Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

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

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479
480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489
490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499
500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509
510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

---

RfC: update Democracy Now! from WP:MREL to WP:GENREL?

Should WP:DEMOCRACYNOW be changed from WP:MREL to WP:GENREL? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Pinging editors from previous discussion:

• إيان
• Slatersteven
• CVDX
• FactOrOpinion
• ActivelyDisinterested
• Simonm223
• Guy Macon
• Aquillion
• The Kip
• Guz13
• Some1
• ElKevbo
• BobFromBrockley
• Bravelake

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Survey (Democracy Now!)

• I do not recall it being established ther was any change in their reputation, so no change. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  Just added sourcing supporting that there was a reputation change, let me know what you think. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

  As ElKevbo noted previously, it doesn't appear the WP:DEMOCRACYNOW accurately reflects the discussions it is supposed to be summarizing, with the last discussion in 2013. The premise for any change in their reputation is that the status quo is not flawed, which is an incorrect premise.

  As I've noted, this case isn't to be understood as one for an "upgrade"; it's one for the rectifying of a flawed downgrade. إيان (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Support based on sources and arguments presented in the previous discussion which I will summarize here.

Bias and reliability are two separate things. A source can be biased but highly factual. Sources should always have opinions attributed, which accounts for bias. And I believe WP:DEMOCRACYNOW is a biased but highly-factual source, and therefore meets the threshold for being considered WP:GENREL. The previous analysis of this source deeming it WP:MREL was over a decade ago and a re-evaluation is WP:DUE.

Reliability checkers

• https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/democracy-now/
• MBFC (not reliable, removed this part of my comment)
• https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink
• Adfontes (not reliable, removed this part of my comment)
• https://ground.news/interest/democracy-now
  • Media bias: Left
  • Factuality: This was paywalled, so I wrote a webscraping script to fetch factuality data. And it says High factuality.

Additional sources

• https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0163443712449500
• Journalistic field wars: defending and attacking the national narrative in a diversifying journalistic field
  • While this source does not explicitly say it is "generally reliable", it seems to praise its reporting.
  • Democracy Now! - In contrast to the established networks, alternative media focused their criticisms on U.S. foreign policy and establishment journalism’s reporting of WikiLeaks. The New York-based Democracy Now!, far from framing WikiLeaks as a threat to national security, employed the term ‘whistleblower’ to describe the organization in nearly every story. Amy Goodman, the program’s host, associated the WikiLeaks-released cables with the Pentagon Papers and Assange with Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Papers. The name of the program – Democracy Now! – suggests a radical belief in citizen access to information that facilitates self-governance as well as a demand for positive rights. Democracy Now!, consistent with its radically democratic principles, did not merely praise or condemn WikiLeaks but hosted a debate between Steven Afterwood of the Federation of American Scientists, who condemned WikiLeaks as irresponsible, and Glenn Greenwald of Salon, who framed WikiLeaks as a whistleblower.
• https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262514897/digital-media-and-democracy/
• Digital Media and Democracy
  • Again generally positive sentiment.
  • The strategies of practice that are studied or exemplified here include: (a) reform-changing media policy and legislation around ownership and concentration, in order to limit the monopolization of media and exclusion of diversity within public agenda setting; (b) establishment of grassroots, independent news channels and networks such as Pacifica, Democracy Now!, and Al Jazeera English...
  • Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 500 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the United States, Democracy Now! is broadcast on community, Pacifica, and National Public Radio stations, public access cable television stations, satellite television (on Free Speech TV, channel 9415 of the DISH Network), shortwave radio, and the Internet.
• https://transformationsjournal.org/index.php/transformations/article/view/4239/2715
• Transformation (journal)
  • Caveat that this reads like an opinion piece and was written in 2008, but it argues Democracy Now! is free from corporate interests and is a better alternative to mainstream media outlets.
  • It is my contention that Democracy Now! is at the vanguard of an emerging independent media sector that is revitalising US news media at a decisive moment in American (journalism) history.

The reliability checkers are the strongest sources, but other sourcing seems to praise Democracy Now! for its status as a independent news organization that is free from harmful media practices (propaganda model, protest paradigm) that pervade most US mainstream news outlets.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alexandraaaacs1989 I’ll hold off on voting for now pending further analysis, but WP:RSP already establishes that for our purposes, Ad Fontes/MBFC are not reliable sources, and I’m also not encouraged by the newest of the academic/journalistic sources you’ve provided being from 2012. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

That's useful to know, thank you. I'll strike those parts of my comment, and if I don't get around to adding better sourcing soon, hopefully someone else does in the meantime. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The same is true of ground news. The discussion is about whether the site is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. These sites don't base their ratings on those policies and guidelines, so the ratings are worthless. Their left/right bias is even worse as bias has not part in discussions about reliability. They're useful for researching a source, as they report things that can be used here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Basically whenever "reliability" is used the context is always "reliable per Wikipedia's policy and guidelines for Wikipedia's purposes" not a general idea of reliability that other websites might be using. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

They also have a long list of awards[1], some seem to be minor but others point to a reputation for reliable journalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Here's some newer sources:

• Media, Culture, & Society

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0163443712449500

Whereas the networks had constructed WikiLeaks-as-criminal-and-threat, Democracy Now! reporters read through the cables to construct news that focused on U.S. crimes and imperial actions abroad: U.S. pressure on Germany to suppress arrest warrants for CIA officers who abducted an innocent man and held him in captivity for several months; Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice ordering embassies to collect foreign dignitaries’ ‘frequent flier numbers, credit card details, and even DNA material, like fingerprints, [and] iris scans’; pressure to halt Spanish investigations of U.S. torture at Guantanamo Bay, CIA rendition flights, U.S. troops killing of a Spanish journalist in Iraq; transfer of prisoners to countries where, in the words of U.N. Special Rapporteur Juan Mendez, U.S. officials ‘knew that these people were going to be tortured’; the storage of banned cluster bombs in Britain; ‘massive civilian casualties’, in Goodman’s words, following a U.S. attack on Yemen; American opposition to Afghani reconciliation talks with Taliban leaders; and neutralization, co-optation, and marginalization of states opposed to inadequate American plans to curb global warming. Unlike the networks, Democracy Now! correctly pointed out that Assange had reason to conceal his location because of assassination threats coming from talking heads on cable networks and U.S. House members. Fox News commentator Bob Beckel, for example, called for the murder of Assange because a ‘dead man can’t leak stuff’ and U.S. Representative Peter King called Assange a terrorist.

• Social Movement Studies (2019)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14742837.2019.1681954

Democracy Now! is the flagship program of the pacifist politically left Pacifica Radio Network, and research on activist media consumption suggests the program is an important source of information for movement participants (Rauch, 2007, 2015). The host and public face for Democracy Now!, Amy Goodman, has written and done speaking tours for several solo and co-authored New York Times best-selling books, her most recent titled, 20 years of covering the movements changing America (Goodman, Goodman, & Moynihan, 2016).

Describing themselves as ‘the largest public media collaboration in the country’ (Moynihan,2008), the program is targeted at a U.S. audience, is distributed online (http://democracynow.org), and is currently carried on over 1,400 stations around the world – mostly community and public radio stations, and public television stations in the U.S. As a daily news magazine broadcast from New York City, the journalistic practices of Democracy Now! staff interact with the political actions of activist movements, co-producing narrative resources that listeners/viewers can use to understand what movements ‘mean’. Democracy Now!’s position within the movement milieu makes it a valuable resource for understanding narrative connections among movement labels over time, and this paper draws on it to build a targeted diachronic multi-issue corpus of spoken-word texts that is structurally consistent in size and genre."

• Toft, A. (2018). Chapter 13. Cross-talk in political discourse: Strategies for bridging issue movements on Democracy Now!. In M. Kranert & G. Horan (Eds.) ‘Doing Politics’: Discursivity, performativity and mediation in political discourse (pp. 301-329).

https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1075/dapsac.80.13tof/html

Democracy Now! is one of the most widely distributed independent media programs in the United States. Started in 1996, this nationally syndicated hour-long daily news-magazine broadcast is currently syndicated on over 1400 public access TV stations, and public, community and low-power FM radio stations. Funded in large part by listener/viewer/reader contributions, Democracy Now! offers a well-resourced and professionally produced program that covers the national news for the day, and routinely sources high-profile activists, artists, authors, scholars, journalists, and politicians. The broad grassroots distribution, funding, and political reputation of Democracy Now! elevate the importance of who speaks and what they say, and guests on the program often appear to qualify as what Eyerman and Jamisen (1991) would call “movement intellectuals”: people who develop their expertise and source legitimacy through their leadership in uncovering injustice and working for social change.

• What’s the Point of News?, by Tony Harcup (2020)

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-39947-4

Chapter 3 will apply the critical theoretical perspectives on journalism and news introduced in Chap. 2 to examine in detail the output from specific alternative media projects ranging from the Liverpool Free Press in the 1970s to Democracy Now! today. This chapter will draw on extant empirical studies where appropriate but will apply fresh thinking and critical reading to such material in an effort to explore the social and journalistic significance of such alternative forms of practice. It will argue that alternative news values are not merely desirable in principle, but that they can be found operating in practice in some forms of media. In their different ways, the approaches to news exemplified in these examples of alternative media all critique what it means to be a journalist, and what we might mean by news.1 Edittttor (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I don’t find these compelling as evidence for reliability.

• Handley & Rutigliano 2012 in Media Culture & Society isn’t making a claim about reliability but about bias: that DN had the opposite (anti-US) bias to the “dominant” (mainstream) outlets and is therefore preferable from a (US) anti-nationalist perspective. It’s also quite old.
• Toft 2019 in Social Movement Studies isn’t making a claim about reliability but about usefulness to an activist audience. It’s saying DN’s embedded in a “pacifist politically left” movement. That doesn’t make it unreliable, but it doesn’t make it reliable either. It emphasises the outlet (and Goodman’s) reputation within this milieu so might suggest due weight when we discuss such movements.
• Toft 2018 (same author) in the book Doing Politics is making the same point again, but also emphasises that it is slick and well funded. I don’t think that’s a reliability data point.
• Harcup 2020: I don’t have access to this but the overview doesn’t seem to be making a claim about reliability. Might be worth getting access to see if it does.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

(Moved under my !vote.) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not against us re-evaluating the source, as the RSP entry is old and may not perfectly represent our discussions, but I don't think the upgrade case has been made yet. As I noted in the preceeding discussion, the evidence presented above simply tells us that its bias is held in high regard by some left-wing media scholars, or was over a decade ago, not that it has a reputation for reliability today. My strong impression is that:

• its "Stories", as it calls them, showcase the opinions of various guests and are reliable primary sources for those opinions and beyond that we should at best see these as RSOPINION or possibly on a case by case basis depending on whether the guests are subject matter experts on the topic the WP article is about.
• its "Headlines" are generally accurate but often with a partisan spin but that they are effectively sourced from other sources such as wires and we'd be better to use the originals. I'd be curious to see what we would gain by using these instead of the legacy networks and wire services they depend on.
• When it does original reporting (e.g. the Tom Morello example report mentioned by Visviva below), these should generally be regarded as reliable.

My conclusion then is we should keep it as "additional considerations apply" to make these distinctions clear and treat it as weakly reliable. But I'm open to persuasion if there is better evidence coming. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC) [edited 16.05 to add 3rd bullet point and fix indenting]

Hi Bob. I agree with each of your three bullet points, but I'm not sure why "additional considerations apply" is the conclusion from your three bullet points (likely due to the lackluster strength of my original sourcing provided?). I think ActivelyDisinterested made a very strong case below that responds to some of the points in your argument, so I'm curious what your thoughts are. Paraphrasing where thing seem to be, guests saying something in "Stories" should be treated like RS opinion pieces by requiring attribution like in any other WP:GREL, WP:HEADLINES are not RS regardless, and DN original reporting is factual, which seems to leave no differences between DN and other sources we currently consider to be GREL. The awards list seems like the most compelling piece of evidence yet in favor of DN being GREL if we're making an inductive argument to supplement the other points I just mentioned. Hope to hear your response! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 I also agree that Bob's conclusion of "additional considerations apply" doesn't follow from their 3 points. Even for GREL sources, WP:RSOPINION always applies (eg. NYT published an op-ed written by Vladimir Putin), so does WP:HEADLINE. VR 23:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest. I don’t think WP:HEADLINES applies to the posts that DN labels “Headlines”, which is the label it gives to its news bulletin rather than literal headlines. If we discount those, we’re left with opinion and occasional first hand reports. So maybe green flagging but with the kind of warning we give for the Atlantic, the Diplomat or the Hill. One reason I’m hesitant to consider its “Stories” as just RSOPINION is that is geared to written pieces that go through editorial before publication whereas the DN’s format means these are unfiltered oral comments where the speaker is talking off the cuff without the opportunity to check themselves, so I’d always want us to say something like “speaking to DN, X said” or “in an interview on DN, X said” BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment (summoned by bot): As noted above it's difficult to imagine a situation in which the DN headline news items are a good source to cite. They are generally just a transcript of the host's summary of the news, and reliable or not, there should almost always be something better. But I would think that what we're really talking about here from an RS standpoint is the show's original reporting, such as its award-winning coverage of the Standing Rock protests, or more routine pieces like this one from today on the May 12 ICE protest in New York. For what it's worth, I have never heard anyone challenge the factuality of DN's reports such as these (or for that matter, the faithfulness with which its interviews are presented). Nor am I seeing any such challenges thus far in this discussion or the one immediately preceding. If we're going to say that there is no consensus that this is a reliable source, I think it would be helpful to see some arguments (or examples) for why it might not be reliable. -- Visviva (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support I consider Democracy Now! Reliable and oppose a downgrade of its reliability on Wikipedia—I have watched their news. It has its own point of view, but I have never seen a news report that was unreliable. I don’t consider the score given by Media Bias/Fact Check or Ground News. My vote is based on my personal experience and views. 🐈Cinaroot   04:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  To note there is no proposal to downgrade DM, it's currently considered a reliable source with additional considerations. The question is whether it shouldn't have those additional considerations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  I slightly edited my vote to make it less confusing. 🐈Cinaroot   16:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Generally reliable Their award page[2] is a laundry list but with that list are notable awards. They also have WP:USEBYOTHERS, mostly university presses but also works from Bloomsbury Academic and Springer. I can't find any reports of factually incorrect output. They are biased, but editors should deal with that by separating opinion from fact and if necessary using other sources to balance them. Bias isn't a reliability issue unless that bias effect factual accuracy WP:RSBIAS. There was mention of headlines in the discussion before this RFC, but headlines are always unreliable WP:HEADLINES. A lot of the criticism I see online is about what a guest has said about a situation or event. They do publish a lot of opinion and interviews, these shouldn't be used for statements of fact, per WP:RSOPINION, but should be fine for attributed statements. I don't see why they shouldn't just be handled like any other WP:NEWSORG, they are biased, they publish opinion that shouldn't be used to support statements of fact, that's just like any other news organisation. Unless someone can show they have issue with accuracy bornfact checking I think they should be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Awards list stops at 2017. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That looks to be because it hasn't been updated fully. Amy Goodman won the Frederick Douglass 200 in 2018 and the William Sloane Coffin Jr. Peacemaker Award in 2023. Those are just the two that I could find within a few minutes, there could be more. Edittttor (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

They have a more recent Izzy award too, but that seems to get given to multiple unreliable sources (Aaron Mate!) so I wouldn’t let it count for much.[3]

Very few of the awards are ones usually recognised actual solid reliable reporting but a couple of them are. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Status Quo The source is very biased and we should be careful about both what facts they cite as well as what they may have left out. For this reason we should always be careful about such sources. As a yellow source it's can be citied for statements of fact and to establish weight. It simply means people should be cautious with the source given they are typically writing not just to convey the facts but to support a POV. To be honest, we should always be careful with sources/articles that write to persuade vs simply provide the facts. Also, a note about the use of Adfontes and MBFC. Both sources are cited by scholars as expert sources. I previously found a source that actually compared the various rating cites and said despite different methods they were generally consistent. RSN/RSP discussions have generally said these sources shouldn't be cited in Wiki articles. They do not say they are unreliable or not useful for discussions such as this one. With that said, consider that Democracy Now's Adfontes bias rating of -16.15 makes them more biased than Breitbart (13.59) and near The Heratage Foundation (16.30). Their reliability score of 31.5 is almost the same as the Post Millennial.

