Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 514

Archive 510

←

Archive 512

Archive 513

Archive 514

Archive 515

Archive 516

Bolsonarism on human rights and minority rights

The below text was added to the Bolsonarism article:

Bolsonaro through his political career has opposed human rights and minority rights in Brazil, and under his presidency human and minority rights were increasingly targeted by government policies.

@Wikieditorjs: keeps removing it stating these sources are exaggerated and sensationalist; Bolsonaro never did anything to harm minorities during his term. These sources come from people on the left of the political spectrum; They are clearly biased and non-neutral.

Can I have some opinions from people here if multiple academically published articles and books, alongside well respected specialist websites written by academics and scholars are reliable enough to support this inclusion? (I will also add that the specific actions by the Bolsonaro government that targeted various minority groups and human rights more broadly are detailed extensively in the Jair Bolsonaro#Political positions article). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Additional sourcing I can point to includes Human Rights Watch, openDemocracy, The Guardian, IR scholar from King's College London, BBC, The Conversation, National Geographic, Al Jazeera, The New York Times, NBC News, The New Humanitarian, The Intercept, Deutsche Welle, Vox, Voice of America, Time magazine.

And I can find even more if I searched in scholarship and searched non-English press if needed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

On that note, a couple of additional academic sources are:

• Martins, Juliana T. de S.; Pereira, Anthony W. (2019). "The Politics of Human Rights". In Ames, Barry (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Brazilian Politics. Routledge. pp. 503–518. ISBN 978-0367659769. Furthermore, the NTC’s promotion of the norm of human rights was not uncontested. For example, Jair Bolsonaro, then a deputy of the Social Christian Party in the lower house of Congress, praised the torturer Colonel Carlos Brilhante Ustra as “the terror of Dilma Rousseff” in his speech before the vote on Dilma’s impeachment on April 17, 2016 [...] Jair Bolsonaro, the federal deputy from Rio de Janeiro mentioned earlier, articulates these anti-human rights sentiments. In a country in which the enforcement of law can be patchy and highly reliant on the commitment of public authorities (Barahona de Brito & Panizza 1998), the strength of such anti-human rights elements in the new ideological right threatens to roll back or at least stall some of the gains the movement has achieved.
• Power, Timothy J.; Rodrigues-Silveira, Rodrigo (2019). "The Political Right and Party Politics". In Ames, Barry (ed.). Routledge Handbook of Brazilian Politics. Routledge. pp. 251–268. ISBN 978-0367659769. Over the past decade, leadership of the hard-line authoritarian faction has increasingly been assumed by the theatrical seven-term deputy Jair Bolsonaro, a former military officer. Originally an advocate for military families, Bolsonaro later adopted a radical public security agenda based on support for gun rights and open justification of extralegal killings. He is openly hostile to racial and sexual minorities and especially to human rights advocates, whom he sees as “defend ers of criminals.” Almost alone among national politicians, he unflinchingly defends the policies and actions of the 1964–1985 dictatorship. Although his nostalgia for anti-communism may have little purchase on the public imagination, his praise for two purported characteristics of military rule—higher levels of public safety and lower levels of official corruption—has proven very effective as a political tactic, and he has successfully leveraged legions of supporters on social media.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this really just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT editing. You are correct. Simonm223 (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

And some of those edit summaries (especially this one) look like they were AI-generated. I note also that the lead paragraph talks about the neo-fascist nature of Bolsonarism, but the same editor removed it (and all of its sources) from the infobox. [1] Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't see anything wrong with those sources either. Of course the ideology parameter in infobox is a matter of weighing sources and proportional presentation, more than it's a reliability issue, but there are a lot of reliable sources to back up what they have removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

In would have to agree, unless the editor can articulate a better argument this just sounds like IDONTLIKEIT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like good sourcing overall. I agree that this was a IDONTLIKEIT revert. Cortador (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Southern Poverty Law Center (2)

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.

---

A Grand Jury has found that Southern Poverty Law Center, a "generally reliable" perennial source,"paid informants engaged in the active promotion of racist groups at the same time that the SPLC was denouncing the same groups on its website." [2] This fact is not in dispute, it was confirmed by a grand jury.

Next, the courts will determine if this behavior rises to the level of criminal fraud under US law, but sources don't necessarily have to be guilty of fraud in order to be unreliable on Wikipedia.

Previous discussions say this is "unproven" and "unreliable" but that this happened is not in dispute, the evidence was was independently reviewed by a grand jury, which makes it acceptable to use as factually correct evidence in the criminal case.

The average reader would very likely be persuaded by these findings, in addition to previous misconduct [3], that SPLC is not a generally reliable source, and earlier discussions should not have been closed in just seven hours, as this is still a developing story. Awwright (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

See multiple threads above. Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm directly refuting the "multiple threads above" with new facts that ought to cause a different finding. Also, "Haven't we all got better things to do?" is not an acceptable reason to close a discussion. Awwright (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

What new facts? We already had a discussion about the indictment. Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussions were closed for "Haven't we all got better things to do?" which is not a reason, and "Noone is backing this" which is both not a reason and untrue.

The previous discussions seemed to focus on the fact these are allegations and unproven; but in fact an independent grand jury reviewed the evidence, which was not discussed. Awwright (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This fact is not in dispute, it was confirmed by a grand jury. The grand jury heard evidence from one side only. The defense was not allowed a lawyer, there were no defense witnesses, and there was no cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, if there were any. This is not a trial jury and confirmed no facts. A trial date hasn't even been set. Innocent until proved guilty. Note: This is one of numerous attacks against people and organizations disliked by the current administration. The investigation of the head of the Fed was dropped today. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

An American grand jury indictment, of this nature, considering the political environment of the United States, is a deeply non-compelling reason for us to adjust our reliability standards. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Those are features of a criminal trial so that the defendant may claim that the facts do not show the behavior would rise to the level of a crime. The facts are nonetheless true, and admissible in court. Awwright (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The subjects of a criminal trial are innocent until proven guilty. This is just a waste of peoples time. The Trump regime does not author reality. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Those are the features trials, criminal or civil. A grand jury is not a trial at all. They only decide if you can go to trial. Even if they do, the judge can also throw out the charges and avoid a trial. And your claim that the facts are "true" is way out of line. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The literal point of a trial is to settle matters of dispute, at the moment all that exists are allegations by the US government. Goverments are reliable for their attributed comment but don't get to decide fact, whether that's the US government or any other government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:35, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Criminal cases like this have two phases: first it goes to a grand jury, to review the evidence and see if it is sufficient and admissible; then it goes to a criminal trial, to see if the behavior constituted a crime. The former outcome is significant, and we are not interested in the latter. The proper place to review the facts and allow counter-testimony in determining if SPLC constitutes a reliable source is here. Awwright (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:DROPTHESTICK. You already got a firm no at WP:RS/P and coming here immediately with the exact same non-argument is starting to look disruptive. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I see exactly two discussions opened to review the new facts and they were open for less than 8 hours. Awwright (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The weight at a grand jury is only that the case might possibly be true, it in no way shows that the evidence is true. I'm sorry but you're simply wrong about this. Everything you've said has been rejected but multiple editors already, this discussion brings nothing new to discuss. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. You cannot admit untrue evidence into a court. It must be reviewed before the jury is even allowed to see it. Determining the truth of the evidence is the job of the grand jury, which came to this conclusion. Awwright (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, regardless see my comment below. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Your belief that the allegations must be true for a grand jury to have taken them up is entirely irrelevant to source reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

That's getting silly. Of course untrue evidence is used in courts. That's why there must be a defense to challenge the evidence. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Unless we've missed something and the US has got to the show trial stage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

We still allow a defense last I looked. We're not North Korea yet. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

What you are saying is completely consistent with my point. Evidence may be reviewed by the defense before it goes to trial. It must be vetted by the judge or a grand jury before it goes to the jury. If bad evidence is inadvertently introduced, the jury is instructed to disregard it. If it is believed to affect the outcome, the whole trial can be nullified and it might be retried.

Eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and other subjective factors are legitimate things for a jury to weigh in determining if those factors show guilt, but we are not determining guilt of a crime here, a grand jury already found the evidence to represent a fact here. Awwright (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

What crime did they even allegedly commit that would impede on their reliability? Oxford University Press has been convicted of bribery crimes and that has no impact on their reliability for our purposes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Even if the case was true, that the way they paid informants constitutes fraud because they didn't pay the correct amount of tax on it. I still fail to see how that effects their reliability, other than as a place to get accounting advice. The US government has been saying all kinds of things about the case, but the actual indictment is just a minor tax issue. The US government gets no special treatment, this is an international project. If other secondary reliable sources start to question the SLPC reliability then there would be reason discuss it, but what the US government believes (outside of the actual indictment) is of no importance in discussions of reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:48, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Are you claiming this is a tax issue? None of us would be persuaded by how they pay their taxes, nor is this part of the alleged crime. The indictment does not mention taxes, it charges SPLC with defrauding their donors, by claiming that when they placed a field informant with the Unite the Right rally to help organize it, that that constituted fraud to their donors. The fact they helped plan that rally is not in dispute; if that constitutes fraud is in dispute.

I am claiming that the typical Wikipedia reader would be greatly interested in removing sources known to lie in their reporting and about the nature of their stated mission, including SPLC, and requesting we continue discussion of this. Awwright (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any point in entertaining this very silly argument any further. The answer is no, we will not be downgrading the reliability of SPLC as a source at this time. This is my final comment in this thread. Can somebody uninvolved please close this time sink? Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Its literally the crime that is being alleged in the indictment, the only crime that is being alleged. If you're not aware of this it might be that you have been listing to the conspiratorial nonsense being stated by members of the current US administration. But that goes way beyond what is in the indictment, and is of no importance here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

That they used paid informants was known before this point, and something they stopped several years ago. Using paid informants isn't a crime, even if it's ethically dubious. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, it may not be a crime—which is why there's going to be a trial on it. However it is certainly disqualifying of a reliable source. Awwright (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you point to any part of a policy or guideline that says that using paid informants makes a source unreliable? Because it's not in anything I've read. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it isn't, journalists do it all the time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable secondary sources stating that they lied in their reporting and about their stated mission? Excluding statements from the US government, because again the US government doesn't get to decide on these matters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• In 2015, they added Dr. Ben Caron so its "Extremist File" over his views on marriage. They retracted and apologized. [4]
• In 2016, their "Ten Days After" report leads with the "hate incident" of a church being burned down [5]; however it was determined to be done by one of their own members [6] and was sentenced in 2019 [7]. No retraction has been published.
• In 2018, they included British Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz in "Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists", causing a $3.3 million USD settlement [8]
• In 2018, they maliciously suggested several journalists and commentators were linked to Russia, including Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Rania Khalek, Tim Pool, and Brian Becker. [9] After a legal threat [10], they posted a retraction and apology. [11]

This is just in ~10 minutes of searching. Many other sources have been demoted for less. Awwright (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The last RFC on the SLPC was in 2025, see archive 481, all of this was known before that point. Also thay would be the Tim Pool who famously got caught up in 2024 Tenet Media investigation that showed he had been paid by a company setup to push Russian disinformation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

This is false and a red herring. Tim Pool et. al. were listed as the victims, being deceived by an RT scheme in the Justice Department indictment. The activity was laundered through a Canadian-Hong Kong citizen. The case was later dropped. Awwright (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Given that multiple RS are reporting on this story, this is fair reason to re-open discussions.

The Ten Days After report was not considered in those archives. I would read the report and think it was a legitimate hate crime, but it's just not true.

How many more examples would you like me to come up with in order to admit that SPLC is not reliable? I'll do it, if you are willing to be persuaded. Awwright (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Is calling them "extremists" wrong? I would dispute that. Extremism is wholly opinion so it cannot be wrong or right.

Yes, at the time authorities thought it was voter intimidation. The SPLC says authorities thought that - that's true, and they don't say it in their own voice! What is the problem?

Again, it is a matter of opinion, how can that be wrong?

2024 Tenet Media investigation, hm. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Even if they are found guilty, taking the evidence at face value it's not like it would be a reliability issue. The crimes are financial in nature, primarily; no one has alleged they printed anything false. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Reason has a nice take on this.[12] Basically, if true this is not good but we simply don't know enough at this time to decide if this is anything more than an accounting issue. We need to be very careful about claims that money to informants = funding the groups under investigation. We also really should just wait until the smoke clears up and we can see what the evidence really is. Given the indictment there may be subpoenas for internal communications. Will those turn up information like we saw with Fox News? We don't know. So long as we don't know let's just hold back and wait. We shouldn't be in any hurry. BTW, this applies both to assessments of reliability and what content we should have in the article space. We can either err on the side of over emphasizing or under emphasizing. Yes, the SPLC isn't a BLP but we should still follow the idea of do no harm. If we undersell the issue we can always add more in the future when presumably we will have more sources and evidence on which to draw. Springee (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

How many times am I going to have to make the same point about this. It's like whack-a-mole. Even accepting the indictment at face-value so what? The indictment alleges that SPLC deceived banks about the purposes of payments. For that reason, I propose that we probably should not cite SPLC's accounting department as a reliable source for facts about the purposes of payments. (To be sure, there may be other reasons for doubting SPLC's reliability, but this development is a red herring.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, the use of paid informants in journalism[13] and law enforcement[14] can be problematic and should give us pause. However, at this point we simply don't have more than theoretical concern. Hence why I'm going to keep advocating for people to wait and see. Springee (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

If we treated paid informants as a reason for unreliability all sources that have covered crime or the far-right are disallowed. It is inherent to the information about it. It simply is not a concern for us. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Also a large number of interviews with government officials throughout Europe. I personally think that checkbook journalism a problem, but it is still how most of the world (the parts outside the US) does things. MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

As already explained, simply being indicted is not going to change how we treat SPLC as a RS that should be used with attribution. Other reliable sources have inside people they get information from, paid or not, and we don't question that.

