🇮🇷 Iran Proxy | https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_494
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 494

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 490←Archive 492Archive 493Archive 494Archive 495Archive 496Archive 497

Grokipedia

CLOSED
Edit filters have been put in place to warn about using Grokipedia. Further discussion should move to WT:GROKIPEDIA. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:26, 6 November 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'm already seeing people ask on talk pages for changes, to be made, sourced to Grokipedia. Should we put an edit filter in place, ASAP? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeet into the void Danners430 tweaks made 15:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
obvioidly wary of anything like this a but I can see a AGF request to add material from it if it includes an external reliable source ref that we dont lready have covered. Very unlikely given what grokipedia changes around, but still in the realm of possibilities. Masem (t) 15:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps an edit filter on article and draft space, but allow comments on talk pages? Danners430 tweaks made 15:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Talk pages should be more free to include things, obviously, but I'm having trouble imagining a legitimate need to link to or cite Grokipedia on a talk page here. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Having looked at a couple of pages where I know the subject matter, the problem is that the source doesn't necessarily support the content it's cited for, and unless someone reads the source, they're not going to know this. It's a mess of accurate and inaccurate info, and a casual reader isn't going to know which. And if someone checks the original source, then they should use that as a source (assuming that it's an RS, etc.) and there's no reason to cite Grokipedia. I'd say that it's even less reliable that a WP mirror. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
"I'd say that it's even less reliable that a WP mirror."
Exactly what FactOrOpinion said. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this. I also looked up some pages that I am familiar with. What I found was some pretty clear factual errors, but sometimes it was able to dig up a fact that I had missed where the sourcing checks out.
While a conscientious editor could certainly check the grokipedia versio of an article after they finished working on it to check whether it managed to dig up any extra facts that can be tracked to reliable sources that they might have missed, we should not view this as a reliable source as the editorial process isn't transparent, and it is controlled by one man who has been known to change his AI's parameters on a whim[1] Giuliotf (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
We'll probably need a special entry for Grokipedia on WP:RSNP: 'Utter garbage, fails every test for reliability. Not to be cited. Not to be read unless you have access to a Men in Black neuralyser. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes.
All AI generated sources should be considered Not Reliable, since there are no human editors, no accountability etc., to say nothing of the risks of "AI hallucination." If they have valid information that is sourced, people should cite the original sources.
Grokipedia goes a step further, it's not just AI generated content - it's AI generated content where the AI is designed to be biased, often in the form of cherry picking information and sources. 𝚄𝚗𝚘𝚠𝚗 𝙶𝚕𝚒𝚝𝚌𝚑 (We are currently clean on OPSEC.) 15:20, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
It also plagiarises Wikipedia, relentlessly. Sometimes with acknowledgement, sometimes without. On this basis alone it cannot not pass WP:RS, even ignoring the multitude of other issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Is it active? Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes it's live. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Well then, our policies should already cover it,. if it's a wiki it's not an RS, if it's AI-generated, it's not an RS. If it is being cited a lot, yes it needs a notice. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not an open-editing wiki; users can suggest changes that then need approval. But that doesn't make it reliable, and since much of it is just a copy of Wikipedia, that material is obviously subject to WP:WINARS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not a wiki. —Alalch E. 13:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
WP:CIRCULAR or LLM generated, not a reliable source. Given how much of a issue it's likely to be an edit filter is probably a good idea. I would suggest one similar to the deprecation filter, as there could be instances where links are valid. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • As articles over there are for now created, edited and fact-checked by the Grok language model I find it unlikely that a source not knwon until know will appear at Grokipedia....LLM/AI isn't really good with sourcing as it is. Lectonar (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeet Block with extreme prejudice. Edit filter and list on WP:RS as hard fail. It's an LLM encyclopaedia, largely rewording WP - so inherently unreliable and also WP:CIRCULAR. On the off-chance it does offer up some genuinely useful citation, then that cite should be used directly. It's basically never going to be appropriate to directly cite Grokipedia as a source (except possibly in the Grokipedia article itself, e.g. referencing some controversial hallucination. Although we'd need third party cites as well anyway). Hemmers (talk) 15:54, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeet what else is there to be said? Someone should make the edit filter soon User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
An editfilter for mainspace is a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Support mainspace edit filter. I do think we should allow more flexibility on article talk, notice boards, etc. I'm not saying I think it has a lot of good use cases on these other pages but maybe wait and see if it becomes a problem outside of articles before applying a total block. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Also support deprecating at WP:RSP. I understand that (1) its unusability is already obvious per applicable P&G and (2) we have not yet had a problem of widespread use but I think we can make an exception and preemptively add it. The fact that existing standards preclude its use supports deprecating Grokipedia as a reasonable, non-arbitrary move now, if there is consensus to do so. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Blacklist - under existing P&G there is never any legitimate reason to link to this pile of LLM vomit, and preventing edits that add it will likely save recent changes patrollers lots of time. Flounder fillet (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Blacklist that pile of crap. If you need AI to write an Encyclopaedia for you, you're clearly incapable of writing anything worthwhile yourself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Obviously unsuitable to be used as a source in any case - it’s AI-generated garbage intentionally manipulated to be “anti-woke” while plagiarizing a wide number of sources (including Wikipedia itself). Support an edit filter + deprecated on RSP. The Kip (contribs) 19:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Might also be considered for an addition to WP:SPB? - Amigao (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support a mainspace edit filter. There's no reason we should ever be linking there. The one singular exception would be the external link on the actual article about it. SilverserenC 23:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Technical question: Is there a way to confuse it about content it picks from Wikipedia? I am not sure how, but it would be an interesting challenge. Some type of bot? What they are doing is just shameless. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia material is intended to be available for others to reuse and build on, and I'd be wary of any effort to restrict that access to folks one doesn't like, because (and not just because) it is apt to cause problems for others. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
My concern is less anyone adding it as a direct source, but editors using it to make arguments on talk pages. Grok is very good at formulating positions for fringe POVs. It takes a lot of effort to deconstruct and dispute those arguments when they are so well articulated and integrated. -- GreenC 03:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Grokipedia is currently hopeless but block it anyway. Just to see what it is like I tried a non-political item, namely supercomputer. As a user I found Grokipedia very confusing and super-verbose compared to Wikipedia. The fact that it has no images is also a big problem for it. And it has no links! It uses the term SIMD but can not link to it. It has a page for "Single instruction, multiple data" but no entry for SIMD. And the SIMD page is declared "fact checked" !! It is almost identical to the low quality Wikipedia page on SIMD. The fact checked claims are mostly nonsense. I would not use Grokipedia for anything. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  • IMO new reader/ user requests/ mentions on article talk pages may have a larger scope to address about. As far as WP:RSN, without prejudice of any future improvements in AI/ based encyclopedias, as of the day their referencing from secondary sources specially from academic books seems weaker. Hence as of the day those i.e. Grokipedia seems to be a good candidate for WP:RSNP. Bookku (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • @ User:GreenC In above comment I have already supported Grokipedia to be included in WP:RSNP.
But can some comparative mentions on talk pages may be helpful to some extent? Just this month I created new well sourced article My Choice (2015 film). The film has generated very significant media and academic discussion vis a vis lead actress Deepika Padukone, but we find only a passing mention in WP article where as this grokipedia article about Padukone seem to take note to better extent though grokipedia's choice of sources is too poor. Would it not be natural for some users to bring such comparisons to talk pages or WP:NPOV to some extent if WP:RS options are very well available? Bookku (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
So? Any AI will give you a similar AI answer, often with much more "information" than Wikipedia has. You could have simply gone to google.com/ai and entered in the same prompt. The problem is figuring out which added information is something that Wikipedia editors didn't find or found and rejected and which is an AI hallucination. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