Springee (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Is news bias fueled by journalists supplying slanted views or readers’ demanding them? An economist weighs in

There are supply-driven and demand-driven biases. I think many reliable sources in the U.S. and around the world are biased. It all depends on one’s personal point of view. Bias is not a factor to consider when determining reliability. 🐈Cinaroot   17:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If you would like to change the reliability assessment of Adfontes or MBFC you are welcome to submit a new request, but for now we should not be using them as evidence due to their rating as generally unreliable. See WP:ADFONTES and WP:MBFC. Edittttor (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Please read the discussions. The concern in those discussions was because editors were using the ratings in article space (The .... Times is rated as "left/right" by MBFC. The discussions did not say editors aren't allowed to make reliability arguments based on those sources. This is a bit like saying we can't use a SPS to point out issues with another source. As editors on a talk page yes we can. We are allowed to engage in OR and use sources that aren't acceptable for the article space. To be clear, I agree, we should not use those sources for material in article space. We should consider them when discussing topics like this. Springee (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

This is just basically ignoring WP:BIASED, which makes it clear that bias doesn't relate to reliability. Katzrockso (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It even goes further and say Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Everyone has bias. Seems like we are using our bias to say the source is biased. Times of Israel is biased. Yet it is a reliable source. Democracy now is no different. 🐈Cinaroot   05:24, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem with bias isn't that the raw facts are false. It's that the source may give excessive weight to facts that support their POV while ignoring ones that refute it. If they say it was a sunny day I would trust them. If they say a company was motivated (a subjective assessment) by X, we should be very cautious about using them if not avoid them as not reliable for such a claim (that would depend on the supporting evidence). This is why yellow makes sense - to the extent that our stupid 3 bucket scale makes any sense. Yellow means we can use them but editors who use them should be aware of their very strong bias and the issues that may come out of the bias. Springee (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It's that the source may give excessive weight to facts that support their POV while ignoring ones that refute it. Well that's the beauty of this website - that we get to decide how to present biased information in a neutral way ourselves (such as by omitting undue facts in an article), as opposed to being required to carbon copy an article's own decisions as to how to weigh and present information. Subjective assessments speculating about how "[company] was motivated by X" should be treated as attributed opinions regardless of whether Democracy Now! is updated to GREL.

Again, I'm getting the sense that the arguments being made against Democracy Now! being updated to GREL are not criticisms of Democracy Now!'s reliability, but are instead general critiques of bias in sourcing that just as easily apply to all GREL on WP:RSP as they do to Democracy Now!. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

The question isn't whether additional considerations technically apply to every source. They do. The question is whether there are recurring source-specific considerations that editors are likely to encounter often enough to justify retaining guidance. In DN's case, multiple editors have pointed to distinctions between interviews, commentary, and original reporting. If those distinctions are recurring enough that editors keep raising them in this discussion, doesn't that suggest the current entry may still be serving a useful purpose? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

No, to me it suggests that most editors voting against this RfC are conflating partisanship with factual reporting in spite of WP:PARTISAN. There are distinctions between regular articles and Opinion pieces in WP:WAPO too, and this doesn't stop us from treating WAPO as GENREL. So like I've said before, I don't understand why DN is any different than run of the mill GENREL. I suspect it's simply because left-wing political bias is further outside the Overton window than centrist/pro-establishment reporting, so people feel entitled to dismiss it without putting in as much effort as they would for a political source with mainstream bias. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the impact of editor bias on the vote count is apparent here, for exactly the reason you describe. I hope that the closer will take into account the stronger argument.

It's telling that one of the major arguments putting DN at risk of maintaining its marginal reliability in this discussion is the mere aspersion of editorial interference on the part of Amy Goodman, unsupported by any affirmative evidence. Meanwhile, the last few discussions about CBS went nowhere, despite being founded in affirmative, if not necessarily definitive, evidence of editorial interference. The latest (and most serious) allegations by Scott Pelley and his colleagues have not even been discussed yet.

In this discussion at least, it seems that a certain reading of WP:SPS has a number of editors convinced that being oligarch-owned is somehow an indication of greater reliability, because of layers of abstraction in the ownership structure. We see with DN, by comparison to CBS, that this couldn't be further from the truth.

In order for Wikipedia to continue being a reliable resource in an era of increasing media consolidation and subordination to powerful interests, source reliability and admissibility must not be determined in a manner that excludes or disfavors independent media. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the question is whether independent media should be disfavored or whether large corporate media should be favored. The narrower question seems to be whether the existing guidance remains useful for editors evaluating material from DN. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Idk, I think that question needs to be answered in the context of how sources are evaluated on the whole. Guidance for independent media should be applied with an even hand to establishment media, to avoid an undue establishment bias, which is especially dangerous at a time when the establishment is cannibalizing the very purported values that supposedly made it the standard for reliability when Wikipedia's policies were written. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It's true that there are distinctions between reporting and opinion with GREL sources, but the question I'm struggling with is whether the distinctions being discussed here are merely the ordinary distinctions present at most news outlets or whether they are significant enough in DN's case that editors find themselves needing source-specific guidance. It seems to me that this is the central disagreement here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION applies to everything. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

whether the distinctions being discussed here are merely the ordinary distinctions present at most news outlets or whether they are significant enough in DN's case that editors find themselves needing source-specific guidance - If this is the case, I still haven't seen any evidence that DN's reporting is not factual that would be necessary if you're going to make that argument. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If they say a company was motivated (a subjective assessment) by X, we should be very cautious about using them if not avoid them as not reliable for such a claim (that would depend on the supporting evidence) No, we should not conduct WP:OR, analyze evidence ourselves and check if we agree with what sources say. WP:NEWSORGs are given presumptive reliability and actual evidence needs to be presented to downgrade this presumption. Katzrockso (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

An aside but "presumptive reliability" is not a thing, NEWSORG says they are "generally consider reliable". Editors still have to use their own good judgement when looking at sources, just because it came from a generally reliable source doesn't mean it will always be reliable in every given context. If a generally reliable source say "bill scored 10", but ever other sources says he scored 9 then maybe they just got it wrong that time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:24, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that every article published by them is reliable, I said that the (rebuttable) presumption is that established WP:NEWSORGS are generally reliable. Generally reliable does not mean that every piece of information they publish is factual/correct. Katzrockso (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry misunderstanding over language, I agree. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

But we don’t seem to have consensus yet that this is a “well-established news organisation” per NEWSORG. BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Is that seriously in question? They're a 30 year old, award winning, nationally airing daily news program. A lot of the GREL outlets in the perennial sources list are nowhere near as well established as that. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems some editors question it.[4][5][6][7] BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• MREL - As highlighted by many people, updating the discussion to include changes that have occurred in the past 13 years is a good idea, and I am particularly supportive of BobFromBrockley's suggestion in how we break down and consider output from DN. ActivelyDisinterested has highlighted their many awards, and while they seem to stop in 2017 (Edittttor found awards from 2018 and 2023), that is still four more years of awards since the last discussion linked in the Perennial Sources list. As multiple people have highlighted, DN's original reporting seems to meet what we expect of news outlets, so it may be possible to break that out into a separate entry of GREL, but we probably need more evidence to support such action than has currently been presented. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support The close of the previous discussion was incorrect and should have been challenged - the available evidence shows that this source is reliable. ElKevbo (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo. Per CJR, Goodman is often described as a progressive activist, but she denies that her work is partisan. So it can definitely be used but the weight and attribution should be decided by the editors in each case. Alaexis_¿question? 21:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  She is a host on the program. They have other hosts too. I would prefer if we vote based on the news they air rather than Goodman’s past or her reputation. 🐈Cinaroot   21:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  She is a co-founder, executive producer and basically the face of DN. Alaexis_¿question? 06:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  In addition to what Cinaroot said, are you conflating bias and reliability? There is a difference between the two. Edittttor (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  RS are supposed to be independent. You will notice that we deem very few advocacy organisations generally reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 18:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Democracy Now! has held steadfast to our policy of not accepting government funding, corporate sponsorship, underwriting or advertising revenue. [8] I think this is one of the best things a RS can do to stay independent. 🐈Cinaroot   18:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's right but they are financed by various nonprofit foundations. Alaexis_¿question? 08:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  You are mixing up independent (politician) with WP:RSBIAS. From RSBIAS: Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

  Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering.

  Of the perrinnial sources that are currently rated as generally reliable, WP:ALJAZEERA, WP:AXIOS, WP:BELLINGCAT, WP:CNN, WP:CODA, WP:CSM, WP:TELEGRAPH, WP:GLAAD, WP:GUARDIAN, WP:HAARETZ, Hope Not Hate, WP:HUFFPOST, The Intercept, WP:THEMARYSUE, WP:LEMONDEDIPLOMATIQUE, WP:MOTHERJONES, WP:NEWREPUBLIC, Newslaundry, WP:OKO, WP:POLITICO, WP:REASONNEWS, The Register, WP:SPLC, WP:TIMESOFISRAEL, and WP:VANITYFAIR are all listed in their description to have some bias, so clearly that is not a prerequisite.

  DN is also not an advocacy organization, but even if they were, several of the sources I listed above are advocacy organizations and are still rated as generally reliable, so that is not a prerequisite either. Edittttor (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Independence is a separate requirement - see WP:REPUTABLE. This is related to but distinct from bias. Alaexis_¿question? 08:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:REPUTABLE has a definition which mentions independence. Independence is a link to a definition, which includes An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent sources have editorial independence (e.g., advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). and Independence does not imply even-handedness. An independent source may hold a strongly positive or negative view of a topic or an idea. For example, a scholar might write about literacy in developing countries, and they may personally strongly favor teaching all children how to read, regardless of gender or socioeconomic status. Yet if the author gains no personal benefit from the education of these children, then the publication is an independent source on the topic. What definition of independent are you using? Edittttor (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  I acknowledge that this is not a clearcut case. However, the explanatory essay you cited explains why an advocacy organisation may not be independent (Independent sources have ... no conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication).) Alaexis_¿question? 21:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support per ActivelyDisinterested. As this is a discussion about the reliability and not bias, I see a consensus forming for upgrading to generally reliable, as long as it is noted that their "Stories" should be treated like RSOPINION and require attribution (like in any other GREL of course).Edittttor (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support I wish they had a public editorial standards or ethics policy, but it's unfortunately common for news organizations not to, and I'm not finding evidence of unethical or deceptive reporting.  81567518  W  19:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
• MREL/weak GREL Bobfrombrockley pretty much sums up my thoughts. Original reporting can probably be treated as biased but reliable (perhaps look for a supplemental source as well), but opinion pieces are governed by the policy on op-eds, and non-original reporting should probably be sourced from a more neutral/mainstream outlet. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• Additional considerations per Bobfrombrockley. Samuelshraga (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo per Bobfrombrockley. Case is not yet made for an upgrade. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support. It's generally reliable, but it leans left. It's not an neutral source, just a reliable one. Snokalok2 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo per Bobfrombrockley.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernWinds (talk • contribs) 23:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support per ActivelyDisinterested. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support upgrading to generally reliable per ActivelyDisinterested and my own comments in this section.VR 23:06, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak status quo I don't think we should be treating news sources, in general, as WP:GREL because this is often used to end discussion about whether or not said news source is appropriate in a specific context. That being said I don't think this is any worse than the New York Times or the BBC. Each has their biases. So, while my preference would be to vacate all news organizations from WP:GREL I'm not going to lose any sleep if this source is added to the ranks of news sources that are called generally reliable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo/MREL per BobFromBrockley. They are not great, and the case for an upgrade is very weak. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support for upgrading to WP:GREL. I would agree that this should be done with the intention to rectify a flawed downgrade as إيان says since I believe that Alexandraaaacs1989 provided good evidence for it being WP:GREL and there isn't any source I've seen discussed that refutes that reliability. I believe that the fact-checking sources as well as its recognition among multiple academic sources for factual reporting shows that it is recognized by most to be factual and again, I haven't really seen any source call that into question. Like many others, I would also agree that they are fairly biased in their perspective and what is chosen to be included, but as for Wikipedia's purposes that doesn't seem to be an issue when using a segment in a DN publication to cite a fact. I think that their non-opinion based articles can regularly be relied upon and when looking at any opinion piece, WP:RSOPINION applies just as VR mentioned. Plus, when you consider that other publications like WP:CNN are WP:GREL due to their bias not being seen as affecting their reliability, there seems to be no reason to me that it can't be WP:GREL. ◀ Juniperol (bingus) ▶ --(talk) 00:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support. The initial case for MREL was poorly made and not compliant with currently existing policies and guidelines. The mistake here is treating the previous 2013 discussion as if it has a meaningfully durable consensus from 13 years ago. Wikipedia policies and guidelines have changed significantly since then, as has recognition that WP:BIASED sources can be perfectly reliable.Katzrockso (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Status Quo MREL The organization does not appear to have sufficient structure to produce content that wouldn't be called self published. Most of the content appears to be advocacy journalism or human-interest reporting. The marketing structure implies that the purpose is to engage in advocacy journalism. So at best this source should be treated as RSOPINION. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Support and no-clear-delineation: I disagree with the Before's discussion framing this is as "rectifying of a flawed downgrade", because no consensus is the default state, not assuming all articles should generally be reliable. GRel is an upgrade from the default for sources that have a demonstratively good reputation for accuracy.
  That said, the UseByOthers cited is quite strong as it is academic praise for their writing without mentioning any doubt of their accuracy, so I am inclined to support saying that this source is stronger than default just by reading previous discussions (the discussions besides the one that preceded this RfC are... interesting...), even though I am unfamiliar with this source and a quick skim of their website gives me serious tabloid vibes.
  Also, regardless of what status we give this, we should have consensus that the source doesn't always clearly separate ("delineate" as many RSP entries say) opinion and factual content. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  To address "the evidence supplied is of their opinions, not of their factual reliability":

  Per WP:UseByOthers, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation, i.e. uncritical reference is endorsement. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NEWSORG does provide a baseline for news organizations; News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. Every time a news organization is brought to this noticeboard without a substantive reason, editors always point to this and note that news organizations are presumed generally reliable. So presumably existing consensus is that by default news organizations are WP:GREL. Katzrockso (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't consider Democracy Now! a well-established news outlet by default, and I definitely wouldn't have at the time of our last discussion of Democracy Now! (2013). In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• Status Quo MREL, partisan source. Use with attribution, maybe relevant in articles where the source has expertise, though as it is partisan, better to utilize non-partisan sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:03, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:PARTISAN says reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Support—If the low-quality journalism put out by uncritical commercial media outlets like CNN is considered GREL, there is no valid reason why Democracy Now! should be considered less valid. DN!, led by one of the most celebrated independent journalists of our time, provides vital critical reporting on stories corporate media deems unimportant, asks questions corporate media does not, and is used and praised by the academic community in a way that corporate media is not.

As for the claims that this independent media outlet is "partisan"—are we to believe that the corporate media outlets accorded GREL status are not? إيان (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This comment reads as much more based in personal feelings on the media landscape than in WP policy - I'd like to see some backing for statements such as uncritical commercial media outlets like CNN (which is also borderline WP:OTHERSTUFF), provides vital critical reporting on stories corporate media deems unimportant (what makes them "important?"), and led by one of the most celebrated independent journalists of our time. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The Kip, you shouldn't read my points as much more based in personal feelings on the media landscape than in WP policy; you should read them as enjoining the community to take a comparative approach that applies standard metrics in the evaluation of sources and not to accept or endorse a status quo prima facie for the sake of precedent when those precedents are flawed.

I will respond to your concerns above with supporting passages from RS soon.

In the meantime, regarding the characterization you made in your statement above expressing preference for a more neutral/mainstream outlet, could you explain why you believe that 'mainstream' is coterminous with or can be slashed with 'neutral'? Do you believe that the corporate media you describe as 'mainstream' doesn't have its own biases or partisanship? If so, why? إيان (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

could you explain why you believe that 'mainstream' is coterminous with or can be slashed with 'neutral'? Do you believe that the corporate media you describe as 'mainstream' doesn't have its own biases or partisanship? If so, why?