The only thing that I could see changing this is if the claims that SLPC are using donor funds, inserting people into the organizations they are monitoring, and then have those people on the inside create the strife that leads to racial hatred (an extremely far fetched claim), then that would be an issue. But it has to be proven out through a court case, we don't take indictments as facts. It should be noted that DOJ is claiming fraud , lying about the use of funds (and then trying to make those longshot claims of inside manipulation), but if that's all that it ends up being, even then that would not change how we should treat SLPC. Masem (t) 20:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

As I said before, if you know anything about the groups in question it is fairly obvious who many of the informants are, the framing of them inserting people into the organizations to stir up trouble is obviously untrue and not what the people were doing. That isn't what the indictment is about but some of the officials framed their discussions that way, it's strange. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Put a moratorium on this nonsense until the trial is over at minimum. Cortador (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I have topic banned Awwright from the SPLC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Someone uninvolved is welcome to close this as it's pretty much WP:1AM and the 1 is gone. Besides, it's boring. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

• The indictment does not mention taxes, it charges SPLC with defrauding their donors, by claiming that when they placed a field informant with the Unite the Right rally to help organize it, that that constituted fraud to their donors. The fact they helped plan that rally is not in dispute; if that constitutes fraud is in dispute. Yeah, no. I'll be closing this. Gotitbro (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Awwright has provided a number of reasons--with sources--demonstrating why the SPLC has proven itself unreliable. I support depricating this highly biased source. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

They have been topic banned from the subject, and can no longer reply to any new comments. It's generally bad form to talk about editors in a way they can't reply too. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

By all means remove my comment if it is not allowed, but A grand jury's review means nothing beyond the case going to trial sounds a little rash to me. It means that there is probable cause; in other words reasonable grounds to suspect a crime has been comitted. As awful as the administration is, I don't know if it is wise to conflate it with a grand jury decision, much less to completely ban discussion of the case on Wikipedia, where it is of immense interest, until it has concluded. WP:SNOW is for circumventing tedious bureaucratic conversations about proposals that are doomed to fail; it does not mean that unpopular things cannot be discussed. Indeed, at times unpopular things are the most ripe for conversation. A much more fundamental rule to keep in mind is WP:NOTCENSORED. Anyway, just some thoughts, which I guess will now be lost to the diffs of time. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is saying the topic can't be discussed, just that at the current moment, the discussions about SPLC's reliability as a source cannot reasonably be concluded, as it is too early. These discussions are still relevant and informative, and there is nothing stopping anybody from starting a new discussion or RfC elsewhere, however it may be a good idea to wait until a final decision is made. I'm only barely informed on the topic but wanted to reply (and to let you know that the reply gadget does not work here, which may impede others' responses). Two other similar discussions closed very recently, with another editor trying to revive them (however passionate they were about the matter), is probably an edge case for WP:SNOW, but I don't personally believe the second necro of this discussion was going to succeed. I think any productive debate about the SPLC's reliability will need to reach a wider portion of the community, and even then, doing so before the entire matter has been settled would be premature. Just my thoughts. I have zero desire to join in this debate myself as I am still wrapping my head around it. ASUKITE 00:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I also don't know where to leave a comment because I see three closed discussions on this page. I have no idea if they were paying informants or if they were actually funding racists, but I want to discuss it. Guz13 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think it's productive to close non-RfC discussions like this. Certainly if any random editor can close the discussion why shouldn't any other editor be able to revert the close. This isn't a RfC after all. I think the fast close of the original discussion is a problem because a number of editors may want to weigh in. I've advocated for waiting for more information to come out but I don't think we need to wait for a trial to conclude. As a hypothetical, if records are subpoenaed and they include the SPLC leaders saying they are going to "make it up" to "drive donations", yeah, I think that would be a big issue. Of course if that comes out I would expect RSs to report on it and analyze what it means with respect to the SPLC's credibility. Basically, we don't need to wait for the trial even though we do need to wait for more information and RSs to process that information for us.

BTW, I also think it's bad for non-admins to close discussion threads like this. Or more to the point, such closings should be reversible just like an article edit. Springee (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

They are reversible. Everything on WP is. Non-admin closure IMO is something I have personally always been careful about, but that was knowing there are venues to dispute my closures. I'll agree with you on the matter of non-admin closures, and note that in areas without such a venue, that leaves some strain on our general-purpose noticeboards such as ANI, but at the end of the day anybody willing to make such a decision is probably knowingly risking that somebody else might dispute it, admin or not. I am generally against "closing" discussions, but could see the merit of closing this one, on this particular venue, and am willing (again) to point out that there are other options, such as an RfC, but anybody willing to go through the trouble of putting one together would best avail themselves of an argument complete with facts and sources which are not "pending" further developments. It's also worth noting that this attention may not affect WP's overall consensus of use of SPLC as a source, but it is likely that individual editors will still use caution, and it is always my opinion that Wikipedia should always focus on the long term and avoid sudden changes. Look how long it took us to come up with an LLM policy, and it's still just barely fleshed-out... I do also agree that we don't need to wait for a trial outcome, but further developments (such as the hypotheticals you posed) could also sway the argument. Everything here is subjective anyway. ASUKITE 01:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I urge everyone who believes that discussion should be held now to please look into how grand juries and indictments work in the United States. There is a reason why Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals Sol Wachtler famously said that district attorneys could get grand juries to "indict a ham sandwich" - they're not adversarial processes and the district attorney is allowed to present all of their arguments and evidence with no opportunity for the person they're seeking to indict to make any defense or objections. (That, by the way, is why it's so extraordinary when a district attorney fails to obtain an indictment - they've chosen to pursue the indictment and were able to make their strongest argument to the grand jury without any defenses or objections and they still weren't able to convince them.) ElKevbo (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The last RFC on SLPC was in 2025, if there is anything newer from independent secondary reliable source that calls into question their reliability there should be a discussion. However indictments and goverment proclamation have no basis in polcy or any guideline on reliability, if that is all there is then there is nothing to discuss (unless someone can point the to some part of policy I've missed). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:20, 25 April 2026 (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.

Lenta.ru articles before 12 March 2014

There has been general agreement that Lenta.ru post-March 2014 is utterly unreliable and not to be used. However, in the RFC deprecating Lenta.ru post-March 2014, there was no mention of the reliability of Lenta.ru before that period.

Can we get a discussion on here about whether Lenta.ru articles pre-2014 can be cited or not, as 12 March 2014 seems to have been cited as the point when that site became an unreliable source? Pineways (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking through all the discussions in the archives, particularly Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#lenta.ru and also at the blacklist (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2021#Lenta.ru), it's all a bit messy but I would say the depreciation doesn't apply to articles before the 2014 takeover. If you want to use one you will may need to get it whitelisted, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Lenta.ru's URL format has not changed since its spam blacklist rule was adjusted to only apply to its articles published on or after 12 March 2014, so its articles published before that date do not need to be whitelisted to be cited. — Newslinger talk 18:41, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia — Newslinger talk 18:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think that such a discussion is needed? Alaexis_¿question? 21:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

External dispute about source.

So, me and someone im talking with about a draft im working on are dispiting about whether youtube is a reliable source. For context, I am currently using youtube as a source for release dates of content, as the topic is mostly based in youtube currently (web series). I have no worries about the notability of the topic itself, though the person i am speaking with is insisting that using info directly from uploaded qna streams on the verified but unofficial channel (the channel is the "official" channel of the creator, but nothing more). Im just wondering if anyone has thoughts FestivalOrca610 (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:RSPYT might help. --Hipal (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Whether something on YouTube is reliable depends on who published it, YouTube itself is just a hosting platform for videos. The vast majority of those video will be from random people, and not reliable, but some are from reputable sources.

The official channel of the creator will be reliable in the limited way of WP:ABOUTSELF, such sources won't help with notability though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! In the mean time I think most of the stuff I can get realistically from the videos is already covered in another source, but the one thing I would have to is the old characters (soft reboot characters have different voice actors) so I might do that cause I think it is semi-reliable source for that. (though wish i had a better source (but it is a small topic and you know)) FestivalOrca610 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Twitch

I was in a discussion with a user over a genre they are changing that doesn't match the source provided in the article, Eleine, refusing to provide a source that supports the claim. When I gave them a cautionary notice about changing the genre, they told me not only that the source is from the band themselves, they in another response had claimed that they heard one of the members state that they were a different genre in a Twitch stream. Is Twitch considered reliable or no? HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Twitch is a self-published source, it is reliable for a self-published claim like any other social media, with all the limitations that entails. A band's claims about their genre of music is not relevant if secondary sources don't agree. ~2026-25279-60 (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Twitch is a streaming platform, what would matter is who publisher the stream. The vast majority won't be reliable, but there could be some that come from a reliable source. If the subject is making statements about themselves, then they might be usable for limited WP:ABOUTSELF statements. If twitch is used a link to the archived stream and a time stamp would be a good idea so claims can be verified.
As to genres generally Wikipedia is interested in what secondary sources say about a subject, rather than what that subject says about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:11, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

It could be acceptable to include something in the article, clearly attributed, that the band or a member of the band has said they consider themselves to make music of whatever genre it is they're claiming to belong to as a WP:ABOUTSELF style self-published statement; however, as others have stated, secondary sources descriptions hold a lot of weight here and so a genre designation given by a reliable secondary source should not be replaced or removed on the basis of those self-published statements. In other words: self-published statements from the band can complement the secondary sources, but they cannot overrule them. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:22, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Supermarket news

Is supermarket news a reliable source? I need to confirm if it is a reliable source for an article I created to comply with WP:NCORP Robloxguest3 (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

A URL or example article would be helpful, supermarket news is a very generic term. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

See Reference #6 at Lunardi's#Products sold: LUNARDI'S MEAT PROFITS CUT ACROSS SEASONS

And the answer is no. See [ https://informaconnect.com/foodservice/content-marketing-native/ ]:

"Native Content: Your content in our channels. Native content advertising programs showcase your content in our channels, replicating form and function and attracting users to quality content."

That's a code phrase for "we let you publish ads that look like our content" --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I would agree, the article itself reads like promotional content. It should be handled as if the company published it themselves, so it won't help with NCORP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I will remove the reference, however I disagree about the promotional content claim. Robloxguest3 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Riiiiight. Legitimate news organizations write things like "San Francisco Bay area-based Lunardi's Supermarkets has taken to merchandising deeply into the meat category, in an effort to offer different options for customers throughout the year, said company officials.The result, they said, is currently stellar meat sales that have no boundaries due to time of year or cut" aaaaaall the time. Pull the other one. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

 Self-trout sorry I thought he meant that the Lunardi's article was promotional content, not the source. My apologizes Robloxguest3 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• I think their articles have Skus just like the items on the market shelves. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

themusicuniverse.com

I've opened a discussion for themusicuniverse.com in here, and this article is what I found for source. Thanks to Lil-unique1, he analyzed the article's author Buddy Iahn, and Iahn is believed to be reliable. But I think we need to discuss more articles that are not written by Iahn. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 01:21, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

There's no indication that this is anything but Iahn selfpublished website. There's no about us page or details of any setup, and every article I could find is by Iahn. Lil-unique1 used iMDb biography for their analysis, but that biography was written by Iahn as well[15]. I can't really find anything about Iahn or the website that is promotional or just self description. I'm unsure anything on the website is reliable.
Whether interviews of a subject are reliable for the WP:ABOUTSELF things said in the interview is contentious, I would say the are but there are many who disagree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

You are quite right - I didn't realise it wasn't a verified IMDB. Given there's no evidence of editorial oversight, any kind of trained or professional journalist involved, just a self-published, self-styled, semi-known musician, it probably doesn't qualify as professionally validated for encyclopaedic content. Given that Iahn has interviewed people like Gene Simmons (notability is not inherited), maybe those specific articles/interviews are notable in their own right? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:35, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I would say that what Gene Simon's says about themselves in that interview should be reliable in the limited way of WP:ABOUTSELF (it has to be about themselves, it can't be an exceptional claim, etc). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested @Lil-unique1 Would it be better if I list the website in unreliable sources section? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 10:19, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll leave how it should be listed on WP:ALBUM/SOURCE to members of WikiProject Albums. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:27, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Dictionary of Irish Biography

I can't figure out if the Dictionary of Irish Biography is (or was at one time but no longer) a WP:RS and would like others' perspectives. It may be WP:UGC at this point. It was used as a source to support a date of birth [16] with the best of intent by @Palisades1: and briefly discussed on my talk page.

