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

---

Omniglot

Omniglot is a commercial website, published largely (entirely?) by one person, that provides tables of writing systems for numerous languages. It frequently comes up in Wikipedia's language articles as a citation for respective languages' orthographies, as well as for sample texts. At the time of writing, Special:LinkSearch/omniglot.com has 1877 entries.

However, Omniglot's sources that it derives from are often opaque and obscured; it appears to regularly use Wikipedia as one of its primary sources; many of the links it provides are deprecated and parked by phishing scams; and of course it is self-published site (WP:BLOG?) by an author who is certainly not a recognized or well-established linguist on this topic (writing systems).

The source has come up thrice before on this noticeboard:

1. Archive 148#omniglot.com
2. Archive 175#Omniglot online Encyclopedia
3. Archive 301#Omniglot

I am opening the RfC below, as I believe it is due time to have it listed on WP:RSPS. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Omniglot

There are two questions regarding Omniglot.

Question 1: Is Omniglot a reliable source?

• Option Q1.1: Generally reliable for factual information
• Option Q1.2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option Q1.3: Generally unreliable for factual information
• Option Q1.4: Unreliable to the point that it should be deprecated

Question 2: Should it be listed on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? Per discussion below, this question may be irrelevant; conclusion of this RfC would warrant listing regardless.

• Option Q2.1: Yes, it should be listed in the table under whichever Q1 option has consensus
• Option Q2.2: No, it does not need to be listed in the table
• Option Q2.3: Defer, either unsure or should wait

~ oklopfer (💬) 01:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Survey: Omniglot

• Q1.4 & Q2.1: As nom, I believe it is unreliable to the point of needing deprecation, and should be listed in the table. It fails multiple aspects of what makes a reliable source. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.3. or Q1.4. I have no comment on deprecation, as it is not a process I am familiar with. I have read the page for two languages I am familiar with (Irish, Sicilian). There are inaccuracies, which seem to stem from common misconceptions about the two languages rather than established academic consensus. It claims Sicilian has loanwords from pre-Roman languages we know next to nothinig about, and that the Irish standard (An Caighdeán Oifigiúil) has a pronunciatioin "based on the Connacht dialect". It is exclusively a written standard, so there is no standard pronunciation, but it is a commonly held belief that in its written form, the Caighdeán favours Co. Galway varieties (in Connacht). Teangacha 07:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  No comment on the second statement, but is the first statement not true? There is increasing academic consensus on substratum in the Western Indo-European languages, with much work being done on problematic Proto-Italic words for which no Indo-European etymology can be given. Pladica (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.3. Particularly concerning is the apparent lack of transparency of sources. I think this should be treated with care as an effectively self-published source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.3 and Q2.3 This looks like WP:UGC to me. However I don't want to bloat the RSP list with every single webpage we should not be using. Policy is pretty clear about use of UGC. Let's just assert that people follow extant policy and then, if that doesn't work, we can revisit an RSP list. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  The site's appearance and high location in Google search results are extremely conducive to its use by unsuspecting editors. The site makes no immediate affirmation of UGC, and editors will probably not assume it is such until they get digging in the site. I think this warrants a blacklist and a listing on RS/P. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I think a reminder that blacklisting has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia might be in order, because I don't think you're saying this should go on the blacklist, right? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I misspoke. I meant deprecating the source, not blacklisting it. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I thought so. Just had to make sure. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.4. I fully support deprecation for this source. I am currently researching the site and information about it, but far too many unsuspecting editors (including, admittedly myself) have used it to add orthography sections to language articles without knowing its unreliability. I will respond later when I have a clearer assessment of the site. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I distinctly remember the site also hosts some WP:ONEDAY type content, such as Cyrillic-script writing for Latin-script languages. I think there was an entry on Cyrillicized Slovak, which made it into a Wikipedia article on one of the Cyrillic letters before it was removed. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

