hate org just torch their entire reputation. Simonm223 (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
How exactly does a glossary update equate to torching their reputation? Does leaving the outdated version somehow make it more reliable? DN (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
the glossary apparently debuted in 2022 according to link from buidhe. its hard to believe the claim it is outdated in 2.5 years. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't find it hard to believe. I looked at it quite a bit since I like to edit about far-righters. Its inclusions were very bizarre and iirc it included a some groups that were defunct prior to 2022 with little updates. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
other info:
A) Current consensus about the glossary was "In the 2024 RfC, there was rough consensus that the ADL's hate symbol database is reliable for identifying the existence of a symbol and for straightforward descriptive facts, but not for more complex details such as a symbol's history. In such cases, in-text attribution to the ADL may be advisable."
B) we basically replicate that database here List_of_symbols_designated_by_the_Anti-Defamation_League_as_hate_symbols
to confirm, are these the same thing as the glossary mentioned here?
EDIT: Nope, I was wrong, this is the hate symbol database, which appears to still be up User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
No. The hate symbol database still stands. The glossary was fairly recent, started in 2022, and was just textual entries on a variety of things, including racist murderers, racist groups, random concepts, etc. The glossary had most of the same problems that led to us declaring the hate symbol database questionable (unmarked dates, no sourcing/no listed authors, no proof it was ever updated, often wrong), but we did not discuss it there I don't think. IMO it was even worse because the hate symbol database was at least a kind of classification, provided some kind of visual evidence of its usage, and was more detailed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Publifye

This is just a note about a new publisher Publifye. They should somehow be banned, but I am not sure how. They publish AI generated books, aplenty. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There's no technical solutions for publishers. At least they're open about their AI use, their books include a disclaimer - "This book was created with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) tools, ..." -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
We could put publifye.com on the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Please Just do it. And be prepared for that list to grow. Alas, there will be many more to come. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Nutrients

The journal, Nutrients (journal) is indexed in Medline, but when I was reading a review article on diet in epilepsy I was struck by its colloquial tone and grammatical errors:

  • Anyway, no death was directly attributed to the dietary regimen
  • However, many KD variants exist, which differ to each other for macronutrients composition, fat to carbohydrate plus protein ratio, palatability, and management of the diet.
  • Given the beneficial clinical results regarding efficacy and safety, neurologist should be able to refer appropriate patients...

I noticed Nutrients (journal) mentions that in 2018, 10 senior editors resigned, alleging that MDPI forced the replacement of the editor-in-chief for resisting pressure to "accept manuscripts of mediocre quality and importance.

Since then I have looked into other articles using Nutrients, and the first two that I have found appear questionable:

  • Australian paradox is an entire article surrounding a controversial paper published in Nutrients (which led to them being investigated) purporting "a substantial decline in refined sugars intake occurred over the same timeframe that obesity has increased."

Due to the simplicity of its name, "Nutrients", I am having difficult locating other uses of their papers in our articles, or previous discussions that might have been had. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

For uses of their papers in our articles, drawing on JCW, {{doi|10.3390/nu}} seems to do a good enough job of picking things up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I had never seen that method for searching for things. I also found that you can put insource:"journal=Nutrients" into the search bar to find all articles with "journal=Nutrients" in the source (used in citations). ເສລີພາບ (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has reported on persistent issues with Nutrients including the rate of its publications:

  • From 2012 to 2022, the number of papers published grew by 3,903% to more than 5,400 publications in 2022. The journal has maintained an average annual growth rate of 58% over the past five years. All while the time from manuscript submission to first decision is at an all-time low — just 13.7 days.

PCRM also has a page warning researchers to avoid publishing in such a controversial journal, and in addition is leading a campaign against them for needless and cruel animal research.

Examples of their research include the manufacturer of a saffron-based dietary supplment testing the antidepressant effects of saffron by force-feeding saffron extract to 50 mice and tossing them into water to see how long they swim before giving up. This test has been widely denounced as not a valid model for depression, and they would have been better off just having humans eat saffron and reporting on their depression.

Retraction Watch has reported on this (as have others [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]), and includes a former reviewer for Nutrients who resigned after realizing the research they published was “sadistic, cruel, and unnecessary”, with an apparent commercial motive:

  • The group has found animal studies make up about a fifth of Nutrients’ publications, netting MDPI more than US$3 million in author fees.