More reasons to avoid it I also tried Vienna circle. That told me something interesting. Grokipedia at times merges content from the Stanford encyclopedia on philosophy and Wikipedia but it is anybody's guess what the outcome is. It is quite interesting how it does that but at times seems random. The page for Moritz Schlick who ran the Vienna circle is a good example. It is actually more complete than Wikipedia but again you have a feeling that no one has checked it. And it uses sources such as [2] which is a blog. As is, at the moment, I would not use Grokipedia for anything. It's contents seem random. Should be avoided. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've compared an article I brought to GA, Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi) against what Gronkopedia has to say (mis-spelling deliberate) and found that it on first glance it appears to be more complete, but then I looked at the sourcing and found that much of its referencing is the Daily Fail. If I ignored the fact that it promoted a neo-Nazi as a political activist who has the mainstream media against them, I still couldn't ignore the pitiful sources that it has drawn its material from. TarnishedPathtalk 13:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes beyond appearance, it's too poor in sourcing as of the day. Google is unlikely to help taking it's consumers to Grok by giving grokipedia links. But it's time to know their full business plan, it's a commercial venture after all and they can bring in crowd if they wish so with the help of the X. Grokipedia allows users to submit suggestions. Bookku (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Obviously deprecate. There are too many problems to count. First, it's heavily based on Wikipedia, which would raise Citogenesis concerns. Second, the parts that are not based on Wikipedia are LLM-generated, with no reason to think there's any editorial controls or fact-checking. And third, it obviously lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with coverage already uncovering widespread and massive errors. These things combined with the fact that it was created with an overt political goal in mind make it hard to accept the problems are innocent and moves it into the category of active misinformation, requiring deprecation. --Aquillion (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I compared an article I do not watch (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) just for fun. It was like reading about two different people. I suggest therefore that Grokipedia is unreliable as a source. - Walter Ego 14:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Would you like to add comments to Wikipedia:GROKIPEDIA? Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Blacklist - ignoring the fact that its stated purpose is to present a hallucinated version of "facts" with a right-wing point of view, it's an inadmissible source based on our regular criteria: it's both self-published and user-generated, and has no editorial oversight other than allowing users to submit (but not actually make) corrections, which are very likely still reviewed by an algorithm. It's also one of the very few examples of a bad source mentioned by name in WP:RSML. As many earlier comments have pointed out it does not appear to have any standards for source reliability at all, and if it happens to cite an actually useful source we could and should just cite that source directly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Question - Obviously, Grokipedia should not be cited or used in articles. Regarding blacklisting it, implementing an edit filter, etc., what do we do for Conservapedia? It's not listed on WP:RSP. Is there an edit filter? I mean - I think the idea of the two projects is broadly similar - to start with a mirror of Wikipedia, then edit it to be more right leaning. In Conservapedia's case they are using a typical Wiki model and having humans edit the articles to be more right leaning and the process is slow. In Grokipedia's case, they are using AI, so it will go faster. But I see no reason to panic about Grokipedia and take extraordinary measures that we don't take for similar projects like Conservapedia, especially pre-emptively. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    I think Conservapedia and others like it would already be covered under WP:USERGENERATED Giuliotf (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    Grokipedia would also be already covered under a combination of:
    • WP:CIRCULAR and WP:USERGENERATED as it starts as a mirror of Wikipedia
    • WP:RSML as it uses machine learning to edit the articles it copied from Wikipedia
    • As an encyclopediaesque thing it would be a WP:TERTIARY source, if it was reliable (which it's not due to being a combination of user generated and machine learning).
    In other words - why do we need to do anything new or different here? Our existing PAGs cover this situation. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeet. I mean, seriously. Everything Musk does is a joke, even the things that actively harm people. Furthermore, I'll be referring to it as "Gockopedia" from now on, in the hopes that it catches on and becomes the most common name for the site, because that would annoy Musk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Blacklist The Guardian says Grokipedia's entries hew closely to conservative talking points, with some journalists already saying it contains inaccurate information, citing the January 6 attack and a claim that pornography worsened the AIDS epidemic. Wired seconds those points, and also a claim that social media has led to a rise of transgender identification. Kill it with fire. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Double Yeet - It goes without saying at this point but I did take a moment to review an article subject I'm familiar with and attempt to verify the cited "sources." It is actually terrifying to think people are going to trust the information given by this monstrosity. JesseL0vesT0ast (May the toast be with you.) (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
    There is a saying in the fashion industry: no one ever lost any money by underestimating the taste of the public. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  • All of the above. Yeet, deprecate, blacklist, edit filter, kill it with fire, etc. CNC (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
  1. Support per Ivanvector. Totally unredeemable as a source in and of itself. If it has something new and cites a RS we don't, we would be sourcing that RS directly. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Just not Use reliable sources not this manicured self serving tosh. So many examples of utter rubbish for Grok and its pedia. Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Support edit filter. Even if were perfectly accurate, it can never be an RS. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have created Special:AbuseFilter/1387. At this time, it is set to warn, so potentially good edits aren't being outright blocked.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Blacklist It is only the loss of Wikipedia to allow artificial intelligence created information into it. Zalaraz (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment For the last ten years, I have watched AI's entry into various tasks follow a predictable course. It starts out laughably bad. In time it is performing as well as humans. Not long after that, it is outperforming every human on the planet. I don't see why online encyclopedias will be any different. The Yeet !votes are understandable but they're short-sighted, IMO. Editors and WP principals should be preparing for a scenario in which Grokipedia accomplishes higher levels of WP:V and WP:NPOV than at WP itself. What then will be its value proposition? Obviously Grokipedia shouldn't be regarded WP:RS at present, but it won't be the present forever. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    If Grokipedia is ever "outperforming" us in the future, we can revisit. For now, it's unusable for facts. Given Musk's biases and factual inaccuracies, I don't expect it will reach usability. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Let he without biases cast the first opinion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    We're talking about inaccuracies here, not just biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Which raises an interesting question as to whether the emphasis of verifiability over truth is capable of eliminating inaccuracies past a certain point. I think readers of encyclopedias ultimately want truth, not mere verifiability. If GP becomes accepting of truth expressed at WP but not the converse, it will be an interesting case of adversarial interoperability. Which is to say that I understand the Kill It With Fire !votes, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm reminded of print encyclopedia editors dismissing WP in the early days. Remember Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Given that Grok's algorithms have been modified to reflect Musk's biases, I doubt that it will ever be better at NPOV. And you might want to read "OpenAI admits AI hallucinations are mathematically inevitable, not just engineering flaws." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Read, thank you. You might want to read Hayek on human fallibility. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    The human fallibility essay perfectly explains why Gronkipedia doesn't mention Elon's nazi salute: "Any admission of fallibility is seen as a sign of weakness." So yes, revisionist history it is! Brilliant. 172.58.8.233 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    That is not how things will unfold. Mr Wales will not sit still. In time Wikipedia will provide AI assistance to Wikipedians. It will still be human powered, but bicycles are also human powered. And much faster than walking. 62.18.38.102 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    We shall have to see on that Wiki may very well never do that especially if the Wiki editors do not want it. GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Mr Wales has only very limited influence on what goes on on Wikipedia these days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
    Feel free to use the websites you like but WP is not for promotion. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support mainspace filter No good reason at all to link to Grokiepedia it is not reliable.GothicGolem29 (GothicGolem29 Talk) 22:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Not usable As others noted, it's a technical issue: like any wiki, user generated, auto generated and/or especially if borrowing from WP, it can simply not be used as a source. If evidence shows that it's being spammed on WP it may then get blacklisted, like would happen with any spammed domain, but that's another step. 206.248.143.75 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    About Grokipedia as a "wiki" and a "mirror": Grokipedia is not a website "like any wiki" because it is not a wiki. Wikipedia is a wiki. Grokipedia took only "-pedia" from Wikipedia because it purports to a be an encyclopedia like Wikipedia; it did not also take the "Wiki-" from Wikipeda, and does not claim to be a wiki, and it is not a wiki, and does not resemble a wiki. A mirror site is a replica of a website, a faithful and generally up-to-date copy. A website is also its software, and Wikipedia's software is called MediaWiki, which is a wiki software, and a wiki using it is a MediaWiki wiki. Wikipedia being a MediaWiki wiki, only a website that is technically comparable (in terms of software used to organize and display content) can be a mirror of Wikipedia; generally also a MediaWiki or MediaWiki-derived website. There are those wikis that are and those that are not mirrors of Wikipedia. Grokipedia not even being a wiki means that that it is not even potentially a mirror of Wikipedia. A website can host content copied from another website. Merely containing copied content is not even close to being enough to consider a website a mirror. There are websites that copy content from Wikipedia that are mirrors of Wikipedia and that are not. Grokipedia is in the latter category. Grokipedia is a non-wiki website with some of its content crudely copied from Wikipedia. —Alalch E. 08:18, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose blacklisting. I'm not sure all the supporters of this measure realize it would also prevent links to Grokipedia outside of article space. There are valid cases for linking to it on talk pages (e.g. Grokipedia discusses this aspect of the subject which we are missing). Even discussions like we're having now would be impeded by blacklisting. Just deprecating it would avoid these problems. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
    I see that as a feature, not a bug, of blacklisting. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Clearly unreliable I oppose blacklisting as well as deprecation. Those are both saved for sources that are specifically problematic, either they are widely cited when they shouldn't be (Daily Mail) or harmful (sites that contain illegal content). Gokipedia is none of those. It clearly can't qualify as a RS. What more needs to be done? Springee (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Blacklisting from talk page at this stage: Looking at emerging consensus to support WP:RSNP deprecation from article namespace Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard has already taken note and added Grokipedia to warning filter for main namespace and tracking filter for talk namespace.
At Talk Grokipedia one ip has given google trend evidence, saying

"It took less than three days for the public to lose interest: -- The biases are so obvious, stark, and selfishly motivated that almost everyone who took a look no longer cares."

So, IMHO, prima fecie we can afford to track with already initiated edit filter before taking further steps of entire black listing. Bookku (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - It'd be a good idea to prohibit any attempts to cite it now to save everyone time cleaning up the inevitable mess later. It's a Wikipedia clone of poor quality, prone to both circular citations from their articles ripped straight from here & unchecked AI hallucinations. There's no reason we'd ever need to cite it directly, if anything about it is notable, we'll cite secondary coverage instead. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Blacklist Any editor bringing something from grok to talk pages should first be double checking all of the references to avoid misrepresentations and hallucinations. In which case, they can bring the source material to discussions here instead. EvansHallBear (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: At Talk:Grokipedia#NLP analysis information about pre-print of the research paper Yasseri, Taha. "How Similar Are Grokipedia and Wikipedia? A Multi-Dimensional Textual and Structural Comparison" doi has been shared. Seems a good read.
Article Talk pages may not be best places every time to share good faith comparisons, IMO, our actions should proportionate, appropriate and measured, so as not bite non- fully well versed good faith communications and communicators either. Bookku (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Bookku, the 5-year chart shows an increased bubble in Wikipedia interest (July-October), just prior to Grok release, then the bubble deflated and returned to its downward trend, from peak interest in 2022. That bubble is strange, maybe Wikipedia was making a comeback and Grok took the air out of its sail.
    There are various forces working against Wikipedia. AI generally, of which Grok is one player, also Google Overviews, and the chatbots. The success of right-wing counter-culture, which is hostile to Wikipedia, is growing in size and influence globally. You can see in the 5-year chart, a significant drop in Feb-Mar 2025, when Trump and Musk started bashing Wikipedia as "biased", it had an impact. So we have political and technological forces aligned against Wikipedia, these are powerful forces. — GreenC 19:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Practical reason for not linking to Grokipedia Regardless of all else please recall that Grokipedia content is dynamic. It may have changed as you read this. Thus any assessment of what it says now on a topic may become invalid in the next hour. Published journals are stable, Grokipedia is not. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Support at least deeming it unreliable. Not only is Grokipedia copied in large part from Wikipedia (which is already unreliable per WP:USERGEN and causes citogenesis concerns), it uses AI-generated text, which has been shown time and time again to hallucinate things. I would support a mainspace edit filter as well. Absent evidence of widespread abuse, though, I don't think we're at the point that it should be blacklisted completely yet; there may still be reasons to discuss it on non-article pages. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: @ User:GreenC the aspects you are raising (at deeper level may relate to cycles of periodic socio-political oscillation in democratic political economics and Business economics and management side concepts of Product lifecycle and Technology Life Cycle. Aspects related causes citogenesis concerns raised by Epicgenius though important concerns my analysis may lead to digression rather I will include response to the same in my contemplated response to academic User talk:Adler.fa page eventually and keep you informed.
Let me come to next relevant points, What is preferable, whether go by presumptions or collate evidence, analyze evidence and proceed?
  • (See WP:EFN) Filters 869 (article namespace to warn, log) and 1132 (talk namespace to track, log ) both now include Grokipedia functional since 31st October 25.
  • In my today's brief check by searching article namespace I did not notice any incidence of inserting grokipedia.com (Idk if I missed any, I am not still well versed for such searches). I asked at filter notice board how we can sort and track instances more easily particularly for Grokipedia?
Okay I got one warning while preparing this response in my User namespace sub page sandbox and in later edits it allowed to save me without warnings.
  • In talk namespace in my direct search I found following type of instances. Assertiveness in some of Grokepedia supportive posts in no doubt concerning as OP raised the issue.
1) There are some instances where readers are accusing Wikipedia and saying see how Grokipedia is better. Some talk pages Wikipedians engaged with them in the discussion some talk page messages are still unattended.
2) Then there are couple of genuine discussion points.
3) The last type is user has updated banners about media coverage of specific article in respect to Grokipedia Wikipedia article comparison or mentioned in news URLS
4) At WP:VPMISC User:Some1 has given interesting comparison of Rowling. If some user instead of WP namespace makes provides such comparison at relevant talk page are we going to block it?
5) I am not filter expert but Which to allow and which to block at talk namespace is likely to be tricky, I suppose that would very much depends on filter expert's inputs.
  • My preferred suggestion/ solution rather than censoring the talk namespace, whether we can use bots to invite and encourage such users to join and discuss their issues at WP:Teahouse, if not satisfied then LLM notice board still not satisfied then to WP:Policy.
One way can be divert first type of users to WP:Teahouse with filter warning on talk namespace to do so. Bookku (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Bookku, I responded to one of your examples here Special:Diff/1319261986/1320258094. This same response would hold true in most cases. I think we need an essay on why Grok is so bad, then link to it in talk page discussions, rather than repeating the same arguments. Possibly this essay could live at WP:GROKIPEDIA along with some other things. The idea is to educate about the dangers of LLMs and/or Grokipedia in particular. Rather than attacking or blocking which can come across as biased. Education is the key to changing minds. As a society we need to quickly come up to speed with identifying machine generated content, understanding it's limitations. — GreenC 17:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break (Grokipedia section)