    A basic assessment of the site reveals a glaring WP:SELFPUB. Ager does not appear to be a subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I agree with Q2.1 as it is near the top of Google search results and therefore easy for an unknowing editor to use on Wikipedia. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.4 I support deprecation. Self-published with issues as described by others. Much too easily used by well-meaning editors. PersusjCP (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.4 and Q2.1 I was going to go with Q1.3 because at the end of the day this website appears to be pretty much equivalent to just being some guys blog from a WP:RS standpoint. What's the big deal, right? Generally that's what I'd say about most of these kinds of sources, but I read what others said, freshened up my memory on what WP:DEPRECATE actually says deprecation is for and I've ended up thinking that this seems to be a valid deprecation. Deprecation doesn't mean it's impossible to use a source, it just means anyone trying to use one is warned about it. That is mainly to warn unsuspecting editors, and clearly there is some need for it considering searching for articles using it as a source gives you 938 results, including a lot of WP:VITAL articles, including ones going as far up the pyramid as level 3 (top 1,110 most vital articles). That's not good. If there actually ends up being some situation where the site happens to be reliable due to having adequate sourcing then you can just power through the deprecation. Obviously I'm going Q2.1 considering I'm going Q1.4. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Going to change that to a Q1.3, after further consideration. Deprecation does seem harsh looking back at it, considering it's published in good faith and there are pages that have sourcing good enough to be used. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:21, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.3., not sure about the perennial sources list since I don’t know whether the site is notable enough (so Q2.3?). With regard to the writing system I know most about, J.R.R. Tolkien’s tengwar, Omniglot is a terribly unreliable source. I like the site as a curious collection, but it is useless as a reliable source. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The site is quite visible in Google search results. I believe this warrants a list on RS/P due to its promiscuity and attractiveness to possible editors. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.4 and Q2.1 per nominator and other editors. High unreliability coupled with high visibility is a scary combo. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 17:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.4 & Q2.1: I don't know the site well, but after skimming it for the RfC I have realized that it is maintained by a single person, and it uses Wikipedia and blog-style sites as sources and is not particularly transparent with sources overall. So definitely not a reliable primary or secondary source. I don't see any value in using this as a source. We can just use scholarly publications. Moreover I think inclusion in perennial sources is warranted as the site has been used as a source a lot on Wikipedia already. CVDX (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.2 or Q1.3 and Q2.1 While one should certainly keep in mind it is a self maintained and self published site, I would say it should at least be given some lenience in its articles on writing systems. One needs to keep in mind that writing systems are still being created each and every year, and omniglot contains some of the first info online on new scripts, especially in areas where little exists in the way of traditional media such as Africa and the 'Zomia' Region. Many of these scripts have gone on to become notable and get their own articles on the Wiki; Oduduwa for example first appearing on omniglot should one look back at the site's news posts. The site is commonly cited within Unicode documents, including by its advisory councils, perhaps the most important authority worldwide on writing systems. In addition, the author of the site, Simon Ager, holds a position on the advisory council on the endangered alphabets network, further giving him credence (at least in my eyes). At the very least I think deprecation is too extreme, given what I've said, but certainly a notice on the reliable sources would be well advised. Pladica (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