On the surface, it seems reliable, claiming to be An authoritative reference work of nearly 11,000 lives for scholars of Irish history, society and culture.

This process for updates looks a lot like user contributions with a review process, which would make it relatively reliable. Then, I figured out that the entire DIB is now part of Wikidata [17] and we can edit Healy's entry right here on a Wikimedia property: [18]

I'm thinking that this may have been reliable until it was moved into wikidata where anyone it seems can edit it. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by edit Healy's entry right here. We can edit the wikidata entry on him, but you're not going to be able to edit the website by doing that, or at least you shouldn't be able to. I can't see a reason anyone would decide to make it work that way. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Having a process to allow suggestions for updating or correcting an entry isn't user generated content, the Chair Healy entry that's being used was apparently written by Éamon Phoenix.
Are you saying that editing Wikidata causes the entry at Dictionary of Irish Biography to also be updated? I'm not sure that it works that way. DIB is licensed under creative commons, so it's freely usable as long as it's credited. As such Wikidata holds a copy of it, but editing that copy at Wikidata doesn't in turn update the DIB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

For the record I tested it just to make sure and nothing happened as far as I can tell. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:31, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks folks! Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

International Policy Digest

Just a FYI about a questionable source, could be helpful to add to WP:NPPSOURCEGUIDE: International Policy Digest (https://intpolicydigest.org/) is cited in 126 articles, including high-profile articles such as Islamism, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Sudanese civil war (2023–present), but this is a user-generated content website. Evidence:

• Its "Write for us" page says: "Join more than 2,400 contributors in sharing your work on International Policy Digest. Like many contributor-based platforms, we welcome all diverging viewpoints even if they aren’t necessarily popular...While one of our editors will undoubtedly proofread your work prior to publication, please take care to do so yourself."
• This example article has a stock photo for the author picture, I can't find evidence that the person really exists, and the article includes an affiliate link several times. The site has several other articles like this, with the same affiliate link and different bylines, including articles with the byline of the editor.
• See this report from CNA, an Albanian news website, about a lobbying campaign - machine translation of key segment: "One of the articles was published by the Independent Policy Digest – a website based in Richmond, Virginia – which reported that the arrest and detention of Tirana Mayor Erion Veliaj was fraught with procedural problems. The IPD article about Veliaj was signed by Kristopher O’Brien, an author with no biography and no other online publications, and used a stock photo that was also used for a host of similar profiles."

Dreamyshade (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hmm that certainly seems like a less than ideal source. They say they have editors that proofread, but the fact they add "please take care to do so yourself" is strongly implying that these review mechanisms aren't exactly thorough, and I can only imagine what the editorial oversight when it comes to actually verifying what they're publishing is if their basic proofreading is questionable. Using it on high-profile and highly political pages, and BLP ones at that, is something I seriously doubt is compatible with our policies and guidelines. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:29, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

They have some very reputable writers, but also some rather poor quality articles and a dubious editorial stance. I would be cautious with contentious material and BLPs, but I wouldn't write off the whole website. Do you have a specific context this relates to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh great, another WP:FORBES-type situation.. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 12:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I would be quite sceptical of anything by Kristopher O’Brien, other writers have proper bios and are easily identified as real people. I can't find anything about Kristopher O’Brien, and that's definitely not his real picture. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the "Write for us" page it seems like anyone can make a bio and get writing though. Eerily similar to Forbes Contributors in that sense, but I don't know what kind of editorial oversight they've got going there. Obviously we shouldn't write off the whole website, but I'm going to go take a lot at the articles from this website we use in our articles. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:23, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright I checked it out and I'm not really concerned anymore. What I found:

I went to Sudanese civil war (2023–present) and checked the Article used. The article is written by a guy from Sudan (studying in the US at Northwestern University) who is an engineer, so questionable expertise other than perhaps being more familiar with the area. At the top of the article it says "The Platform: Make Your Voices Heard!", looking at the top of the whole page I'm assuming this is one of their equivalents to a column. Going on the page of the column the website gives my browser tab the title "Blog Archive - International Policy Digest". That combined with the Make Your Voices Heard! did worry me about this being a place where people can freely say what they want, so to speak (going on all the other "columns" gives a tab with a name corresponding to what you'd expect, "Books", "Entertainment News", "Politics", etc.) Looking at some of the other articles on "The Platform" it's giving a vibe of being more of an opinion piece column, [19][20][21] but then there are also articles that are essentially just analysing geopolitics.[22][23][24]

Something sticks out to me though: a lot of these authors have really strong credentials, a lot of them more than likely would qualify for the subject matter expert exception to WP:SPS even if we were to view this column as a blog, although this would not be the case with the author of the Sudan article. I went to the "World" column and the article at the top of the page is discussing an incredibly relevant question about internal EU mechanisms, and it's written by Richard Corbett, who isn't exactly the kind of "anybody can post anything" situation we worry about with WP:SPS. Like this is clearly not a WP:FORBESCON situation where tons of articles are being spewed out by grifters hiding among genuine authors on the Forbes website. I'm leaning more towards their tons of contributors being a result of genuinely attempting to be a hub for independent journalism; there isn't nearly as much content published on here as the number of contributors would suggest, so I think it's entirely possible their editorial oversight might be pretty decent.

All in all I think this is clearly a useful asset to editors if used correctly. They just have to make sure to make sure the authorship checks out, and to perhaps treat stuff published under the "The Platform" column as needing in text attribution to use. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:06, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@Maltazarian I'm puzzled about the dubious articles by fake writers mixed in on this site, but I agree that there's no pressing need to remove citations to articles written by subject matter experts. I made a suggestion for Cite Unseen to mark it as "User-generated news", so hopefully that helps prompt editors to look carefully at authorship. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Newsjunkie.net

• newsjunkie.net: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.newsjunkie.net
• Uses as a reference

Spammed by Pastier Pirate (talk · contribs), I'm not sure what to make of this website. All instances were added by this editor. The additions of interviews as references look like simple WP:REFSPAM.

Some of the references are to the newsjunkie database, such as https://www.newsjunkie.net/entity/emerson-college from Emerson College, used to verify "The school offered its first course in Journalism in 1924." --Hipal (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Some of the additions do seem a bit spammy, but that's a behavioural issue for elsewhere. The source itself looks like it should be generally reliable, I don't see any reason to doubt it on the age of Emerson's journalism course. Spam isn't an issue of reliability though, if it continues then it should be reported to the blacklist. Specific blinks can always be whitelisted if needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:58, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave the database references. --Hipal (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

An ip claiming to be Pastier Pirate has offered an explanation on their talk page, claiming a COI and making a case for the use of newsjunkie as a ref. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

BuzzFeed Japan, and CNET Japan

I notice at the footer of the The Asahi Shimbun's website (link) that BuzzFeed Japan, and CNET Japan (alongside CNN Japan) are associate website (関連サイト) of the Asahi Shimbun Company. They seems to be owned by the company.

BuzzFeed Japan is listed as directly on the diretory in their website. 4X Corp, also listed in the directory, runs CNET Japan and ZDNET Japan.

Now, are ZDNET on WP:RSP, WP:CNET, WP:BUZZFEED applies to these websites, because they are run and owned by a reputable source in Japan? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:53, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

They repost translated articles from the non-Japanese sites, the RSP listings would apply to those articles. Reposting a report doesn't change who originally published it. Otherwise they appear to be owned and operated separately, so the prior consensus probably shouldn't apply to any original reports. That doesn't mean they're better or worse, just unknown. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, What about the original articles, like those written by the Japanese Staff Like these buzzfeed, CNET, ZDNET? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:38, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Not meant to reply to you directl, oops Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:40, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

BuzzFeed Japan (buzzfeed.com/jp  ) is positioned in a subdirectory of BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed Japan's copyright notice and linked legal pages indicate that it is owned and operated by "BuzzFeed, Inc.", which is also the owner of buzzfeed.com. The format and quality of content on BuzzFeed Japan appears similar to that of BuzzFeed, but with almost no numbered listicles and a much greater focus on food recipes, the latter of which are presented through BuzzFeed Japan's food section called Tasty Japan.

There does not appear to be a Japanese equivalent to the defunct BuzzFeed News; BuzzFeed Japan instead links to HuffPost Japan (huffingtonpost.co.jp  ) as its "News" section. BuzzFeed acquired HuffPost in November 2020, and according to the website's copyright footer and linked legal pages, HuffPost Japan is also owned and operated by BuzzFeed, Inc. It is probably best to treat BuzzFeed Japan and HuffPost Japan similarly to their US equivalents as a starting point.

On the other hand, while CNET Japan (japan.cnet.com  ) and ZDNET Japan (https://japan.zdnet.com  ) are on subdomains of CNET and ZDNET, respectively, these brands are licensed from Ziff Davis by the Japanese media company 4X Corp, making 4X Corp the operator of CNET Japan and ZDNET Japan. (4X Corp also owns and operates CNN.co.jp (cnn.co.jp  ), the Japanese edition of CNN. Unlike CNET Japan and ZDNet Japan, CNN.co.jp simply publishes Japanese translations of content from the English-language CNN.com.)

The English-language CNET and ZDNET took hits to their reputations under the ownership of Red Ventures (RSP entry); an RfC closed in March 2024 found that Red Ventures properties are generally unreliable becuase "Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner". Ziff Davis acquired CNET and ZDNET from Red Ventures in 2024, and both websites now have published AI policies (CNET's AI Policy, ZDNET's AI Policy) that prohibit the use of AI tools for "Original writing, reporting, or editing" and the use of generative AI for "creating content". I consider both of the English-language websites (under their current Ziff Davis ownership) marginally reliable due to their heavy use of sponsored content that is not necessarily clearly labeled; see the 2024 RfC about CNET and the 2025 noticeboard discussion with the CNET public relations manager for details.

Under 4X Corp, the quality of content on CNET Japan and ZDNET Japan appears to be much higher than that of their US counterparts. I see no sponsored content linked from the front pages, in contrast to the English-language CNET and ZDNET which have a significant proportion of sponsored content. Based on a spot check of recent articles both websites, I have no major concerns with CNET Japan and ZDNET Japan, and tentatively consider both generally reliable. — Newslinger talk 11:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC); edited to remove "much" and copyedit 12:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

CNET Japan and ZDNET Japan look fine. Guz13 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Alexander McNabb

Are the works of Alexander McNabb, particularly the Children Of The Seven Sands: The History of the United Arab Emirates WP:RS? In an attempt to cite it as a historical source, the user account @Alexandermcnabb: of the author claimed that "is indeed WP:RS, book published by reputable, mainstream publisher with a strong historical list." The publisher is Motivate Media Group, a media company based in Dubai. I personally fail to see how that count as a reputable publisher, especially for history.

Here is their personal website [25]. As you can see, they seem to write a range of differing works, and (with all due respect) seems to have no background or expertise as a historian. If I did the search correctly, the author does not appear in JSTOR [26]. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

They should read WP:SELFCITE before adding references they've written, and if they're reverted they should take the matter to the articles talk page as SELFCITE suggests.
Motivate Media Group seems like an established publisher, but not an academic one, and McNabb doesn't appear to have an academic background in history or archaeology. Are there any reviews of the work, or has it been used as a citation in other reliable works? Looking at the specific context[27] what do other sources say about the issue? What's included in an article should reflect the majority view, and explain any reputable minority views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Are there any reviews of the work, or has it been used as a citation in other reliable works?

Not any that I can find. Neither JSTOR nor Google ebooks shows anything.

Looking at the specific context[135] what do other sources say about the issue?

Yes, I did find and cite a WP:RS which said pretty much the same [28]. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:05, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't disagree, although this whole thing has been somewhat pointless. The origin of the Hormuzis as Arab was removed from the article, I replaced it with an easily available source - my own work, per WP:SELFCITE. It was disputed and replaced with the same fact per another source. Fine. The contention that my own book, conventionally published by a mainstream publisher with editorial oversight and a strong heritage list (including Wilfred Thesiger; Frauke Head-Bey; Ronald Codrai; Noor Ali Rashid; Edward Henderson; Michele Ziolkowski and Peter Hellyer) is not a Wikipedia:Reliable sources is one I find strange, but then folks are. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how it is pointless. The point was to get feedback on whether your source is WP:RS or not, which, respectfully, does not seem to be the case. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia is meant to be based on sources that have a reputation for reliability, without any reviews of your works or history to show you personally should be trusted on the subject it's difficult to show that reputation exists.
As a first step editors should use their own good judgement, but if contested they need something independent to show that judgement to be correct. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

That book is published by a mainstream publisher. If there are false claims made in the book, then post them here and we can elaborate. Guz13 (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

World Health Organization (WHO) Global Traditional Medicine Centre

See Global Centre for Traditional Medicine.