  • Oppose arson. I see that cyberpower678 has already made edit filtering set to warning, but hope to cite Grokipedia when it's appropriate. I don't know when that will be, but I also don't know how other people can know. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • <joke>Perhaps we should have special AI bots to engage with anyone who mentions it as a source so editors don't have to bother with them! ;-)</joke> I had a look up of something and it was badly biased and the sources did not support what was said. And then it had a history section where it hallucinated post 2025! NadVolum (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
    :) Not a joke, perhaps that would be more effective. A Wikipedian themselves telling not to use Wikipedia as a reference source without properly evaluating sources and content can be an effective communication. Similarly an AI bot itself engaging with them explaining various limitations of AI can really be a good strategy that I may support wholeheartedly.[Joke] :) Conversly if AI bots only end up talking to each other then that can become futile scenareo :)) Bookku (talk) 01:52, 4 November 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.

RFC: Unherd

How would you rate the reliability of Unherd? G13 vs G14 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Option 1: Generally reliable
  • Option 2: Additional considerations apply
  • Option 3: Generally unreliable
  • Option 4: Deprecate

Survey (Unherd)

  • Option 2: Based on the discussion of this website above, I think it is not generally reliable, but at the same time it is not generally unreliable. It should not be used for facts in controversial articles related to politics, science, etc. If used, it should be attributed as opinion of the author in accordance with WP:DUE. It can be used for facts in non-controversial articles, but can be replaced if a better, non-opinion based source exists. Essentially, it has the same reliability as The Spectator. G13 vs G14 (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3: As I said above, it's an alt-right rag used to primarily push TERF talking points as fact. To quote The Guardian, "On issues such as the climate crisis, UnHerd invariably calls for calm and scepticism. But when it comes to trans issues, the alarm seemingly cannot be raised too often or too loudly."[3]Snokalok (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 - As I wrote previously, they should only be used for attributed opinions of the writers where appropriate, but not for much else, especially not for any potentially controversial statements. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3, perfectly usable for expert opinion when relevent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Close RfC as WP:RSOPINION covers it already. Next best alternative is Option 2. Zero specific examples of inaccuracies were provided in the thread above. Alaexis¿question? 15:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2+ per my comments above. It trades in opinions not facts and so it might occasionally be due for the opinions of noteworthy or expert contributors, but could never be used as a source for fact. Given the number of vaccine and public health skeptics they’ve published, I’m pretty confident that if someone knowledgeable about epidemiology could look at almost anything they published about Covid they’d find inaccuracies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    So just to be clear, 2+ means 2, 3, 4? Snokalok (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    Basically additional considerations apply (2), but I don’t want an RSP listing that allows unfamiliar editors to think it could from time to time be used as a source for facts unless there are truly exceptional circumstances. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think one reason we might not just simply deal with it under RSOPINION (per comments below here) is that it’s not just an opinion outlet; its stated mission is to publish opinion that would be considered unpublishable elsewhere, so it is by definition fringe. So we need to be stringent in keeping it out of articles on contentious topics such as vaccinations, lockdowns, or gender identity. I wanted to add that contrary to what some opponents and defenders have said above it is not just a right wing outlet but publishes contrarian positions from across the spectrum, such as the propaganda for the Nicaraguan regime I mentioned before or the article currently on the front page by Aaron Bastani, the editor of Novara. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Per WP:RSOPINION not reliable for statements of fact, only reliable for statements of the authors opinion. No clue where that should land in the above number system (probably a 3) or why there is an RFC. Very clear that this is the majority opinion in the above discussion. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Was there frequent discussion about UnHerd before opening this RfC? This seems like it came out of nowhere. NotJamestack (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    The discussion is right above - [1] G13 vs G14 (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    There was another one before the one above, and they were over 2 years apart. Not repeatedly discussed in my eyes. NotJamestack (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Why exactly do we need an RFC on this? Treating it as per the usual RSOPINION seems fine. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Close RFC. The discussion that apparently prompted this failed to supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. This looks like an attempt to make a site unusable based on its political leanings. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    It publishes material from across the political spectrum, so I don’t think that is the case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    There does not seem to be wide awareness of that fact in the above remarks. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
    partially, agree, not a vote yet tho. seeing more WP:RFCBEFORE would have been helpful.
    generally not in favor of rfcs unless there have been multiple discussions that fail to produce consensus. Wikipedians are smart enough to see consensus per topic area. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the RfC is premature, but am skeptical of the assertion that Wikipedians, collectively, can and routinely do assess topical consensus; preferring instead to delegate all decision-making on usage to the color of an entry at WP:RSP. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
They do until a source is listed on rsp. And then theoretically only because there had been sustained controversy and any topical considerations are listed as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should add something to the banner in stronger terms that say "not everything needs to be listed at RSP, if nobody is arguing with you about it in articlespace you don't need to ask here" or something along those lines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
I have posted a closure request at WP:CR. NotJamestack (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I see cnc said no, and agree. Unless if WP:SNOW applies and everyone votes bad rfc, closure this early is improper. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
2 or 3 it needs careful handling. It's not as simple as 'is this good Y/N?'. What's the context? What's it being used for? Secretlondon (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2: WP:RSOPINION and attribution. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC per my above comments. NotJamestack (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • 2/Bad RfC I think it's a bad RfC because we simply don't have enough controversy regarding the use of this site and in general we should be looking at specific use cases rather than yet more blanket accepts/rejects. That said, I would say 2 with the clear understanding that the source's nature as mostly commentary/analysis is going to make it something that will have limited use. It shouldn't be 3 since we don't really have evidence of reliability issues that aren't already covered by things like RSOPINION. Springee (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Close RfC without prejudice against opening a similar RfC some time soon. What I want to see is a normal discussion with people giving examples of edit X using reference Y and why that is a problem. If that doesn't result in a consensus, go for another RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Bad RFC but "option 2" is closest to my opinion on it. Fine for where opinion/criticism writing is fine. They don't do much news reporting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Bad RFC but "option 2" Per parankayaa. Its mostly opeds, its claims should never be anything but attributed and statements of fact should be taken from better sourcing. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC.The 4-way fill-in-the-box including a ban option is bad. If there's dispute in a Wikipedia article e.g. Global Disinformation Index then that could perhaps be discussed on the talk page first. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3, though it may sometimes be used for attributed statements of opinion when covering the opinions of subject-matter experts, due weight permitting. It has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and honestly no indication that they even attempt what we would consider proper editorial controls. Disagree with the people above arguing that the RFC should be closed or isn't necessary; it is not necessarily obvious to everyone at a glance that this source is only usable for attributed opinion, and in fact it is currently used for unattributed statements of fact in several articles. It comes up a huge amount on talk pages, where people often use it to argue for facts, not opinion. It's obvious to us that this isn't a source usable for statements of fact; it is not necessarily obvious to people who are less familiar with the ins and outs of Wikipedia's sourcing policy. This is the sort of thing that WP:RSP exists for. They are not usable for statements of fact, and given the constant confusion over that point and the repeated discussions, we ought to make that unambiguously clear - especially since nobody seems to disagree with that fact, they just disagree over how clear we need to make it. "It could be cited for attributed opinion when they're interviewing an expert" is a normal exception per WP:EXPERTSPS, since it doesn't matter who the publisher is in that case, and isn't a reason to be unclear when a source is otherwise unusable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
    The issue, however, is that there have not been repeated discussions. This has only been discussed twice and the discussions are two years apart. There is not enough substance for an RFC here. NotJamestack (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No need for the RfC but if we must, then option 2, because there is no indication that it is unreliable for what it publishes: the opinions of its authors, which we would always attribute. Can we stop using this board to try to gerrymander enemy sources out of existence, and start using it to discuss reliability of sources in context, like the massive banners at the top say? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Bad RFC The consensus of the prior discussion seems clear, they mostly publish OpEds that should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. There's no need to have an RFC when policy is clear on the points involved. Whether a particular opinion is worth inclusion in an article is going to depend on the author and the specific article. As it's raison d'être is basically to be controversial that's unlikely to be the case very often. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The Military Watch

Not to be confused with Military Watch Magazine, The Military Watch is a Facebook page with limited followers. It's cited 45 times at List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Russo-Ukrainian war, so figured I'd better at least discuss it here before editing. FDW777 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

When were they added, and by whom? If it is one person, it could be promotional and being spammed. Please check to see when they were added, and if it was one person, and the page was used in many other pages at around the same time, you may nominate the source for spam blacklist. If it was one person, you may check spamcheck.toolforge.org to make checking for spam easier. Thanks. NotJamestack (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
They were initially added by someone who's username/IP has been removed [1][2][3].
Later they were cited by @Dombo78 [1][2] then by @BlackFlanker [1][2] & by @Mr.User200 [1][2][3], all before 2024.
So it seems several editors have cited it over the years. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
I can't see that it's anything but a random self published Facebook page. It appears to be run my someone called Marcin Rogowski, who doesn't appear to have any previously published works per WP:EXPERTSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of marathimovieworld.com as a source

I would like to solicit input regarding the reliability of the website marathimovieworld.com, which is being used as a source for Marathi-cinema content.