  Most of your arguments are correct, but the sentence One needs to keep in mind that writing systems are still being created each and every year, and omniglot contains some of the first info online on new scripts, especially in areas where little exists in the way of traditional media such as Africa and the 'Zomia' Region is further evidence that Omniglot would be unreliable, as the information would not be verifiable. That would be a circular reasoning argument a la "Omniglot is a reliable source because the information contained in it comes from a reliable source (Omniglot)." I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 00:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Are any earlier, locally produced documents for those scripts and local media covering them available and far more reliable than Omniglot? Were the Unicode documents rejected proposals for including certain new characters? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  For the first question it depends, "those scripts" consist of dozens of scattered scripts each with their own histories, generally if there is documents and news coverage it would be offline only. Proposals including omniglot sources have generally been accepted (Old Uyghur, Sora Sempang, Kirk Miller's various proposals) and those that haven't were rejected for reasons outside of using Omniglot Pladica (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Just because these sources use it doesn't make it reliable. Have you addressed the concerns brought up about its factual acuracy and apparent WP:CIRCULAR, WP:ONEDAY, etc. content and lack of citing sources? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:CIRCULAR doesn't really apply to minority scripts since they either do not have articles already or postdate their omniglot counterparts as I have mentioned, and yes, I would consider it to be factually reliable in this area. WP:ONEDAY is just an essay and not something I'd really consider even applying for something like minority writing systems. Pladica (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  I meant generally, not just restricted to minority scripts. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps you misunderstand my point, I'm not arguing about omniglot as a general source, I think generally for languages there is more than enough resources available in academia to cover them without ever needing to use omniglot as a source. Writing systems however are a different story, there is much less work available to editors, especially as many of these scripts are young and in areas beyond the reach of traditional media. On top of that, Simon Ager clearly is seen as respected and reliable within the larger community of writing system research as one can see from his work in Unicode and the Endangered Alphabets network, and so I think as a clause omniglot is fine to use in this subfield in lieu of better sources. Pladica (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Pladica Very late reply, but I think it should be used only to establish the existence of these scripts. Even this is tenuous, however, as it hosts obvious WP:ONEDAY content, where some random person can make up a writing system for any language and get it hosted, like this Cyrillicization of Slovak, which, if I rember correctly, was actually cited in Izhitsa. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but stuff like the modern creation of new orthographies for Western, well established languages occur in a very separate context than that of new advent writing systems for minority tongues; stuff like the Slovak Cyrillicization you linked is very explicitly the work of a few amateur language enthusiasts for nothing but simple fun, the page is very blatant about this its description. Minority writing systems however occur in a much more "natural" sense, largely being created in religious and/or communal contexts. These differences are clearly laid out enough in Glottolog's descriptions on each page, but yes, clearly you have occasional naive editors seemingly not reading thoroughly enough and making uninformed edits. This is why I think the reliable sources listing should make the distinction between these types clear, with articles on novel minority writing systems being Glottolog-okay while the other parts of the site are highly discouraged. Pladica (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  I'm asuming you're confusing Glottolog with Omniglot, but I suppose the latter could be used solely to prove the existence of a minority script when there is no other evidence, although the degree of reliablity in Omniglot prohibits the inclusion of more than a stub. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, my mistake, very similarly named sites serving somewhat similar purposes. And correct, that is what I have been arguing; it is a suitable source for these topics. Pladica (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  How then, do you distinguish these scripts from something someone made up one day and had it posted on the website? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

  Because as I have already explained multiple times, the descriptions given by the website are very clear in what each script is and who created it. And again, these minority scripts develop differently than simple novelty scripts made for fun, I don't know why you keep conflating the two very separate categories. Pladica (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Scoring big scoops isn't a priority of ours. We can afford to await until more reliably published info comes along. Largoplazo (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, but I think it's important to recognize the gap in literature on minority groups, scripts and languages compared to those of the mainstream and that we as an encyclopedia should recognize that and give some leniency to these communities as a result, many of these still have next to no work on them even when they widely catch on. Pladica (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. I think WP:RSN should be about disputed use in a Wikipedia article, so I googled site:en.wikipedia.org omniglot and looked at the first 5 answers. First was Omniglot, and it should be okay to cite Omniglot re Omniglot. Second was List of constructed scripts, Omniglot was in the "External links" not a cite. Third was File:Quikscript alphabet with phonetic transcription of the characters.gif -- Omniglot was presumably being used because it explicitly allows non-commercial copying, so is convenient. Fourth was File:Universal Declaration of Human Rights - mlt - Art1.ogg -- again, convenient. FIfth was Old English Latin Alphabet, and again Omniglot was in "External links" not a cite. From this sample, I gather that there was no reason to start an RfC about banning -- and I use that word since I've seen references to sites destroyed solely because there had been an RfC mentioning deprecating. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  Plenty of sources cite Omniglot as an actual source for articles instead of linked in the external link section. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Peter Gulutzan I wouldn't have brought this to RfC at all if there wasn't a significant problem with Omniglot being used as an inline citation on articles. You can see such examples quite clearly with Special:Search/insource:omniglot (rather than a Google search), where a plethora of search results show the website provided within <ref> tags. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:24, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I said "I think WP:RSN should be about disputed use in a Wikipedia article", you don't claim that my randomly-chosen examples are disputed or a significant problem. Even if you gave examples from your side showing that a cite was wrong, I'd wonder what the argument on the article's talk page was. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Your examples are problematic, as many articles do use Omniglot as an actual citation to use to add content onto the page. The link above provides enough examples of this, 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

In your initial comment you said they were the first five results from a Google search; if that is the case, then they are not randomly selected. This was brought to the board for the precise reasoning you are claiming it should be used for: usage of the source within articles (as a citation). Turning a blind eye to those numerous examples to maintain your original point does not make a good case, in my opinion.