I will not because doing so will derail this discussion into WP:FORUM territory. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:41, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

• You implied mainstream media outlets are inherently more reliable / inherently less biased than non-mainstream sources
• You used this to inform your opinion on the RfC
• إيان challenged your reasoning, asking you to elaborate
• Your response is that doing so is WP:FORUM? That doesn't seem fair.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

It would strengthen your case to provide evidence beyond "I personally hold the source in high regard". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Many (but not all) of the !votes seem to be based on personal opinion/perceived reliability by editors as opposed to evidence suggesting (or not suggesting) consistent accuracy in factual reporting. This is undesirable. Descriptors of factual reliability by external sources should take preference over the opinions of editors. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  I strongly agree with this. Analysis of reliability by secondary sources is ideal, but this discussion would benefit immensely if editors at least took a look at the external link search [9] for the source so that we could have a meaningful discussion about whether DN's use on-site is improving Wikipedia or not, based in factual analysis of the specific DN articles cited across the project. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support with the note that it is biased when it comes to politics and generally requires attribution. The secondary coverage I could find usually treats it as reliable. Most of these emphasize the awards it won, among other things. Most of the arguments above focus on their biases (which are obvious) and not their reliability; but there's no reason to think they're unreliable, and plenty of reason to think they're reliable. Also, as a particular note, someone above objected that they lack "structure"; this is flatly untrue. From one of the sources above: The program currently lists 22 staffers, and was reported in 2005 to have a $1.8 million budget (p. 30). The program reflects the prototypical hierarchical bureaucratic model of modern news routines, using Reuters video feeds, teleprompters, and the use of specialized personnel such as full-time directors, producers, and graphic designers. Goodman herself received mainstream professional recognition for her journalism, including the George Polk Award, Robert F. Kennedy Prize for International Reporting, and the Alfred I. DuPont-Columbia Award. She also received awards from the Associated Press and United Press International. --Aquillion (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
• Support: I have used Democracy Now! in my edits relating to current events and have found it generally reliable and an important component of the media ecosystem used by Wikipedia editors to provide a comprehensive overview of world events. In particular, I think its interviews with experts who are not privileged by mainstream journalism and its attention to international affairs, which often exceeds other English language sources, is valuable to this encyclopedia. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm noticing that analysis of DN material cited on-wiki is conspicuously absent from this discussion. I don't understand how editors can support an MREL designation in the absence of any affirmative evidence of DN's marginal reliability. Surely, if there is any reason to be skeptical of DN's reliability, examples should exist of its questionable material being used on-site to the detriment of Wikipedia's own reliability.

  That being said, my own comment and those of many in favor of an upgrade are not much better. I hope some more time will be given before the close of this RFC; I would like to comb through the external link search [10] and perform a source analysis so that this decision can be based in evidence rather than popular opinion. I'll be building out the results of my inquiry in the space below

  Secondary coverage of and/or primary source audio recordings from important historical events:

  John Kerry's testimony at the Fulbright hearings (Cited there as an external link): [11]

  Transcript and audio of Assata Shakur's 1998 letter to the pope: [12]

  Interview with Gary Hart: [13]

  Interview with Roger Toussaint, leader of the 2005 New York City transit strike: [14]

  Bobby Ray Inman criticizes NSA domestic surveillance: [15] (Possibly the only coverage of this statement other than Wired.)

  Israeli ambassador Dan Gillerman on the 2006 Qana airstrike: [16]*DN is valuable in this context because its translations and transcriptions of audio make statements by public figures verifiable

  Coverage of interviewees' views:

  Michael Berg (activist) on his decision to run with the Green Party: [17]

  James Ridgeway on an editorial shakeup at The Village Voice: [18] *A note on this citation in context: It is paired with Ridgeway's NYT obituary, which includes a quote from him saying he was never censored at the Voice. It's clear from the context in the NYT article that he's talking about his 1973-2005 career there, not the few months he continued to work for the newspaper under Lacey. The NYT doesn't cover the editorial shakeup that forced him out; only DN does.

  Interviews with experts and investigators whose findings are cited to support facts on-wiki:

  Interview with investigative journalists on the MAINWAY NSA program: [19]

  Coverage of the Dasht-i-Leili massacre supplemented by an interview with the reporter who broke the story: [20]

  One of DN's most important contributions to Wikipedia is in its use as a source that gives voice to the other side of disputes in which there is a severe power differential. When a protest is attacked, when security forces kill someone, when a military's conduct comes into question, mainstream outlets often take the explanation of the powerful at face value. It's independent media like DN that platforms the other side of the equation: eyewitnesses, families of the victims, experts outside the halls of power. We need sources like DN in order to give balanced coverage of controversies in which power is called into question. Here are some examples of such coverage:

  An Italian journalist kidnapped in Iraq disputes American claims about the accidental killing by American soldiers of an Italian military intelligence officer sent to rescue her (multiple interviews cited at Giuliana Sgrena): [21]

  This list is far from complete. This is just what I was able to find in the two hours I spent searching through the external links catalog. But I wanted to get the conversation started about how DN is actually used on-wiki. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Note that hosting a copy/record of primary sources (as defined by history—see linked article—not Wikipedia's WP:PRIMARY) is likely a permissible use even if we don't find DN to be GenRel. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes to your point about historical primary sources, and I would add that in most other sources, the use of primary material (which would fall under WP:PRIMARY were it not for DN's secondary coverage) would be cited as evidence of good verifiability practices. Democracy Now's frequent use of audio samples (across multiple language, with world-class translation services) make it a source that is in some cases more verifiable about its own claims/coverage than many prestige sources that use print, whom we just have to trust when they say that someone said something. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  The fact that DN can be used appropriately in many articles is not really in dispute. The question is whether the existing cautionary note remains useful and accurate. Demonstrating that it can be used successfully doesn’t necessarily tell us whether source-specific guidance remains helpful for editors. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  What source-specific guidance would you propose, and what affirmative evidence of marginal reliability would you point to that justifies it? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support having a bias, even if a very strong one, is not by itself reason to consider a source anything less than generally reliable (see WP:BIASED). They have a respected by left-wing scholars, which speaks for itself (see WP:USEBYOTHERS). TarnishedPath^talk 06:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo- I do not think the case for an upgrade to WP:GENREL has been established. Much of the outlet's content consists of interviews, commentary, and opinion-oriented material, which already requires additional editorial judgment under the existing policy - WP:RSOPINION. The current MREL assessment does not prohibit use of the source; it simply reminds editors that additional considerations apply depending on the context. I also find BobFromBrockley's distinction persuasive, original reporting may often be reliable, interviews are generally reliable for what participants said, and opinion/commentary content requires attribution and contextual evaluation. Given these differences, I think the current assessment is better than a blanket upgrade to WP:GENREL. King of Kings III (Dear Sir ...) 13:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not opposed to maintaining MRel status with a  Jacobin (RSP entry)–like summary (save the first sentence, of course). In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo - The news stories are cherry-picked and show up on the website only when they support a progressive view; the opinion columns have a clear bias towards the left. It should remain as is. Their reporting of facts is usually fine, but the editorial lens is definitely leftist. Nothing has changed, except the missing weekly column by Goodman and Moynihan. Ar1201u1 (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2026 (UTC) User:Ar1201u1

  Per WP:BIASED, doesn't that mean it should be GenerallyRELiable then? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ar1201u1 has stated "Their reporting of facts is usually fine". I read that as an argument for GREL. TarnishedPath^talk 01:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

• Status Quo as Democracy Now is an opinion site with an extremely thin veneer of news reporting that reinforces the site's opinions. It has none of the characteristics of verifying information and fact checking that would be necessary to make it a reliable source in its own right. Material from the site should only be used with the needed precautions to attribute it to a biased source, and any opinions expressed on the site by individuals should be attributed directly to the individual who made the claim, both for statements from hosts and from interviewees. The requirements of WP:GENREL are not met here and no upgrade of reliability is appropriate. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Status Quo, there is not enough new evidence to alter the existing consensus. It needs a clear, demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and not political orientation. Democracy Now! has editorial perspective, this does not by itself support an upgrade to WP:GREL. Reliability and viewpoint are separate considerations as per WP. In fact their unreliability has decreased since the last discussion. The existing WP:MREL designation is the correct reflection of the source.Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
• Status Quo, MREL, clearly a partisan source. Ok to use, but with attribution. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:58, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  WP:PARTISAN applies. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Status Quo - I don’t see a clear reason to replace the current designation. Much of the discussion about whether DN can be reliable in many circumstances is not in dispute. The question is whether the existing "additional considerations apply" designation is inaccurate, and I don’t see a compelling case that MREL is causing problems or mischaracterizing the source. Retaining the status quo seems the more cautious choice. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status Quo I have found what other editors have found: DN has a left-wing bias and is generally factual. A lot of their reporting does seem like WP:FRINGE to me, so I think keeping it as is would be the most appropriate course of action.Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support upgrade to GREL. Alexandraaaacs1989 has made an excellent case for the upgrade and I don't see any compelling evidence or reason why DN!'s reliability should be doubted. They are biased, but bias is allowed. "Additional considerations apply" isn't very useful here, because there are additional considerations to every source, regardless of designation. Those can be taken up by editors on the talk page on a case-by-case basis. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:44, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe every source requires judgment, but are there recurring source-specific issues that come up often enough that keeping the guidance is still useful? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  If there are, I do not believe anyone has substantiated them in this discussion. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  An example of what I'm referring to would be BobFromBrockley's distinction between interviews/opinion-oriented content/original reporting. It seems to be one of the central themes here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

  The source is used on 2373 articles. Are there any talk page discussions about source-specific issues? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:04, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support In my experience, this source is generally reliable. I have not seen any evidence that it is not. Rainsage (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo per Bobfrombrockley. ScottyNolan (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

References

References

Discussion (Democracy Now!)

• Just to note that I've closed the previous discussion with a note directing editors to this RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
• How much of the content is made by Amy Goodman? Is the organization set up so that her content gets some sort of independent review prior to publication? She's the host and executive producer, and I don't see any sort of editor panel which could go/no-go stories. If she is making the content, and controls what gets published we have a self-publishing issue. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  [22] states Mike Burke is the editorial director. Katzrockso (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  That would be a good sign for people other than Amy Goodman, but everything I see on that site is done by, or co-done by her. And she is executive producer, and president of the non-profit that funds Democracy Now!. So I'm not seeing how an editorial director has functional veto power over any content she wants to publish. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  See the Democracy Now! staff list here. There's a lot of staff in the company, so it's definitely not unilaterally being run by Amy Goodman. If you're worried about higher-ups in a news company domineering, this is how most news companies work, with many run by a board of directors with absolute authority over everything the company reports, e.g. The New York Times run by the Sulzberger family. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm aware of the staff list, I'm also aware that the amount of content that doesn't have Amy Goodman's name attached is vanishingly small. I'm also aware that Amy Goodman sits at the top of democracy now productions as president. Content created by Arthur Ochs would have similar problems. But content isn't created by Arthur Ochs, it's done by Jeremy Scahil or Ryan Grim, or other writers. Amy Goodman's direct influence in the creation of the material, while also being president of the publishing organization, is the self publishing concern. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Even if she is a self-publisher to a certain extent... if a self-publisher reports information factually, then why can't we consider it GENREL if it's a notable and prolific news source? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  I personally don't believe this is selfpublished, but if it was selfpublished information is held to a different standard. See WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:SPS says Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. So wouldn't this simply be an instance where Amy Goodman is an established subject-matter expert and we can simply deem it RS even if it is self-published, making the whole self-published distinction irrelevant? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:55, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  That's not the relevant part of the sentence, the important part is "previously been published by reliable, independent publications". The point of the policy is that selfpublished work has to be from someone that other unrelated people have published as an expert. Just being an expert is not enough. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  selfpublished work has to be from someone that other unrelated people have published as an expert Yes, and we have shown this to be the case with sourcing in this discussion, no? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see that anything to show she's published books or articles (in independent sources (not DM)) in the field of political analysis. Again this is an aside, as DM isn't selfpublished. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  Does it have to be books? She's received lots of awards for DM's indie reporting, five of which while it was under WBAI/PACIFICA Radio, an independent publisher. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I would think that the more important part is the definition, in the paragraph above the one you cite: Self-published material, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings, are largely not acceptable as sources.

  I think it may be a better approach to interpret this prohibition as applying moreso to sources that can be published without the meaningful assistance of others, rather than sources produced with the nebulous approval of an imagined arbiter of reliability, which seems to be the main thing that is elusively argued around in countless reliability discussions.

  Anyone can start a blog and say whatever they want, but one person, even if they are extremely talented can't be the sole force behind decades of independent reporting and comprehensive daily news coverage. Democracy Now's work is thorough and established enough that it is necessarily the work of many talented people, in the same way that traditional news orgs are. That's what is supposed to be their marker of reliability: a form of peer review upstream of but not dissimilar to Wikipedia's own. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  There is another section of WP: V that goes more in depth on what is self-published material, Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos And in this case the example of material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group is the case example why Democracy Now! is largely self published. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think your assertion that DN falls into this category mischaracterizes the nature of the citeable material produced by DN. Material produced by DN that could be cited on Wikipedia would include excerpts of its headlines segment (I would say that in most cases, another source would be better if one is available, as these are relatively surface-level aggregations/reproductions of news broken elsewhere. However, in some cases DN is the best English-language source for international news.) and its interviews with subject matter experts and people on the ground in developing situations of national and international significance. If an editor cites such material, they would not be citing Amy Goodman's/DN's self-published original research, but rather DN's publication of an independent person's research or perspective on the relevant situation. As host and executive producer, Amy Goodman is setting up the interviews and asking the questions, but an independent source (the interviewee) is giving the answers, and the answer is what would typically be relevant to Wikipedia. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  People on the ground type interviews are not particularly useful for encyclopedic content; it suffers from Primary and recentism issues. Regarding the interviews, there isn't much reason her interviews are any more reliable than those done by podcasts like Joe Rogan. Interview reliability is more dependent on the interviewee than the source so it doesn't really change it from MREL. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  I definitely disagree that DN's interviews are like those on the Rogan podcast. On the contrary, I think DN's expert interview-based reporting is far more similar to the way that all mainstream news outlets seek and publish statements from subject matter experts when reporting on a given topic. Can you demonstrate any evidence that DN's interviews are closer to Rogan quality than the comment given by other experts (or sometimes, the same experts!) to outlets like CBS, CNN, the WSJ etc. that are used by them and subsequently by Wikipedia editors to establish facts about the world on good authority? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  And I definitely disagree that DN interviews experts. Most of them are moral activists trying to get you to adopt their brand of morality. The problem is that moral expertise and authority is not some universal metric it's actually just another POV. Moral activists are only at best experts on what their morality is, but not at all experts on what is moral. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Some guests on DN that I have used in citations on-Wiki or heard on the program recently, off the top of my head, include Rami Khouri on topics related to conflict in the Middle East, Greg Grandin and Ada Ferrer on Latin America, Jules Boykoff on sports, Maria Hinojosa on immigration, Reed Brody, Francesca Albanese and Craig Mokhiber on international law. In what world are these people "moral activists" lacking expertise in their topic area? They may have strong moral inclinations that you disagree with, but dismissing their expertise is not warranted. Furthermore, I see no contradiction between expertise and advocacy. Many experts are advocates, because their expertise compels them to speak up. DN also interviews people with absolutely no public profile (who therefore couldn't possibly be "moral activists"), such as lawyers in contentious legal cases, who provide an essential counterbalance to government claims. I think you need to check your own POV, because what you're asserting here is not at all based in fact. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sounds like you're speculating about how much influence she has and how resistant she is to the editors. We can't know this. The fact that there are multiple editors employed at the company suggests that they probably do some editing though. Edittttor (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  She's president of democracy now productions, it doesn't matter if she were resistant to the editors or not. That means any internal editors and reviewers are functionally subordinate to her, and not independent. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That argument seems absurd. By that logic no source is reliable if anyone is ultimately in charge of it; we would have to declare the New York Times unreliable because all its editors are ultimately subordinate to A. G. Sulzberger; or that the Wall Street Journal is unreliable because it is ultimately owned by Rupert Murdoch; or that Washington Post is unreliable because it is owned by Jeff Bezos. What matters is whether there's structures in place that can give it a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; and as I noted with a citation above, secondary sources say that does have them. WP:SPS is for sources that lack editorial controls (or ones where there is actual reason to believe the editorial controls are so insufficient as to be just window-dressing and functionally nonexistent); it's not for "someone ultimately owns this source and is in charge of publishing it." If the mere possibility that someone exists who could notionally override a source's editorial controls and fact checking exists were enough to render it a SPS, not a single source would be reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you even read the argument? It's that the owner is actively and heavily engaged in content creation for the organization. Is Murdoch on the byline for all the articles on the Wall Street Journal? Is Bezos actively writing all the articles for the Washington Post? No, they obviously are not, so those comparisons have no basis in reality. It's not someone ultimately owns this, it's that the person who owns this is heavily involved in the creation of the content. It's that the person who can override any editorial control is also doing the content work is what makes it an SPS. --Kyohyi (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, then let's assume for the sake of argument that Amy Goodman runs Democracy Now! like a dictator and fires employees who write things she does not like.