About the website

  • The site publishes news, reviews, previews, trailers, cast/crew details, and occasional interviews about Marathi films.
  • Example sections: News, MovieDetail pages, Reviews.
  • I could not find clear information on editorial oversight, an editorial policy, or whether content is produced by trained journalists or by contributors/enthusiasts.

Points for discussion

  • Editorial oversight / verification — Does anyone know whether marathimovieworld.com has an editorial policy or fact-checking procedures? Is it run by a recognised media organisation or by independent bloggers?
  • Reviews vs factual claims — For film reviews (criticism), the site may be acceptable, but for factual reporting (release dates, casting announcements, box office figures), should we accept it as reliable, or require independent corroboration from more established outlets?
  • Independence / promotional content — Is the site independent of film production/marketing (i.e., not owned/controlled by studios or PR agencies)? Does it primarily re-publish press releases, or does it do original reporting?
  • Past usage / problems — Has anyone used this site in articles and encountered verifiability or accuracy problems?

Tentative view

I recommend caution: treat marathimovieworld.com as potentially useful for opinion/review citations, but verify factual claims with independent, reliable sources when possible. I'm open to being convinced otherwise with evidence (e.g., clear editorial policy, reputable staff, or widespread independent citation).

Please share any experience, links to the site's about/editorial pages, or examples of high-quality reporting from the site. Morekar (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't look like serious journalism per [4]. --Hipal (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Can this be used for film reviews? Morekar (talk) 23:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we should assume any independence of the reviews, so no. --Hipal (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I've left a notification with the Indian cinema WikiProject[5]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Twitter post as a source on article Justin Barrett?

A user is edit warring to include the content "and compared himself to Josef Mengele, who was involved in Nazi human experimentation, in a Tweet in October 2025". It is only sourced to a tweet https://x.com/BarrettNatSocP/status/1977838806683255224 . It is also not clear if he even made this comparison.

On another page, an admit stated "Deciding which quotes from someone's social media account to include, especially when committing OR with language like similarly, is not fine. We don't decide what views of a BLP should be included, secondary sources do that. Also, WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly does not allow statements not about the subject themselves."

Additionally, since this is a BLP, per WP:ONUS, the user should find a consensus first before inserting controversial claims ~2025-31266-17 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The section "who was involved in Nazi human experimentation" is probably unnecessary, but him comparing himself to Mengele (which he certainly does do) is a valid WP:ABOUTSELF situation. What ABOUTSELF would prevent is if I created a Twitter account and compared him to Mengele. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I always love when people don't read further than sentence 1: On another page, an admit stated ""Deciding which quotes from someone's social media account to include, especially when committing OR with language like "similarly", is not fine. We don't decide what views of a BLP should be included, secondary sources do that. Also, WP:ABOUTSELF explicitly does not allow statements not about the subject themselves."" ~2025-31285-64 (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
You can put it in bold all you like, doesn't change the fact you're taking a quote by a single editor used in a different context (i.e. where someone's tweets were being used against secondary sources to establish wider political leanings) and trying to use it here to argue something completely different. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Can someone else reply please, this guy doesn't seem to get it ~2025-30969-34 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
A quote saying "Jews don't like me but in common with Dr. Mengele, one meeting and they never forget!" using the tweet as a source would be perfectly reliable. The issue here seems to be about WP:DUE, but that's not a reliability issue. Just because something can be reliably sourced doesn't mean it should always be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Among other things, it's just obviously promotional and self-aggrandizing. We wouldn't include an academic's tweet comparing themselves to Albert Einstein! Suriname0 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
How would this be due weight? Can we just start assembling an article based on all the tweets he has made? Unless they are basic facts like birthday tweets should not be used. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Could you remove it then? ~2025-31625-93 (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Daily Mirror text appeared on Wikipedia 13 years before?

  • Leishman 2023, mirror.co.uk: After shooting indiscriminately at partygoers, Pardo unwrapped the 'present' containing the homemade flamethrower and used it to spray racing fuel gasoline and set the home ablaze.
  • DocOfSoc 2010, on Covina, California: After the shootings, Pardo unwrapped a Christmas package containing a homemade flamethrower, and used it to spray racing fuel gasoline to set the home ablaze.

DocOfSoc does have an open CCI, so maybe there's a common source for both, but it seems the Daily Mirror definitely didn't write the text, which I should think casts doubt on their reliability (noting they're yellow-lit at RSP). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Police believe that after Pardo stopped shooting he unwrapped his gift -- a home-made device used to spread fire -- and used it to set the house ablaze[6] 2008 CNN article. Closely paraphrased into Covina massacre by User:Cyanidethistles[7] in 2008, which DocOfSon linked in his edit. Given how close the rest of the Daily Mirror article appears to match Covina massacre, I would guess that's the common source. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 05:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The Week

Crowdfund Insider

The article https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2014/02/31795-child-abuse-victims-speak-former-fleetwood-mac-guitarists-kickstarter-campaign/ "Child Abuse Victims Speak Out Against Former Fleetwood Mac Guitarist’s Kickstarter Campaign" on "Crowdfund Insider" was cited on Jeremy Spencer. It contains child abuse allegations. The article has a byline, and it has been up for eleven years, but I don't think it's strong enough for BLP purposes. I've never heard of it (but their topics of publishing aren't in my areas of interest), so I excised it from the article, but wanted feedback from a larger audience if it can remain in the article.-Ich (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure "various" (or the other descriptions used in the source) should really be transmuted into "consistent" even if we accept the source uncritically, but I'm, uh, not the biggest fan of crypto sources and general (non-crypto) BLP stuff would seem to fall outside of the areas of expertise. So I guess I agree we shouldn't really be using crypto sources, especially for contentious BLP content. On the other hand there is coverage of the tour (with a bit less of the more out there stuff) in The San Diego Union-Tribune, which is a normal, widely-circulated metropolitan broadsheet (see our article on the newspaper) so if people do want to add something in perhaps less contentious terms... Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a great find and much better than the original source. I think at the very least adding a section "cancelled tour and kickstarter" and something to the effect of "this proposed tour was criticized by Safe Passage Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for children raised in cults. The foundation had also launched a change.org petition."-Ich (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

"Co-founder locks edits on Gaza genocide page"

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Times of Isreal
 – Aaron Liu (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/wikipedia-co-founder-locks-edits-on-gaza-genocide-page-citing-anti-israel-bias/

I think times of Israel is unreliable or extremely biased when it comes to Israel Palestine conflict and should be used with caution.

There are many articles like this.

I will start making a list from now on.... Cinaroot (talk) 07:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Somehow every outlet picked up on this false headline. See Talk:Gaza genocide#"Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales made the extraordinary move Sunday to lock down the online encyclopedia’s English-language entry on the genocide in Gaza." or the {{Press}} box on top of that page: No idea which outlet originated the claim but everybody (from NYPost to The Verge, from JPost to Al Jazeera) parrotted it, though the prestige-ish outlets like Reuters, NYT, and The Telegraph haven't. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
A lot of these made retroactive updates to their original headlines and content. Though looking at it again, I'm not sure if The Verge's ever had the incorrect headline.
Anyways, my point is this is not a political bias issue, as demonstrated by Al Jazeera on the opposite wing initially repeating the same claim: https://archive.today/2025.11.04-185538/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/4/why-did-wikipedia-cofounder-block-edits-to-the-gaza-genocide-page (now updated to "editor") Aaron Liu (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
While I would agree that TOI is biased, its practices have shown that it is GREL, and this mistake is not something that really warrants any change in its current assessment. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
aljazeera corrected it. Cinaroot (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
So did TOI. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Its not corrected. The headline “Wikipedia co-founder says page on ‘Gaza genocide’ locked due to anti-Israel bias” is inaccurate — Jimmy Wales never said that. Misattributing statements like this isn’t a minor error; it’s poor reporting. In Al Jazeera’s case, it’s not as bad, since the claim was framed more as a question than a direct assertion.
Cinaroot (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Also its carefully designed to persuade public opinion in Israel imo Cinaroot (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Looks like they changed title from "Wikipedia co-founder locks edits on ‘Gaza genocide’ page, citing anti-Israel bias" to "Wikipedia co-founder says page on ‘Gaza genocide’ locked due to anti-Israel bias" [8]
So this is no longer a mistake. Its deliberate Cinaroot (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Headlines are never reliable, see WP:RSHEADLINE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
It says the same in body. Read opening sentence. Cinaroot (talk) 18:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
My comment was simply an aside about headlines, I have no need to read anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
To add to this, the article also calls locking an article a "rare move", which isn't true at all. It happens somewhat often, just not always on high-profile articles. The article also just repeats Wales's claims. Cortador (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Full protection is a rare move. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
NYPost seems to be the first one who made the mistake based on publications times. But it could also be that they all made the same mistake independently, as most people don't know the basics of even checking edit histories on articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Aaron is right. Even the most reliable sourcing is somehow lazy and incorrect on wikipedia on the regular. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Al jazeera, an outlet on the other side, also ran with this headline though i believe they eventuallh issued a half assed correction. edit: didn't see aaron already pointed out al jazeera messed up too, right below his original reply. whoops. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I think this is an example of how newspapers and the like are not as reliable as many Wikipedians seem to think. If you know a lot about a subject a newspaper is writing about, they often make serious errors (c.f. Gell-Mann amnesia effect). This is why scholarly sources are preferred in most cases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Scholarly sources don’t tend to understand Wikipedia any better on the whole BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is true, most reporting on Wikipedia is very poor and fails to understand how things actually work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
This does somewhat link into concerns of enwiki becoming a walled garden of sorts, where it's difficult for newcomers and non-editors to understand our policies; however, that's a discussion for a different noticeboard. The Kip (contribs) 19:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Completely agree about newcomers, we do a very bad job of getting editors started. There's a few things that are being done but it's glacial, and the learning process is still a cliff face. However non-editors could just ask, if Wikipedians are known for anything it's exceedingly verbose discussions about the Wiki's policies and practices. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