As an aside, I find the argument that deprecation will destroy the site's integrity rather overblown, and should also not be a criteria for maintaining it. Should the RfC pass in favor of listing it on perennial sources, it will almost certainly be stated that it is a self-published site which has opaque sourcing for its claims, and is therefore not reliable for our uses. None of that would be inaccurate, nor necessarily damaging in my opinion, only informative and cautionary. If recognition of those qualities "destroys" the site, that should be glaring evidence that it is problematic and corroboration that it should not be used as a source here. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The increased reliability of Wikipedia brought about by controlling the use of poor quality sources has been praised by external reporting, and the community seems quite happy with the process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• 1.3 or 1.4: Omniglot is neat but is basically a self-published blog. The author is a linguist but the website is done to hobby project standards and isn't trying to be rigorous. Most uses appear to just be external links at the bottom of obscure articles anyway. Deprecation seems unnecessary. No opinion on question 2. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 20:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  See above comment for why this source should absolutely be deprecated. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  @LWG see the search results I just linked in my above comment, as the characterization Most uses appear to just be external links at the bottom of obscure articles anyway is certainly not the case. It has frequent uses as a direct citation (not an external link), and many are definitely not obscure articles. Even then, if they were only 'obscure' articles, usage as a citation within them should not be ignored because of their low visibility. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

  I see, yes the citations on the first two articles there Romani people and Benjamin Franklin both look problematic. Thanks for the link. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 20:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.2, Q2.2: Clearly the work of an individual or small group, and we should seek specialized sources for individual languages. Many pages are heavily based on wiki itself. As a longtime editor of Semitic wiki pages, I can tell (for example) that the Aramaic page took its Imperial transcription from an old version of our Aramaic, which was unfortunately pure invention by an editor. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.4 and Q2.2 per above. Effectively appears to be a UGC, and the fact it directly sources from Wikipedia can make things circular, therefore it's not appropriate for use. As for Q2, it doesn't appear to be massively used, so no need to further bloat RSP. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:39, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.4 and Q2.2 SPS, but not rigorous enough to be up to our standards, as far as I can tell. No need to clog up the perennials; deprecating it will make it clear easily enough and it's not used enough. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.2 and Q2.2: The success and general excellence of this website in fact shows the difficulties of applying hard-and-fast rules on Wikipedia against self-published sources over-strictly. It was edited by an M.A. linguist who has worked on it for 28 years. It was archived by the Library of Congress, listed as a reference resource by university libraries (UBC, McMaster, no doubt others), and reviewed in Technical Services Quarterly. Indeed, being a labor of love that has required decades to compile, it is the sort of body of work that could—yes, after some more editing—easily be made into a published work. That is, if it were not free. Generally, Wikipedia should not be in the business of second-guessing the on-the-ground decisions of editors. Sometimes, the Omniglot entry might be among the best available sources for some piece of information; we should not make it harder for it to be cited in that case, if the editors decide that is for the best. Sometimes, other sources might be better; in short, I agree with User:Peter Gulutzan on this. As User:Pladica argued, for some writing systems, Omniglot is sometimes the only available documentation, so that preventing use of Omniglot would actually harm small language groups. As to User:GordonGlottal's argument regarding Aramaic, if citogenesis errors were made grounds on which to block sources, consider the many, many greenlit sources that would have to be blocked. In short, it would be a terrible decision for Wikipedia to declare this resource as completely unusable. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
  • Information from Richey, E. (2024). Omniglot: The Online Encyclopedia of Writing Systems & Languages. Technical Services Quarterly, 41(4), 393–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/07317131.2024.2396245: Professional library science journal addressing the precise question you are addressing in this thread, namely, the reliability of the resource. Rating, 5 out of 5. Said to be "a very useful resource for any cataloger wishing to identify the language or writing system of a text". As to writing systems pages, the reviewer notes: "Sources are cited for all information on the page, and each page ends with a list of links to keyboards, transliteration tools, and other language learning resources." Larry Sanger (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