I noticed an editor trying to use this as a source here:[29]

This source appears to be an extension of the Indian government's ongoing promotion of pseudoscience, and in my opinion should be considered to be generally unreliable and, in particular, not a WP:MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

You are right. It is "super-pseudo" material. Moreover, the Wikipage for it is just laughable and reads like a political press release. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Removed the promotional material and corrected the name (Global Traditional Medicine Centre). Not much left... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Well done. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the WP:RSNP decision on Raw Story needs a review

Reading its article this decision doesn't seem correct. You'd expect it to be full of criticism if RSNP is right, but it isn't. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not seeing what you are seeing. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Generally unreliable doesn't mean always unreliable, but it does mean you need to show why a particular report should be used instead of other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

“Generally unreliable does not mean always unreliable”… This is something we need to stress more. We should also stress the opposite: that “Generally reliable does not mean always reliable.” Blueboar (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Yep "Red bad, green good" is not a healthy way to look at sources. That doesn't mean editors should ignore consensus, rather that editors should realise what they actually mean. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• The thing is, though... the things that people actually bother to examine the sources and look up RSP ratings tend to be controversial and exceptional claims, or WP:BLP sensitive stuff or the like. That's part of what creates the feel that a red entry at RSP makes a source functionally unusable - it doesn't! But it means that when there's a discussion, the source is likely to fail, because the things that get discussed are usually the things that require higher-quality sources. --Aquillion (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  BLP says to only use high quality sources for such matters, that's a better beyond normal reliability. If editors have expressed serious concerns about a source it's use in such situations should be limited. But all that doesn't mean that editors can't put forward an argument that a specific article is reliable, if other editors are unconvinced the issue isn't the RSP but the strength of the arguments for using that source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a review might be reasonable, since I do not see any evidence of false stories, and a pretty high caliber of reporting (I was surprised). That having been said, it seems like the site is devoted primarily to "breaking" news, which creates reliability problems of its own. (For example, there is evidence of stories that may not have a complete picture of events.) Not sure if there is something between "generally reliable" and "generally unreliable", but I would probably put it somewhere there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone find an example of a correction or retraction? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Our article mentions one. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Snopes article:[30] Original 2018 Rawstory article:[ archive [dot] fo/4dxsz#selection-693.0-693.101 ] What Rawsory is showing today:[31] That's not much of a retraction... --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Doug Weller talk 16:52, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check, Ad Fontes Media and AllSides seem to be on the same page; RS is a news and opinion website, Left Biased, uses loaded words, can be reliable, a high portion of it is re-blogged stories. Best on a case by case basis. Halbared (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

MBFC, Ad Fontes, and AllSides don't use Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as the basis for their opinions. They can be a useful starting point for finding issues to investigate, but their rankings matter little. This isn't a comment on the reliability of Raw Story. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why our articles have to be negative to have a negative reliability rating. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia articles are not necessarily supposed to indicate their in-house reliability factor. Wikipedia is not the world. We write articles for the general audience, not to inform other Wikipedians. Other reliable, even esteemed sources sometimes use sources that Wikipedians, in their wisdom, have deprecated. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Consultancy.com.au & Consultancy.org

I came across this site being used as a reference for an Australian IT services company. According to the Consultancy.com.au website, "Consultancy.com.au is an online platform for Australia's consulting industry....We are part of Consultancy.org, an international network of consulting platforms with over 10 million visitors per year."

According to consultancy.org's website, "Consultancy.org is an online platform for the global advisory and consulting industry. The website presents the latest news and trends in the sector, follows the developments and publications of consulting firms across 60+ industries and functional areas and provides an overview of career opportunities for professionals interested in working in consultancy."

I wanted to gather community consensus on whether this would be a RS, or whether it would be closer to a PR firm for the consulting industry. — ERcheck (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The advertise page is generally useful, most sites like this are quite honest about what they are. The advertise page for Consultancy.com.au[32] is exactly the same as for Consultancy.org[33]. If you become a partner you get a profile page, can post job vacancies, and "Consultancy.org works closely together with consulting firms on firm positioning, content generation and search engine visibility." Later in the "Promotion of content" section they state "Consultancy.org works closely together with consulting firms and partner organisations to promote content and thought leadership". Content from any of their consultancy websites is obviously PR, the profiles are also indiscriminate any partner who pays gets a profile. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

---

DESIRED OUTCOME: At this end of this discussion, I would like to see consultancy.org added to the Perennial sources table reflecting the consensus reached here. — ERcheck (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose that, see WP:RSPIS, WP:RSPNOT and WP:RSPCRITERIA. The RSP is for sources that have been perennially discussed, that is they have been repeat major discussions about a source. It only meant to be a limited list.
This is a similar situation to WP:RSN#The CEO Magazine, there's some discussion there about different ways sites like this could be catalogued. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:22, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

---

The Guardian's children's book reviews

The Guardian used to publish reviews of children's books written by children (link). Some also contained an invitation for kids to Join the site and send us your review! (example) What is the reliability of these reviews, and do they count towards WP:NBOOK? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 This was a thing that many, many newspapers did previously, not just The Guardian. I've encountered it a lot. So, as with other papers that did this, I would say kid reviews (which are thankfully rather obviously indicated) are not reliable. I think we've discussed this before but I forgot where. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I see these things quite frequently for books aimed at younger audiences on newspapers.com. I would have to think that reviews written by children don't count as RS/SIGCOV (and have not been using them myself). ScalarFactor (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the content of the reviews themselves cannot be considered a reliable source, considering they're written by children. Some adult will have had to do some work like headlines, dating and perhaps adding some tag saying what book was reviewed, and that is reliable, but the actual content of the review is unusable. I suppose because the adults likely to have to write the headline and do editorial work that likely means adding a mention to the book somewhere it technically fails as trivial coverage. in that sense one part of the source fails as being unreliable and the reliable part fails as being trivial. Wonky. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 22:36, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think these reviews should count toward notability as the reliable source decided to publish them. The content of the review should be attributed for reception purposes and probably not used for any factual statement about the author or publication details unless it's from an infobox-type thing made by the publication and not the child reviewer. Skynxnex (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

On one hand I see where you're coming from, but on another I worry this might lead to something being declared notable, but then there being no way to actually expand the article or make anything useful out of it because its notability is based on unreliable sources. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Publication details for effectively every book are available from sources that are reliable but don't contribute to notability. Plot summaries, in general, should be written by a Wikipedian who has read the book. And stub or start class articles are fine to have if the subject is verifiable and notable. Skynxnex (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I guess I can see your point. Regardless, some change to WP:NBOOK would in all likelihood be needed for these reviews to count towards notability. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:55, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Zee News

This is a source which is currently being used in nearly seven thousand articles. Looking through its Wikipedia article, there is a whole section on Zee News' fabrication of news stories and its spreading of disinformation; the article also goes over a criminal defamation case that was filed against the platform in 2020. The chairman of the organization is backed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and the platform has been banned in Nepal for "propaganda and defamatory report against Nepal government". Given all this, we are citing this news platform at an alarming scale. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

It is an entirely pro-BJP outlet today. It seems a lot of those instances, where this source was used, predate 2014 when BJP got reelected. I would completely avoid using this source for controversial topics. Koshuri ^(あ!) 12:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I was wondering about this too. WION is owned by Zee Media and is listed as an unreliable source per WP:WION. Does the same apply to the parent company? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The WION entry at that list as gunrel was recently added by a Omen2019 and the label explicitly goes against the last RfC which resulted in no consensus for it: [34]

In short, I find that there is no consensus on the reliability of WION. ... leading me to conclude that there is consensus against WION being generally reliable, nor WION needing to be deprecated ... Concerns raised were regarding WION's lax editorial standards, churnalism, and misinformation. However, some argued that WION does produces some good quality articles that might not cover information found in other sourcing.

Ergo both the status and summary from the only RfC for the source are falsified at that list. The WION entry there should certainly be updated.

Omen2019 also tried to insert Zee News [35] but was correctly reverted by ActivelyDisinterested over no significant discussion for it. Gotitbro (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

done. [36]

Of note, that close is somewhat poorly written. there is consensus against WION being generally reliable, nor WION needing to be deprecated suggest there is consensus it is not generally reliable, but the nor suggests the closer meant to put the word "not" earlier. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

More on that close, the closer was fairly new, has less than 1k edits.
However, agree with no consensus as a good enough close, vote counts were spread out like this
1 - 5
2 - 8
2.5 - 2
3 - 7
4 - 3

I think one editor was voting 3 in the discussion above but failed to vote in the RFC below, though that hardly changes the vote count. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

pinging @Omen2019 User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The RSP is like any other page, if you see something that doesn't match up with the result of discussions WP:BEBOLD. Also editors need to update the entry with the result of any RFC, it doesn't update automatically. As with most things on Wikipedia if you want something done you're probably going to have to do it yourself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Coming to Zee News itself. I don't put much stock into television broadcast sources, especially so for India, and all of these should be used with caution if at all.

One thing about the Nepal "ban" mentioned above. It wasn't a ban, it was a boycott/dropping of all Indian television channels by Nepalese cable operators (amid a territorial dispute) and was retracted just weeks later. So that should not be something under consideration. Gotitbro (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Now that WION is treated as an unreliable source, it is clear that Zee News is even worse given WION was supposed to be a reformed version of Zee News. We should avoid using any articles from Zee News that come after 2014. They are serving the Modi government to the extent that they even removed past articles that were being used against the government by their opposition.[37][38] Orientls (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  No, WION is not treated as unreliable (gunrel) at enwiki. The last (and only) RfC on this was explicit that there is consensus against treating it as such. Gotitbro (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  It ought to be if it is not. Zee News and WION are both unreliable sources because they spread misinformation for the party in government. Zee Media's baron was backed by the party into the Rajya Sabha too.

  You should discuss the source instead of what has happened or not in the past discussions. Omen2019 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think deprecating Zee News, atleast its post-2014 coverage, could be the way to go, considering its record of spreading false and fabricated news stories. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed but disagree slightly on one point, WION was supposed to be an international outlet for Zee Media. It appeared polished to attract their viewership and degenerated later. I think both ought to be not used, even the Zee News of pre-2014 is just another sensationalist tabloid and they have altered/removed their older articles so only archived versions may be used. Omen2019 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Zee is pretty trash. Ngl. — Longewal (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of the noticeboard is to discuss the reliability of sources, it's not a forum for discussing users behaviour. Editors behaviour does not effect the reliability of a source, and behavioural issues should be discussed elsewhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it deeply troubling that an editor can simply falsify the results of an RfC ([39]) to personally declare a source to be WP:GUNREL, and add bits of original commentary (re: Chandra) that do not appear anywhere in the RfC (an indication that the falsification may have been entirely deliberate) and then refuse to offer any explanation for it when discovered despite editing the same space simultaneously([40]). I find it doubly concerning that another editor is using that falsification, even after its discovery, as justification to gunrel other, related sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC) Guys, let's not get deviate from the main topic here. The categorization problem with WION seems to be resolved now. We can open another discussion for WION if we really need to, but the main issue at hand in this specific discussion is regarding Zee News. — EarthDude (Talk) 12:27, 25 March 2026 (UTC) You should WP:FOC. Zalaraz (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2026 (UTC) In what world would the use of a falsified RfC on one source for deprecating another related source not be relevant to the discussion about that source? UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC) The issue is the focus on an editors behaviour. They're behaviour doesn't change the reliability of a source, and issues with editors behaviour aren't handled on this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:06, 25 March 2026 (UTC) I understand that, and I offer no further comments on anybody's conduct, but I'm also talking about the reasoning behind "X was designated gunrel, Y is related to X, so Y is gunrel" when X was falsly designated gunrel in the first place. That is not about anybody's conduct but about the justification being offered, that is what I mean by "the use of ..." above. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC) Ok, I see. Arguments based on who owns a publication don't really matter anyway. The Daily Mail (deprecated) and the Independent (generally reliable) are owned by the same group, and the owner of The Sun (generally unreliable) also owns The Times (generally reliable). The owner of a new organisation usually doesn't mean anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:38, 25 March 2026 (UTC) I wrote it based on all the discussions not one subdiscussion RfC. This news site is blatantly unreliable as it spreads misinformation, examples abound in the discussions. Omen2019 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC) this response betrays a profound misunderstanding of RFCs and how consensus is generated on wikipedia. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC) It is was not an RfC summary. I think you have a profound misunderstanding of RSP. Omen2019 (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2026 (UTC) --- struck Omen2019 (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Sorry, but you deliberately falsified the consensus result, synthesised a false status and labelling of a source at RSP and are still defending that hoaxing. Please stop and reconsider, before you attract sanctions for this disruption. Gotitbro (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Are you pretending to be an admin? You need some evidence else the sanctions will go your way. You and petit didnt like my summary and added your own, which says the same thing that it is unreliable only the colour is yellow and not red. Focus on discussing the source. Omen2019 (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC) No, but you will definitely be taken to ANI if any of this hoaxing is continued and defended further. No one here added "their" summary to the RSP list, the summary is from the RfC. You falsified a consensus and status (apparently merely a color according to you), and are still treating it as a no big deal. Shocking to say the least. Gotitbro (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2026 (UTC) Although I think the RSP entry was in error based on a misunderstanding of how the RFC relates to prior discussions (as I have stated below), I can't see any deliberate attempt to mislead. Discussion needs to return to the reliability of the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC) this comment ("Zee Media's baron [Subhash Chandra] was backed by the party into the Rajya Sabha") and the fact that they added the same original commentary ("It is known to be close to the Modi government through its owner Subhash Chandra") to the falsified RfC summary, do lead me to believe it was not entirely unintentional. From this comment ("you changed [the RSP entry] to your version") and now this one ("You and petit didnt like my summary [at RSP] and added your own"), it is clear that the editor is under the impression they can use personal judgment to unilaterally gunrel a source. That said, I think this should be taken to WP:ANI and not be discussed further here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2026 (UTC) I suggest you WP:AGF and not engage in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. This is not something to escalate with sanctions when the editor just had a misunderstanding. — EarthDude (Talk) 21:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC) "Sorry but it also doesn't make a big difference other than the colour." Either a highly flawed understanding of RSP or a contorted attempt to save face. "which says the same thing that it is unreliable only the colour is yellow and not red." Simply false, the current RSP listing and the falsified one added by Omen do not say the same thing. Pointing this out is not battleground and AGF was extended when the editor was invited here to make them understand why they shouldn't be doing what they did. But that has clearly borne no fruit. Gotitbro (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2026 (UTC) You've misunderstood how the relationship between discussions and RFCs are meant to work. The RFC was to find a consensus based on disagreements found in the prior discussions. So the result of the RFC is the final consensus, and supersedes the prior discussions. So the RSP entry needs to reflect the consensus found in the latest RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:12, 27 March 2026 (UTC) Okay, I understand now. Sorry but it also doesn't make a big difference other than the colour. Omen2019 (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC) No, you clearly do not understand. It is most definitely not only a difference in colour. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