If I got things right, there is a discussion about the Gaza War, Jimbo took part in it, and that discussion itself became a news topic. Is there an article about all this (not the Gaza War, but the Wikipedia drama about it), where those sources are being used? Because if not, this whole thread is pointless. Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If the sources that reported that Jimbo locked down the page and after been told they were wrong, did not correct or retract, that adds to any concern on their reliability. Masem (t) 16:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Making mistakes about the internal workings of a minor web page can fit into the "nobody cares" margin of error. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia is currently in the political discourse, including the whole debate on Israel, the assertion that the founder locked down a page is actually a major error that should be corrected by any outlet that claimed that. Masem (t) 18:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
You have a funny definition of "minor website". Wikipedia is consistently one of the top ten most visited websites. We are currently below Google and FaceBook but above Amazon and Microsoft.com[9] --Guy Macon (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Debate? So there is a debate, then? Because everybody was fighting tooth and nail to say that there is no debate and that everybody's in agreement. Good to know. Cambalachero (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
There is a political debate. There is little academic debate. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. The headline is claiming Wales forced either censorship/manipulation of content or used extraordinary measures stemming from his authority to rein in a page's content (the article content says it's extraordinary). In reality he just discussed it. "locks edit on page" is completely understandable to anyone, and anyone would know how that is different from making a forum post. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
If we were to downrank the reliability of all sources wrong about Wikipedia, we would have no sources left. Every academic article I have ever read on Wikipedia that wasn't written by a Wikipedia editor contains some error about this website's functioning. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this. There is a difference between ignorance and deliberate misinformation. Black Kite (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
+1. I basically never expect sources written by non-Wikipedians to correctly report on Wikipedia's internal procedures. The Kip (contribs) 19:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The best journalist, in my opinion, who covers Wikipedia regularly and in a reasonably accurate fashion, is Stephen Harrison, writing for Slate. Cullen328 (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Josh Dzieza (a red link) et al writing for The Verge a couple of months ago did a pretty job, I think. It's behind a firewall so...archive.is your friend if you want. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • This is not the first time Times of Israel has failed to get basic facts correct. They've previously gotten basic facts about WP:ARBPIA5 incorrect in their reporting. Per our policy on reliable sources, "[a]rticles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Times of Israel clearly fail on this metric and they should be downgraded from green at WP:RSP. TarnishedPathtalk 10:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • It's not a good look for the sources that got it wrong, and especially not for ones that failed to issue a correction... but reliability is about overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and it's pretty rare for one incident to destroy a source's reputation all on its own. At best this is a reason to keep an eye on those sources and see if there's other incidents like this, coupled with secondary sources covering them in a way that makes it clear that their reputation has declined. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of GB News

WP:NAC Consistent with several discussions going back to at least 2021 (see the GB News entry at WP:RSPS), the consensus here is clear: GB News is generally unreliable. No evidence or arguments have been presented here that demonstrate otherwise, and continued discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:36, 7 November 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.

GB News channel has won two TRIC Awards in 2025 and also won its historic Judicial Appeal, against Ofcom, including winning its legal costs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86pp6wq1xno

Given the 2025 GB News channel journalistic success, is it time to admit them to the reliable sources list? Dotsdomain (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you point to sources that would support a claim that GB News has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Neither the court ruling, which refers to a specific Offcom ruling regarding two shows hosted by Jacob Rees-Mogg, rather than anything more general, or the TRIC awards (for which you provide no source, and for which media coverage in general seems very sparse, suggesting that they aren't seen as significant) appear in any way to do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Just to clarify about the judicial review of the Ofcom decision: the court didn’t rule that Ofcom was incorrect; it ruled that Ofcom didn’t have the authority because the show was a “current affairs” show not a “news” show. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Bobfrombrockley With respect, the outcome of the unprecedented Court ruling together with the annulment (quashing) of the Ofcom decision, of two sample counts against the then sitting MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg along with the award of legal costs against Ofcom, is a "win" according to the cited BBC headline. There is currently debate about whether the Corporation (BBC) is itself reliable, yet other news outlets have also agreed, by describing the Court ruling, achieved by GB News as a win. Tellingly, Ofcom announced it would not seek Leave to Appeal the decision, that they lost.
Most if not all impartial viewers would have expected a media Regulator to know the difference between a News Programme and Current Affairs output (free speech) without the input of the judiciary.
As for the industry recognition achieved by the Charlie Peters' (TRIC) award, the respected investigative news presenter raised national media awareness of the UK Grooming gang scandals. The second award was won by the GB News Breakfast team, who were up against fierce competition including BBC News, ITV News and Good Morning Britain (GMB) but seemingly Sky News didn't even make the final cut.
The canvassing of votes on-air by GMB, didn't boost their winning chances, so there is no reason to believe that it helped GB News to win their winning nominations either. Dotsdomain (talk) 09:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
is a "win" according to the cited BBC headline Winning a court case does not make one a reliable source. The BBC article says that the court found that JRM's programme was a current affairs programme, not a news programme, and thus is not bound by rule 5.3 of Ofcom's broadcast standards governing the required level of impartiality and accuracy in news programmes.
A ruling that JRM's programme should not be held to as high a standard of impartiality and accuracy as Ofcom wanted is a legal win for GB News but it is not evidence that it is a reliable source; if anything it is a strike against it being reliable!
As for the TRIC award: winning a public vote is not a good indicator of reliability. Even assuming that this is a perfectly fair vote among disinterested members of the public, and not simply a measure of how good the various nominees are at motivating their viewers to vote, public popularity != reliability. 1421: The Year China Discovered the World was a best-seller despite being absolute nonsense. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public Aren't Wiki editors also members of the public?
If we used the members of the public analogy, nobody would be eligible to vote for anything. A free vote is just that. Nothing more nothing less. One view is no more compelling than the next in a free vote. Dotsdomain (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia editors are members of the public. We theoretically make content decisions on the basis of reasoned discussion based on our policies and what reliable sources say, not whatever gets the most votes, so I'm not really sure what your point is here.
In general people are perfectly eligible to vote for things; Wikipedia just doesn't usually take those votes into account when deciding whether or not a source is reliable. To show a source is reliable you need to demonstrate that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, or that other sources which we consider reliable treat it as a reliable source. Whether or not some members of the public voted for it to win a television award has no bearing on the matter. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Not even just theoretically if a proposal got a majority of votes based on just support with no reason they would probably not be counted(and potentially the same thing if the votes got collapsed for something like AI.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 11:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
What Caeciliusinhorto-public said. A win in court about Ofcom's jurisdiction is not an indicator of GBN's reliability. Popularity with non-expert media consumers is not an indicator of reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
@Dotsdomain: I'd actually go further than, BobFromBrockley and Caeciliusinhorto-public. If the Ofcom win does mean anything to Wikipedia, it's that Jacob Rees-Mogg's programme cannot be used as an RS with the possible exception of attributed opinions per WP:RSOPINION which frankly would IMO be the default position anyway. But it doesn't tell us if GB News's other programmes are RS, or for that matter even if Jacob Rees-Mogg's programme is suitable to be used for RSOPINION. It maybe does suggest additional caution with GB News if they treat other programmes similarly although as I mentioned frankly from our PoV Jacob Rees-Mogg's programme is always likely to have been RSOPINION. Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
We don't have a "reliable sources list". We do have a list of frequently-discussed sources, and GB News is already on that list. Cortador (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The list is called reliable sources/perenial sources list to be fair WP:RSP so I don't really object to it being called that(even if I disagree with them on GB news.) GothicGolem29 (Talk) 11:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
GB News and its presenters have actually won multiple TRIC awards since 2023, which is unsurprising when they are fairly unknown awards decided by a public vote and various websites and social media pages aligned with GB News (and GB News themselves!) persistently nag their viewers to vote for them multiple times. Black Kite (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Black Kite As a GB News viewer, were you persuaded by their "persistent nag" to cast a vote for them or the other nominations in their category?
I doubt you did, so how persuasive was the vote canvassing? Dotsdomain (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I have never watched GB News (to be honest I don't watch TV news much at all). I have however seen the canvassing for votes on social media on a few occasions, notably Facebook. I think this is a bit irrelevant, though; if you believe that GB News is no longer unreliable, the best thing to do would be to start another RfC focusing on its actual output rather than minor award shows. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
It's fair enough that you do not watch GB News, you're probably not my target audience, as I am attempting to gather information from viewers that would support GB News, reporting accuracy and reliability. This also includes their website. Dotsdomain (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense - if you're intending to run an RfC (which will need to happen if GB News is to be reclassified) it would obviously be useful to gather information from those both for and against its inclusion in reliable sources, as both of those classes of people will comment on it. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Black Kite That's true enough, as you can see on this topic though, those against GB News credibility, take care of themselves. If you do not view the channel or their website then you are not really the target viewer for any discussion that would potentially gives an authoritive opinion, either way.
In much the same way, if people don't read The Daily Telegraph perhaps due to their online Paywall restrictions, then any opinion they hold is less valuable than perhaps those with an online subscription, only because the Telegraph subscribers have 24/7 access. An analogy might be, how could you review a particular restaurant meal, if you hadn't tasted their food? Dotsdomain (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Dotsdomain, please stop wasting our time with this nonsense, and read WP:RS. Reliability isn't a popularity contest, and what the viewers think of GB News is of almost zero relevance to how Wikipedia assesses reliability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
WP's standard is not editors' original research based on analysing the sources ourselves; it is reputation for reliability, as indicated by use by other reliable sources, passed or failed factchecks, regulatory rulings, etc. So being a subscriber is not a good path to assessing that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Black Kite There seems to be a dismissive attitude towards the TRIC Awards here, can I ask why TRIC is notable enough to have its own page?
Thanks. Dotsdomain (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by you're probably not my target audience? Do you have a conflict of interest here? Orange sticker (talk) 11:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I suspect they mean that they only want the opinion of people who watch GB News, so those would have a positive opinion (otherwise why watch it?) - a.k.a. cherry picking. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Well that's not much better! Orange sticker (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Very strange to see a proposition that we should reconsider viewing GB News as a reliable source because it won a legal case on the grounds... it wasn't airing news so isn't subject rules on impartiality or accuracy which are things that are fundamentally important to how we assess sources.
GB News is an opinion channel with a long established history of extremely biased reporting and presentation. It's not a credible news organisation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I note that my request for evidence that GB News has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" has gone unanswered. And given the nonsense above, I'll ask another one: @Dotsdomain, have you ever actually read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? One gets the distinct impression that you haven't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
See, that's your problem, Andy. You keep insisting on fancy-pants "evidence" rather than simply accepting the word of anonymous strangers on the Internet. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump I have read much of the wiki reliable sources you linked to. To refresh all our memories,
"Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility," that does seem to be quite a good starting place. Dotsdomain (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
No. See all previous discussions. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:58, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there's enough here to justify a reassessment of consensus on this, and if one were reopened on these grounds, I'd support the status quo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:14, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The sentence "It's fair enough that you do not watch GB News, you're probably not my target audience, as I am attempting to gather information from viewers that would support GB News, reporting accuracy and reliability." show a basic ignorance of how Wikipedia works. First, popularity is not reliability. If it was, Infowars would be more reliable than The New England Journal of Medicine. Second, our job is to figure out if GB news is reliable, not to decide without evidence that it is and then gather information supporting that decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not challenging your premise that "popularity is not reliability" that is self evident, The Sun (United Kingdom). If we can't discuss the potential reliability of GB News here, then we can't reach a rational mature conclusion on whether GB News, is or it isn't on par with other news outlets that are historicly considered reliable sources. The Times and the The Daily Telegraph are considered reliable, yet both operate online paywalls, which prevent the vast majority of the public from instantly checking the reliability of their citations within our published articles. Yet we currently can't include credible citations from GB News, whose output is less extreme than the Telegraph and is as neutral as the Times. Admittedly GB News hasn't been around for as long as many other institutions, editors in the main set the rules collaboratively based on reasonable discussion, research and comparison of the criteria that each outlet must meet. This topic's aim is to weigh up where possible the pros and cons of GB News, prior to deciding on the next (if any) steps to be taken.
Constructive criticism should always be welcome but negativity for its own sake does nothing to enhance the improvements many of us want implemented after due diligence. Dotsdomain (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Yet we currently can't include credible citations from GB News, whose output is less extreme than the Telegraph and is as neutral as the Times.
Yeah, this is the exact moment whatever good faith this discussion had has officially run out (WP:SUICIDEPACT). There is simply no ability to take seriously someone claiming that the opinion channel that uses politicians as hosts, has aired a variety of misinformation and is constantly in hot water with the regulator, and only managed to escape sanction by arguing that it isn't airing news programming is anywhere close to The Times in terms of journalistic integrity. I'd sooner see us assess Sunday Sport as generally reliable Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't see that anything has changed since the last discussion on GB News, see the archives for details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
As the propaganda wing of Reform UK, its claims to reliability remain as persuasive as they ever were. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