    the reviewer notes: "Sources are cited for all information on the page... Despite the reviewer's claims, I do not see such source attributions on an enormous number of pages. ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Sometimes, the Omniglot entry might be among the best available sources for some piece of information; we should not make it harder for it to be cited in that case, if the editors decide that is for the best. This is a pure case of circular reasoning; this argument presupposes that Omniglot is in fact reliable, when that reliability is the exact thing being disputed. I kind of understand the angle you're going for, but the fact remains that Omniglot still has multiple issues (enumerated by oklopfer and others) that create original research and verifiability concerns. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 03:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  No, it's not circular. Circular reasoning would be arguing that OMnigot is reliable because it's reliable. What I stipulate is not that it's reliable but that it might be among the best available sources for some piece of information. That's quite different from a reliability claim. I understand your point about it having issues, but all resources have issues (including many, many of the greenlit sources). That alone does not vitiate the points I raised, which you didn't address. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.4/Q2.1 - Quite literally the definition of a self-published work, stated to be a "one-man operation", and as others have mentioned it's a passion-project. Fair concerns raised about it basically using Wikipedia as a source (never a good sign personally). Given it's come up multiple times, probably worth having it as RSP. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.2: As LarrySan says, this source is run by a man with a masters degree in linguistics from Bangor University and has academic WP:UseByOthers. I don't think this site is UGC as it states every contribution is sent to this one man's email and reviewed. I don't think this falls under any of the WP:UGC categories.
  I also dispute that the site uses Wikipedia as a source. It clearly delineates between source links and {{further reading}} and every "citing Wikipedia as a source" example I've seen mentioned in this discussion is just a further reading link. Our own external links policy would allow a further reading link to Wikipedia as carved out under ELNO#12, as an open wiki with a history of stability and substantial amount of editors. I searched the site for citing Wikipedia and I only see examples like for attributing the origin of sample text the man has presumably verified; again, as LarrySan mentioned, a Taylor & Francis journal trusts the site. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Picking off one of the first listed examples on the site's index, Afaka syllabary: the only source listed is the Wikipedia article. Indeed as you say, it is only used for attribution of the sample text (despite the fact that Afaka syllabary § Sample text provides an apparent citation, so it is unclear why that is not instead used as the source), but it is a complete mystery where the rest of the page information is coming from.

  Looking at the sentence "Afaka claimed that he had a dream in which a spirit prophesied that a script would be revealed to him" on this page, we can see what appears to be a rather problematic plagiaristic copying: this 2013 blogpost appears to be the origin of the sentence, and yet it is never mentioned once on the Omniglot page. According to the Omniglot page, it was last edited 13 Oct 2024, and the first Wayback archive of it appeared on 11 Nov 2024, so it is rather safe to say this was indeed taken from that blog post.

  Next, the sentence "In 1915 a Catholic missionary in Suriname, Brother Bernard, saw a man, Afaka Atumisi's brother-in-law Abena, reading a book written in strange symbols" appears to be derived from a 1988 journal entry: JSTOR 41849333. Again, this journal is never attributed. The plagiarism, combined with the failure to reasonably cite origin sources, combined with the citing of Wikipedia for sample texts are compounding issues.

  It is an overstatement to say that a T&F journal trusts the site; the reviewer who published an article within that journal trusts the site, and the reviewer's claim that Sources are cited for all information on the page is easily demonstrably false as just shown, which brings up major concerns about the rest of the analysis. ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:33, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  The "Patili Molosi Buku" appears to be not the easiest to find, and even then, the transliteration and translation work was by whoever added it to Wikipedia. I don't see how using sample texts from Wikipedia is any issue.