• I agree that Zee news needs to be pruned, especially the articles after 2014. It has spread misinformation and fabricated narratives against political opponents/dissidents of the Modi-led BJP. Our article on Zee News is full of coverage of such instances. More instances:[41] Zalaraz (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)
• I am saying nothing here about Zee News or Indian news media, but in general Wikipedia relies far too much on news reports as sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
• I have opened an RfC below, which I think is necessary given the scale at which Zee News is cited in Wikipedia. I request editors to add their input. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Zee News

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Broad consensus for deprecation; i.e. option 4. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:34, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

---

How reliable is Zee News, to be used in Wikipedia?

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

— EarthDude (Talk) 17:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Survey: Zee News

• Option 4: Its history of spreading false and fabricated stories and disinformation is pretty well-recorded. Zee News should be deprecated. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 As I mentioned above, they have even gone ahead to delete the pre-2014 articles that are critical of ruling BJP. Not a trustable source for anything. Orientls (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 - As per discussion above. It has zero credibility today. Koshuri ^(あ!) 17:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• WP:SNOWCLOSE Nothing in the above discussion suggests disagreement or winnowing down of non-RS assertions (WP:RFCBEFORE). The one topic where assertions of unreliability have been made (post-2014 Indian politics) hardly makes up any usage for it (for which the RfC should've been limited to if needed at all). Gotitbro (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 and WP:SNOWCLOSE per above. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 Come on now half of our article on it is contained inside the controversy section. Is this really contentious enough for an RfC?
  ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 See Zee News#Controversies, this source is not just poor but has actively and intentionally spread fabricated stories. Zalaraz (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. And conflation of two different entities in most of the !votes. Much of the Zee News article pertains to the TV channel, which is not the same as the website with news articles. No evidence has been presented to suggest the usage of these news reports are problematic, other than brazen ideological battleground complaints about the outlet's political orientation. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  The record of Zee News publishing fabricated stories is for both its TV outlet and news articles, which are well-integrated together. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close with Option 4. The above argument is conclusive enough for me. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 07:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 - I was expecting this type of discussion anytime soon for some years and finally we are here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Long overdue. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4, per Zee News's repeated publication and broadcasting of conspiracy theories, in particular, the love jihad conspiracy theory and a staggering number of other anti-Muslim conspiracy theories that Zee News has promoted with names in the form of "[insert topic here] jihad". On 11 March 2020, the Zee News editor-in-chief at the time, Sudhir Chaudhary, presented a "jihad flowchart" with 11 of these allegations: "economic jihad", "historical jihad", "media jihad", "film and song jihad", "secularism jihad", "population jihad", "love jihad", "land jihad" ("zameen jihad"), "education jihad", "victim jihad" and "direct jihad".
  This incident was notorious enough to be mentioned in a number of academic works about propaganda and Islamophobia. The most in-depth one is the chapter "Prime-Time Propaganda: Television and Hate" from Understanding Propaganda (published by Springer Nature), which goes into considerable detail to refute Chaudhary's "jihad flowchart". I am unable to quote all of the relevant parts (half of the chapter) per the fair use restrictions, but the full text is available through The Wikipedia Library; an excerpt is below:

Excerpt of "Prime-Time Propaganda: Television and Hate" from Understanding Propaganda

Since the arrival of the BJP-led government in 2014, prime-time news in television media in India has emerged as a site for actualizing an extreme right fantasy of vilification, hatred and collective vengeance against the Muslims. In March 2020, Sudhir Chaudhary, the then editor-in-chief of Zee News, ran a story on the different kinds of jihad on his prime-time show, which included specimens like 'Land Jihad' i.e. capturing land to build mosques, madrassas or Islamic seminaries and cemeteries for Muslims, 'History Jihad' i.e. the manipulation of history to glorify Mughal rule, 'Education Jihad' i.e. building 'madrassas' and promoting the Arabic language, 'Secularism Jihad' and 'Population Jihad' i.e. Muslim men marrying multiple wives to increase the population of Muslims and outnumber the Hindus. [...] This background renders false the different types of jihad propounded by Sudhir Chaudhary, who did not consider the nuanced history and scholarship behind the term. This also undermines Chaudhary's allegation that there is a 'population jihad' caused by Muslim men marrying multiple wives to increase the population of Muslims and outnumber Hindus. [...] Zee news as one of the most popular television news channels in India (Devi, 2022) that cater to the viewership in the Hindi belt of North India remains one of the primary sites of media propaganda. Apart from manufacturing news and the viewers' consent, it also manufactures antipathy against the Muslims, normalizes violence against the community. The news channel continued its propaganda throughout the pandemic period, often pitting already confused, vulnerable and Covid-ridden citizens against one another. Zee news also picked up on fake news transmitted via WhatsApp to reinforce the dissemination of disinformation and concocted information aired at prime-time television. — Basu, Arani (15 October 2025). "Prime-Time Propaganda: Television and Hate". Understanding Propaganda: A Study of Media in Contemporary India. Springer Nature. pp. 23–43. doi:10.1007/978-981-95-1665-0_2. ISBN 978-981-95-1665-0.

After this incident, Zee News continued propagating new "jihad" conspiracy theories, such as "corona jihad" and "spitting jihad" ("thook jihad") during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2024, Zee News promoted "mehndi jihad" (including on its website), "food jihad" and "QR code jihad". The sheer number of conspiracy theories disseminated by Zee News indicates that it should be deprecated. — Newslinger talk 22:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Newslinger: all of these pertain to the TV broadcast side of things though, and none of them to the text articles used on Wikipedia. This "RfC" I presume is about the latter, but your comment does not address it at all. The TV and news article side of things are not "well-integrated", contrary to the claims of another editor. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  Precisely why I believe this is a malformed RfC. I also note that prior to Newslinger, nobody in this RfC presented any evidence at all but somehow all arrived at the same conclusion. I hope somebody is taking note. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

  I think you are being too aggressive with your severe accusations and have only objections against having the discussion and RfC. It looks like an attempt to derail the discussion. Omen2019 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

  Pointing out the obvious, that many if not all comments prior to Newslinger’s were made with no reference to any strong evidence for deprecating ("long overdue", "finally we are here" etc.) is not an accusation. It is an observation. Another is this: that WP:FOXNEWS gets deep dissection of its reporting and reliability but the knee-jerk reaction on other similar sources is to deprecate with a "speedy close", the opposite of actual discussion, speaks to wikipedia’s own WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. UnpetitproleX (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

  And it turns into long write-ups about it with no inputs in the discussion topic. Omen2019 (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

  Although Chaudhary was the anchor of Zee News's Daily News and Analysis (DNA) news program, on which he presented the "jihad flowchart", he was also concurrently the CEO of Zee News and, most importantly, the editor-in-chief overseeing all of Zee News's content, including online content (consisting of not just articles, but also videos created from the TV broadcasts). When the editor-in-chief is openly promoting conspiracy theories on television with his name and likeness for the audience to see, that is a negative indicator of reliability for the entire news outlet.

  I searched the Zee News website and found content purporting the existence of "love jihad" (context), "land jihad" (context), "corona jihad" (context), "UPSC jihad" (context; see Union Public Service Commission) "rail jihad" (context) and, in response to a first information report (FIR) filed against one of Chaudhary's "land jihad" claims, "jihadist conspiracy". There is no shortage of these types of claims in Zee News's voice. I understand that different editors have different levels of tolerance for questionable content; my tolerance for conspiracy theories like these is low, thus my position in this request for comment. — Newslinger talk 00:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC) (Edited to make correction: To Zee News's credit, its coverage of the "UPSC jihad" conspiracy theory was fine; it was Sudarshan News that was criticised for its reporting. Replaced with "rail jihad". 22:16, 1 April 2026 (UTC))

  I want to point out that its not that their coverage of the UPSC jihad conspiracy theory was fine, its more so they did not cover it. Omen2019 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 for all post-20202014 reporting except option 3/4 (WP:GUNREL or deprecate) for all Muslim-related coverage post-2020, and option 1 for all pre-20202014 reporting, based on the evidence presented above by Newslinger. All evidence presented is for a number of general anti-Muslim reports going back till 2020. I simply fail to see how that can somehow be used to deprecate the source for all reporting of all time. Something similar to WP:FOXNEWS is required here. —UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC) updated pre- and post-2020 to pre-and post-2014 per Newslinger's and WMrapids' sourcesUnpetitproleX (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Per the evidence brought forward by the Newslinger. It is an unusable source, almost similar to OpIndia in its reporting. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 3/4, leaning 3 Having reviewed the discussion it seems clear this is a garbage source that should not be used. I'm uncertain if it's garbage enough to warrant deprecation. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 per the evidence presented by the RfC participants. It is a broadcaster of anti-muslim conspiracy theories with things like love jihad ([42]), its derivatives like mehendi jihad ([43]), land jihad ([44]), spit or food jihad ([45]), its derivates like QR code jihad ([46], [47]), upsc jihad, vaccine jihad ([48]) besides being a disinformation outlet of the BJP on other things as well. This ought to be done with many other news sites which are of the same quality, it is a noticeable issue on many pages. Omen2019 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC) ---- edited ---- Omen2019 (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 and WP:SNOWCLOSE: Given that we have had multiple users look at this and not find anything redeeming, it's easy to say deprecate and close. However, since the process has faced ridicule for Newslinger being the only one presenting what they have found, I'll share some of what I found.
  In the Politics of Fake News: How WhatsApp Became a Potent Propaganda Tool in India article published in the journal Media Watch, it states:

  "Just after November 8, 2016, when the Indian government canceled currency notes of 500 and 1,000 denominations, fake news about new 2000 denomination note began circulating on WhatsApp. The most viral news being that the new note has a nano GPS tracker chip by which it can be traced anywhere. This, the fake news claimed, will help the government to keep eye on black money (Indian Express, 2016). What happened later is a perfect example of how hoaxes make their way to mainstream news. Zee News, a more than 18-year-old Hindi news channel, broadcast a special programme on new 2000 denomination note. In this programme DNA (Daily News Analysis), a well-known anchor of the channel narrated almost exactly the same features of the new notes as claimed by the fake news messages on WhatsApp."