No, per all above and previous discussions. TRIC Awards are also a public vote (per their own article), so that's an extremely poor determinator of reliability; while I don't know if they actually did this, who's to say they didn't campaign amongst their readers to vote for them? The Kip (contribs) 19:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • PROPOSAL: I propose that an experienced editor who is not involved in the above discussion write up a brief summary of the consensus and close this discussion. It is clearly going nowhere and the consensus seems clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
  • None of the things you've brought up help its reliability. It won the court case because it was found that it was not a news channel, so that counts against it; and "awards" that are awarded via online polling are WP:USERGENERATED and not worth the bits used to broadcast them. And coverage from experts makes it clear they lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy:
  • Talk TV and GB News also serve as a demonstration of how the oligarchic structures of UK traditional media make it vulnerable to dark ideas. Both have been accused platforming dark ideas, particularly far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation.[1]
  • Home to a number of Conservative MPs hosting their own shows, GB News has breached broadcasting rules on numerous occasions including for platforming anti-vax conspiracies. The channel has also interviewed a number of far-right groups and supporters, whilst host Martin Daubney promoted a fake story about ‘sexual harassment from refugee boys’ sourced from a ‘Hotels Housing Illegals’ Telegram chat.[2]
  • GB News UK has been marked as a “conspiracy theory”, “pseudoscience” and “propaganda” news source by MBFC since it has almost failed fact checks (almost all of them are related to COVID-19).[3] (I don't think MBFC itself is a great source to cite directly, but in this case its conclusions are being taken seriously by an academic secondary source.)
...and so on. I can find more if necessary, but this shows in general how poor of a reputation GB News has. None of the things presented here change that or even really confront or challenge it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fowles, Sam (2025). ""Extremism is the Point: How Our Society and Politics Foster Dark Ideas."". Demagogues, Populism and Misinformation: A Guide to Combating Dark Ideas. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 149. Talk TV and GB News also serve as a demonstration of how the oligarchic structures of UK traditional media make it vulnerable to dark ideas. Both have been accused platforming dark ideas, particularly far-right conspiracy theories and misinformation.
  2. ^ Fekete, Liz (1 January 2024). "The hurricane from the Right". Race & Class. 65 (3): 92–103. doi:10.1177/03063968231212993. ISSN 0306-3968. Home to a number of Conservative MPs hosting their own shows, GB News has breached broadcasting rules on numerous occasions including for platforming anti-vax conspiracies. The channel has also interviewed a number of far-right groups and supporters, whilst host Martin Daubney promoted a fake story about 'sexual harassment from refugee boys' sourced from a 'Hotels Housing Illegals' Telegram chat.
  3. ^ Papadogiannakis, Emmanouil; Kourtellis, Nicolas; Papadopoulos, Panagiotis; Markatos, Evangelos (22 April 2025). "Welcome to the Dark Side: Analyzing the Revenue Flows of Fraud in the Online Ad Ecosystem". Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. WWW '25. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery: 1522–1535. doi:10.1145/3696410.3714899. ISBN 979-8-4007-1274-6.
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.

The Asia Business Daily

I added an Asia Business Daily article to NCT Wish. I used this article to argue that 24,000 people mobilized this group's sold-out first concert in Seoul. Is the Asia Business Daily generally reliable? Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The Asia Business Daily is a standard Kor an news organisation, so generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG unless something serious shows otherwise. In the case of the specific article note that it's not the newspaper saying 24,000 attended the concert but SM Entertainment, the band's management company. So it's better to say the groups management said that 24,000 people attend the concert rather than just "24,000 people attended the concert". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Shore News Network

Mario Kranjac (deletion discussion) has sources from an organization called Shore News Network. I don't think this is a reliable source for facts or for notability: no bylines, no editorial staff list. Example: [10]. Thoughts? 🌊PacificDepths🌊 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Take a look at this:[11][12][13][14] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The "about" page at [15] lists their address as
301 Route 17 North, Suite 800 # 12-40 Rutherford NJ 07070
Putting that into Google shows the following businesses that have the exact same address:
  • Jstu Elites (truck accessories)
  • Relations Transportation (General Freight company that registered with DOT in 2022 and promptly vanished)
  • Hartmann Industries ("business solutions provider" with no website)
  • Martenette Farms LLC ("Cet fresh organic local food delivered to your door weekly!")
  • Pricklee Cactus Water (canned drinks)
  • Binaries.io ("Software development and services firm")
  • Children Entertainment R US (Rent a bounce house, Catering, and they are nationwide!)
  • ...and hundreds more
They are all actually customers of Alliance Virtual Offices.
"Build trust and credibility with a commercially recognized address. Establish your business at a commercially recognized address to achieve long-term stability in your chosen market. It’s a fast, cost-effective way to build trust and credibility with clients and stakeholders. With a virtual business address, you can effectively communicate your professional presence to the world. Using virtual office services ensures that your business maintains a prestigious address without the overhead costs of a physical office."
Also note that Frank Sadeghi, owner of Shore News Network, put this up on his website:
https://www.franksadeghi.com/2025/03/23/ocean-county-unveils-608-7m-budget-with-stable-tax-rate-major-investment-in-growth-and-education/
It's easy to get good press when you own the presses.
--Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

What is this ?

Came across to develop and cite some, I have encountered a ref tag with timesofassam.com. Been through, searched archive, and reading some of their news/articles, found a rat. I wonder how I missed it. It's a too small news portal, but old, somehow in 2010, but very accurate in specifically militancy issues of north-eastern India. I wonder, how come this little pony got too much news attentions in several Wikipedia articles about north-eastern-India and South Asia? Is it a PR or Mass engagement war by them? Not listed as a reliable source, not listed as un-reliable too, still they are being a factor to Indian nation media in regards of news related to militancy! Why exactly they are here? Can't we ban or block them? SaTnamZIN (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you re-explain, what is the exact issue? What claim is this being cited for? Ramos1990 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I meant, is that source reliable? SaTnamZIN (talk) 07:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Reliable for what? I can only find 7 citations to timesofassam.com, which doesn't look like 'mass engagement' to me. [16] You'll have to provide more evidence. As for 'not listed as a reliable source', WE DON'T DO THAT. Wikipedia has never had any such list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Usage and a previous discussion (including input from a sock). The interview with Alan Skorski is pretty wild. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Oops - I'd obviously not used the search function properly. Looking at the website, I'd say that this page alone [17] was possibly sufficient to rule it out as a reliable source, since they seem to publish user-submitted content. Beyond that though, it looks questionable in several regards, and I'd be very wary of citing it for anything contentious, even without the user-submitted content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump That has 57. SaTnamZIN (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
If it allows (as it seems to ) user-generated content, no it is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
What do you mean by user-generated content? SaTnamZIN (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
With both the above link and this [[18]] "we’re reliant on field investigations" implies they rely on "citizen reporters". Also (I cannot find it now) I am sure there was a submit a story link. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Eh.. These are too common in Indian media. SaTnamZIN (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that is the problem, and why we have to have a note over at wp:rsp. Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Got it now. SaTnamZIN (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Heart Mountain (Wyoming)

Could someone please look at the sourcing issue at Talk:Heart Mountain (Wyoming)#Size error? My Internet keeps shutting down and I am having a heck of a time verifying sources, especially sources behind paywalls. Thanks!

Please note that the page is getting extra attention because of https://xkcd.com/3162/ --Guy Macon (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Bloomberg Law News

Is Bloomberg Law News a reliable source?