  That is the only sentence that seems similar to the blogpost so I don't think it's a far cry to say it was a coincidence, like how we would AGF it if someone added it to Wikipedia. It is a clear and direct way to word the idea expressed by the sentence. The blogpost doesn't contain any information from the Omniglot page—beyond the first paragraph, which only has basic details—either.

  The JSTOR article just covers the same information; none of the language is similar. I don't see why you think it must have come from that source. I agree that the site isn't citing its sources but I don't think that's big enough an issue to make this less than MarginallyRELiable.

  That's the same thing: The author has to submit to the journal's editors for review, who then have to get the article peer-reviewed. I don't think 1.5% of a journal article being blatantly wrong invalidates it as it is clearly written as a small (though significant) detail. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  • It's not just similar to the blog post, it is verbatim the same sentence. Given how the sentence is worded, I think a coincidence is out of question.
  • If you do a web search for "Brother Bernard"+"1915"+"Afaka", there are 4 links that come up besides Omniglot and Grokipedia. It is possible that Omniglot's source is from one of the 3 that is not the 1988 journal article, but all of them presumably ultimately get their information from that journal given how much further back it dates.
  • I am not outright invalidating the review, but given how important of a detail the claim of citing sources is, it questions the reliability even of said review, nevermind the source that it is evaluating.
  • The lack of citing sources for a personal site such as Omniglot is more than enough of an issue in my view to make it less than marginally reliable, so we will have to disagree there.
  • I also want to return to another point you mentioned, as I missed it before: I don't think this site is UGC as it states[1][2] every contribution is sent to this one man's email and reviewed. People sending in info is essentially UGC, and a lone soul reviewing it all is not exactly a good look, especially when that person is not well established to be reliable. Linguistics is quite a large field; Ager having an MA in linguistics does not make him an expert (or even necessarily reliable) in every aspect of the field, and his dissertation had absolutely nothing to do with writing systems, the primary topic of Omniglot (it was on language revival of Manx Gaelic, FWIW). He even states in his bio on the website:

  So I know a lot about some languages, and a little about many others, but would not call myself an expert on any of them.

  ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:47, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm saying that it was the only sentence in which anything remotely similar occurs. Afaka claimed that he had a dream in which a spirit prophesied that a script would be revealed to him. is also how I would word this, besides the use of passive instead of active voice, which is common in this kind of writing.
• I still don't see why this would be a problem if true.

I indeed wasn't saying that the degree made him ExpertSPS; it doesn't, for the reasons you mention. Sorry that's what it sounded like. However, it means that what most !voters are saying—that this is a know-nothing UGC circular blog, to exaggerate—is wrong. There is no evidence of errors failing to be corrected. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

• No comment on the first question, but Q2.1 aligns with prior practice on WP:RSP. As this source is notable enough to be covered in a standalone Wikipedia article (Omniglot), is widely linked, and has been previously discussed multiple times, I do not see a reason to deviate from WP:RSPCRITERIA. — Newslinger talk 20:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.3 or Q1.4: As someone who used to visit Omniglot a lot, this site contains wayyyyyyyyy too many errors to even be remotely usable. I am not opposed to outright deprecation. Omniglot is the self-published work of a single person (Simon Ager) with pretty much no editorial oversight whatsoever. The overall lack of quality can be seen on many of his pages. For instance, the Omniglot page on the Gamilaraay language is so similar to an older revision of the Wikipedia article , that this is almost certainly WP:CIRCULAR copying. The Omniglot index of writing systems has several serious errors which have never been fixed. For instance, it lists the Indus "script" as if it were an actual writing system, even though many scholars have debated whether it was even writing in the first place. Likewise, it falsely lists the Vinča symbols as a writing system. But the vast majority of scholars don't even think it was writing at all, or at the VERY least, express strong doubts.