  If this organization is presenting WhatsApp hoaxes as fact, then it is some good evidence that it has some pretty bad editorial quality. Going back to some more evidence, the outlet has spread fake news about Tablighi Jamaat members attacking medical workers[49] and has been involved in "anti-Muslim propaganda" during the COVID pandemic.[50] So, I think it's safe to say we can deprecate and close this.--WMrapids (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 - Per Newslinger and WMrapids. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Option 4 per WP:RS and WP:V. The evidence presented indicates repeated failures in editorial oversight and fact-checking, including publication of misleading or fabricated claims. Regardless of political bias (which alone is not disqualifying), such patterns undermine the source’s reputation for accuracy. Per WP:DEPRECATED, sources with a history of disinformation should not be used, and given the scale of concerns, deprecation appears justified.
    User4135 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• Comment/question. I looked at this with an eye to closing. I'm seeing a consensus above to deprecate, at least for post-2014 content, I'm not seeing enough opinions expressed about earlier content to say that any of the options have consensus so more opinions on that would be useful. Is it though technically possible to partially deprecate a source (with date-based split)? (This is a genuine question, I have no idea). Thryduulf (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 Per newslinger. Yeah nothing redeeming here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
• option 4i made a post about to yk nudge wikipedians into looking at indian sources glad to see were heading that way the controversy section alone is good enough for blacklisting also whatever newslinger said and also bjp associated owner and former editor has own controversy section its all the web of hindutva portal wikipedians have no idea how far it goes (not to soapbox tho its just detrimental to wiki) Stanjik (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
• I like unpetitrole's nuanced suggestion, I think it helps maintain WP:RSCONTEXT's sensitive approach.
  Option 1 for non-political content. For example, the Oceansat-3 (after having a lot of copyright info removed) cites Zee News for a fact about a survey of phytoplankton. I don't see a problem with citations such as this.
  Option 4 for post-2020 Islam related content. The coverage is shocking, as everyone has already attested to. Thryduulf, for your reference, the summary for WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS mentions that post Nov 2020 content is generally unreliable but pre Nov 2020 content requires further consideration. I think pre-2020 should have additional consideration rather than being completely deprecated. I think this would mean we should be careful with biographical information about Muslims provided by Zee News but general biographical information seems okay as long as it's also meeting the general WP:BLP guidelines.
  I am suggesting 'post-2020' and not 'post-2014' because even though the Arani Basu chapter, helpfully provided by Newslinger, implies that the change in news outlets occurred after the arrival of the BJP govt in 2014, all the examples used in the chapter are from 2020 onwards. So I'd want a stronger argument if we were to question, and deprecate, an extra six years worth of content.
  I also think it's worth differentiating between the TV news coverage and the website. The news channel pedalled a conspiracy about GPS trackers in notes but the website stated that it was 'bogus'. The differentiation here would be similar to WP:FOXNEWSTALKSHOWS. I get that they're all under one editor, but then perhaps simply the post and pre 2020 split applies if we don't want to separate the TV channel from the website. Katiedevi (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  Where did you get that this website has spread anti muslim disinformation after 2020? It has spread disinformation in favour of the ruling party in many dimensions against political opponents and dissidents :

  As these sections on the corresponding article shows:

  1. '2016 Jawaharlal Nehru University sedition controversy'
  2. 'Navjot Singh Sidhu – Alwar controversy'
  3. '2016 GPS chips in ₹2000 notes'
  4. 'Spreading fake news during 2020–21 farmers' protests'
  5. 'Coverage of 2020 Delhi election results'

  This "post-2020 Islam related content" is not nuanced but outright denial of all of these instances!

  Option 4 is the only right option here. Zalaraz (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  i second whatever he said Stanjik (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Katiedevi: as noted by others below, a partial deprecation seems impractical. Since I do not find the evidence to show unreliability for all reporting of all time from the source, I have changed my 3/4 for Islam-related content to a option 3, i.e. GUNREL, for Islam-related reporting. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1: At least for entertainment-related, non-political and non-contentious content. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 for everything. I'd oppose any carve-outs; a source with a history of publishing deliberately fabricated stories cannot be trusted for anything. Even if we assume they are only willing to fabricate stuff for political purposes (which is not at all a given), almost anything can in some way touch on politics, in ways that might not be obvious; and the underlying point is that this makes it clear that they lack a reputable fact-checking or editorial controls that would grant them a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy overall. More generally the history of trying to carve off "usable" parts from unreliable sources always tends towards us ultimately determining that the whole thing has problems (see the recent Forbes RFC, or the way reliability issues with Fox slowly creeped over every part of the network.) Sometimes problems might be limited to one part of a network, sure, but in general a source that is willing to publish actual disinformation about anything is going to be willing to publish it about everything, and cannot be seriously said to have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Aquillion. Unreliable source. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:10, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Aquillion. What an unreliable source? I wonder if they will report on us doing Wikipedia jihad? Hopefully, that would be funny. If its unreliable for one matter, I don't see how it can be reliable for anything else, its not like it has experts for its publications on art but not politics (as an example). Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 13:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 per Aquillion. Reccommend WP:SNOW closing too. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

  cant we depreciate it already also how are we going to clean it up since we have more than 7000 links to this website Stanjik (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  The answer to that second question is editor's time and hardwork. Each use will need to be checked to see if it can be replaced with a different source, and otherwise if the content needs to be changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:40, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  jesus christ its like a tumor in wiki what took us so long for depreciating this Stanjik (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested @Stanjik I have seen editors call for purging citations in previous discussions which have ended with a consensus for deprecation, such as this RfC on Republic TV. Considering the fact that there appears to be a clear consensus for deprecating Zee News here, perhaps we could have its citations purged as well. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

  Those citations were cleared down by editors checking and removing them, there isn't a technical solution to clearing up bad sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:29, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Why 2014?

Does anyone have any evidence that Zee News changed in 2014? I think the burden of proof lies on those who claim that the pre-2014 version was reliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

(...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

How would partially deprecating a source even work though? — EarthDude (Talk) 11:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: As per the only real evidence presented here, by Newslinger above (and some added on by WPrapids here). The academic source quoted by Newslinger says "Since the arrival of the BJP-led government in 2014,[underlined by me] prime-time news in television media in India has emerged as a site for … vilification, hatred and collective vengeance against the Muslims." It details the first example of that of Zee News doing so from March 2020. Thus I suggested here option 4 for all Muslim-related post-2020 coverage. Given WMrapids example, I update my option 2 (for all post-2014 instead of post-2020 reporting except for the option 4 for Muslim-related coverage as already stated). When the sources being presented as evidence clearly make a difference between before and after a certain date, then why wouldn’t we reflect that? UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

nah its clear theyre reporting is super unreliable and as mentioned by earth dude how will it even work lets just depreciate it and this is rn focused on how modi affected it hence post 2014 i really doubt theyre journalistic standards were that great to begin with Stanjik (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, reviewing WP:DEPS again, I've changed my 3/4 suggestion to a solid, flat 3, i.e. GUNREL, for Islam/Muslim-related reporting since I tend to agree with Simonm223's comment. That works fine in the same manner as WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FORBES, I believe. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2026 (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.

Discussion: Zee News

why is this source still not depreciating even when presented with overwhelming evidence we have been talking about ot for a month i think its time Stanjik (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

30 days is when an RfC is "ripe" for closure, so it probably will be closed soon. Feeglgeef (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

the sooner the better how the hell did this even survive for these many years Stanjik (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Once the normal thirty day period has passed I'll place a request for someone to close the discussion on WP:CR. Then we'll need to wait for an editor who is willing to close the discussion, this can take awhile as noone can be forced to do the close (patience is required). During that time the discussion may be archived, but the closer will restore it to the main page when they close it. Archiving doesn't mean it's forgotten, and undoing it doesn't mean it will be closed sooner. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

great im tired of this Stanjik (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I've placed a request for someone to close this on WP:CR[51]. Of course editing Wikipedia is entirely voluntary, so some patience is required until an editor chooses to do the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

The RfC has been closed and Zee News has been added to the perennial sources list as a deprecated source. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:33, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Insert squid game celebration gif Stanjik (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

As well as listing the source in the RSP deprecated sites need to be added to filter 869, it's what generates the warning message when you try to use a deprecated source. It can be requested on WP:EFN, which I've done[52]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh yeah, true. I forgot about that, thank you for taking care of it. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Now that zee news is dealt with what do we do with DNA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_News_and_Analysis

Its owned by the ZEE Stanjik (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

CBS News revisited

I know the case of CBS News was brought up following the change of ownership and we, correctly (IMO), determined that no change of status would be appropriate. That said, for purposes of tracking these sorts of things, I want to note that the network has started credulously regaling viewers with the missing scientists conspiracy theory in TMZ-style vertical social media videos [53] and in a sprawling monolith that matter-of-factly drops (in the last sentence) that there are "no links between any of the deaths" [54]. On this basis alone, I think it's too soon to NewsNation it, but attentiveness may be helpful. Chetsford (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually it's in the third paragraph of the article: "But those close to the various investigations into the disparate cases have said they see no links between them." Also, midway through the article is "CBS News interviewed several energy security and law enforcement experts. None saw an obvious link between the cases." --Animalparty! (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's not much we can do about newsmedia being sensationalist. If it descends beyond sensationalism and into any actual chicanery we might be having a different conversation. But, as things stand, this is the sort of garbage we long ago came to a consensus was allowable on this encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see this article as burying the lede. It appears pretty early as the lone sentence of a paragraph. Cadddr (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

And actually, this CNN article on the same subject seems much worse. Cadddr (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

"Actually it's in the third paragraph of the article" That's not the lead. If an article can make an authorial assertion, the assertion is the lead, not any attributed statements. Putting it in the last sentence of a thousands-word monolith is absolutely burying it. Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

You should write a letter to the editor. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a lot of sensationalism coming from CBS news recently, the 60 minutes piece on the microwave radiation weapon for example warrants strong skepticism User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a single thing wrong in that story on the FBI investigating missing scientists. Guz13 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

As others have noted, there is nothing factually wrong or misleading about the cited story. It is in-line with similar articles published from other outlets, like this one from The Independent. In both cases, the outlets cover the basic details and note that Congress and the FBI are looking into the matter. Regardless of your views on the issue, the FBI launching an investigation and the President speaking on the subject make it newsworthy. CBS isn't unreliable for reporting on those facts.

As to the "Havana syndrome weapon" story, it, too has been reported on by other outlets who allege very similar claims (CNN, WAPO, The Times, and The Telegraph, Bravelake (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

CelebMix / Yahoo News

Huh, I don't post here for ages and suddenly I have two questions at once. Anyway:

• CelebMix comes across as unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 264#CelebMix, but this seems to be based on a lack of editorial oversight, and they seem to have several editors ([55][56][57][58]). They even seem to have some WP:USEBYOTHERS ([59]). Would this piece, written by a Toby Bryant who now works for NationalWorld, be reliable for the fact that Joe Baggs and others appeared in a Not a Phase fundraiser organised by Max Balegde? Courtesy ping to User:Narutolovehinata5, since this might affect Template:Did you know nominations/Joe Baggs.
• At an ERRORS discussion about Sophie Tea last month and at WT:DYK#Fruit Love Island/Template:Did you know nominations/Fruit Love Island in the last 36 hours, @Theleekycauldron: questioned the use of WP:YAHOONEWS; the latter for "potentially sensitive topics on a BLP", the former for being "clearly paid for". RSP reckons it's a standard WP:NEWSORG. Is this acceptable for the claims it is currently being cited for at Fruit Love Island? I also noticed that an above discussion questions Inc. and Fast Company, so this could be fun.--Launchballer 18:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The reference at Fruit Love Island wasn't Yahoo News, so WP:YAHOONEWS isn't relevant. The reference is CBC being republished by Yahoo, the reliability of the source stays with the original publisher. CBC would be covered by WP:NEWSORG, noone has questioned it's reliability as far as I'm aware (I did a quick heck of the archives).
However it isn't acceptable for the claims in the article, as it fails verification. The content states "The creator of the series is simply known as "ai.cinema021" or "AI Cinema", and their true identity remains unconfirmed. Several online personalities have attempted to claim that they originally created Fruit Love Island.", but the reference[60] only supports "ai.cinema021" not "AI Cinema" or that online personalities claim to be the creator. I would suggest the other references are also checked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll interrogate the rest of the sources in the morning, but I was under the impression that leeky was using Yahoo News as a catch-all for all the Yahoo sources, which included the article's Yahoo Entertainment source (and the Yahoo Lifestyle source that used to be in Tea's article). Do you have an opinion on CelebMix?--Launchballer 00:24, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping to what other thought of CelebMix. As to Yahoo Entertainment/ Lifestyle I don't think either has ever been discussed at length. I could see the argument that they should be included in YAHOONEWS, and that they should be treated separately. Personally as long as it was contentious information about a BLP I would thinks it's ok. Entertainment or lifestyle reporting may not be a 'high quality' source for such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:50, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

as long as it was contentious information about a BLP I would thinks it's ok are you missing a negative here somewhere? ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that should obviously be "as long as it wasn't contentious". See my talk page[61]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

ErinInTheMorning

ErinInTheMorning is an SPS substack by the journalist Erin Reed, to my knowledge we don't use any of her work presently, but this post is more to show something I've noticed, and that is she is beginning to get more USEBYOTHERS traction including The Independent [62], Wonkette [63], and Instinct (magazine) [64]. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll say that her takes are such that, they're not factually incorrect, but they make some leaps in their characterization of things that will not make sense if you're not deeply familiar with the underlying topic.

An example: If a state bans gender affirming hormone therapy under the age of 18, she'll describe that as forced detransition of trans youth; which if you're not super familiar, will feel like a leap, but it makes sense because, if you go off HRT, the hormones your body naturally produces reassert themselves and pull your body back the other way, and because under 18 is too young to have surgery to change that fact, the result is that an HRT ban is reasonable to describe as a categorical forced detransition.

But again, you'd never get that if you weren't familiar with the topic material. To the average individual, it just feels like she's jumping the shark. Snokalok (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

jumping the shark you are probably looking for some other idiom: Jumping the shark ~2026-86111-3 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Possibly "jumping the gun"? Katzrockso (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we can't use her as a direct source (even if attributed) due to how little presence she has outside of the niche she writes in, and that she is an SPS. But as people within various places seem to feeding information and whistleblowing to her (as is the case for why she is used in The Independent), we may see her become more prominent. But that is for the future to decide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I think she might be usable in some situations, but it would really depend on context. Her work is described here as According to Erin Reed’s well-regarded Trans Legislative Risk Assessment Maps [65], and there's quite a number of examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS (see e.g. New York Times [66], NBC News [67], Mother Jones [68], Washington Blade [69], Slate [70], New Yorker [71], etc).