URL: news.bloomberglaw.com
Link SearchFulltext
GoogleWhois

From Bloomberg Law, it is stated that Bloomberg Law is a subscription-based service that uses data analytics and artificial intelligence for online legal research, so Bloomberg Law should be generally unreliable. However, what about Bloomberg Law News, a.k.a. their news platform? SuperGrey (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I haven't seen an issue with them in the past but that was before the LLM AI bubble hit. What I've seen doesn't suggest AI is being used (at least, not as a final product). Masem (t) 17:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
"Uses artificial intelligence for online legal research" does not equal "uses LLMs to write articles." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
AI in online legal research would typically be used for stuff like algorithms for finding relevant cases when practitioners search for cases or providing summaries of how a particular court/judge is likely to rule based on their past rulings. Unless there's evidence that it's being used to write articles, the news articles should be fine -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
@Masem, Patar knight, Tioaeu8943: To prevent the discussion from deviating too far -- I just want to know what's the reliability rating of Bloomberg Law News. Is it generally reliable, or marginally reliable, if it is not unreliable? SuperGrey (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, or there are concerns about an individual article (even RSs get things wrong), it should be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG since it's part of Bloomberg. They appear to have staff writers per some profiles on LinkedIn (e.g. [19] among many at [20]) and the page for pitches indicates editorial control that includes a fact checking and corrections process. [21] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
They seem to be within generally reliable. Masem (t) 00:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
As our article on Bloomberg Law goes on to say, “Bloomberg Law combines content from Bloomberg's global news network, legal analysis, court dockets, legal filings and reports from Bloomberg legal analysts as well as business news and information. Attorneys can also draw upon stock charts, search patent histories and find information about relevant judges and attorneys.” News reports from Bloomberg Law are generally reliable and are respected and given credence within the legal profession. The reliability of other types of information varies by the type of information, but Bloomberg Law is seen as being as credible as any other source. John M Baker (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of Signals CV and VV Daily Press for entertainer biographies

See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Brian Hull

Both of these sources were mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Hull (impressionist) where they were referred to as a "decent writeup in a local distribution newspaper" and "another California new piece" respectively. I haven't seen the deleted article, so I can't tell you if either of these sources had been used there to begin with. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Are the other sources (that described this source) reliable themselves? If so, and they described this source as reliable, then I don't see why you wouldn't consider it as such. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"Would they be considered reliable enough to help towards GNG if their coverage of Brian Hull was significant?" is what I'm asking. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Signals CV seems like an established local news paper, and so should be reliable. As ever with local news papers they will be most reliable for their local area, I would hesitate to use them for national or global issues. The VV Daily Press (archive for anyone having issue accessing the particular article) seems the same, they are owned by New Media Investment Group (e.g. USA Today) who are considered generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I see many articles using Signals CV as a reliable source for local issues. LDW5432 (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Usage in articles isn't always a great way to judge reliability, Wikipedia itself is very commonly used as a reference venue though it's explicitly not allowed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The i Paper. Launched by The Independent but printed by Daily Mail. Reliable?

This is not an RfC. I have not seen any discussion on the reliability of The i Paper. It is nonpartisan and has never endorsed any British political party. It was launched by The Independent, which is considered reliable. but is printed by Daily Mail, which is deprecated per WP:DAILYMAIL. It is published in tabloid format, but is not classed as such. They are a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation and maintain editorial standards with a large team for this, and also take feedback from readers when errors arise (see this webpage). CMA also enforces the paper to be run separately as of 2019. I am left confused, hence why I am asking for opinions here! Thanks! 11WB (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Just because it's owned and printed by the same head company as the Daily Mail doesn't mean anything. For instance The Sun is largely considered a pile of garbage but is owned by the same company as The Times which is considered one of the more reliable newspapers in the UK. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG unless credible concerns are raised. As Rambling Rambler said having the same publisher as a unreliable source isn't an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

AnglicanWatch and Anglican Ink

Another user (courtesy ping to @Happysociologist) has repeatedly attempted to add contentious material to various articles that is sourced to AnglicanWatch and Anglican Ink. I'd like to get an opinion on whether these are appropriate:

Happysociologist insists AnglicanWatch is not self-published and that the Anglican Ink articles are also secondary and reliable to use. diff, diff, diff. I disagree, and per WP:BRD I am coming here to get a broader consensus. Consider:

  • AnglicanWatch names a single person on its "About" page and some number of unknown anonymous "volunteers". It republishes extensively from other sources with no evidence that it has permission to do so ([22], [23], [24]). What content appears to be original is unbylined/unattributed, highly opinionated and riddled with BLP issues ([25], [26], [27], [28]). I cannot imagine using this source to report on controversial or contentious issues.
  • Anglican Ink was the subject of an RSN discussion two years ago that rejected it for a particular use but did not reach a judgment on it generally. I would put it in the "unreliable" category. It appears to have two people, and while one of them (George Conger) was once known for his freelance journalism, today the vast, vast majority of what Anglican Ink publishes is reposts of press releases, letters and other primary source documents. I am pinging @StAnselm, @Erp, @Random person no 362478479 and @LPascal from that discussion.

While I would be OK with the use of Anglican Ink in cases where WP:PRIMARYSOURCES are acceptable, I think it's important to reach a determination of whether Anglican Ink is a repository of such sources. I also do not believe AnglicanWatch should be acceptable except in the very limited cases where WP:SPS are permitted. I welcome thoughts from other editors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the content in dispute, I see exactly why this discussion is appropriate. While I consider the WashPo portion of that edit seems actually DUE, I think Dclemens1971 is right that AnglicanWatch is not an RS. I would hold that it should only be used for uncontroversial information the same way someone's own blog might be accepted for material on themselves. Anglican Ink might be worth evaluating more on a case-by-case basis, but it's not useful for much more than SPS stuff. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Good assessment. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
It may be worthwhile to add Ministry Watch to this discussion. It is similar to Anglican Watch in that it is an independent 501(c)(3) frequently cited in articles covering U.S. and international news about church abuse. [29] In particular, Anglican Watch, Ministry Watch, and Anglican Ink have been some of the only sources covering sexual misconduct in the ACNA, a conservative group which split from the Episcopal Church over its ordination of a homosexual bishop. [30] For example, Anglican Ink was the first to break the news about allegations against Steve Wood, the archbishop of the ACNA, before the Washington Post did. [31] In one instance, Dclemens1971 removed [32] such material from the Steve Wood article under the incorrect rationale that Anglican Ink is a "primary source." I concur that a determination of reliability is much needed for these sources. Happysociologist (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
501(c)(3) status is irrelevant to whether an outlet is a reliable source. I would consider Ministry Watch to be more on the side of a reliable secondary source. While it does not have a masthead page, it does have a page describing its editorial approach and organizational structure. It also distinguishes between straight news and opinion.
I am genuinely unsure what Happysociologist thinks Anglican Ink is if it's not a primary source. Looking at the most recent 10 items posted on the site as of this comment, reprints of statements by religious leaders ([33], [34], [35]), reposted articles from other websites ([36], [37], [38]), regurgitated press releases ([39], [40], [41]), and a summary of a primary source document ([42]). I don't see any evidence that there is original reporting going on here. It's fine to use the primary sources subject to the limitations of WP:PRIMARYSOURCES but not as a secondary source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I did not assert that 501(c)(3) status is relevant to reliability, but you have repeatedly referred to Anglican Watch in other places as "one guy's blog" and a "self-published source," which is not an accurate characterization. It is no different from Ministry Watch in that respect.
Anglican Ink publishes a variety of source material including some that is primary and some that is secondary. You have provided a selection of primary sources, but there are also a number of secondary sources. (Example: [43]) Some of these you have inaccurately characterized as primary sources. Happysociologist (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for pinging me to ask my opinion about these sources. Although I do follow some church abuse news in other countries including USA and UK, I find it difficult to definitively make a decision on the reliability of AnglicanWatch, Anglican Ink and MinistryWatch. I do not regularly read any of those sites but have just briefly reviewed them for making these comments. My impression of Anglican Watch is that it is a self published blog started by a single person who experienced church abuse and wants to expose that church and abuse by other churches. Some of his articles are very critical of people and he names them and uses name-calling eg "bunch of shameless hypocrites", "stupid jackass". Although I sympathise with those who are survivors of church abuse and who wish to expose abuse, I don't think AnglicanWatch should be used as a source by itself and its claims need to be checked against independent news sources. I previously questioned AnglicanInk as a reliable source primarily as it seemed to be run by just one person and published articles from elsewhere including the source I was most concerned about which is davidould.net. That is definitely a self published blog which regularly trolls and criticises women clergy and releases synod documents and correspondence which he may not have permission for. So I wanted to ensure that biased opinion and calumny from davidould.net was not republished on Wikipedia via AnglicanInk. AnglicanInk seems to republish without comment or investigation quite a few articles from Sydney Anglicans who distance themselves from the worldwide Anglican communion. MinistryWatch seems more of a valid reliable source. It has a variety of writers and separates Opinion from News articles. LPascal (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

AnglicanWatch is effectively a personal website, unless evidence of widespread use by others can be provided. Doesn't meet WP:RS, anything cited exclusively to it should be removed. Anything for WP:BLP must be removed immediately.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Blog written by an academic

Hello,

I am interested in potentially using this blog (https://theartofsouthasia.com/2019/04/11/the-vi%E1%B9%A3%E1%B9%87u-temple-of-adityasena-at-aph%E1%B9%A3a%E1%B8%8D-bihar/) to expand the archaeology section of the Later Gupta dynasty article. After doing some research, it looks like the blog is authored by Lakshmi Greaves who is an art historian at Cardiff University. Link to her profile: https://profiles.cardiff.ac.uk/staff/greavesl

Would the blog post be considered WP:RS? Ixudi (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Blog of researcher w prior publications (in the same field ofc) is covered under WP:EXPERTSPS, so it can be used. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
She looks to be a relevant subject-matter expert under WP:SPS. I'd consider this reliable, at least for factual descriptions. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Seems ok to use with some general care of course. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the others above- okay to use as she is an expert. However, I would be careful to only use the source for facts and not personal experiences which seem to be majority of the content of the blog. Wikipedia:SPS says that "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will likely have published it in independent, reliable sources," - so, I'd recommend looking at peer-reviewed sources first to confirm that the information you want to add hasn't been published elsewhere. If it hasn't, then use the blog. Swirlymarigold (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

soundsjustlike.com

I found this website ([44]) being used on the article Waiting (Green Day song), and I have removed it from the article as not appearing to be a reliable source. To me, it appears to consist almost entirely of user-generated content, and per the homepage is likely a self-published source ("© Sounds Just Like 2013," from the link above). Many may argue that this is a no-brainer source to avoid, but I am mainly starting this discussion to get consensus about potentially adding it to the WP:NOTRSMUSIC list. It is being used in a few other articles ([45]), but I just want to know what others think about this source's use on Wikipedia. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly unusuable as it's user-generated. I'm in favor of adding anything that keeps showing up to the list of WP:NOTRSMUSIC, along with Discogs, Whosampled, IMDB etc. Popcornfud (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 22:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Popcornfud:, @Sergecross73: Do either of you have any issues with me adding this source to the WP:NOTRSMUSIC list? JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Nope! Popcornfud (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
No. LDW5432 (talk) 13:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
No. Sergecross73 msg me 18:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I have added this website to WP:NOTRSMUSIC, per the consensus above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Sources regarding German motorcycle racer: Auto.de, Nordbayern.de, and Speedweek.com

During an AfD I started for the BLP Luca Amato, someone found sources that ostensibly demonstrate the subject's notability. However, before I reconsider my stance, I'd like to know whether they are reliable. I don't speak German nor am I from Germany, so I can't be too sure on them. (Not putting Rheinische Post here considering that one does appear reliable from first glance.)