I'll also note that JUFO has them ranked them at level 0 for not meeting their standards of peer review. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Yup, it's a shit journal! Like most MDPI journals, though this one is particularly bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
shit journal – No, that would be International Journal of Water and Wastewater Treatment. EEng 03:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that complaints from a vegan advocacy group are evidence of a journal being bad, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

MDPI publishing it is an immediate flag for suspicion of quality, but then based on the evidence provided here that a not insignificant number of academics have raised concerns, and the Retraction Watch flags, I'm of the opinion to purge any occurrences of the Journal from Wikipedia articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on this discussion, I've downgraded Nutrients from additional consideration (yellow) to generally unreliable (pink) in WP:UPSD. You can search for insource:/10\.3390\/nu/ to find articles citing Nutrients. There's about 634 of them. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, there are examples of problems. Colloquial tone doesn't mean that the research is bad. However, it also doesn't inspire confidence.
OTOH, what are the realistic alternatives? Nutrition-related research is generally lower quality. This journal ranks 88th percentile for its field.[49] It has a five-year WP:Impact factor of 6.0,[50] which is well above average for health-related subjects. @Cdjp1 would like to "purge" it, but we have to WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and any attempt to replace it with a {{better source}} might well result in using a worse one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't support a blind purge, especially since many sources are just being used to support basic information (although I would still prefer substitution with a better source). However, I support the classifying it as generally unreliable because I would like to start removing dubious medical content and promotion of commercial products without having to fight a war each time with whoever inserted the material saying that it is a reliable source and that I work for pharmaceutical companies or whoever. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
To clarify, as my language seems to have not been the best chosen, for where the journal is used in articles such as "Diet", the information it is used to cite looks to be as you say "basic information", so in these cases it would be finding an alternative source to cite, such as academically published books that act as foundations for such topics. For the more fringe-y claims the journal is used to support, such information, unless also cited to other more reputable journals, may be best excised from Wikipedia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate it. I have been concerned scrolling through the articles that use their journals as a lot of the topics these papers are cited are fringe magnets. 2023 in science currently has text discussing a Nutrients case-control study linking aspartame intake during pregnancy with autism. The study unexpectedly has been criticized for methodological errors. Just glossing through the articles that Nutrients is commonly cited in, they seemed to be used in a lot of fringe and commercial topics. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of health supplements on Wikipedia

Nutrients is functioning as a pipeline for commercial interests to promote dietary supplements on Wikipedia. Below are 17 examples organized as

  • Wikipedia article
  • Current text of Wikipedia article
  • Funding/Conflict of interest

ເສລີພາບ (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)


The University of Helsinki manages a blog for researchers with an editorial team, and they have an excellent overview of the decision of JUFO to reclassify most of MDPI's journals, and someone who has reviewed for MDPI and Frontiers singles out Nutrients:

  • I have not had similar negative experiences with Frontiers. Its goal is also to make money, as is the case with Elsevier, Springer, and so on, but I do not feel that this has been as blatantly apparent in Frontiers’ journals as it has been in Nutrients. I have also served as a referee for Frontiers journals. They don’t have a strict one-week deadline, and you can ask for more time. I have found that to be reasonable. The Frontiers journals in which I have published are not top journals, but I feel that they are much better edited than Nutrients.

ເສລີພາບ (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Peter Brimelow OUP book marked as unreliable

Reference 32. Another I see as marked red but looks ok. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Doug Weller It's literally because it has "Vdare.com" in its title, haha. That happens to any source that has a deprecated URL in its name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
As PARAKANYAA said it's a false positive. It's one of the known limitations of that script, see User:Headbomb/unreliable#False positives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks both I thought that might be why. There are some unreliable sources inthe article but not that one. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The Conversation on the FBI