She's also cited in academic works like Florence Ashley's Courtroom Science and Trans Youth and Laura Horak's Trans Cinema. Katzrockso (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

My issue is more with the fact that it's a Substack than the content of the articles she writes. I think if it's attributed to another secondary source that is on the noticeboard ie if the New York Times or the Atlantic cites something she has written on her Substack it's fine--but I think citing directly from Substack is iffy. Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Australian Brodcasting Corporation

Is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reliable for general topics such as music? I was wondering if I could use it as a source on a Tame Impala song article. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Established news organisations are covered by WP:NEWSORG, unless there are specific reasons to question their reliability. So they're considered generally reliable. That doesn't mean they are always reliable, all sources can be wronbgor make mistakes, but unless someone has a specific issue with what you add you should be ok. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright, cool, thanks. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember the same question being asked a few weeks ago. I guess that people are worried about ABC not being included in WP:RSP. Don't be. Only sources that have regularly been questioned appear there. There is no question about ABC. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think source highlighting scripts are helping. Although invaluable for giving a quick overview far to many editors are taking "not green" (as in uncoloured) as meaning bad. The same is leading to editors wanting every source listed on the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Should be perfectly fine for a Tame Impala article. Definitely should be considered reliable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Inc. and Entrepreneur

Inc. and Entrepreneur have thousands of citations here. Not sure how they would be that much better than Forbes (designated as unreliable) in terms of reliability. Nighfidelity (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

I think they are less reliable than Forbes. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think they were reliable while in print, but like Forbes have taken a downturn in recent years. I think Entrepreneur is a little bit better than Forbes now anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

These, and Fast Company, are all terrible and should all be deprecated. They all uncritically write down what a CEO says and report it as fact. Polygnotus (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Interestingly, while creating the article for Tai Lopez (ran a ponzi scheme) according to the SEC a while ago, I found these [72] [73] [74] puff pieces (all with no author info), one of which was in the deleted version. Nighfidelity (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nighfidelity For more see User:Polygnotus/Rants/Yahoo&AOL Polygnotus (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Inc. and Entrepreneur both use contributor networks, and their articles authored by non-staff contributors should be considered generally unreliable (and equivalent to self-published sources), just like those of Forbes. See the citations in the Contributor network article for details: "Digital Payola: Policing the Open Contributor Network" (subscription required), Columbia Journalism Review, Poynter Institute, BuzzFeed News, The Outline, and NiemanLab. — Newslinger talk 16:40, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Problem is that the non-contributed stuff is also unreliable, because they just write down whatever a CEO tells them instead of doing actual journalism. Polygnotus (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

iHorror as a situational RS

First, a bit of explanation. iHorror has been listed as a RS on the horror WikiProject. Recently there was a discussion about a few film websites that were discovered to offer sponsored content or outright paid reviews (Film Threat), so there has been a move to re-examine the sites to see if any have also adopted this over the years. There was some concern in 2016 about their lack of a staff page as well.

Now, I do believe that iHorror can be used as a reliable source - but only for those reviews and coverage that predate the advertising page, which popped up in mid to late 2020. The site was used as a RS for books published through McFarland and Bloomsbury. It has also been used as a source in scholarly papers put out through the University of Hradec Králové/Journal of Anglophone Studies, Pandaemonium Germanicum, and this one that looks to be through The Scientific Journals of the University of Social Sciences in Lublin. Google Scholar says that it was also used as a source in this doctoral thesis, but I don't have access to the full thing to verify. Same for this article in the Journal of Economic Insight and this in Screen Education. There is also some coverage of the website in the Tampa Bay Times and it was name dropped in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Other than that, there is some general coverage of their content (news, opinions, creative works, etc) on contemporary RS horror websites like Bloody Disgusting, Fangoria, and Dread Central.

I wouldn't see them as a super strong source like the aforementioned Bloody Disgusting, Fangoria, and Dread Central, but I think there's enough to establish that their reviews should count towards notability. Coverage should be usable as well unless it's an interview, reprint of a press release, or on something controversial.

I've been trying to nail down the exact month that they started offering sponsored content, but Wayback is not cooperating. The best I can find is that they did not have the advertising page in June 2020 but did in December. Unfortunately Wayback borked and I wasn't able to navigate back to that link to grab it.

So my recommendation is this:

• The site can be used as a situational source for coverage from June 2020 and earlier. Coverage from when they started offering sponsored posts and advertising is unusable for establishing notability.
• The site does offer an award, but the coverage for this award is practically non-existent outside of a couple of places reporting that a specific (local) person has won an award.

What does everyone think? I had some support at the horror WP from StarTrekker, but I'd like to get a wider consensus. My goal is to work through all of the sources to re-affirm their usability. The list is short so I'm going through them individually. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime I've listed them as a situational source at WP:HORROR/S. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Could you point to the edit conflict that lead to this noticeboard post? Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The edit conflict? There was none. I happened to be researching sourcing for a potential article and their site popped up as a potential source. When I was looking over the review, I happened to notice that they had an advertising page. Looking at that page brought up that they do sponsored content nowadays. I've been meaning to re-review the sourcing on the horror WP sourcing page, as we had a couple of sites that began doing advertising to get extra money. I could probably just move it to situational sourcing and say that only their stuff up to that date is usable, but I just wanted to run it through here just to be on the safe side. The horror WP discussion can be found here, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:38, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Sadly it seems to be becoming increasingly common for websites to offer these kinds of services. It feels like soon all smaller websites will be unusable, which will harm so many genre specific/niche subjects on Wikipedia 💔★Trekker (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Which is why it becomes important to understand WP:RSCONTEXT. Even generally unreliable sources can be used in some cases for some information. Katzrockso (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

True. But it's going to have a negative effect on how many subjects can even pass GNG anymore.★Trekker (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

So the gist here is that the site would be used to establish notability for horror related topics, like films, books, comics, and so on. The site does reviews, articles, and has their own award. Horror is popular but is still niche enough that non-mainstream stuff can find it very difficult to find coverage in places Wikipedia would see as reliable. It's why I'm trying to make sure that we have as much as possible, even if some of the sites aren't usable past a certain point. So basically, every site counts with horror topics. Should we consider the site to be still usable despite offering sponsored content? If we could verify that they weren't accepting pay for reviews, then I'd say the reviews are still usable but I can't really verify that their sponsored posts don't include reviews.

I just don't want another situation where an article comes up to AfD and for the site to be considered questionable, as it could throw the entire horror sourcing page into question. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Bob Varela blog for pageants

I came across the Spanish language website bobvarela.com at Miss Universe Puerto Rico 2011 where it is used for contest results and BLP details [75][76]. It looks like SPS to me, is definitely WordPress hosted, but not being very good at Spanish I'm requesting a second opinion here in case I'm missing something. Thanks. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Its certainly a selfpublished source, and I can't find anything to support Bob Varela being an WP:EXPERTSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Archiseek

Is Archiseek considered reliable? I've seen it on countless articles (Eg. Ireland ref 246, Dublin ref 101, Sinking of the Titanic ref 242), but it seems to be self published by Paul Clerkin. Are the awards the website has earned since its creation in 1996 enough to prove its reliability? Thought I'd ask here to make sure. Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

He appears to be an established subject matter expert in the area of architecture. So according to WP:SPS I would say that he is reliable as a source for that sort of thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Paul Clerkin is a subject matter expert in architecture. The pages you listed cited Archiseek for architecture-related information, so I'd say those ones should be considered reliable. 23impartial (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

cppreference.com.

It is a tetriary source and it's widely used in C++ related topics, even though I guess it's a reliable source, and I want to see how what consensus thinks about this website. Birthay boy (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It was discussed back in May 2024, see archive 440. I don't think there's a firm consensus in that discussion, but I would suggest finding a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Looked at the discussion. Looks like a WP:NOCONSENSUS as you mentioned in your comment, but the other web sources are more problematic for wikipedia (WP:SPS and even more) than this tetriary source. The website is also vandalizm protected for a long time the only little problem is cppreference.com was in a read-only mode from 2025 to 17 April 2026 (this year) and it is updated these days; so some informations may be outdated (even though I didn't encounter any of outdated information currently). Long story short, it think it is a reliable source. Birthay boy (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

That it's now read only doesn't really change that it was WP:USERGENERATED, but given the disagreement last time I guess it should a probably be considered at least marginally reliable. So if you can find a better source I would use that instead, but otherwise use with caution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You're right about being it's a WP:UGC tbh. But I wonder should we include this to the WP:RS/P § Sources list with WP:MREL legend? Because it is widely used in C/C++ related topics, and maybe we could make a wikilink for it? What are your opinions? Birthay boy (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it would meet WP:RSPCRITERIA. The RSP is a limited list of sources that have been discussed again and again, it's not meant to list all sources that are useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Uh okay then. Thanks and have a good day! Birthay boy (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The CEO Magazine

Just another FYI about a questionable source: The CEO Magazine (theceomagazine.com) seems to be yet another sponsored content / native advertising website that describes itself as a business magazine. It is cited on 196 articles, including a lot of BLPs and company articles, such as KFC and senator Mark Warner.

All of the cited posts I've seen are either clearly paid content or slightly-rewritten news wire articles - for example, see this glowing profile cited on Zirkova. On this page about advertising options, including "Mini profile", "Flagship profile", and "Feature profile", it is strongly implied that undisclosed advertising is available for purchase. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Another 'magazine' were profiles, interviews and such should be considered as paid promo. It might be usable for no contentious facts about the subject of the article, in the same way as ABOUTSELF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested Even for non-contentious facts, it'd be much better to cite the subject's website or a clearly-marked press release, so that the reader has appropriate context to evaluate the claim. This website is confusing and deceptive (WP:COVERT) because it's apparently mostly paid promo but calls itself a "magazine" with writer bylines like "[Name] is an independent journalist, currently based in Mumbai, India. She writes on culture, lifestyle and travel as well as any topical events and issues that pique her mind." (Copied from the Zirkova profile linked above.) Dreamyshade (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

No evidence of editorial oversight. About us lists only the CEO, CTO, Global Revenue Director, Global Operations Director, and Executive Assistant. Valereee (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

More context for evaluation:

• Page about interviews: "A profile in our executive interviews section places you among the world’s most successful and prominent business leaders. The experience provides you and your company with a number of benefits, including...an opportunity to boost your profile among our influential subscriber base and associate your business with a premium brand."
• Job description for Sales Manager: "As a Digital Content Sales Manager, you’ll be at the forefront of business storytelling, selling prestige content and custom digital solutions to top decision-makers...You’ll drive revenue by selling exclusive paid media opportunities, including...C-suite Profiles & Advertorial Features...Prospect, pitch, and close new business for The CEO Magazine’s paid content solutions."
• Job description for Media Manager, Ad Sales: "Pitching inbound leads and actively outreaching to potential clients; Speaking with top CEOs on a daily basis for interview opportunities; Selling advertising in The CEO Magazine."
• Job description for Copy Editor: "Edit advertisements/advertorials in conjunction with the Design and Operations team...Liaise with salespeople around the world to facilitate the client fact-check process for executive profiles."
• 2018 media kit, page 11: "The CEO Magazine’s video interviews are designed to help your organisation showcase management stories, company journeys and promote your brand...To help share your story, the video will be hosted on our global site – theceomagazine.com – and shared on our social media channels, connecting your business with our audience of decision makers and business leaders."