Lazman321 (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Auto.de is an online car dealership. It is not clear if their magazine has a public editorial policy, nor is it clear if they even have any editors.
Nordbayern.de has an editorial policy and editors. It seems to be frequently cited in deletion discussions on dewiki.
Speedweek.com has an editorial team, but I could not find an editorial policy. They are owned by Redbull, so there may be a conflict of interest if the subject is affiliated with Redbull. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Contradiction between sources

We have contradictory sources regarding the early history of the city of Stepanakert/Khankendi. The current version of the article refers to historian Robert H. Hewsen, who wrote that:

"Originally called Vararakn, this Armenian village on the right bank of the Gargar (Arm. Karkaṙ) River was renamed Khankendi in 1847."

However, this information contradicts primary Russian imperial sources. The earliest Russian census of 1823 already refers to Khankendi, and Russian imperial records and maps do not mention any settlement called Vararakn. Therefore, it could not have been renamed Khankendi in 1847 if it was already known by that name in 1823.

In the "Description of the Karabakh Province", compiled in 1823 by order of the Governor-General of Georgia and Caucasus, Aleksey Yermolov, and authored by State Councillor Mogilevsky and Colonel Yermolov II, in the section titled “Estate belonging to the former Karabakh Khan Mehti Quli Khan”, Mogilevsky and Yermolov wrote that the newly settled Armenian village of Khan-Kendy was established by the former Karabakh Khan Mehti Quli Khan and was his estate, which he had gifted to his wife, Badridjagan Begum. After Mehti Quli Khan and his wife fled from the Russian Empire, the village was transferred to the Russian treasury (see page 291, the text is in Russian).

The name of Khankendi (spelled as Ханъ‑Кентъ or Ханъ Кянды) can also be found on Imperial Russian maps from before 1847, for example this one from 1842: [51] or this one from 1838: [52]

Robert H. Hewsen is a respected expert on the ancient history of Armenia and the South Caucasus, but not as much on the Russian imperial era.

I would like to ask for assistance with this matter: how can we reconcile the apparent contradiction between the secondary modern source, which claims a renaming in 1847, and the primary Russian imperial sources, which clearly mention the village of Khankendi as existing in 1823 and 1838? Grandmaster 12:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

"Тифлис, 1866". Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, 1866 is the date of publication. But the document is from 1823, as is clear from the title Описание Карабагской провинции, составленное в 1823 г.. — Тифлис, 1866. Grandmaster 12:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
And do we know if any changes were made in those 40 years? This is why we try not to use primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, this is the original text. It is considered one of the most important sources on the history of Karabakh region. Grandmaster 12:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. It is also not uncommon for places in the Caucasus to have more than one name. Nowhere does the primary sources mention that Khankendi was the official designation of the place. That is Grandmasters own deduction, which is against WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, which they have been told countless times to refrain from, yet still do. If their theories are right, I'm sure there are actual WP:RS about it. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
The problem here is that the claim that the village was renamed in 1847 contradicts the available primary sources, which show the name Khankendi in use well before 1847. Also, WP:OR does not apply to the talk page discussions. Grandmaster 12:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Editors should not interpret primary documentation to counter works by trained historians. Instead try to find other works on the issue that have raised the same issue -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion. This topic is little researched, and even Hewsen only makes a brief remark about it in his map atlas. But I'll check to see if any secondary sources are available. Grandmaster 09:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
...yet you immediately proceed to repeat your interpretations again at Talk:Stepanakert [53]. Yes, a secondary source would be good. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
A settlement might have had multiple names, especially in the multilingual South Caucasus of the 19th century. As far as I know the Tatar/Azerbaijani language was the lingua franca, so it would've made sense for the Russians to use it for their maps. Note that the Azerbaijani names are also used for Sevan, Yerevan and Goris on this map.
It's not improbable that there was some kind of a decree fixing the official name in 1847. Also, the publishers of the Description might have used the name that was official in 1866. But these are just my speculations.
I'd suggest looking for more Russian-language secondary sources. I'd be surprised if this toponym appeared only on two maps and nowhere else. Alaexis¿question? 19:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The base of WP:RS is "Each book, article, or other source needs to be credible for supporting the particular claim(s) it supports." You might think a book or article is generally reliable, but - I've got a New York Times article that says an event happened on the 19th and every piece of evidence and other articles and event calendars all say it was the 18th. The New York Times article is clearly wrong. That doesn't mean I dismiss the NY Times outright, but on that specific particular claim? It's wrong. So, I think it's fair to evaluate sources in that way, if a source is clearly wrong. Denaar (talk) 06:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I found an English translation of the aforementioned 1823 tax census by George Bournoutian, which includes a footnote by the author confirming that the 1823 document mentions the present-day city of Stepanakert/Khankendi. Please see the relevant quote below:
11. Khan-Kendi.2 – A newly settled Armenian village, administered by kevkha David.

Tax-paying families: 25. Tax-exempt families: 15. The tax-paying families consisted of 5 ranjbars, 17 newly settled and 3 former residents. Six poor families, 2 priests, 2 kevkhas, 2 ranjbars belonging to the khan’s nokar Alpanah-Beg, the children of the late Kevkha David, and the family of chitkar-oghli or the master of printed calico, were exempt.

The village paid no taxes except for the mal-u-jehat and darughalik dues. However all the farmers from the various villages, which belonged to the khan, in all the mahals had to plow and till the land using their own 10 plows for 2 days and give the treasury 26½ quarters and 4 garnets of wheat worth 483.13 rubles. The mal-u-jehat last year was 15 quarters of wheat worth 291 rubles. The darughalik was 70 rubles and 10 quarters of wheat, worth 259 rubles. The total revenue was 1,033.13 rubles in local currency, or 164 rubles and 4 kopeks in Russian currency.

The khan gifted this village to his wife Badri-Jahan Begum, who fled with him abroad and it now belongs to the Karabagh treasury. The village paid no taxes because it was newly settled. The local officials have to examine and determine the taxes. There is also a family from this village that lives in Shushi and is listed as such in the city register.

Footnote:

2. It refers to Stepanakert, the current capital of Mountainous Karabagh.

Bournoutian, George A. The 1823 Russian Survey of the Karabagh Province: A Primary Source on the Demography and Economy of Karabagh in the Early Nineteenth Century. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 2011, pp. 381–382.
This means we now have a secondary source proving that Khankendi was already known by that name in Russian records, which refutes Robert Hewsen’s claim that the settlement was renamed to Khankendi in 1847. This source also aligns with the contemporary imperial Russian records and maps that I cited above. I think that should settle the question, since both primary and secondary sources contradict Hewsen and confirm the existence of a settlement named Khankendi well before 1847, dating back at least to 1823. Grandmaster 11:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
You’re ignoring what you’ve just been told, including still adding your own interpretations to a primary source text. Nowhere does Bournoutian say what you just mentioned. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Did you see the footnote? Grandmaster 12:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
"2. It refers to Stepanakert, the current capital of Mountainous Karabagh." Yes, it is no secret that Khankendi is one of the names of present-day Stepanakert. Are you done making your own interpretations? EDIT: Also, to clarify, nowhere does Bournoutian support you against Hewsen. No one is denying that the name Khankendi existed before. You however, keep denying that it was first made official in 1847 without any WP:RS. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
What do you think "renamed" means? According to Hewsen, the village was renamed to Khankendi from Vararakn in 1847. He does not say that both names were in use. However, Bournoutian also confirms that the place was already called Khankendi in 1823. If it had been renamed, it should have had a different name previously, but this is clearly not the case. Russian records consistently use Khankendi, and it is impossible for a military map published in 1838 to retroactively use a name that was given to the place in 1847. This is my question: how do we reconcile this apparent contradiction in academic sources, Hewsen vs Bournoutian? Can we really say that the place was renamed, when previous records all use the same name? If we do, how do we attribute the differing views? Grandmaster 13:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
There's no point in repeating stuff when you're not going to read it (again) anyways. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
@Grandmaster, here is a source that seems to explain everything (Conflict, Space and Transnationalism. An Ethnography of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, p. 151)
There is no contradiction in the sources. Just as I thought, both names were in use in the first half of 19th century and what happened in 1847 was simply an establishment of a military settlement which was given the name Khankendi. Alaexis¿question? 09:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
This was my understanding as well. The year 1847 must have been when Khankendi became a military garrison of the Russian army. It was not renamed to Khankendi in 1847, as other sources indicate that the village was known by that name since the late 18th century, and the earliest official Russian records from 1823 also mention Khankendi. We are currently trying to work out a compromise version on the article’s talk page. I will be very busy today, but I’ll contribute tomorrow. Thanks, everyone, for your help. Grandmaster 09:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

AssyriaPost

Hello,

I've seen this website used multiple times in topics related to WP:GS/ACAS, and was told by Bushranger to check with you if it qualifies as a NON-WP:RS. From what I can tell, the website began publishing on 1 April 2025. It has been cited numerous times, and when I tried correcting the articles and removing the source on Ant Wan and Ricky Rich, my edits were reverted with the explanation that it’s not clear why the source is unreliable.

After doing my own due diligence, I don’t believe this qualifies as a WP:INDEPENDENT source. Its reporting, and even its name, appears closely tied to the topic it covers, namely Assyrian issues. There are no listed authors or background details about the publishers, and the “About” section only states that it provides “coverage of Assyrian issues – both in Assyria and across the diaspora.” 777network (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Assyria Post's about page indicates no editorial policy or editorial team, the contact page has a single E-mail address, their articles have no authorship attribution, and their social media accounts (Instagram, X) provide no info on who runs them. According to WHOIS, assyriapost.com was registered in August 2025 through the service "Withheld for Privacy", making it fairly obvious that the operator does not want people to be able to identify them. There is no way to ascertain whether this is an accredited journalistic agency or a blog because they refuse to identify themselves or their credentials. Err on the side of caution and consider them a self-published source. Any info cited to this website should be removed, especially on BLPs. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_494&oldid=1324204190"