Even in this circumstance, WP:SELFPUBLISH explicitly says Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. We have demonstrated they have been published by reliable, independent publications. So DN! is RS, and whether Amy Goodman is pulling all the strings is irrelevant. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

For this to be a factor someone would have to show that DM is not editorially independent of Goodman. The have an editorial staff, so even if she has a lot of influence it appears doubtful that she can simply publish on her own. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Democracy Now Productions LLC is the organization that owns Democracy Now! Amy Goodman is president of Democracy Now Productions. An example of self-published media from WP: V is material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group which is an accurate description of Amy Goodman's relationship to Democracy Now!. So Amy's content in Democracy Now! would be self published. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• I've made a request on WP:CR for a close. The discussion may get archived while it waits, but if that happens it will be unarchived when it's closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Continuing use of Idolator as a source

Given that Idolator is defunct and no longer accessible from Wikipedia because of the archive.today blacklist, should it be deprecated as a reliable source?----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Option 1: Yes, deprecate.

Option 2: No, do not deprecate.

Survey (Idolator)

• Option 2: Just because links to the archives cannot be included on Wikipedia doesn't mean the source is completely inaccessible: archive.today can still be accessed by editors willing to do so, and editors can also screenshot the archived pages and upload those.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:01, 11 June 2026 (UTC)
• Snow close Whether a source is easily accessible or not, is not a reliability issue per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Dead links should be marked with {{dead link}} and repaired or replaced as appropriate, per standard practice. Whether reviews from a particular website should or shouldn't in articles is a NPOV issue. Finally reading the prior discussion I don't see anyone calling for deprecation, so the RFC question is inappropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  SNUGGUMS suggested removing all usages from Wikipedia articles. I don't know if that's deprecation or blacklisting, they didn't specify. SNUGGUMS, is deprecation what you propose?----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  • To be clear, I recommended removing the ones relying on archive.today to access dead URLs, and wasn't necessarily planning to take out all the pages that work without it unless people decided this as a whole isn't a usable resource anymore. The unfortunate reality is how most or all of the archived links come from that bad domain instead of WayBack Machine or any feasible alternative. Come to think of it, there have been instances of people preferring other sources over Idolator to begin with long before February 2026 deprecated archive.today domains. It certainly never held as high of a reputation as things like AllMusic, MTV News, Variety, VH1, Billboard, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, etc. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

  That's neither deprecation or blacklisting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not just that archive.today cannot be linked to, it has been deprecated. I distinctly remember the RfC in part focusing on the fact the site was found to have altered archived pages, rendering it unreliable for verification of them, and I went back to check and the close does indeed explicitly state there is evidence to support that.

  I can accept informally using archive.today for the sake of pragmatism as a faster way of verifying something that can also be reliably verified, but if archive.today is the only way to verify it then that means that the website's operators can change the page at will and there would be no way to check that the archived version is accurate, as the archive.today version is the only one available. It would effectively be to use archive.today as the source. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

  Is archive.today the only place that these links are available? There are many archiving services and the source could have been reproduced at a different source. But if it is the case that no other sources is available it still doesn't mean the source needs deprecation. The decision on whether to still include the reviews is a content question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think it might vary, with some available elsewhere and some not. I suppose I agree that Idolator shouldn't be deprecated and that whether or not to include a review of it should be a matter dealt with at the relevant talk page, as there is nothing to indicate reliability issues with the site itself, but it's important to remember that you a reliable source reporting what Idolator says is required, which archive.today is not due to aforementioned reasons. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• “Difficult to access” or “no longer available” are not problems of reliability, and deprecation and blacklisting are not appropriate tools to deal with those problems. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (Idolator)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums § Idolator links

 – --3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:59, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

When archive.today got deprecated this past February per WP:Requests for comment/Archive.is RFC 5, the outcome appears to have rendered most (if not all) archived URLs from Idolator unusable since that website somehow was excluded from Web Archive as well as other viable backups for dead links. Many of its pieces aren't even accessible these days without using archive.today links. I therefore believe we should reassess its overall presence within Wikipedia articles. Does anyone think it's best to take the Idolator website out from the list of generally reliable publications (found at WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Generally reliable sources)? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree. I once asked about this source when people were discussing whether to deprecate archive.today, and they replied to me that there's no way to resolve this issue. I think we should find how to replace this source with other reliable sources. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 14:39, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

No objections to that, and we inevitably will have to delete their reviews altogether unless they still work without archive.today URLS (which unfortunately seems to be rare among whatever isn't already dead). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS I don't think we should. It's too soon. I wouldn't say it's an unreliable source. Consensus has been that links that can't be verified need to be taken down eventually, though I personally don't know if I agree with that. I think it's way too soon for taking down, though. --3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 22:22, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure if this is "too soon". I have seen dead Idolator links for a long time (which failed to be archived through archive.today), and I think this should be addressed now. Even worse, the links archived through archive.today also became unavailable; thus we cannot verify the contents through that website. IMO there's no reason to keep this anymore? Camilasdandelions (✉️) 22:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem with leaving this as a trusted listing, 3family6, is being unable to view let alone verify countless pages without the bad archive.today domains in the first place. At this point, the only Idolator things we could possibly rely on are the unarchived versions of whatever they still have on its webpage. That's a rather limited scope. To be honest, I'm surprised its overall use hasn't come under scrutiny sooner once that RFC concluded. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:38, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Then view the domains without citing them on Wikipedia.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You can still verify through that website, you just can't link to it from Wikipedia.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following. How does this affect Idolator's RS status exactly? "Removing dead links" and "sources being reliable" are two completely unrelated concepts. One does not influence the other. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, like SNUGGUMS, I have thought to remove the website from RS too. The website is no longer available and not even accessible anymore — then why leaving it in the RS list? It's unnecessary. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. If three years ago someone correctly cited it as an RS, there's no justification for actively advocating its removal retroactively today. It's no different from the fact that someone shouldn't remove my citation of an 2003 issue of Rolling Stone's print mag just because they don't have a copy in their own hands to double check. Sergecross73 msg me 00:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

For one thing, Idolator never at any point had print editions of their pieces. I would be less worried if it did because then we could've used page numbers/ISBNs as backups for citations. Upon request, somebody can theoretically provide images of physical prints containing the articles in question whenever uncertain about verifying offline references. That sadly isn't an option here. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I know, my point was more that just because you can't immediately verify a citation doesn't make it immediately (and retroactively) unreliable. Print mags were simply an example. Paywalled ones are another. Don't get me wrong, by all means, remove Idolator links if you have doubt of the claim or have a better source to add. But there isn't justification to deem it unreliable and scrub it out of Wikipedia-existence entirely. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Right.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Someone could (and should) save screenshots from the archived articles.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A source being hard to access is not an argument against its reliability. If it was we would consider all book which are not online to be unreliable and we don't. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

My personal two cents on this issue are that if it's excluded from the WBM (unfortunate), we shouldn't be leaving the wrong impression to uninformed readers that we're letting rotted links dictate fact while we tout information as verifiable. Just because we know how to bypass the dead links via questionable means doesn't mean everyone does who reads a given Wikipedia article. On the other hand, if an Idolator link functions, there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We determined the source is reliable a while ago; accessibility should not outright disqualify a source. Why would we use print information from any source in that case? In hopes someone in our comparatively tiny community has a screenshot or account of it? Please... TL;DR: Leaving defective links with no possible fix is poor form, so dead links of an excluded domain should be fair game to chop off, but if it's still running there is no reason to remove them. mftp dan ^oops 15:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Just because a source isn't easy to access doesn't mean it should be deprecated.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't think leaving dead links that cannot be repaired without A.Today makes us look bad from an encyclopedic standpoint? mftp dan ^oops 00:03, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No. Because someone could access that link via A.Today if they wanted. We also need to give time for people to take screenshots via A.Today archives (as some editors have talked about).----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I was also considering to take a screenshot of Atoday's page, but how to upload and put these in citation |url=? I don't see any helpful guideline related to this. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 13:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

My thought would be wordpress.com or some other free host site that you upload the screenshots to as an image file.-- --3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure they could, 3, but I'm not making this about us or those privy to A.Today. How many of Wikipedia's typical readers do you imagine are aware of that resource? We aren't allowed to link to it anymore, so it's kind of hard to allude to its existence or how to view the pages now. What we're left with is a rotten link that by definition isn't outwardly verifiable. mftp dan ^oops 14:28, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a much bigger issue that needs to get worked out as a result of that RfC deprecating A.Today. I'd say there should be a guidance put out, and that could be linked to in the reference as a note.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 01:12, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS (and Camilasdandelions, what exactly are you proposing here? Deprecating the source? Blacklisting it?----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Has there been a check if old Idolator links have been archived by other services, such as Megalodon?----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I have never seen yet. Camilasdandelions (✉️) 23:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose alternatives to WBM archives, if that can be achieved. mftp dan ^oops 00:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Assuming WBM stands for Wayback Machine, that particular archive has no working backups for Idolator pages, and I already tried that one before starting this thread. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:48, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You tried Megalodon? Judging from your response I don't know if you're reading the intended message. But yes, WBM is Wayback Machine. mftp dan ^oops 03:56, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I tried Megalodon and so far I haven't been successful. Need some more old links to try, though.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This does not make any sense to me. The site is still avalable trought archive.is (even if we can't link to it anymore). I see no reason to remove it as a reliable source. Wikipedia sites a ton of sources which can't be viewed with a link directly from Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, perhaps this discussion should be moved to RSN, given that Idolator is listed on the perennial sources list and a re-evaluation should involved more editors.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 23:43, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

No objections to starting a thread there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Military Watch Magazine making unsubstantiated claims

Military Watch Magazine is used as a source in several dozen articles. However, some of its articles make claims that do not match those from known reliable sources. For example, this article says an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was shot down during the 2026 Iran war even though there is no evidence that this actually happened. Another article claims that the MQ-4C Triton drone lost in April was shot down even though the cause of the loss has not been conclusively determined.

Does this mean Military Watch Magazine should be considered unreliable? Ixfd64 (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see much use by other RS and the About Us is a bit sparse. Not sure we should them if a claim is only supported by MWM. Alaexis_¿question? 13:38, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

[23], [24]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Military Watch Magazine is talking about a shootdown that supposedly occurred in March. The links you provided are referring to a different incident that happened in December 2024. Ixfd64 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

[[25]]. So there claim does appear to be true, but no confirmation of its truth. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I would say it would be better to find a better source for these claims. If there are no other sources, the information is likely not WP:DUE Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

They claim to have "no sources of external funding and no affiliation to any state, party, movement, or political ideology", but does not substantiate this claim [26]. They have no editorial independence policy that I can find. It may also be a front for Russian propaganda [27]. I think it would be worthwhile to have a RfC for depreciation of the source. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Shall Bounding into Comics be deprecated and not just considered unreliable?

Bounding into Comics is considered generally unreliable on Wikipedia. Examples of information that supports this consensus is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics", Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 387#Bounding into Comics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 3#Bounding Into Comics. I proposed adding it to Edit Filter 869, but EggRoll97 informed me that deciding whether to deprecate the source and not just consider it unreliable should be made here. I am wondering if we should agree to deprecate this source and not just consider it unreliable. Z. Patterson (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Deprecation is usually only used for the worst of sources, and requires community consensus via a request for comment. Is there something about Bounding into Comics that makes it so much worse than other generally unreliable sources? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources/Archive 3#Bounding Into Comics, Link20XX found that as of the date he posted it (10 October 2023), Bounding into Comics "is a notorious supporter of Comicsgate, ... described Viz Media as 'displaying their ... level of disrespect for Japanese media and has written that Crunchyroll (has a) habit of licensing censored versions of anime'". The claim made by Bounding into Comics towards Viz Media is false, but Link20XX stated that Bounding into Comics's statement about Crunchyroll is misleading, as Crunchyroll itself does not censor anime for television broadcasting. Xexerss concurred. In a different discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 293#The Reliability of "Bounding into Comics", PrincessPandaWiki and Masem found the site to be untrustworthy, but Markworthen said that the site's "affiliate disclosure is buried in the footer, which clearly violates Federal Trade Commission requirements that disclosures be 'clear and conspicuous'." Z. Patterson (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

All of that shows that it's an unreliable source, but isn't necessarily a reason to deprecated it. Deprecation is generally used for sources that are causing wide spread issues for the encyclopedia. If all the websites that post junk or undisclosed advertorials were deprecated then the deprecation list would be literally endless. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:56, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that Bounding Into Comics has been a clearing house for American culture war slop as well as being unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Can't we say that bounding into Comics should just be used for comics and related based reviews but make a distinction between citing it for those purposes (or to verify something accompanied by another source) and say it isn't reliable for incendiary culture war stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnieszka653 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I mean, unfortunately comics aren't some sort of culture-war free bubble. FWIW it seems to have posted 11 reviews of comics in the last two years. Morwen (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Rustin Times - LGBTQ+ Nigerian website

Hi

Rustin times, an LGBTIQ+ Nigerian blog is being disputed and believed not to be a reliable source (because it’s not on Nigerian reliable sources noticeboard) and I will love any editor to vet their content. It’s a website I have known since 2020 (for me) to publish queer content. Obinna Tony (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Passing by and wanted to pitch in here with some observations for others to make more informed judgments of. In my sample of 10 random, recent articles from the website (across all their sections, including news and op-ed), all but two of them were written by Timinepre Cole. Looking up her name, I've found one article written by her in Al Jazeera (source) and one in Teen Vogue (source), and she seems to have been interviewed in Dazed here and Vice here. The other two were not attributed to any author beyond "The Rustin Times".

Looking a bit deeper, it seems like this source used to have Harry Itie as its editor-in-chief (per his website here and as verified by some of the older articles like this one -- "Boye Black" seems to be a pseudonym for Itie, given that https://therustintimes.com/author/boye/ redirects to his bio). I also found articles credited to "Roi Petite" and "Love Matters Naija", the latter of which seeming to be a separate Nigerian organization. It's unclear who their present editor-in-chief is or when Itie stepped down, and no new articles have been posted since 2024.

I'm not too convinced of its reliability myself, since it does seem like a WP:SPS for the most part. I'll leave it primarily to others to discuss, though. Leafy46 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.

This is what self published blog usage says, "Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications"

This means it can be used in a case where the publishers are experts in this case and this source is contested for being used on a Nigerian LGBTIQ+ articles. Obinna Tony (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Obinna Tony, you do not conclude or force words into editors. That being said, there has not been any consensus herein. It is still an unreliable source as the case may be. SafariScribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Offering context to editors based on where it's being contested isn't forcing words. You are the one doing it with your last sentence. Two editors established it's WP:SPS and one also alluded that the writer is a expert in the subject. And I'm offering context based on what self-published blog reliability says. Obinna Tony (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Hard to say this seems more than a WP:SPS. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Substack

https://combatantisemitism.org/cam-news/substack-profited-from-paid-nazi-and-holocaust-denial-newsletters-investigation-finds/ It is basically a platform where anyone can create a newsletter... and authors can make the contents for subscribers only. So, it's inherently attractive for spammers to promote hook articles in order to entice more paid subscription to their blogs/newsletter. The platform itself gets a cut of the subscription revenue, so there is a financial incentive for the platform to list cash crop articles in recommendations. Should it be deprecated? listed as not recommended? Graywalls (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you meant to post this to WP:RS/N, not here. This is the page for meta-discussion about the noticeboard, not the actual routine discussion of sources. Morwen (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I did indeed. I moved the whole thing over after I realized. Graywalls (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Substack is a blog hosting platform and, as such, anything on it is covered by WP:BLOG. An article might be reliable under WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:EXPERTSPS but it's otherwise unusable in current policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Also didn't notice we were on the talk page. LOL. Simonm223 (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a direct financial incentive for the article author to increase subscribers as the money directly lines the author's wallet. So there's a strong motive for authors to want to increase visibility, thus looking for places to shoehorn their presence into high view articles as opposed to trying to improve article and susceptible to intentional contamination susceptibility as monetized HubPages contents, which is deprecated. Graywalls (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait until you learn about newspapers being for-profit...--00:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC) --3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

A large portion of the online resources we use as sources have an economic model behind them -- advertising, sales of books, subscriptions, whatever. Whatever significant distaste I may have for Substack, I don't see how the things-are-done-for-profit-and-could-be-promoted-here differs. This is a site for primarily self-published pages, including many that would qualify for WP:EXPERTSPS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

How would you say it's any different from blogspot, HubPages, wordpress, etc? Graywalls (talk) 18:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately it's all down to the TOS. All of the sites allow people to post self-published content and none provide any sort of editorial oversight or factchecking. The main difference is what the site considers a violation of their TOS. However the presence of bigotry and misinformation doesn't mean that everything on the site is useless or incorrect. If the 2025 Nobel laureate in physics created a Substack blog and started writing about physics, then they would still be a reliable source on the topic even though the site also hosts blogs where people post absolute nonsense.