After searching Google Scholar, it appears that the creator, Simon Ager, has not published any academic work other than his dissertation. This fails to meet any reasonable criteria of a "subject-matter expert" by a long shot. If Omniglot is the only source to support the existence of a writing system, we shouldn't even HAVE an article on that to begin with. Actual scholarly journals are thousands of times better than that site. SVG-image-maker (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting, it seems that Omniglot does make a distinction between writing systems and sets of symbols but doesn't reflect it through neither the name nor the page for the "Undeciphered scripts" ("The following writing systems [...]") category. You can see a distinction in how the ones you mention are questionable have a lede of "A collection of symbols [...]" while the other ones say "A script [...]".

I don't see the similarity you say exists for the page on Gamilaraay. In fact, notice how the set of alternate spellings are quite different. There's also a possibility that for a lot of subjects both Omniglot's entry and the enwiki article took information from Ethnologue. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.4 and Q2.1 It's not problematic that Omniglot is self-published, but there are multiple examples in this discussion questioning whether information on the site can be independently verified at all. If it's difficult to determine where claims originated, there's risk of circular verification and that is problematic. Reliable sourcing should make it easier to trace information back to its origin, not harder, and several editors provided examples that suggest that O. may sometimes draw from WP itself. Given that, I think deprecation is appropriate as a warning to editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tioaeu8943 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Most online sources (news articles, Encyclopedia Britannica ...) do not tell us from where their claims originate. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.2 & Q.2.2 Bordering on user generated content, given the publishers credentials boarding on being a subject matter expert in the field. I would prefer, since it is a borderline case that other source are also used to go along with Omniglot.com if I were to see it in an article. That said I don't think this site should be black listed either.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.3/Q1.4 – An "encyclopedia"? I still can't believe that WP:TSF and WP:TERTIARYUSE are essays, despite being clearer about using tertiary sources carefully, especially as potential sources. Also, borderline user-generated and discouraged by WP:USERG, not to mention potentially AI-generated or AI-assisted. Also, would be a shame if the consensus doesn't choose Q2.1 (listing the source into the table), which I'm favoring. The lengthy table at WP:RSP#Sources is still essential. George Ho (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
• Q1.3/Q2.1: The source may be useful for some non-commercial copying of gifs and images, perhaps even for factual information, provided it is verified. That said, there are quite a few factual errors that other editors have pointed out, so it should be used sparingly. On question 2, I think it makes sense to include this in the list given that it's been discussed three other times on this page and has its own page.Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Q1.2 As users have mentioned above deprecation for an good faith website and publicist seems over the top. One thing to note however, is the author admits he's not a linguist and other users have reported finding errors that call into question the reliability of the site. Also as mentioned above universities do list the source as an encyclopedia in its domain. A few examples include, Kansas University, Emory and Iowa. On the other hand one can make the argument that this listing by universities is a general collection and not a strong endorsement which also makes sense. Any use from peer-reviewed or reliable sources that I can find is not few and far between and its questionable whether it would fall under WP:RS. More discussion on this is needed but I don't want to see this site prematurely blacklisted. AadamentAardvark (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Q1.4 and Q2.2 This should be depricated because it is a WP:SPS. However, it should not be listed on the table because I do not think it is an important enough or widely used source to warrant it. If anything, we can create a redirect shortcut policy to the closer's decision on the discussion. Perhaps something like WP:OMNIGLOT. I doubt there is another policy that is called that haha. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion: Omniglot

Use the § Survey: Omniglot section above to comment on preferred options. Discuss other aspects here. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Note that Simon Ager is has a Masters in Linguistics from Bangor University , so it is not true that he does not have credentials in the field. --Slp1 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Slp1 ResearchGate only says September 2008 - September 2009; are you sure Ager completed the program?

  (I've struck the nor do they have such credentials line from my intro either way; even if Ager does have a linguistics degree, they are still certainly not well-established, and it is still a self-published site, which is the crux of that point; it also seems like Ager's studies did not focus on writing systems, per the dissertation on RG) ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Why would you think he hadn’t completed it? Masters in the UK are often a year in length. Ager says he has an MA The dissertation would be the final step and for what it is worth has been cited 21 times according to Google scholar Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I am just more used to 2 year programs, so I wasn't sure based on the RG profile. Not questioning Ager's honesty in any way, if their personal profile on Omniglot says so I trust it (somewhat ironically, one of the cases where a self-published source is reliable!). Still, the dissertation has nothing to do with writing systems, it is about Manx language revival. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  You should strike that Ager isn't a recognised linguist. While he has only ever published his dissertation, he has been cited, which is what recognition ultimately is. Cortador (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  No, not really… almost no one knows Ager's name or work outside of Omniglot. Recognition as a scholar is a prestige which Ager has far from achieved within linguistic circles, and likewise not gained from a singular dissertation with 21 cites. The primary source of recognition that Ager has is through Omniglot.