I was working no Kash Patel and considering using WP:THECONVERSATION's piece. However, I think this line is completely untrue calls in to question the reliability of this source. "Hoover led a politically independent FBI". This is false by a huge number of sources. First of all in the same source "In 1956, Hoover created COINTELPRO, an illegal counterintelligence program that targeted communists, war protesters and even civil rights activists." From another source "He will sit in a building named for Hoover, the bureau’s complicated patriarch, who put its powers to political (and sometimes illegal) uses for presidents from Coolidge to Nixon." Jonathan Eig's book King depicts many instances in which Hoover was guided by politics to direct investigations. Czarking0 (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I think they mean his FBI wasn't under the thumb of the political party in power at the time, rather than his FBI wasn't political (it was independent not apolitical). He would have done the same thing regardless of who was in power. Noting your second quote the presidents between Coolidge and Nixon were Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
A media piece even from a reliable source is not a good source for the history of the FBI. It's reliable for recent events but I'd be wary of making any statements about the history of the FBI or making historical comparisons based on media articles. Alaexis¿question? 09:06, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Hmm I mostly agree with your sentiment. Occasionally I do see reliable historians writing articles in these sort of journals so maybe that would be an exception to this idea. My other concern with your comment is that I don't think there is any such policy. On the practical level of article talk page I typically see anything listed green at WP:RSP called reliable as a one and done even when used in a more niche context like this. Czarking0 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
@Czarking0 it's as policy-based as it can be :) Per WP:SOURCETYPES Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Alaexis¿question? 20:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
There's a huge jump from your excerpt here to "A media piece even from a reliable source is not a good source for the history of the FBI". I agree with the specific point you are making but to say this follows directly from that policy is incorrect Czarking0 (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's a huge jump. For the history of FBI academic sources are available and they should be considered "the most reliable." Other sources are by definition less reliable. So yes, probably I should've written "is less reliable" rather than "is not a good source." Alaexis¿question? 06:58, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
The conversation generally publishes opinion pieces by subject matter experts, the articles have to be understood in that context. On the specific issue here I think you and the author simply disagree on what politically independent means here, I can see both your sides and you're both right you just mean different things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
I would treat this article as reliable with attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Broadway World Exception

I want to ask if this can be exception for my citing of song First Luv? This might help on the article like for reception or the composition and lyrics? Although, I know that Broadway World is unreliable but I do check this article on other news article such as GMA Integrated News, Rappler, Billboard Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 22:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The problem with Broadway World is that it allows users to submit press releases, listings "and more!"[51]. That brings into doubt the independence of its reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Alright, I'll not cite that. ROY is WAR Talk! 22:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Monsanto ghostwriting controversy