Basically, we just have to verify that the person in question is an actual trusted authority on the topic. Substack allowing white nationalists to pour out hate on their pages just means that extra verification is needed to make sure that the blog is legit and the person is an authority. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

If the 2025 Nobel laureate in physics created a Substack blog and started writing about physics, then they would still be a reliable source on the topic even though the site also hosts blogs where people post absolute nonsense. but then, it would be the same even if it was on X, Weebly, FreeWebs, etc Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes. WP:SPS says: Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The only exception is BLPs: Never use a self-published source as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 20:10, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

But the task of verifying that prof X is actually prof X remains. Does substack allow any one to post as anyone without verification? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably, but if the person is a named person you can always... google them. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I said that because because before Umberto Eco died, I saw an article by him that complained that someone had started a Facebook page for him without his knowledge and he only found out about it much later in a real conversation with a friend. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

We put WP:RSPWORDPRESS up on the basis of more than a dozen previous discussions here (and a quick check of a few shows they were around individual actual sources of concern); it was more than just that someone could misuse it. Do we have a track record of spammy Substack self-cites, or of improper use of a Substack subdomain as a source that isn't just quickly dealt with by a simple editorial response? I'd be utterly fine with creating a WP:SUBSTACK redirect to WP:SPS (just as WP:WORDPRESS is), but I am unconvinced of the need for anything further. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Wordpress also isn't deprecated, let alone blacklisted like HubPages.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we need platform-by-platform discussion. Suppose there's been numerous extensive discussions on the now defunct FreeWebs/Webs and an RSP entry had been created. There's no reason that we can't apply the same consensus consensus to Weebly, assuming community agrees they're comparable. Graywalls (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You brought this to this board (well, to its talk page) as platform-specific. Different sites, even though they could be described similarly, may have a different culture leaving a different impact on Wikipedia editing. You haven't shown any need to do this for Substack, no problem that it has created. We have WP:SPS in place as a recognized way to deal with sites like this. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And there's also proper journalism that's done to substack. Ultimately it's just a CMS and a payment platform. Whether a particular substack should be treated as reliable is up to the editorial policies and suchforth of that particular substack. Morwen (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

However, proper journalism is hard to do with non-author dependent editorial control. Graywalls (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the best way is to avoid substack altogether. If a big time professor has anything important and nonfringe to say why would he go to substack. He would publish it as a departmental report. Let us forget substack, please, please. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree!. It should be treated just like HubPages. Graywalls (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Some big time professors write blogs (see, e.g., Princeton historian Kevin M. Kruse's blog, which used to be on Substack and moved to ghost.io, and Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck's blog on Substack). There is no reason to avoid Substack altogether. Analyze the individual blogs by whether their authors satisfy EXPERTSPS, just as you would with any other SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

With that said, should it be just be treated equivalently to WP:WORDPRESS? Despite the monetization spam hazard. Graywalls (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes it is exactly the same as Wordpress from a reliability point of view. Which is to say, usable on a case-by-case basis, just like every othervself-publishing platform. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you think people don't monetize their wordpress.com blogs in various ways? Here is Wordpress.com telling people how to add Amazon affiliate links to their pages. Here's how to create a paid subscriber newsletter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Without Substack, we wouldn't have much of the reporting by one of the main journalists who reports on the Church of Scientology: Tony Ortega's Underground Bunker. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

  Hi, I did not know and still do not know who Ortega is. But maybe you have a point that some cases should be considered. But it would have to be done very very carefully. Cheers. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Well, he has his own website [28], where all of the same stuff is, so we would have much of the reporting. Still, it is an SPS either way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ortega seems to have quit posting on his website in favor of using substack.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Doesn't seem to be the case [29]? The same stories are mirrored on both sites (the email newsletter is through substack). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Those are just little stubs of headlines only; the article content isn't there. The actual articles are only on the substack, like this one. That's what I've dicovered over time, especially when I wanted to use a URL to one of his articles for a citation in Wikipedia.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Huh, strange arrangement. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ortega is "an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" (quoting from WP:SELFPUBLISH). Substack has become a reliable email delivery platform for both subject matter experts and amateurs, and handles free and paid subscriptions well, so that writers need not also deal with that. You can't judge the platform based on the amateurs. At this point, it has become mainstream enough to be a reliable posting and delivery platform. One needs to check on the author/channel rather than blindly downgrading all of Substack.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's as reliable as any other platform that allows self publishing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As the other people here have said, it is equivalent to Wordpress; many, many neo-Nazis have used Wordpress, so I don't see what relevance the link here is. Everything there is an WP:SPS, and if it is published by someone who knows what they're doing it is an WP:EXPERTSPS (and so still cannot be used for BLPs and such). PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree with editors who have said it is an SPS platform that should be treated case by case like other SPS platforms, including Medium, Wordpress and Patreon. Like literally any platform (including print newspapers), monetisation may incentivise bad editorial standards, but that's not a reason to blanket avoid. I would say that as the business model for good freelance journalists to earn money from good journalism erodes more and more, they are increasingly turning to platforms like Substack and Patreon to earn through their journalism, so monetisation itself is not the issue - the lack of monetisation of legacy platforms is in fact the problem. Thus lots of good journalists are now using Substack and as their primary outlet Patreon as their primary outlets. Three examples in my topic area: https://democracyforsale.substack.com/ https://michaeldeibert.substack.com/ https://www.patreon.com/spencersunshine Generally, stuff they self-publish might not be as credible as stuff they publish on other platforms, or more ephemeral, but we can easily ascertain that these are good sources to use by e.g. checking the authors' Muckrack entries.

Secondly, Substack is a pretty high quality platform to use, so we're seeing both established well edited collective publications move there, e.g. https://thepoliticalquarterly.substack.com/ https://orwellfoundation.substack.com/ or launch there, e.g. https://futuresofdifference.substack.com/ In these cases, Substack is just the publishing tool, and these aren't self-published, any more than academic journalists that use Wordpress as a content management system.

In general, we need to see WP:SPS as a far less blunt instrument than some editors think of it. There are good and bad newspapers, good and bad newswires, good and bad books - and good and bad sites hosted on platforms like Wordpress and Substack. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Since their pay is directly dependent on number of paying subscribers and since the pay is more direct, as opposed to their payroll not being tied to subscription count, it encourages sensationalism coverage on individual level and this is what we should take into consideration in the scope of reliable source discussion. Even though they may do fact checking, I still believe one person in charge contents of anything has significant issues with reliably demonstrating inclusion worthiness. Graywalls (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Graywalls, if you think "encourages sensationalism" is a reason to downgrade a reliable source, then every newspaper with an online presence and a huge editorial staff should also be painted with that brush. We unfortunately have to live with clickbait, and even the most revered longstanding news media outlets are guilty of it on a daily basis. "Sensationalism" is unfortunately mandatory these days in order to get attention, readership, and revenue. That argument falls flat.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 16:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

We're really only discussing EXPERTSPS use, and I see zero reason to think that experts get more subscribers when they're more sensationalistic. Subscribers are looking for their expertise. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:SPS, there is not much more to say. If someone wants to bring a particular edit here, we can discuss that edit and proper use or disuse of that particular SPS (and sure, the author's conflicts might come up). As always, work to find a better source. Perhaps, the bigger problem might be WP:DUE or astonish, etc.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think of this right away when I posted this, but I think it's very much similar to WP:FORBESCON. A platform where journalists who have worked also independently publish their own stuff. And HUFFPOCON and FORBESCON are both rated low on Wiki. Graywalls (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:FORBESCON was only needed because it was easy to mistake those posts as being actual Forbes material, which carried some degree of reliable source respect. There is no such confusion with Substack,. It may be time for you to recognize that basically everyone has recognized that this is covered by existing WP:SPS, that you have presented zero actual occurring events that would require special attention, and to drop the stick. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This is inane; there is an overwhelming consensus in this discussion (because the situation is completely straightforward), please stop writing nonsense. Is there some concrete question (about a particular source on a particular article) that this is about? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Oxfam

Oxfam is an international confederation of NGOs focused on tackling global wealth inequality and poverty. As part of this work, it publishes reports concerning poverty on its website (including the Oxfam Digital Repository and the Policy Papers section.) The first time I began using them as a source was on the article for trillionaire, where I attributed all their statements concerning the matter. The last RSN discussion on Oxfam was 8 years ago and was focused narrowly on a specific controversy regarding I/P. Given that Oxfam already seems to be widely cited on a variety of articles, I therefore ask whether the statements of Oxfam reports and policy papers can at the very least be considered due weight for inclusion in articles concerning poverty and wealth inequality. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Oxfam is a high-quality source with outstanding use by other reliable sources – one constantly sees their output presented in the news media as straightforward fact. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

They're a well known and widely respected organisation. Attribution will likely be a good idea, but their views and opinions are reliable and likely due inclusion because of their use by others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with above. I suppose I have a minor ghost of a CoI here as I have, in the distant past, been a member of an Oxfam student group (albeit this was 20 years ago) and I have a very favorable opinion of Oxfam. But, as per standard procedure, advocacy groups such as Oxfam should be attributed. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a COI. If that was our entire concept and standard of COI is absurdly wrong and psychotically over-aggressive...! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah... just exercising due caution. Lol. Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It is reliable enough but always with attribution (preferably with a link to their Wikipedia page). Their methodology of how to calculate wealth has been criticized and that is important context to how you intend to use it. see oxfam#Accusations of overrepresenting poverty Rolluik (talk) 11:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

There you go. You have both an editor with a very favorable view of Oxfam and an editor with a critical view of Oxfam both saying use with attribution. Simonm223 (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I have significant concerns about Oxfam's reliability. I have found a number of articles on Oxfam's methodological issues and data reporting inaccuracies which put their reliability into question[30][31][32][33].

Additionally, they have had a number of scandals which puts their governance and credibility as an organization into question, most notably allegations of sexual misconduct by Oxfam staff in Haiti [34][35] and in the Congo [36][37]. This Lancet article suggests that, while there were several failure points, major reforms ought to be made in Oxfam's governance.

I would consider Oxfam to be WP:MREL, but could be persuaded of WP:GUNREL. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear we are only considering the reliability of their reports issued by Oxfam researchers, not the conduct of their aid workers. In that scope, only the first four sources you linked should be considered relevant for this discussion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

And 3 of those 4 are op-ed type pieces or from explicitly ideological outlets with an axe to grind. (Maybe the other one also, I don’t recognize it.) This is super weak tea. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Economic Research Institute

ERI Economic Research Institute is being used as an argument for justifying that Luxembourgish football clubs are professional clubs. This appears to be based on https://www.erieri.com/salary/job/football-player/luxembourg

However, after some searching online, I am led to believe that as the data is an aggregate of internal and third-party surveys, and not public records, it fails Wikipedia's "verifiability and editorial oversight" standards.

Can anyone confirm or deny this? I am trying to understand why another user is trying to insist that because of this data, all clubs in Luxembourg are professional, when the local consensus is that only a few top-flight clubs are semi-professional, which all others simply amateur Phil 12:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if we accepted the source as reliable it doesn’t make that claim and it’s a daft argument anyway. Presumably the site has an estimate of the average salary of a uk footballer, and yet semiprofessional and amateur clubs exist in England albeit competing in lower divisions than the professional sides. Morwen (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Luxembourgish not Luxembourgeois?! ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

source compared to google estimated wage of "lower pro level" player, confirms top division clubs are that category;

mr phil had a 4 years old source (private lawyer article covering national players leaving local league early) regarding league status, but latest source shows simply that clubs sustain themselves, and any opposite club source will be respected

thanks and best regards ~2026-35484-17 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The latest source, erieri, does not state that clubs or players are professional, semi-professional, or amateur. Taking the total average wage and assuming all clubs are therefore professional is "original research" and your opinion. There is no fact cited. Phil 06:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

https://wsfc7.com/football-salary-in-europe-by-league-from-amateur-to-professional-2026/

They fall under "lower professional status" monthly salary, discussion nowhere near proving opposite ~2026-35484-17 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-35484-17 This is not the place to discuss your assumptions. See Admin Noticeboard, Project Football, or your old talk page. This is to discuss the more general question of the erieri website's reliability. Phil 16:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The article doesn't make the claim that the editor you're referring to is making. That said, I would consider the source itself to be generally reliable for salary, cost of living, and executive compensation data, but not much else. I read through their methodology tab and found it to be pretty rigorous, enough so to be trusted by a number of companies of various sizes. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Ready for take off book website

The site is arguably unreliable, to begin most sources often don't leave sites to wikipedia pages which this one does, and often does depend on it the site also does use AI as it's images.

I also would argue that it is a slop site as it pumps out extremely detailed biographies on aircraft yet seem to pump it once a day, as such on June 14 it was able to create 3 articles at once. Youravreageavaitor (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean https://readyfortakeoffbook.com/, the book that website is advertising, or something else? Sorry it's not very clear what you mean. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

yup, it also does publish online articles which are seen here https://readyfortakeoffbook.com/blogs/aircraft-type Youravreageavaitor (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that the website cites Wikipedia as a source for its articles. Can you provide a link to an article that does this? If that is indeed the case, WP:WPNOTRS will apply. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at their article for the Mitsubishi MU-2 it says "Full configuration details, engine dash-numbers and weights are documented in the FAA Mitsubishi MU-2B program records and summarized in references such as the type history. with the words 'type history' linking to Wikipedia articles Mitsubishi MU-2. I think that's the source of OP's concerns. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

As another example their article on How the Boeing 747-200B shaped long-haul airline fleets states:
"With a maximum range of approximately 6,560 nautical miles (12,150 km) when equipped with Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4G2 engines, as documented by Wikipedia's Boeing 747 overview, ..." (link in the original). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:44, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I've spot checked a few of the results of this search[38], and they all had references back to Wikipedia. So WP:CIRCULAR might be a concern. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:58, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Taking a look at this site, it appears that it is self published, commercial blog content:

"Our team consists of LH Group & Air France pilots..." "AVIAPREP SOLUTIONS is an innovative provider of training solutions and consulting services for aviation professionals worldwide, with a strong focus on airline selection processes. Ready for Take Off is a flagship product of AVIAPREP SOLUTIONS."[39]

I would expect it to fall under WP:SPS or WP:QUESTIONABLE. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't find evidence that this website is being cited anywhere in Wikipedia. In which article did the question of the website's reliability come up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm only doing this to prevent people from citing a sloppy website Youravreageavaitor (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Please don’t do this. The number of bad sources is approximately infinite; there is no point in discussing them if they aren’t being used anywhere. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Knock LA for Gangs in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department

Over at BLPN, a TA claiming to be former Los Angeles sheriff Alex Villanueva has complained that Wikipedia's Gangs in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department article libels him. [40]. One of the major sources used in the article is the piece "The Protected Class" in Knock LA by journalist Cerise Castle, which is the sole source used for the claim that Villaneuva was a member of the "cavemen" gang. Is this due weight for a serious BLP claim? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Just as a BLP issue, no. Knock LA looks to be generally reliable, especially for issues in Los Angeles, and Cerise Castle (the author for the specific report in question) is an established journalist writing about this specific issue. However BLP calls for more than just being reliable, and the allegations that a living person is engaged in criminal activities is an exceptional claim, so if this is the only source for the claim then it shouldn't be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Castle doesn't say that he was a Caveman in her own voice, just that he was aware of them, as well as describing a statement he made about them in a 2019 Board of Supervisors meeting as bizarre, so it's definitely not enough for us to make the connection ourselves. Sesquilinear (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Can we assume prize winner in NYT article refers to the same person as in an wiki article