Dreamyshade (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

• I think we are flogging a dead horse here. The magazine is obviously useless as a source, and we all know it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's still worth the discussion, since it's being used in 200 articles and is not yet listed at WP:RSNP. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think the discussion is conclusive. It is a hopeless source. Is anyone going to object if you attempt to add it any "no go list" anywhere? No. So please Just do it and be done. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Yesterday, all my dreams... I don't think it's that straightforward. For example, another editor at Talk:Zirkova#Questionable sources initially considered this website ok to cite for WP:ABOUTSELF statements, but I'm encouraging treating it as a misleading website that we should avoid citing in general, unlike a reliable but non-independent source that would be ok to cite carefully (like PR Newswire). Another issue that there's no centralized list of websites that are questionable but not egregious. WP:NPPSOURCEGUIDE is the closest we have, and there's not really any specific criteria to get on that list, but it seems good to get several opinions here before adding it there. Dreamyshade (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  Please see my response below. By the way, I saw a picture of Listerin on your page. Please never use that thing. It is toxic. Just FYI. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  The criteria for adding something to the RSP is described in WP:RSPCRITERIA, I don't think this meets them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  That link is an information page not a guideline or policy. Anyway, you can all discuss it for ever and a day, but please count me as a vote for zapping all refs to it and putting it on the waiting to die list. These junk sources waste everyone's life. Let me not be one of them. Maybe you should go and have pint instead. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

  The RSP is simply the same, but by general consensus it's not a list of all sources just one that have been perennially discussed. Maybe you should you use your time more usefully, you could start replacing and removing this source if you concerned about it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  These types of mass removals should be done by bots not by hand. The community will eventually realize that. I am waiting for that day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:16, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Yesterday, all my dreams... I've removed a lot of citations to deceptive websites by hand, and I wouldn't want to automate this process. Often a bad citation is a signal of other problems with the article - I often find them cited on articles with UPE/COI problems, including articles with problems that have not yet been noticed/tagged by other editors. Sometimes the statement is verifiable and just needs a better citation. Sometimes the statement is not, and it needs to be removed along with the citation. Better to sort these things out properly instead of mass-removing, but I do believe that editors should get a signal of some kind when they use a deprecated or known-questionable source, to reduce the amount coming in. Meta:Cite Unseen does this in a helpful way. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  I would not suggest the removal of text, but sources, and their replacement by a cn tag. Text removal would be very tricky to implement, replacement of a useless source with a cn tag would be quite easy for a bot developer. And a category "needs attention" addition to the page would be done. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  If we don't significantly discuss (because everyone agrees it isn't RS), we can never meet that threshhold. I wonder if this is a "significant" discussion yet? That feels a bit like the tail wagging the dog, though: "Let's have significant discussion so we can put this on the list" seems a bit silly. Obviously we can't add every crap source to that list. It's already at the limit for the softwar and there's now an overflow list. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Mosy sources should just be handled by policy, if a source is obviously WP:QUESTIONABLE shouldn't need anything more. Perennially discussed sources are ones that people disagree about, they need to be listed so that discussion doesn't repeat endlessly. That's the purpose of the RSP, not to be a list of sources. If the criteria, and nature of the list should be changed really is a question for WT:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested @Valereee The underlying problem to me is that these kinds of fake websites aren't obviously questionable unless you're looking out for them, so they routinely trick good-faith editors who find an article in a "magazine" and cite it, and they also get cited by COI/UPE editors to try to make reviewers at AfC and AfD think something is more notable than it really is. I want to help figure out a way to build a structured list of questionable sources, in addition to WP:RSP, building on WP:NPPSG and User:Kuru/fakesources, to feed into Meta:Cite Unseen and other tools for editors. For now, I figure that at least having something documented in the RSN archives for sites like this can help future editors who are looking at that source. Related conversation from a couple months ago: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#A list of fake sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'd love to see a list of crap sources that anyone could add to and anyone could then challenge, which is how things could eventually need to be included at RSNP. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you like, you could start with a subpage in your user space, keep mentioning it in discussion boards the pump etc. After a while it could become a noticeboard of its own. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe a project is the way to go, you could then maintain such a list without any issue with the RSPs inclusion criteria. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  +1. WP:WikiProject Crappy Sources. Valereee (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  A project has the benefit of attracting other editors who also interested in classifying such sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:21, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  A good idea. And I just remembered that Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement with 80 members could do this. I think there is another quality proje4ct but can not remember the exact name. Anyway if 20 of the 80 users make a few fixes each progress willbe made. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  A very good idea. But if you want the project to succeed please, please use a better name. How about "questionable sources" or something like that. And please see my comment above. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  It was a joke. :D Valereee (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Is that so?... Maybe. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  That's the exact name I was thinking of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  So we do agree on somethings. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Disagreement never means dislike 😘 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Working on this as part of a WikiProject is an interesting idea - seems more feasible than trying to start with a RFC. Could be part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Reliability: establishing a structured list, process, and talk page scoped to documenting WP:QUESTIONABLE sources that people have tried to add to Wikipedia articles, especially pay-to-play websites posing as reliable sources, potentially starting by adapting User:Kuru/fakesources. I'd want it to have enough structure and process so that if one of the listed websites threatened legal action against WMF, the foundation's lawyers could point to the fact that editors conducted a reasonably fair and good-faith evaluation of the website against established criteria. Could also coordinate with Wikipedia:New pages patrol on improving structure and process for Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide. I have some related notes on my user subpage. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  It seems that the four of us are heading towards a heated agreement on the need for using a project. I will be busy with other things for a while, so please go for it now that there is momentum. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  This would be a great fit for WikiProject Reliability, in my opinion. — Newslinger talk 16:23, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

  Now we have 5 people supporting the idea, but we need a 6th person with enough time to get it started and seeing it through. But thanks for your support anyway. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  It's always about capacity. Valereee (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

ActiVote

I encountered this on a new article, Gotham Polling & Analytics, in which it was cited for giving an award for which that topic was not mentioned, and the fact that they list themselves as a recipient of their own MVP award raised an eyebrow. I then noticed we have a few dozen citations to this, mostly related to the 2024 US election. ActiVote is an app-based polling organization that uses opt-in results sampling only its own user base. In their own FAQ, they note a desire to get a 538 rating, which is probably outdated, as 538 was shut down, and 538 co-founder Nate Silver tweeted a concern about its verification standards (which ActiVote tried to rebuke on its FAQ page, citing unverifiable internal methods). I'm no expert on polling, but Silver's current listing also excludes it.

There are a number of mentions of the company in the media, but I'm not finding many discussions of their reliability. I did find an ABCNews article, which mentions some common concerns. The company's own "in the press" links at the bottom of their homepage are a mix of press releases, paid contributions and mentions. They do go into some detail about their methodology on their own site.

I'm not entirely sure if any of this is problematic, but it felt worth mentioning just in case anybody with more experience evaluating pollsters might be interested. ASUKITE 13:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This has been also cited by News Week.[77] I think it can be cited on Wiki as long as the cited link is a secondary source itself. Zalaraz (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

On Johnny Somali

I want to inquire before I make any edits; are extensive threads on social media, like such, where conflicting statements on Johnny Somali's ethnicity (by him) are gathered, including his past social media activity, allowed to be used? Additionally, there are videos circulating where he himself explicitly mentions where his parents are from and his ethnic background. I think adding a direct statement from him will significantly improve the page. However, I'm uncertain if these sources can be used. Thanks.

Johannes Klarnus-Pettersen (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Are they by him, the accounts are not. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Johnny Somali is the definition of an unreliable narrator. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

infowars yet again~!

this one is just pedantry boiling down to "do the same things for a different reason", and is thus a completely unnecessary discussion. however, there's a catch here: this situation is funny

as of 20 april 2026, the onion owns infowars and is about to turn it into a comedy website with tim heidecker as its new alex jones. thus, should content after that day (including whenever they start publishing it) be deprecated as a satire/comedy site instead?

additionally, it should obviously stay blacklisted so people don't try to use it in either state, but should the blacklist's rationale be amended to say that "it's not doing that anymore, but it's not like it's gonna start publishing reliable stuff", or would that be unnecessary? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:11, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

We do include changes in the list as they relate to new ownership that affects the content of a publication. So, since it is under new owners, and it looks to be doing different output (really it may be too soon to evidence this at this moment, but based on the plans put out by The Onion), and the reason for its prior deprecation will no longer be there, updating the entry to reflect this seems within order. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

as said by them in several reports and interviews (here's one), they're only not out yet consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:48, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Has its reputation for factual accuracy changed? Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

"lol", said the tote bag. "lmao"

that said, it's the onion we're talking about, whose most blatantly satirical content has been getting increasingly similar to reality for the past 30 years, so saying "no" wouldn't exactly be correct consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:52, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Could we PLEASE stop claiming that "the onion owns infowars"???

What part of

"Global Tetrahedron announced a licensing deal for the Infowars website on April 20, 2026, pending approval by a state district court judge"

are people having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

assuming the maximum level of correctness from you... give 'em 5 hours and 58 minutes, unless alex's emergency motion for them to don't isn't immediately dismissed consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:02, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

"Alex Jones files emergency motion to block Onion deal for Infowars ... Jones’ new motion throws into question whether a Thursday hearing to approve the deal between The Onion and the receiver will go forward." Source: Austin American-Statesman

"A Texas judge is set to consider Thursday whether to approve the satirical news outlet's proposed takeover, though Jones has filed last-minute appeals in state and federal courts to try to stop the hearing." Source: CT Insider

It is currently 4:26 PM on Wednesday in Austin Texas. The Thursday hearing has not happened yet.

Full disclosure: I am the author of Talk:Infowars#Let's review, shall we?. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think a change in at least explanation for deprecation is probably necessary but it's a bummer we can't use it now--I love the Onion (not that the Onion is a reliable source...it would just be funny.) Agnieszka653 (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

• Court issues stay in The Onion's attempt to take over InfoWars --KVUE-TV Austin
• The Onion’s Plan to Take Over Infowars Is Once Again in Jeopardy: An emergency court ruling hands a victory to Alex Jones—at least for now. --Mother Jones
• The Onion’s Bid to Take Over Infowars Paused by Texas Court --Bloomburg Law

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Dammit, looks like we're tabling the funny action until the courts make a decision. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

In the meantime, we have https://theonion.info/ to keep us entertained. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

how dire. maybe it'll almost take long enough for this discussion to outlive the average mayfly consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:06, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

aaaaand, the site is now shut down. No reliable sources but dozens of posts on Reddit shows me that it is down for everyone. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

There is this article that might be reliable (it's not a site I'm familiar with and I've only given it a very cursory look). Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

i've poked around some sportskeeda discussions ages ago for "no particular reason", and consensus on it seems to be that it's user-generated and unreliable independent of wp:prs saying it's unreliable and user-generated

on a less important note, i was right and wrong, in that just yesterday (at least it was yesterday on my end), the onion did the do anyway (source 1, source 2). regardless of how the legal situation is going, that's just what infowars is now, and it doesn't really seem likely that alex will be able to delay what's already happened. this means i was right in the initial rationale for opening this discussion, and wrong in that it's definitely gonna outlive the average adult mayfly now

so independently of who owns infowars this week, it probably wouldn't be too controversial to say that it's a comedy show as of pretty much the picosecond the site went offline, should now be deprecated as such, and i wouldn't be surprised to see the new logo on infowars' article by june consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:41, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Infowars Site Goes Offline Amid The Onion’s Legal Battle to Secure Control of Right-Wing Outlet --Variety

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Legal Stalling: The Onion and Tim Heidecker’s InfoWars Takeover Delayed by Texas Court --Rolling Stone

"The satirical news outlet sought approval of the InfoWars deal Thursday, but an emergency motion filed by Jones’ lawyers was approved by the Texas Third Court of Appeals, the Associated Press reports, with a hearing set for May 28. Lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook families — who assumed ownership of InfoWars and worked out the Onion deal following their civil case against Jones — filed their own appeal of the emergency motion to the Supreme Court of Texas in an effort to speed up the process."

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

• Infowars is actually, according to RSP, banned for spam, not merely deprecated or unreliable. Possibly that could be lifted but possibly not (are people likely to continue spamming the older stuff? If so, is there really any value to lifting it, given that we can't lift it for just newer stuff?) Either way I'm not sure we need to have much discussion about a site that was previously unusable for one reason now being unusable for a totally different reason. Technically I guess we could move it from its current banned state to being "just" generally unreliable like the rest of The Onion; but the only places it's likely to see use are as a primary WP:ABOUTSELF / courtesy link for "the Onion made joke XYZ" sorts of things, and usually that'd require a secondary source anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  The point of this discussion is just to update the reason why we regard it as unreliable so that it's accurate to the new facts. This is worth doing imo because it reduces the chances of multiple discussions from people complaining about us labelling it as site the posts fake news and conspiracy theories when it clearly does not (and how this is evidence of how Wikipedia is part of a grand conspiracy or majorly biased). Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  but wikipedia is part of a grand conspiracy to deplatform poor, innocent blp vandals so big journalism can dictate the facts about whether or not daddyofive is dead. no, wait, someone might actually believe that's a conspiracy if i say it like that, whoops consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  jokes aside, i do think infowars should stay blacklisted and deprecated, with maybe one link to the takeover video in its own article as an external link just for the sake of being able to say it's there. this is not least because having links from a blacklisted source be usable if they postdate a certain event would be really finicky on a technical level

  this is to say that... yeah, just updating the rationale would be the best move here consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

  Even blacklisted and deprecated sources can be used in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner. If there is consensus at the article that a specific link to a blacklisted source is DUE then the whitelist allows that. It's not for us to say here which and/or how many such links are appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Findmypast - Newspaper archive

Whilst I understand the reluctance to use Find My Past (Wikipedia:RSPFINDMYPAST), the blanket ban is disproportionate because they also host a fairly large archive of newspaper articles.

I suggest that the guidance for FindMyPast should be changed to PERMIT use of the newspaper archive segment (but presumably leave the rest of the site as unreliable).

For example, I was trying to use this citation: "Remember the May Queens of Lustleigh?". Herald Express. 3 May 1977.

This is simply a digital version of a clear RS. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The reliability of a source doesn't change depending on where it's hosted. If you're citing the newspaper the fact that a copy of that newspaper exists on Findmypast doesn't make it unreliable. URLs are just courtesy links to help editors verify the content. The issue with Findmypast is the user generated parts. Nothing in the details of WP:RSPFINDMYPAST says that there's any blanket ban on using the primary sources it hosts. Although it does suggest caution on relying on their transcriptions of those sources.
As an aside I would suggest the use of |via=Findmypast in you cites, so you're get:
"Remember the May Queens of Lustleigh?". Herald Express. 3 May 1977 – via Findmypast. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yup… this is similar to using videos hosted on YouTube… where reliability depends on the original creator/uploader, and not simply “YouTube”.

Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The same is true for WP:ANCESTRY and WP:FAMILYSEARCH, which have a situation directly comparable to Findmypast. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 6 May 2026 (UTC)