I would appreciate addition opinions at Talk:Polyethoxylated tallow amine#Williams et al 2000 paper. Thank you. Nosferattus (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Monsanto literally admitted that they ghostwrote the paper - how's that not an instant irrevocable WP:INDEPENDENT failure? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Because there's no independent evidence that they made such an admittance. The group claiming as such (USRTK) is a well known fringe conspiracy group that is prone to making up claims. SilverserenC 03:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Just at a glance, in that discussion, they cite [1] - is the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine not a reliable source? It describes the relevant documents as de-classified Monsanto documents from litigation and summarizes them as The documents reveal Monsanto-sponsored ghostwriting of articles published in toxicology journals and the lay media, interference in the peer review process, behind-the-scenes influence on retraction and the creation of a so-called academic website as a front for the defense of Monsanto products. Also see [2][3][4][5] That is not USRTK, and none of the other sources even mention USRTK; what do they have to do with anything? Given the flip way this was treated, and the extremely broad and clear-cut sourcing describing Monsanto's misconduct here as uncontested fact, I'm concerned that it may have been removed in other places without proper examination of the sources, if this was overlooked. We should revisit the "other discussions" people mentioned - see here for a quick search. At a glance I see a lot of people making handwavy assertions that it is WP:FRINGE, in many different places, and absolutely nothing backing those assertions up whatsoever, especially not enough to answer the extremely strong sourcing on the other side of the scale. --Aquillion (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Those other sources seem fine. Maybe editors should avoid using conspiracy and fringe sources when proper academic sources exist? It's like using Natural News or Infowars as a source alongside a published paper. That's obviously going to result in extra critical scrutiny. SilverserenC 18:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
KoA just stated something I was unaware of. Aquillion, is it true that your first source there by Leemon McHenry, that person is an active consultant in a lawsuit against glyphosate? Particularly, they were even when they wrote and published that paper? Because, if so, then that source is trash. Worthless for your argument here. It's the same as fringe trash published by Seralini or any of the other hacks out there. SilverserenC 20:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
In addition to McHenry, that also includes the second source written by Alastair Matheson, another consultant. That kind of stuff just clouds the issue and makes it hard for regulars in the topic to get down to the bottom of things when we get sources like that in the mix when you have an industry-influenced source complaining about industry influence.
It's an easy mistake to make though too, so I usually try to give people a little grace if they are jumping into the topic, but it's always a good reminder to not underestimate the amount of care needed in this subject going through sources. It's more the nature of the topic. Being a regular in the topic, I'm not aware of any "Monsanto-defenders" trying to push sourcing on that "side" or those really on the organic "side", but it often seems in terms of ratios we have to sort through more of the organic industry/litigation influenced material like mentioned here. I think it just catches people off guard if you aren't aware of it, but that's also where WP:FTN might be more helpful when subjects like GMOs or pesticides come up. KoA (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm honestly curious about justification for calling USRTK a fringe conspiracy group, or otherwise immediately reflexively defecating on anything it puts out, when the most damning criticism I can find comes from the American Council on Science and Health, an industry-funded advocacy group that directly opposes the industries and world view USRTK advocates. There are sparring parties on both sides who create a lot of smoke and noise via insinuation and guilt by association to try to gain influence ("both Putin' trolls and USRTK oppose GMOs, therefore they must be collaborators" sounds a lot like "Well, Hitler was vegetarian, thus vegetarians are evil.") Are there intellectually honest critiques or merely vague handwaving and association fallacies? If we Wikipedian editors are going to declare any author or group as fringe or unreliable, we need solid evidence. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Fringe is not merely an appellation. It needs to be substantiated by other RS. Andre🚐 03:18, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Anti-GMO beliefs are considered fringe because of the lack of scientific and empirical support that GMOs are harmful to human health. (t · c) buidhe 15:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Can you point us to any consensus on that (Anti-GMO beliefs are considered fringe) here on WP? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Our article on GMOs states that There is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food. A lot of references are cited, you can check them out. Arguments by advocacy groups that go against scientific consensus are going to be considered FRINGE (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
There isn't a scientific consensus that glyphosate isn't harmful to health. Andre🚐 17:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this statement. It's perfectly possible to believe that GMOs are as safe as conventional food and oppose them for other reasons, for example monopoly- or diversity-related. Alaexis¿question? 20:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I went to their website and that's exactly the claim they are making, though. (t · c) buidhe 21:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
In case anyone here isn't aware of it, glyphosate and other agricultural chemicals, and the safety of GMO foods, are a WP:CTOP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McHenry, Leemon B. (1 August 2018). "The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well". International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. 29 (3–4): 193–205. doi:10.3233/JRS-180028. ISSN 0924-6479.
  2. ^ Matheson, Alastair (6 December 2024). "The "Monsanto papers" and the nature of ghostwriting and related practices in contemporary peer review scientific literature". Accountability in Research. 31 (8): 1152–1181. doi:10.1080/08989621.2023.2234819. ISSN 0898-9621. PMID 37424374.
  3. ^ Kaurov, Alexander A.; Oreskes, Naomi (1 September 2025). "The afterlife of a ghost-written paper: How corporate authorship shaped two decades of glyphosate safety discourse". Environmental Science & Policy. 171: 104160. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104160. ISSN 1462-9011.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  4. ^ Schölin, Lisa; et al. (2025). "Mapping commercial practices of the pesticide industry to shape science and policymaking: a scoping review". Health promotion international. 40 (1).
  5. ^ Glenna, Leland; Bruce, Analena (1 September 2021). "Suborning science for profit: Monsanto, glyphosate, and private science research misconduct". Research Policy. 50 (7): 104290. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104290. ISSN 0048-7333.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

Checking Pakistan Journal of Engineering Technology and Science

The journal has been brought up in the talk page of the Dead internet theory, specifically the article The Dead Internet Theory: Investigating the Rise of AI-Generated Content and Bot Dominance in Cyberspace. It looks predatory, but I'm not 100%. Could someone please let me know if it passes sniff test. I would like a 3rd party opinion I can point to, as this topic gets a bit of attention and I don't want to be the only "bad guy" gate keeping the page. Thanks! GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like HEC Pakistan marks it as a Y-category journal (link to category policies), so I wouldn't necessarily say "predatory" but it's not an especially high quality source. Did you see any particular red-flags? CambrianCrab (talk) please ping me in replies! 00:14, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • I can't find any obvious red flags. It's advertised perfectly reasonable indexing services/libraries (DOAJ, Cross, Ebscohost, Ulrich's), no nonsense claims like 'we're indexed by ISSN!!". Certainly not a premier journal, but seems like any other average journal. Unless there's something else, this seems to meet RS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Headbomb, @CambrianCrab Thanks for looking into this! In short, I'm not familiar with the journal or any of the affiliated publishers, I've had bad experiences with journals from Pakistan in particular (They email me constantly trying to get me to submit my work or attend their conference), and the article looks AI generated. I've made some mistakes including inappropriate journals before (Headbomb has corrected me at least once), and after Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_487#Asian_Journal_of_Research_in_Computer_Science, I wanted to double check and get a second opinion before overhauling large parts of the article based on this one source. Editors suspected large parts of the last one were AI generated, so I looked at that in the article in question here. I think it looks AI generated, and Grammarly agrees for what that is worth. It has everything from flowery language to "—" em dashes. For example, this paragraph is the first section of the "background of the study" section:

    "The first encounter with the captivating premise of the Dead Internet Theory transpired during a meticulous examination of an exhaustive expose entitled Maybe You Missed It, but the Internet ’Died’ Five Years Ago, featured prominently within the pages of The Atlantic. This intellectually stimulating article explored the intricate facets of the theory, meticulously delving into its unconventional constituents, including deepfakes, artificial intelligence, and the covert machinations of government psychological operations (psyops). In pursuit of scholarly rigor, this research endeavor embarks upon a more profound exploration of the contextual backdrop that underpins this phenomenon. Through a meticulous retracing of its origins and an astute analysis of the extensive discourse unveiled within The Atlantic’s scholarly account, this scholarly inquiry aspires to contribute to a heightened and nuanced comprehension of the Dead Internet Theory."

    This section and more doesn't read like a scholarly publication, in my opinion. Grammarly suggests 75% AI writing, and while AI detectors are heavily flawed, that assessment didn't put me at ease. While really bad writing, research, and errors can get through even the strictest of peer-reviews, this didn't sit right, and looked like the kind of content that gets published without being read by the journals "editor." If you both think it passes the sniff test, we can begin incorporating its findings into the main article. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
    I just looked at the journal-level indicators. That passage from the article looks pretty bad, but so does the writing from countries where English isn't the first language. I don't know that it's AI, but I agree it smells iffy. emdashes here aren't a red flag because journals have macros that convert hyphens to endashes and emdashes, but the flowery language is certainly out of place in an academic journal. And works like 'meticulous' and 'astute' are not words that would come to someone unfamiliar with English. FWIW's, GPTZero reports 100% confidence that passage is AI-generated. So maybe the journal is generally OK and it's something that got through peer review, but that paper certainly isn't RS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, I appreciate the second opinion. I am trying to keep the flood gates of online slop closed on this article, but trying to avoid looking like I own the page. I'll point to this conversation when the source is inevitably brought up again on the talk page. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Jackson Source

Is Jackson Source at jackson-source.com a reliable source for the birth date of Jaafar Jackson? (Mentioned here.) The website is being operated by a Dutch person, Janneke van der Linden (through Poerk Productions, I think). The website says "Both Jackson Source and Jackson Magazine are acknowledged and supported by the Jackson family." but even if true, "acknowledged" doesn't mean much, and "supported" is vague; could just be a reference to this video where someone - I'm guessing a Jackson family member - says: "If you want to keep up with the latest info on my family, go to Jackson Source, baby. Jackson Source is where it is." I'm not really looking for another source that could be used, just curious if this particular source is considered reliable. Thanks. --62.166.252.159 (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Nothing about it looks like a RS (as opposed to one fan's rather elaborate website). 128.164.177.55 (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Are there any other editors willing to chime in? --62.166.252.159 (talk) 08:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Usually if no one else replies it because they have nothing to add. As 128.164.177.55 said it appears to be a fan site run by one person, the sites author talk about it on there own website[52]. With such sites you either need to show the author is an expert who has been previously published in the field by other reliable sources (see WP:SPS), or that the sources is regularly used as a reference by other reliable sources (see WP:USEBYOTHERS). I can't see anything to show either would be true, so I would use a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional feedback. --62.166.252.159 (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

MSN

Hello. I would like to know if MSN is reliable. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 22:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

MSN is a news aggregator, it has no inherent reliability/unreliablity separate from the sources it is syndicating, which are what should actually be evaluated. That said, its news links tend to break a while after they are posted, so I would avoid citing them and cite the actual sources instead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you! Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 23:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The response you received is spot on. Sometimes they post reliable sources like the Washington Post. Sometimes they post the Daily Mail. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Reforming the Sources of Islamic Articles

A proposal to disallow non-Muslim sources on articles about Islam would go against one of the core policies, NPOV. There is no chance of this proposal being accepted unless NPOV is first amended - which is unlikely. Fences&Windows 11:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am deeply concerned about the way Wikipedia articles on Islam, particularly those concerning our beloved Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), are sourced. Too often, the cited references derive from books published by American universities and their allies, such as the University Press of Florida, the University of Oklahoma Press, Cambridge University Press, and others. This is highly problematic, given that the United States has repeatedly waged war against Muslim nations, branded Muslims as terrorists, and supported Israel’s genocide of the Palestinian people.