Article Noam Shazeer states He won a gold medal with perfect score at International Mathematical Olympiad 1994 as a member of the USA team which has a tag. NYT has an article titled Perfect Score for Americans in World Math Tourney from that year that says The six winners were [...] Noam M. Shazeer of Swamp-scott High School, Swampscott, Mass.; This is also listed on the IMO website. NYT should be reliable, but can we assume this refers to the same person? Initially I thought not, but he also won the Putnam Competition which is directly tied to him in this article which states he "led the institution [Duke] to repeated victories in mathematics competitions" which undoubetly refers to the Putnam, where he is listed in the wining team in these primary sources: [41] [42] [43]

Since he is already listed in a reliable secondary source for winning one mathematics competition, can we assume that the person listed in another reliable secondary source refers to the same person? Middle initial is given in both cases. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This doesn’t seem to be a question of source reliability. These are obviously the same person. If you agree, you should add the source. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right. It is more of a WP:OR problem. Maybe I will open a discussion on WP:NORN to be sure. For now I added the sources. J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a situation for using your own good judgement. It's not necessary to to have 100% prove for everything, otherwise we would get into silly situations like arguing over whether the Russian revolution named Stalin meant Joseph Stalin or some random individual named Stalin who happened to take part in the Russian revolution.
Maybe I can't be certain that there aren't multiple mathematical champions named Noam Shazeer, but given that the pool of people who are mathematical champions isn't going to be huge and the amount of them who are going to have that name must be a fractional proportion of the total I think your fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. For now I have added the above source to the article J2UDY7r00CRjH (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

CJ Werleman

CJ Werleman is a serial plagiarist whose work has been pulled from at least one site for it. He has committed at least 14 counts of it, including from Fareed Zakaria, Vali Nasr, Aviva Shen, Robert Pape, and Wikipedia itself. A compilation of his plagiarism which blew this open may be found here. Following this Alternet deleted all of his work from their site and apologized to their readers for platforming him, and this may be found here. Following this, he apologized on his facebook, which may be found here). As such, as a serial plagiarist whose plagiarism has resulted in the pulling of his work from at least one site, he is unreliable, and altogether, he should not be considered WP:RS Ftrhi (talk) 23:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there any details of issues post 2014? He seems to have continued his career as a journalist, and later work hasn't been pulled or called into question. Declaring all his later work unreliable because of an issue over a decade ago seems unjustified. Any of this work from Alternet shouldn't be used, but that's because they pulled the articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there's a statute of limitations on something as serious as plagiarism, especially given he did it at least 14 times. Something that serious should be disqualifying as a reliable source forever, especially given that happened in the exact same field he's currently in (writing columns), and it means on everything he's written since this is a question on it Ftrhi (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you answer my question below? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

No we shouldn't condemn someone for a mistake the made over a decade ago, apologised for, and don't appear to have repeated but rather apparently rebuilt a successful and recognised career. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Message understood Ftrhi (talk) 15:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Is there some particular case where it’s currently being used that you object to? ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Use is being challenged at our article on the Hindu American Foundation. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

On the article on the Hindu American Foundation, I raised the issue. I've been stonewalled without a real explanation on why this source is reliable despite proof to the contrary I found, so I've been forced to raise the issue here. I didn't want to do it, but I felt I had to try at least Ftrhi (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You'll need to find something current or issues with the specific article that is being used at Hindu American Foundation. Per my last reply above, what happened a 12 years ago isn't disqualifying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the article's talk page there's a lot of talk about Werleman being biased. A sources reliability doesn't depend on it's bias, sources are not required to be neutral (see WP:RSBIAS). WP:NPOV is only about Wikipedia's articles, not external sources. Editors have to neutrally reflect what is found in reliable sources, but reliable sources do not have to be neutral. In fact no source is neutral, they just have differing levels and directions of bias. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion had nothing to do with his bias. Most of the sources on that page are biased, so if that was the issue I would've disputed a lot more than that. Instead, I cited those exact same biased sources in what I've written on that article - you can check for yourself if you don't believe me. The issue is that he's not really a journalist, he's basically a tabloid guy. The plagiarism and everything else shows it. Anyways this is just an explanation, I can see making this topic was a mistake on my part Ftrhi (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Bias = undueness, more bias is more undue.

I have no problem calling out HAF, but his work is too sensationalist User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether something is due, or isn't due, for inclusion is a matter of NPOV not reliability. What is included in an article is a matter of NPOV and what is included must have a reliable source, but just because something can be reliably sourced doesn't mean it must be included (WP:VNOT). He can be reliable, as bias doesn't effect reliability, and yet not due inclusion because of his bias (WP:BALASP).
As an example he could reliably report an incident, even if he frames it in a biased way, but if he is the only person reporting that incident, or framing it that way, then his report may be so minor as to not warrant inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been stonewalled this does not appear to be true. I see a multi-party discussion with various people engaging with each other's points, mostly constructively (although one of them may not be able to contribute to it for much longer). I suggest you continue to engage on the article talk-page to form a consensus, remembering that people won't always all agree and that's ok because this is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. Making a concrete proposal on the talk-page to focus discussion might help. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that the points I make have been dismissed by sentences saying it's not relevant or calling my arguments "preposterous" or other matters like, without explanation as to why. It seems as if I have been presumed to be bad faith, and nothing I can say otherwise can stop such a presumption, which makes it impossible to create a consensus. This is the reason I have come here. But anyways this hasn't budged the needle so that's it then Ftrhi (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

People not finding your arguments persuasive (or, indeed, finding them preposterous) is not "stonewalling", it is disagreeing. I see several people (here and there) articulating views that suggest they might be amenable to changes you would like; I don't really know what to suggest if you don't notice that also and don't know how to work with it. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If they abstain from explaining why, even after I invite them to do so - there is no way I can work with it Ftrhi (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

• I think he is now more a crusader than a journalist.[44] His regular journalism should be fine (if he still does any), but using him as a WP:PRIMARY source should be done with extreme caution. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I really dont like using him as a source, his sensationalist anti-hindu, anti-israel, anti-etc. polemic is difficult to separate from his supposed journalism work.

if there is something important and due to cite more suitable sourcing probably covers it. If it doesnt, it probably wasnt due in the first place. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with citing his journalistic work, see WP:BIASED. Zalaraz (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal for a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity

Please see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 06:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Let me note that this is relevant here given the "Broaden the range of permissible sources" element of that proposed project. What do they want to broaden to: Reddit? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no need to be coy about this, Sanger has been very clear elsewhere online about about his intent. The purpose is to better align Wikipedia to his own personal politics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Actively, as I said on my response there, I was unaware of the political issues. All I knew about Sanger was that he was the fellow who thought Wikipedia would never work. So with a track record like that... Will they succeed? I would bet 5 to 1 against it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't comment on Reddit, but in various interviews Sanger has stated we should cite Breitbart and Fox News, and that we should be directly citing religious texts for article content more. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Which ones? Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• The speech wars come for Wikipedia --Politico
• MAGA Melts Down Over Wikipedia ‘Blacklist’ --Yahoo News

"His 'Nine Theses' proposals would partly make Wikipedia more like a freewheeling social media site, with features allowing the public to rate articles, upload competing articles and post X-style community notes. Sanger also argues that sources like Fox News and Breitbart should be on more equal footing with the New York Times."

Also see: User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia Can Be Biased On "Disputed" Issues, Says Co-Founder Larry Sanger - NDTV - Sanger suggested that one of the key challenges lies in Wikipedia's heavy reliance on what it considers "reliable sources". According to him, "A lot of Hindu sources are essentially blacklisted. One is not able to use them on Wikipedia. And this is not just a Hindu thing, either. The same is true of a lot of Israeli nationalist sources or just Christian confessional sources. These things are ruled out. And then there are other policies that matter."

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Roya News

Is Roya News considered reliable?

I'm trying to verify a claim that Israel is disguising explosives as toys. [45] I did a search on Google News and could only find two other sources that corroborate this. [46] [47] It doesn't look like The New Arab has been discussed here, but editors have deemed The Canary to be an unreliable source.

Snopes investigated a similar claim last year but did not come to a conclusion. [48]

Furthermore, Roya News is biased in the sense that it does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel or the Government of Iran. Is this bias strong enough to make a difference? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The Royal News piece doesn't appear to say that Israel dropped explosives disguised as toys, but that a Lebanese resident said they did to a NBN reporter. The New Arab piece is much the same it doesn't say that Israel disguised explosives as toys, but that Gaza health officials have alleged that is the case and that the cluster munitions Israel used in south Lebanon could be mistaken for a football. Most news organisations are very careful about how they state things, only putting it in their own voice if they are certain of it.
The claim that a country, even one with Israel's current track record, is committing what would amount to war crimes needs exceptional sourcing. Personally I would want something more concrete than these sources to say it in wikivoice, but the New Arab piece could be reliable for the attributed statement that the Gaza health officials have alleged the claim. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Yup… in news reporting there is a HUGE difference between saying “X says Y happened”, and saying “Y happened”. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

This report by Child Rights International Network [49] (warning this downloads a .doc file) states

The strategies and policies of the Israel Defense Force disproportionately endangered the lives and welfare of children. These strategies and policies include inter alia, (1) massive, indiscriminate military offensives, (2) deliberate targeting of civilian objects, (3) the illegal use of certain types of munitions -, i.e., incendiary munitions, cluster bombs, flechette shells --on civilian objects, (4) the planting of mines, and (5) the rigging of toys with explosive

The report goes on to detail evidence for this claim (pages 31-33).

However, this is about past conflicts in Israel, not the current one. Katzrockso (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That's much better source than the others mentioned. Attribution might be appropriate as with other advocacy organisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yad Vashem

Is Yad Vashem considered a reliable source? Specifically, can this document be used as a source on Wikipedia?

I want to use the source to support the ideologies of Ustaše, but @Peripteros called it "pointed" and challenged its reliability.

The discussion is here: Talk:Ustaše#add to Ideology

Thank you. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Very much context-dependant. In this case, the document says that the Ustasa murdered half a million Serbs. There are far better sources for how many Serbs were killed by the Ustasa, and this figure is far above the academic consensus, and leads me to conclude that Yad Vashem is not reliable in this context. It isn’t an area Yad Vashem has strong academic ties to, they are more focussed on anti-Semitic crimes than the genocidal policies of the Ustasa against Serbs. Academics like Tomasevich, Pavlowich, Hoare, Ramet etc have discussed the numbers of Serbs (and others) killed in Yugoslavia in considerable detail, and are far preferable to pdfs without specified authors that make broad claims but do not state where they got the numbers from. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This dispute is about adding ideologies of the Ustaša to the infobox, not about how many Serbs they've killed. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The same document you want to use contains inaccuracies about the numbers of Serbs killed by the Ustasa. Why would anyone assume that it was accurate in other respects? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:SKYISBLUE? Are you really suggesting that if they had killed 500.000 Serbs we couldn't say that they have an "Anti-Serb sentiment", but if they had killed more Serbs then we could?

I am struggling to understand your position/argument here. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

this figure [500 thousand] is far above the academic consensus, and leads me to conclude that Yad Vashem is not reliable in this context

The premise here seems to be wrong. Our own article includes estimates that are higher and lower than the 500k figure. Yad Vashem is a reliable source for Nazi crimes - even if in this case we might want to use scholarly sources that discuss Ustashe specifically. Alaexis_¿question? 09:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

That article isn't the best, and it uses Yad Vashem for the higher figure. These are not Nazi crimes, the Ustashas did this all on their own. The preponderance of academic estimates is more than 100,000 less. USHMM is a far better source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The article also cites much higher figures

These figures included 400,000 Serbs (Alexander Löhr); 500,000 Serbs (Lothar Rendulic); 250,000 to March 1943 (Edmund Glaise von Horstenau); more than "3/4 of a million Serbs" (Hermann Neubacher) in 1943; 600,000–700,000 in concentration camps until March 1944 (Ernst Fick); 700,000 (Massenbach).

So the 500k figure doesn't seem to be an outlier. Alaexis_¿question? 11:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

USHMM is a far better source. You say that, but in this edit you removed a USHMM source, saying they [USHMM and Human Rights Watch] are not "subject-matter experts" on the NDH. We don't require RSes to also be SMEs (if SME even applies to organisations). Can you quote the relevant policy or guideline that influnced your edit? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yad Vashem is reliable for Holocaust related matters but this specific document is a general educational summary not peer-reviewed scholarship. That said the characterisation of Ustaše ideology it contains is well supported in the academic literature, as the sources assembled by Cdjp1 show. KeystoneUEA (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have gone off course. The issue is whether the Ustasa were antiserbian, not the number of deaths they caused.
Would this help, or is it still to indirect:
"The Ustaša was, first and foremost, anti-Yugoslav and thus implicitly anti-Serbian ..." p. 1715
Iordachi, Constantin; Miljan, Goran (17 November 2023). "'Why We Have Become Revolutionaries and Murderers': Radicalization, Terrorism, and Fascism in the Ustaša–Croatian Revolutionary Organization". Terrorism and Political Violence. 35 (8): 1704–1723. doi:10.1080/09546553.2022.2077730.
-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

While Yad Vashem is GREL, in my opinion, a lot of their hosted PDF documents are lacking in what we'd like to see as indicating them as documents of some import. Now on the anti-Serbianism, alongside ActivelyDisinterested's suggestion, I have also found the following.

1. Trifković, Srdja (1990). The Ustaša Movement and European Politics, 1929–1945 (PhD). University of Southampton. The Ustašas refused to acknowledge that having a Serbian national consciousness was not a political act or in any sense something one [did not] intentionally choose. Such an admission would have made their anti-Serbian policies look like a campaign against innocent people.
2. Bartulin, Nevenko (2008). "The Ideology of Nation and Race: the Croatian Ustasha Regime and its Policies toward the Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia 1941–1945". Croatian Studies Review - Časopis hrvatskih studija (5): 75–102. In a welcome critical analysis, Mark Biondich has recently brought attention to how little the Ustashe were motivated in their anti-Serbian measures by Catholicism. and In that sense anti-Yugoslavism was actually more central to Ustasha ideology than anti-Serbianism.
3. McCormick, Rob (2008). "The United States' Response to Genocide in the Independent State of Croatia, 1941–1945". Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal. 3 (1): 75–98. Fully embracing the anti-Serb views of Starčević and Frank, and believing that a professional revolutionary organization was needed if Croatia were to gain its independence, Pavelić, a lawyer by training, established the Ustaše along the lines of Bulgaria's infamous Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO).
4. Levy, Michele Frucht (2009). ""The Last Bullet for the Last Serb":1 The Ustaša Genocide against Serbs: 1941–1945". Nationalities Papers. 37 (6): 807–837. doi:10.1080/00905990903239174. His son Dido suggested that Anti-Serbdom was "the quintessence of the Ustasa doctrine, its raison d'etre."
5. Korb, Alexander (2010). "Understanding Ustaša violence". Journal of Genocide Research. 12 (1–2): 1–18. doi:10.1080/14623528.2010.508273. Only in late 1942 did the Germans increase the pressure upon the Ustaša to curb their aggressive anti-Serb policies. and Ustaša anti-Semitism was also of a particular kind, as it was shaped by the anti-Serb ideology.
6. Gavrilovic, Darko (2016). "How the ustasha regime exploited prejudices and stereotypes about jews in creating the myth about enemy". The Journal of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University: 78–84. It should be mentioned that the Ustasha ideology had its specificity compared to other similar movements, and those were anti-Yugoslav and anti-Serb feelings connected with confessional and religious intolerance.
7. Retchkiman, Golda (2020). "The Ustaše and the Roman Catholic Church in the Independent State of Croatia". Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe. 40 (1): 78–96. The Ustaša movement was fundamentally anti-Serbian and since its creation in 1930, it spread odium against the Serbs.
8. Bartulin, Nevenko (February–April 2023). "Race Theory versus a Religious World-View: SS–Ustaša Relations and Islam in the Independent State of Croatia". The English Historical Review. 138 (590–591): 222–250. doi:10.1093/ehr/cead025. Accordingly, the Ustaša state’s extreme anti-Serb policy was viewed as a threat to both the NDH’s existence and German economic and military interests in the Balkans.
9. Škiljan, Filip (2025). "Abuses against Serbs in the Districts of Otočac and Brinje in World War II with a Special Focus on Religious Conversions". Balcanica. LVI: 177–204. doi:10.2298/BALC2556177S. Mile Budak was one of the Ustaše leaders from Lika who held anti-Serbian speeches in Lika's villages and towns.

-- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I would also note, looking at the article, we would probably want the notion of anti-Serbianism to be covered in more depth (if RS support such weight) in the body text, to justify inclusion in the infobox. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

These sources look significantly more robust and credible than what was originally proposed. I will defer to editors with more subject matter expertise to see how they're implemented on the article. Readers will undoubtedly want clarity on the differences between (a) anti-Serb, (b) anti-Serbian, (c) anti-Serbdom and (d) anti-Serbianism. Is anti-Yugoslav also added? Are these concepts contextualized within ultranationalism or are they separate? Is it anti-Semitism? Was this ideology of the Ustaša, the organization's leaders, or the NDH – all three? Does sentiment or policies equate ideology? Questions to consider while working through these improved reliable sources. Peripteros (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The Ustaše rounded up Serbians and beat them to death with sticks, because they were Serbian. They were antiserbian, antisemitic, anti-Yugoslavia, they were many things, all those things were part of their ultranationism as such hatreds are generally apart of ultranationalism. Whether is was the ideology, leaders, or NDH only matters as much as reliable sources make note of it. In the end such distinctions mattered very little to the people being beaten to death. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:SEALIONING. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

anti-Serb = anti-Serbian = anti-Serbdom = anti-Serbianism.

In addition to this, as is quite often the case, there were other bigotries that formed the ideological framework of hate including anti-Yugslavism and antisemitism. The sources show that these ideologies were held by the Ustaša and it's leadership, and were enacted as policies and actions. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

anti-Serb = anti-Serbian = anti-Serbdom = anti-Serbianism. while I think it’s pretty clear that the Ustase were all of these (I mean, what with the mass murder and all), abstractly it is possible to imagine an anti-Serbianist position that is not anti-Serb — probably a lot of nonviolent support for Slovenian or Albanian language use over the history of Yugoslavia would fall in that category. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

probably a lot of nonviolent support for Slovenian or Albanian language use over the history of Yugoslavia would fall in that category.

Slovenian was the official language of the Socialist Republic Slovenia, along with Serbo-Croatian. Albania was never part of Yugoslavia, although Albanians were a recognised minority within Yugoslavia, and Albanian was one of the official languages in the Kosovo Autonomous Region. So no, that wouldn't explain "anti-Serbianism". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don’t think you have understood my point at all but I also don’t think it’s worth arguing about (especially not with someone who thinks I might know about the minority languages of Yugoslavia but not know whether Albania was every part of Yugoslavia? I mean ok whatever). ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

And such language policies and positions are not what are under discussion. What is under discussion is whether the Ustaša were anti-Serb/ian/dom/ianism. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Indeed! I'm sorry for derailing it further. No more off-topic posts from me! Feel free to collapse the off-topic posts. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes and you wrote that these are synonymous and I disagreed with that claim while also pointing out that the wrong claim doesn't affect the underlying truth that all of these terms (including the relevant one, "anti-Serb") apply to the Ustase. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Title for new David Fincher film

David Fincher has a new film coming out later this year.

The film has been referenced as "The Adventures of Cliff Both" at Deadline. Variety has referred to it as "Cliff Booth". The Netflix announcement did not list a title, and AMC Theaters listing for the film is "Untitled Fincher Project". What's-on-netflix has stated the film is untitled.

I believe based on Netflix not listing a title (and AMC to a lesser extent) that the film should labeled "Untitled Cliff Booth Film". While Hollywood trades have decided to label it "The Adventures of Cliff Booth", there's been no official proof of that.

The article is currently listed as "The Adventures of Cliff Booth", my goal is to have it named "Untitled Cliff Booth Film". Seeking to get broader consensus on which is more appropriate or accurate. Iheartmylibrary22 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you tried starting a move discussion? Read WP:RSPM to learn how to request a single page move. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It was moved and reverted, as TurboSuperA+ said the next step would be a formal move discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

june 2026

hello are these sources considered reliable in context of this edit

''Katoor dynasty traces its origin to Ayub Baba an adventurer from Khorasan who came to Chitral in 1520. He was son of Mirza Kamran and grandson of Babur.'

this edit was reverted by @Sutyarashi per these source being non rs Dragon22121 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with them. The University of the Punjab (sources 2,3,4) is very much a proper university and the "Research Society of Pakistan" is part of it. Timothy Venning (source 1) has multiple academic publications to his name. WaggersTALK 07:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

thanks i am reverting it since the user hasnt given me any sufficient reason or tried to reply Dragon22121 (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Do be careful, because even if you're right, edit warring is not advised. Try to start a discussion in Talk:Katoor dynasty as well. Sesquilinear (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

References

Queer Majority

Paul, Jamie (21 June 2023). "The Culture Wars Come For Sex Research". Queer Majority. Retrieved 21 June 2026.—is this WP:RS? For Judith Reisman. Asking before performing edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, Jamie Paul is the Managing Editor of Queer Majority, and there is no editorial/publishing position listed as being above that. As such, this should qualify as a WP:SPS, and the the question is whether Paul is an expert in whatever you're seeking to cite from the article... which would be easier to tell if we knew what you were citing it for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The edit is [50]. Also [51]. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oops. He seems pro-LGB, but anti-T. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

These look like the sort of things where SPS material is of particular concern. You're citing him for his insights, but his bio says he has a BS in film and a background in business -- nothing that qualifies him as an expert in what he's talking about. Unless you can point to outside usage that marks him as an expert or these specific statements as being worthy of attention, it's best to forego them. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

There is the WP:REDFLAG of "autogynephilia", otherwise the article seems professionally written. Meanwhile, I have self-reverted. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It seems it is WP:CITED in several articles, so I will go with established precedent. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Being used in Wikipedia articles means very little, Wikipedia is used thousands of time even though it's explicitly unreliable per WP:UGC and WP:CIRCULAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Article by Ben Sichel on Halifax Media Co-op Site

Cited Article: The Canadian Taxpayers Federation: A Myopic Watchdog? . Site: Halifax Media Co-op. Author: Ben Sichel a local high school teacher. Cited to support a claim in Wikipedia article Canadian Taxpayers Federation: In 2010, the same federal director told the Halifax Media Co-op, "We don't believe there's such thing as man-made climate change ..." (The unnamed director was Kevin Gaudet.) Viriditas added that, I claimed it was poorly sourced, we disputed on the talk page, impasse. I'm repeating my arguments here about the "We" quote.

The source is the Halifax Media Co-op article by Ben Sichel, who doesn't bother with the journalism checklist Five Ws -- skipping Where or When or Why and condensing What so we can't know what words immediately preceded or followed those ten words.

Now here's something with more Ws, a transcript from the House Of Commons Standing Committee on Finance (FINA Committee) Meeting March 17, 2021. The Chair Hon. Wayne Easter was Liberal MP Malpeque. Mr. Peter Fragiskatos was Liberal MP London North Centre. Mr. Aaron Wudrick was federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. The meeting was to discuss bill C-14 Economic Statement Implementation Act. ...
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
... Climate change is, I believe, the central challenge of our time. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
It's certainly one of the biggest challenges of our time. I don't dispute the reality of climate change. I don't have strong views on most of the rest of that bill. The main focus we have, the main concern we have, is with the debt ceiling. I would note that there is an easier way to get these measures passed: produce a federal budget. We would welcome seeing a robust federal budget, and then we could debate the validity of the policies contained in it.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
A budget is going to be presented, Mr. Wudrick.
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
That's great.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
Does that mean, then, that the view of the Taxpayers Federation has changed? I'm quoting one of your directors, Kevin Gaudet, who said on behalf of the federation, speaking for the group, that “We don't believe there's such thing as man-made climate change”, adding that initiatives such as cap and trade are in no way proved to reduce CO2 emissions. Does that mean the organization now believes that climate change is a human-made phenomenon, predominantly?
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
Yes. Yes.
Well, you say that he's speaking “on behalf of” the CTF, we don't actually have a corporate view on those issues. We're not an environmental organization. I personally—
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
I don't mean to interrupt you, but I'm running out of time. I think any organization worth its salt, even those that are focused on the economy, and especially those focused on the economy, will recognize, Mr. Wudrick—
The Chair:
Peter, we'll have to allow Mr. Wudrick to respond. Go ahead, Mr. Wudrick.
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
I absolutely agree that man-made climate change is real and it is a serious concern.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
Okay. Well, that's good to know, but it's interesting that one of your directors is of a different point of view. I don't mean to—
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
That was 12 years ago, so with respect—
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
It's good to see that things have evolved.
Mr. Aaron Wudrick:
Certainly.
Mr. Peter Fragiskatos:
It's not an attack here, but I take issue—
,,,

So in 2021 a Canadian Taxpayers Federation director told a commons committee that yes the Federation thinks climate change is predominantly human-made but the Federation takes no climate change stand, the long-ago words attributed to Kevin Gaudet were not on behalf of the Federation, the director himself thinks climate change is real and serious. Thus the Halifax Media Cooperative article is not just a poor source, it's refuted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the first time I think I've someone put forward that the word "we" does not include the speaker within it. The source is not refuted. Seriously. How did you think this was a refutation? Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the problem: report that their director said ""We don't believe there's such thing as man-made climate change”, adding that initiatives such as cap and trade are in no way proved to reduce CO2 emissions." and that twelve years later another director said that human caused climate change is real and that they don't have an official position on it. Rolluik (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I see the problem: poor source for saying the Federation is into climate denial. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Origo.hu

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.

---

How reliable is Origo.hu?

• Option 1: Generally reliable (WP:GREL)
• Option 2: Marginally reliable (WP:MREL)
• Option 3: Generally unreliable (WP:GUNREL)
• Option 4: Deprecate (WP:DEPREC)
• Option 5: Disallow except for special use cases (e. g. WP:ABOUTSELF)

Reason for discussion:

• Searching for RSN archives, I found 2 sections that mention the website, but its reliability was not assessed in either – in both cases, distinct websites were assessed.
• From 2014, Origo.hu became primarily right-wing (while this is bias, so not a reason for unreliability, this is a reason justifying in-text attribution requirements).
• Origo.hu lost many procedures about misrepresenting or falsifying information (a few examples from recent years: it lost 21 procedures in 2019, 20 in 2020, 13 in both 2021 and 2022, 4 in 2023, 13 in 2024).
• Origo.hu's headlines are often written as clickbait (often used wordings include "Nagy a baj" ("There's a big issue"), "Veszélyben a Föld?" ("Is the Earth in danger?")). Many articles are about events that happened in the very far past (like the Snowball Earth events or the Cambrian Explosion) or will only happen in the distant future (e. g. events in the timeline of the far future). (Notable exceptions worthy of articles about these events are when scientists add information about such events, but many articles about distant events are just said events' retellings without added information.) For those cases where actual journal articles are cited, one can just cite the same journal article.
• I mentioned clickbait, but I'd also mention the large quantities of content related to notable people's (or their relatives') breasts (glutes, abs, etc.). The majority of these articles is just not valuable.
• Many conspiracy-theory-related articles are on the website.
• By-lines become increasingly rare (at least from 2020), to the point of the majority of 2025 and 2026 articles having none (indicating a staff-written article).

Other notes:

• Additional information about your opinion is welcome, including why you split your opinion if you do so.
• Before 2017, articles could be commented. In 2017, however, this feature was removed due to large amounts of spam. These are user-generated content, so largely unreliable.

Alfa-ketosav (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Probably premature - not sure how many times it is used on enwiki; in what context did its usage prompt this RfC?

Otherwise, standard NEWSORG Option 1 until 2015 and Fidesz propaganda site Option 3 from 2016 onwards. ~2026-36224-33 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It is used a total of 1630 times, 1460 of which is in articles, and over 500 is to articles published after 2015. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close as per the header and edit notice that say not to create RFCs without prior discussion. If you want to discuss the reliability of a source that doesn't require a RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Support speedy close, I have realized I misused RSN. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:51, 23 June 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.

Including a scientist's own paper in his Bibliography section on Leik Myrabo

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.

---

• Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leik_Myrabo
• Talk page discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Leik_Myrabo#What_policy_or_guideline_validates_removing_this_from_his_bibliography?
• Section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leik_Myrabo#Selected_publications
• Paper: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19850024873 / https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19850024873/downloads/19850024873.pdf
• Google Scholar of paper: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=https%3A%2F%2Fntrs.nasa.gov%2Fcitations%2F19850024873&btnG=

Leik Myrabo is a notable expert in Beam-powered propulsion, Laser propulsion, Lightcraft and similar. His article included the following verbatim that was removed by two different users claiming it was WP:FRINGE and WP:POVPUSH due to claims by editors that the paper is apparently UFO-friendly in (I'm not totally following the logic) because of the fact people may search for UFO-related topics due to the text string "field propulsion".

This was removed:

Technical reports and contractor studies

Myrabo, Leik N. (1983). Advanced Beamed-Energy and Field Propulsion Concepts. NASA Contractor Report NASA-CR-176108. Braddock Dunn & McDonald Corporation for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

There is an ongoing 20-year long kerkuffle related to the article Field propulsion, where it survived AFD in 2007 and now is up for AfD. Some users have since been trying to "contain" any mentions of that text string "field propulsion" to only be on that once single page. The Myrabo paper is used as a source on Field propulsion.

It was not used as a source on Leik Myrabo; it was simply in his Bibliography.

Is it incorrect or is it suitable to link the scientists own paper in his bibliography here? NOTE: I am only interested in placing it back into his Biblography as-is. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 19:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This is about inclusion of content, not reliability. The question is whether to include a piece of fringe scholarship in the article about that scholar, that's NPOV / FRINGE not reliability. It would only be a reliability issue if you were trying to use this source to support content in an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. They were talking about how they wanted to exclude this for not being reliable or "refereed". I started a WP:NPOVN here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Including_a_scientist's_own_paper_in_his_Bibliography_section_on_Leik_Myrabo — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:36, 23 June 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.

Aspire Navigators

Found on the article Francesco del Bene, the magazine publisher Aspire Navigators. I'm assuming you can just contact them and they'll make a whole e-magazine with you on the cover? --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Another source there has the title "Francesco del Bene: The Silent Force Behind Global Finance and Institutional Stability". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What is this site...? https://aspirenavigators.com/serge-deuvletian-the-man-who-learned-purpose-through-struggle/ — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 12:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Flicking through a few of their articles they appear, at least in part, to be AI generated. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Correction. The link was to World Business Insights - both of which feature a man named "Serge Deuvletian" on the front page. A search for that name also leads to Achiever Magazine. Seems they're all part of a network? --Gert7 (talk · contribs) 12:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Given the latest magazine cover from World Business Insights is this[53], and the latest Aspire Navigator is this[54], I don't think it matters which one it is.
Either they're both PR outlets picking up the same business, or they're the same business with multiple outlets. Probably reliable for details that would be acceptable under WP:ABOUTSELF, but I don't think it's independent of the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

All three of these websites are basically self-promo AI written spam garbage and should be spam blacklisted.

• https://worldbusinessinsights.com
• https://www.achiever-magazine.com
• https://aspirenavigators.com

These also appear to be in the same network:

• https://globalentrepreneurinsights.com
• https://impaakt.co
• https://theexecutivelens.com

Blacklist them all. qcne (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Effects of pornography

• Sukenik, Danielle (11 April 2025), Pornography may be commonplace, but a growing body of research shows it causes lasting harm to the brain and relationships, The Conversation, doi:10.64628/aai.rpkqq49d6

Is this reliable for [55]? tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC) tgeorgescu (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As an attributed claim, maybe. But is it making a medical claim? Slatersteven (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a doctor writing it, based on cites to medical studies which seem well-received. Is that sort of thing MEDRS suitable? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Not really as that is why MEDRS sourcers are peer-reviewed medical journals. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Colin: if memory serves you are well versed in MEDRS. Does this topic/claim fall into the remit of a "medical claim"? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The policy does not provide that it is required to be a medical journal.

"Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge."

The Conversation article meets this standard. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The papers that paper cites seem well received? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It (the edit) conflates between pornography and PPU. The post conflates between correlation and causation. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think The Conversation meets the standard for MEDRS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Marks, David F.; Murray, Michael; Estacio, Emee Vida (2018). Health Psychology: Theory, Research and Practice. SAGE Publications. p. 229. ISBN 978-1-5264-1206-5. Retrieved 7 November 2024. The majority of studies in this field are cross-sectional surveys of low quality.

Unless this major flaw gets addressed, there is no way to know for sure. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This is from 2018. The Conversation article cites several studies that are more resent than this. It also compares a 2022 study with a 2005 study and shows how the impact is getting worse. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The irony is that the YouTube video included at that page is seven years old, but it is a lot more epistemically responsible, and honestly tells us what it is unknown. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Is the youtube video in the Conversation article? PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says the article is untrue? Otherwise, it's OR.

It's a systemic review of the studies that we currently have. It is written in a reputable journal that publishes subject matter experts. She certainly is a subject matter expert. Due to the potentially harmful effects, there probably will never be a "double-blind" study showing that pornography is harmful so despite the significant amount of studies, holding a reliable source to a "causation" standard is unrealistic.

"Since it may be difficult or ethically impossible to run controlled double-blind studies to address certain questions, correlational evidence from several different angles may be useful for prediction despite failing to provide evidence for causation."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, the question is not whether it's "true", but whether it complies with WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

For the reasons outlined above (reputable source, subject matter expert with a systemic review of the studies), it does comply with MEDPRS. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

A journalistic article it not the same as a systematic review published in a peer-reviewed journal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As outlined above, that is not the standard required by the policy. PerseusMeredith (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to trust my own judgement over what is MEDRS. The problem is that you're pushing sources that say that pornography, is harmful, when high quality sources say that the academic evidence of harm is mixed/inconclusive. The first page of the book "Fifty years of academic research on pornography" (freely available on researchgate) (2022) says:

Lobbyists argue that pornography has negative effects, including that it: "increases problematic sexual activity among teens, normalizes violence against women, contributes to sex trafficking, causes problems in intimate relationships, and is ‘potentially biologically addictive.’" (Khazan, 2021) However, despite this vigorous and visible campaigning against pornography, Khazan notes that the evidence on the issue is not clear: ‘Whether porn is actually harming the health of adults who watch it is frustratingly hard to determine’ (Khazan, 2021, np). Despite the assertions of campaigners that pornography has straightforward effects, it is difficult to get a clear overview of what academic research tells us about the relationship between the consumption of sexually explicit materials and healthy sexual development.

The abstract for the first chapter of "Pornography and Public Health", published in 2021 (accessible here) says:

Pornography is being indicted as a public health crisis in the United States and elsewhere, but the professional public health community is not behind the recent push to address pornography as a public health threat. While pornography may not be contributing directly to mortality or acute morbidity for a substantial percentage of people, it may be influencing other public health problems, such as sexual violence, dating abuse, compulsive behavior, and sexually transmitted infections. However, the evidence to support pornography as a causal factor is mixed, and there are numerous other factors that have more strongly established associations with these outcomes of interest.Throughout history, repressive forces have inflated the charges against sexually explicit material in order to advance a morality-based agenda.

Clearly, something more nuanced is needed here than just "pornography harmful". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that one book is the definitive source of the effect of pornography? What reliable source do you have that makes this more reliable than The Conversation? Again, I'm citing a reliable source per wikipedia guidelines with a subject matter expert reviewing multiple studies. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The post simply reflects her own opinion, nothing more than that. It is not a peer reviewed scientific article in any meaningful sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, the 2022 study is evidence of use, not evidence of harm. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. This is increasingly looking like trying to jam in a source that doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. And there are good reasons to want to be strict on this issue. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The study references children viewing pornography (10 and under). It is well-established that children viewing pornography is harmful. She cites 12 studies in total so it's not like her research rests on one study. The Conversation article demonstrates the "growing body of research" statement. I'm fine if you want to clarify that it pertains to "problematic" use. I think that's a fair compromise but the article belongs in the wikipedia article. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No, the issue here is that the Conversation source is not WP:MEDRS compliant. Furthermore, the 2022 study should not be used in any ways that indicate WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

What is the basis for it not being compliant? It's a reliable, secondary source, authored by a subject matter expert that is a review of several studies. PerseusMeredith (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It is well-established that children viewing pornography is harmful. Nope, it's not. That's a moralistic assumption, not a result of empirical science.

There are tentative conclusions that watching pornography could be bad for minors. But hard evidence is direly lacking.

What did Zillmann manage to show? Minors exposed to porn become liberals. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers, and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. The Conversation is none of these. Simonm223 (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That's narrowing the definition to "ideal."

This is the definition:

"Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." PerseusMeredith (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It is grossly insufficient for a broad claim that pornography is harmful to the human brain such as what you wanted to include and where we would reasonably expect WP:BESTSOURCES. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

But when I click on the reliable sources, The Conversation comes up.... I don't see how a reliable source, with a subject matter expert, summarizing 12 different studies that show a growing body of research as harmful is grossly insufficient?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/all/The_Conversation PerseusMeredith (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

According to WP:MEDASSESS, it's a weak source (e.g. no peer review). While the claim you made is bigger than life.

It's simply an opinion article with a list of sources, not a systematic review.

Willoughby and Dover explicitly do not make a causal claim. Same applies to Guidry et al. And to Andrie et al. And to Kühn and Gallinat.

Conclusion: by positing a causal relationship from porn to lasting harm, Sukenik has misread those papers. And that's a leap of faith, not logical reasoning. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 And this is precisely why we don't use weaker sources for broad medical claims. Simonm223 (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Reliability of CBS News under Bari Weiss

How reliable is CBS News under the leadership of Bari Weiss? Prior discussion here.

The options are:

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations needed
3. Generally Unreliable
4. Deprecate

Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

CBS News Weiss Survey

• Option 3: Generally Unreliable for any and all United States political (Federal, state, local), United States geopolitical, and related U.S. geopolitical matters related to Gaza, Iran, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, the European Union, and NATO. Anything sourced to modern Weiss CBS News for same needs additional corroborating non-CBS sourcing. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• The case for general unreliability is not made, imo, Pelley resisted whatever thing Weiss wanted. In other words, that shows editorial controls working. And "propaganda palooza" is another way to say very biased. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1. - a disgruntled former co-worker is not a reason to make a source unreliable. Also, this statement is patently false. “intentionally trying to kill an ICE officer (though he resisted,” PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please put the text in the right section. Also, I made it clearer. RedDeadGuy (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  It still has the false statement. Pelley alleges that Weiss wanted him to state that Good was,

  "driving toward the officer" PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Whatever, the OP was rewritten. RedDeadGuy (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  But it's still not accurate. PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option 3 It does appear that editorial interference is causing chaos at CBS. I would also periodize this specifically to the start of the Bari Weiss tenure. Example sources discussing the problems there: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1. Evidence of unreliability has not been established; that the management has experienced problems is not unreliability. The idea of declaring 60 Minutes, one of the most significant news magazines ever, unreliable for delaying releasing something is ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sources also report Weiss pressured Pelley to lie on his report about Renee Good. RedDeadGuy (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1/2/too soon we need to wait until the unreliable news has been published. There are reports they have thrown wrenches in the gears but we are by definition, taking a WP:LAGGING stance of the world (yeah i know thats a notability guideline, but we must take a wait and see approach)
  Bari weiss is definitely concerning but we need a smoking gun, not that she did editorail bias. Maybe we state cbs is a biased source now? (Though i feel we need more evn for that) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites below captures my feelings exactly User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that we currently have FOX as MREL for non-political/science topics. Are we saying that CBS is even more biased than FOX, to the point that even their non-political/science reporting has to be considered GUNREL? If so, why? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth I suppose that I at least Support Option 2 while reserving judgement on whether or not taking the step to Option 3 is warranted. Granted, I think most news outlets should be thought of as MREL for publications that amount to more than just basic news reporting, considering questionable editorial and Pulitzer Prize winners get published next to each other. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there are allegations of editorial interference and a ton of justifiable criticism directed at Weiss, but where is the pile of links showing uncorrected factual errors or other concrete problems with what's actually been published? There are all manner of news organizations more overtly biased than this that we nonetheless consider reliable because what they don't let that bias erode their factual accuracy. There are claims about efforts to do so at CBS, but to what extent has it happened? In general, while the legal and ideological capitulation of CBS News/its parents suggest a deleterious trajectory, we need to actually see that manifest in factual unreliability. TL;DR seriously premature, and as I've said before I'd love it if we could just stop using this genre of source-bucketing RfC for anything other than extreme cases. It's possible to just talk about what's going on with a source without jumping into a vote. Sigh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I also feel like we could have just had a standard discussion instead of reaching for the RfC button. It was about half a year ago since the last discussion about CBS and I'm not aware of widespread disputes about usage of it as a source. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Option 1. I agree with Rhododendrites. So far no evidence has been presented that CBS News is currently an unreliable source. There has been a lot of upset and a change in leadership that has recieved a lot of coverage. But that does not translate into general unreliability at this point. This survey is premature, imho. --Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2 with a side of too soon - I agree with others that we don't yet have sufficient evidence of breaching norms reliability, and I think Maltazarian's highlighting of how this case compares to FOX is relevant. That having been said, based on the RS reporting of Pelley's firing, there is a credible allegation that the editorial leadership of 60 Minutes insisted on including false reporting relating to Renee Good, that this was rejected by the journalist, and that the journalist was consequently fired; while I wouldn't throw out any of CBS News's coverage just yet, this incident gives cause for serious pause if we were to come across an example of CBS (and especially 60 Minutes) making WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that aren't repeated by other RS, especially in relation to US politics. That's not GUNREL, but it's not quite GREL either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  If CBS is firing journalists who refuse to falsify reports then it raises the question of how many journalists are complying to protect their jobs. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think that's basically the essence of my argument, yes. CBS also tends to cover topics that get abundant attention from other RS, so it should be relatively simple to identify points where they do step out of line if that happens. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, the firing is not tied to the January reporting, much other stuff happened in May, and it centered on some supposed things he said in a meeting to a new editor who was not there in January. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  But the biased reporting wasnt published though.

  we cant judge a source for what wasnt published even if they got really close to having put it out. Im close to an option 2 myself but think we really cannot ding for bias until the trigger is pulled and we see cbs put stuff out we know is unreliabel/undue/biased af User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally Unreliable There is clear evidence of political interference in CBS News output. This goes beyond WP:BIASEDSOURCES and is broadly on-par with a British tabloid newspaper now. Weiss isn't the only person in this story but her appointment was the crossing of the Rubicon marking a decisive shift away from responsible journalism. The decline started immediately after. Maybe there was some interference before that. Maybe there was some successful resistance to interference for a short time after that. Nonetheless, that's where the line should be drawn. I'm not sure if there is anything to gain by trying to set different levels for different topics. It's like the curate's egg. If any part of it is rotten then the whole thing is bad. It's about the organisation as a whole. (BTW, I see the disparity with Fox News. That's probably worth revisiting separately but it's off-topic here.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Let's also note that CBS News New York does not run the news operations of its affiliates, each have there own editorial staff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Rhododendrites. Should anyone want to read a copy of the letter firing Pelley / outlining the ostensible reasons for his firing, there's a copy here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy close Why was their no discussion prior to this, what evidence is there that the factual accuracy of CBS has changed? It's not until they do published fake news or false reporting that anything changes. Presupposing that change before it happens just makes Wikipedia look biased in the way that people tend to make up about us for money. I've watched with growing concerns the details coming out from within CBS, and the growing hyperbole of it's reporting. But bias doesn't mean a source unreliable, that has to be held onto. So until other sources start reporting on a change in the accuracy of CBS's reporting what are we doing here? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ok this report from the independent[64] directly calls into question CBS's reporting, so I've struck my !vote, but we should still have discussion this first. Is there any more of this outside of Pelley's firing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Actively Disinterested. I saw this article from the Independent earlier today. The thrust of the article is criticism of Weiss's behavior but there has been no published anti-factual reporting, so far, that has come from CBS (that I know of). Also, notice that this article from the Independent was published on March 6th. So, that is two and one half months ago, and I have not been made aware of any unreliable reporting from CBS. I am thinking when the unreliable reporting happens other reputable news sources are sure to report on it. I surmise that it will become widely known very quickly. So, maybe Speedy Close is the best option at this point. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of Scott Pelley this from CBS Evening News the night after he was fired certainly suggests editorial independence from management. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo I don't think the current evidence is sufficient for changing the source's rating. I think that the current evidence indicates that a change will be warranted soon as it seems likely that there will be evidence that the organization's reporting is being significantly undermined and damaged - but we don't yet have that evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo, per Rhododendrites. This is premature, and absent a pattern of specific incidents I don't see how it would benefit editors to change the description at WP:CBS, except perhaps to add a small addendum about political bias. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 or anything that isn't option 3... this is WAY too soon, which has already been pointed out by editors above. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Propose speedy close

Rather than waste people's time and have people come here as they see the RFC in the feeds, I suggest that this RFC be speedily closed. So, this begins a survey, with the question: Should we Speedy Close this discussion? Support, Oppose, or whatever you want to post. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose-- As the OP. RedDeadGuy (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

CBS News Weiss Discussions

Added these subsections. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. RedDeadGuy (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As I see, the RFC tag is removed because the OP isn't written neutrally. I'm thinking about writing a more neutral statement for the subsection "Written for RFC tag". Would that be all right? —George Ho (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this was not formulated neutrally and should not be an RfC in its current form. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I readd the RfC tag while George rewrites it? RedDeadGuy (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No, you should wait for a neutrally worded RfC statement before adding the tag. Otherwise you're wasting other editors' time. Generalrelative (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead, then. RedDeadGuy (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• RedDeadGuy I have rewritten the RfC statement myself, and posted your original non-neutral statement below. You may wish to move this to a !vote in the Survey section. If you do so, feel free to delete this comment. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  The combination of Generalrelative's and my statements was attempted, but then Generalrelative changed it back. (Could've been mixed better, IMO, if Generalrelative let it be, but...) I didn't realize how important deadline or timing may be more than patience. Sorry for letting you both down a lot. Still, I did wanna post right away, but edit conflicts interfered. BTW, Generalrelative's statement is... very, very brief. Too brief perhaps? George Ho (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Guess we just have to live with it. RedDeadGuy (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Previous OPs

There are currently accusations from reliable sources saying Bari Weiss has turned CBS into a Donald Trump propaganda machine. Inside CECOT was just one of the issues. Former 60 Minutes member Scott Pelley accused her of demanding him to alter the story regarding the killing of Renee Good to show her as intentionally trying to kill an ICE officer (though he resisted), something that is false but in line with the administration's claims, and has been accused of running a "propaganda-palooza" regarding the 2026 Iran War.

Sources:

• https://zeteo.com/p/bari-weiss-cbs-iran-war-dukoupil
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/cbs-bari-weiss-iran-war-trump-b2933098.html
• https://www.ms.now/news/scott-pelley-cbs-news-60-minutes-firing-statement
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/07/magazine/scott-pelley-interview.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/07/arts/television/scott-pelley-60-minutes-interview-takeaways.html
• https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/01/media/scott-pelley-nick-bilton-60-minutes-cbs-bari-weiss

RedDeadGuy (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There goes my (other) statement:

The reliability of CBS News has been discussed, e.g. prior discussions from December 2025 (with a conclusion) and from January 2026 (archived without closure). Recently, its reliability has been debated and questioned, especially with the management of Bari Weiss and now ex-CBS anchor Scott Pelley's statement about CBS under Weiss trying to favor President Donald Trump and his views and statements.

As-is, WP:CBS labels CBS News as "generally reliable". However, is CBS News under Bari Weiss also "generally reliable"? If not, then which of the other following options: (2) "additional considerations needed", (3) "generally unreliable", or (4) "deprecate"?

Well... which one is better? George Ho (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think yours has less bias. Putting it up! RedDeadGuy (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Is KakakiOodua Online News reliable?

For Ibokun, someone used KakakiOodua Online News as one of the sources. I checked it out and it seemed like only one person contributes to the site, but the news looks reliable, so I am not sure. Here is the link SVcode(Talk) 22:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)