I therefore propose that all books published by American universities and their allies be excluded from articles on Islam, since their motives from the outset are clearly not good. A further issue is that while their books may cite hadiths or sīrah to support their claims, one must ask: did the authors first consult Muslim scholars regarding the context? Are the “authentic” hadiths they cite truly authentic? Moreover, these are typically hadiths recognised only by Sunni Muslims, and not necessarily accepted by other denominations such as the Ahmadiyya or Shia.

I strongly recommend a complete overhaul of Islamic articles: removing non‑Muslim sources and narratives, replacing them with sources from modern Muslim scholars and Islamic websites, and ensuring the articles are written by genuine Muslims. Since these articles concern the religion of Islam, it is only proper that they be written by Muslims. KhalidbinYusuf (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

No. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
But for real, no. Wikipedia is not written from a Muslim POV. It is not our job to write a hagiography of Muhammed. Banning sources from all non-Muslim nations is itself an egregious NPOV violation. That it does not align with Muslim theological viewpoints is obvious, and it should not align with Muslim theological viewpoints if the academic consensus does not. Muslims do not have a monopoly on talking about Muhammad, for the same reasons Christians do not have a monopoly on writing about Jesus Christ, and only citing Christian scholars. That is not what Wikipedia is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
No. Per parakanyaa User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Excluding sources on religious topics that aren't from countries where said religion is the majority/state religion is antithetical to Wikipedia's ideals. Imagine we only permitted sources from Vatican scholars to be used in articles about Catholicism. Absolutely terrible idea. Cortador (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Reliability is never assessed based on the country of the author, no matter the subject. Anyone should be able to see the obvious reason for this. This idea is antithetical to the ideals of Wikipedia, it will never to be enacted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Secular (non-religious) sources are less biased, and likely more reliable, than sources by authors with a religious conflict of interest. Secular sources approach the topic with historical and not religious interest, and therefore would be more trusted to write neutrally about this subject. In any case, reliability of a source should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are unreliable Muslim sources, just as there are unreliable western sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per WP:RNPOV. "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources." Also: "Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction." Which is to say, the overhaul proposed by the nominator is out of order with respect to the purpose of the encyclopedia. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
I empathize with your point of view and understand it. I appreciate your passion. But Wikipedia... it's a book report, not an essay. What I mean is that editors here need to look for the best sources we can find, and write a book report on what we find. If you really want to write something that explains your point of view to outsiders... Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. Write it anyway! Submit it and get it published! Get it out there. But just realize, that's not Wikipedia is for. Denaar (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Such a ban would also affect Muslim academics, who had their works published by American universities and other Western universities. It is not a good idea and will not lead to NPOV. Geopolitics is not really a good criterion for judging the reliability of a source. If we went by all geopolitical disputes, then most sources would have to be banned. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Consider another wiki, like WikiShia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • No, obviously not. I mean stop and think about it - if we did allow this, the very next thing that would happen is that someone would swoop in and say "we can't keep citing Muslim or Arabic sources on Islam, they're obviously biased!" And of course we also couldn't cite Christian sources, or sources from any country with a different religion (because they're competitors!) - and obviously not sources by atheists, that's even worse! And the end result would be we'd have no usable sources at all. Now, there is a much more narrow argument you can make that in some places we might be giving too much weight to American sources (per WP:GLOBAL), and you can use that argument to introduce other sources in contexts where we're relying exclusively on American ones. But that's not the same as being able to exclude an entire country. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
  • No. With I suppose the obvious exception of military academies, American higher education is not run by the Federal government (who are the folks waging any ways.) Indeed, the Federal government is currently making a move to have unprecendented control over institutions of higher education (in fact using the excuse that such institutions are pro-Palestinian in ways) and are facing a lot of rejection for it. You are, of course, free to object to individual American publications on the basis of concerns over accuracy. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NO CONSENSUS
The concern over Popular Mechanics is confined to their promotion of fringe topics and their coverage of UFOs. The counter-argument is generally that as headlines are not reliable sources anyway, this negates the concern over examples cited.
The no consensus decision was predominantly derived from a distinct lack of evidence provided as to whether the publication is generally unreliable for factual reporting, or has a strong enough reputation for being generally reliable. No evidence of publishing false or fabricated information was provided, nor any notable reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Thus there was not much weight-change of !votes applied based on strength and weakness of arguments with an otherwise balanced split of opinion based on reliability.
While it remains unclear, the middle ground !votes of considering articles on a case-by-case basis nonetheless rings true, as does providing attribution for questionable claims and contested sources. Another participant alluded to better sources exist which is also worthy of consideration. The fact it is used in thousands of articles is otherwise not a good argument for being generally reliable. CNC (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In relation to flying saucers (sometimes also called "UFOs", "UAPs", "USOs", etc.) are online-only (versus print) articles by Popular Mechanics:

  • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting.
  • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated.

Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey (PopMech)

  • Option 3 Online-only articles by Popular Mechanics should never be used to positively reference articles about flying saucers due to its tendency to use clickbait headlines and its penchant for sourcing material from fringe figures it falsely promotes as mainstream experts. Print issue articles don't appear to suffer this same issue and both print and online coverage could be used for critical reporting of the topic.
    Popular Mechanics promotes WP:FRINGE topics by selective contextualization in which the most outlandish claims of their interview subjects are omitted as a means of legitimizing their supposed expertise. Once they've legitimized their interview subjects in an article, they then repeat the claims of those subjects as fact.
  • In an August 2025 article, writer Stav Dimitropoulos provides extensive, uncritical quotation of the UFO theories of Tim Gallaudet, a retired NOAA Corps admiral. Dimitropoulous never notes that Gallaudet also famously claims his daughter is a powerful wizard who can talk to ghosts and ethereal spirits from beyond the grave (see an interview with him here [53]).
  • Just two months earlier a different writer, Elizabeth Rayne, pulled the same stunt with Gallaudet [54], burnishing him as a sober and skeptical naval officer who reluctantly came to the topic of flying saucers.
  • Eight paragraphs of John Scott Lewinski's November 2024 article on UFOs is an extensive, flowing quotation of a guy with a master of arts degree who consulted for Star Trek (which is, apparently, a sci-fi TV show of some kind). This then seamlessly flows into an analysis of theoretical physics based on the ideas of the MA degree guy. [55]
  • John Scott Lewinski's March 2025 article has the clickbait headline "Copying Alien Tech Would Be a Mind-Boggling Reverse Engineering Project. ‘The Physics Get Weird,’ Experts Say." [56] but 90% of the article talks about more conventional reverse engineering of mundane, human technology.
  • Elana Spivack's January 2025 report uses the clickbait headline "Aliens From a Parallel Universe May Be All Around Us—And We Don’t Even Know It, Study Suggests" [57] to report on a relatively sober and interesting [58] thought experiment, but one that makes no claim anywhere within the same universe as what the headline suggests.
A Google News search suggests Popular Mechanics has published at least 40 articles on flying saucers just in the last 12 months [59]. Unfortunately, I can't describe each of these due to practical considerations of brevity, except to say they're all absolute bonkers insanity. Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 In relation to UFOs, UAPs, USOs, supposed alien technology, etc. the magazine has been pushing fringe nonsense in recent years as noted by Skeptical Inquirer. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Chetsford.—Alalch E. 15:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 0 -- this is a goofy premise for an RfC. The fact that they run eye-catching headlines isn't relevant to anything: headlines are already not citable as sources (even from RS). The rest of the complaint basically adds up to them publishing stuff about UFOs where the reporter doesn't turn to the camera at the end and say a big walltext disclaimer that they aren't real. I don't think sources are obliged to do this. It is hard to imagine any outrage at a magazine for, say, writing an article about some hypothetical event and then not explicitly spelling out huge caveats:
  • "Could World War 3 Be On The Horizon?"
  • "Expert Says Mars Travel Could Be Coming Soon"
  • "New Drug Could Cure Parkinson's"
These are all the sort of thing you see all the time, and in none of them would we require an outlet to stop and say "By the way most miracle drugs that work in mice never do anything in humans". The answer is, as always, that we have to use some basic amount of intelligence and wisdom when we write articles. jp×g🗯️ 19:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, PopMech is a cutesy pop-science publication, and I think this type of source is basically the lowest rung already: if you have the option to cite a paper or a book, for some scientific or technological fact, you should always prefer that over "I Freaking Love Science". The main scenario where they are useful is when they are, say, interviewing some inventor, or talking about some thing that was just released, or covering some event that occurred -- not to establish basic facts like how a combustion engine works or whether we have established contact with aliens. jp×g🗯️ 19:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 This magazine has become a platform for sensational, pro-fringe, evidence-free material on UFOs, and as such does not qualify as a reliable source in that topic area. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2. The examples given are mostly WP:RSHEADLINE issues. Yes, many articles are decorated with stock illustrations of vintage or speculative UFO art, but the actual article content is not much different than what's found in typical popular science articles in LiveScience or newspapers. Some interesting and cutting edge research may be fringe, but the articles seem to give adequate contextualization of such. We don't need to treat Popular Mech different merely because we don't like how they cover issues. Whether a given article, or interview subject, is cited in Wikipedia should be context dependent and decided on a case-by-case basis. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 until I see some evidence they publish falsehoods. Popular Mechanics has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy and is relied on as a source in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
    Also Popular Mechanics is being used as a source to debunk fringe/UFO-related claims on 2024 United States drone sightings. Banning this source from the UFO topic area would have the exact opposite of the intended effect in this case. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 23:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Popular Mechanics is a reputable, mainstream popular science magazine, and I think that outweighs the occasional eye-catching headline. Beyond the speculative framing, I see no evidence that they fabricated anything in their coverage of UFOs. Deprecation is extreme. We're not citing headlines here. ~ HAL333 00:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Anne drew and HAL333. Popular Mechanics is a reputable, mainstream popular science magazine. GretLomborg (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 They list "product reviews" as one of the main things that they do as a website which I think would indicate that they need to have attribution at the very least when there is a conflict of interest that could be at play. That being said, they do describe having an editorial approach[1] which indicates they are more than just a blog. Additionally, they do a lot of scientific reporting where they extensively include the research they are relying on for their article. As others have stated, WP:RSHEADLINE does not come into play necessarily since you are required to use the content of the source and not the headline. As far as I can tell, they are a scientific focused magazine that has the occasional inclusion of a fringe or controversial topic but those can be attributed as needed. Edge cases can be talked about on the relevant talkpages. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.popularmechanics.com/about/a34246962/how-to-pitch-popular-mechanics/

Discussion (PopMech)

  • The reliability of Popular Mechanics has been extensively discussed at RSN and, specifically, in relation to its flying saucer reporting here [60], and other places. It is extensively cited across the project for general reporting and flying saucer-specific reporting. In the case of WP:UFONATION we've previously retained some reliability for News Nation while preferencing against their flying saucer reporting. Chetsford (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment: headlines, clickbait or not, should not be used to assess reliability, per WP:RSHEADLINES. We already don't regard headlines as reliable themselves, regardless of the outlet. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
A good and valuable reminder. Chetsford (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
How exactly would deprecating, an edit filter that prevents you from citing it anywhere, work restricted to one topic? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it would. That's the only thing keeping my !vote at 3 instead of 4. Chetsford (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
That's fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
@LuckyLouie @Yesterday, all my dreams... you have both voted 4. How do you expect/want an edit filter that removes all mentions to work restricted to this one topic? Because we cannot deprecate the source for one topic without impacting its use on all other topics, which is not in the scooe of this RfC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The preface of the RfC stated topic specificity followed by all 4 options, but I understand the practicalities, so I'll change to Option 3. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I voted 4 because thers was no option 5. I think all material from that should be ignored. Can I vote 6, or 7? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
If you wanna toss this RfC out and have a general RfC on the past 120 years of Popular Mechanics, sure. But an RfC for one topic cannot be used to ban its usage on all others because the RfC did not cover that. And if we're having an RfC on all of Popular Mechanics, I would vote generally reliable for that, because this topic area ignored this is an established magazine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out a legitimate UFO-related use of a print Popular Mechanics article from 1965 [61] in The Spooklight. It's my understanding that this RFC is very targeted and applies to online-only, contemporary, UFO-related articles on popularmechanics.com, and that this RfC won't have any bearing on Gannon's article. Geogene (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Geogene, I agree that's an excellent point. And I think it's worth underscoring for the benefit of the closer that the RfC -- as constructed -- does not weigh in any way on the reliability of content that has ever appeared, or might ever appear, in print issues of Popular Mechanics, including the Spooklight article. And, if at some point in the future, it's worthwhile revisiting those limitations we should do so in a time-defined RfC. Chetsford (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_490&oldid=1317348141"