  Please use this RfC discussion section to talk about the actual questions being raised. Even if Ager had 500 cites on the dissertation, it once again had nothing to do with writing systems. It does not establish a reliable backing for a self published site to be considered usable. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean anything. You could ask people who won the Nobel Prize ten years ago and most people couldn’t give you can answer, even though those would obviously be recognised scientists.

  If you don't wish Ager's supposed lack of credentials to be talked about, you shouldn't have brought it up as an argument. Cortador (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  I briefly mentioned it in my lead summary. I'm going to collapse this as an obviously irrelevant pedantic tangent to the RfC questions. What "recognition" means does not amount to anything if it is not on the topic being claimed as expertise. ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  You considered it relevant enough to use it as a argument. Feel free to remove or strike it if it's so "irrelevant". Cortador (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  My choice of the word "recognized" was not an argument, it was simply a statement that Ager is not a well known linguistic scholar outside of Omniglot. There is nothing to strike. Edit warring on a noticeboard is incredibly poor WP etiquette. ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  And I challenged that, and you are not entitled to chose what part of your argument gets challenged and what doesn't. Cortador (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  You didn't challenge whether Ager is well known, you challenged that "recognized" is the wrong word for me to include in my introduction for bringing forward an RfC.

  My explanation for bringing it forward is not an argument being made as part of the RfC, which is why it is above the request. If that is what you are here to debate, you are in the wrong place. There is a reply button below that initial comment if that is what you are looking for.

  This is derailing discussion without engaging in the actual request. Such derailment is harmful to further productive discussion. ~ oklopfer (💬) 08:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  If you did not meant to bring that as an argument, you wouldn't have brought it. You are still free to strike it. Cortador (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  His work has been cited multiple times by other scholars, so yes, he is a recognized linguist. Maybe not on this topic but that is not what you have written. This is a BLP issue, actually, as Ager is alive and hopefully well. I also suggest you strike it or rephrase. I am also super concerned that you want to hat this and curtail the discussion of this topic. You brought this very serious decision to the community, making claims about a BLP's education/reputation that turn out to be unfounded, and very easily debunked from a simple google search. What other aspects need checking out before people decided? Slp1 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  A simple google search reinforces my claim of being virtually unrecognized (as in, not well known) outside of Omniglot, contrary to your claim. 21 citations on a single dissertation does not establish recognition. Either way, I expect every aspect to be checked and decision be made independently. I'll add "on this topic" to avoid further confusion. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• I would like to say that it seems like many pages just take info from wikipedia itself (even when wikipedia is wrong lolololol) 2007GabrielT (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have examples? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

  Might be referring to the fact some pages link to Wikipedia at the bottom, in the area that is as close to a source list as the website gets. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Just a note. Please do not trust Researchgate. It has a lot of incorrect info and they could not be bothered to fix it. I saw that it claimed that yours truly was associated with a place I had not even heard of. I emailed them 2 or 3 times but received no response. I do not trust them. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  While I agree that Researchgate isn't a generally reliable source, I think it's unlikely that Ager got so far as finishing his dissertation (which later got cited a few times) but then also failed to complete his degree. Cortador (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, he probably got the degree. It would be hard not to get a degree from Bangor if you breath. But l have not looked at his site, so I cannot comment further. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Are there any projects that it would be worth notifying about this discussion? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  Two: Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  oklopfer was well ahead of me on this thought, both have already been notified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Question 2 is an interesting question, as per the RSP criteria, this has been frequently discussed (three times) (i.e. perennial, adj. 1. frequently discussed) and can be included even without this RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:RSPCRITERIA is discussions or a RFC, so when this RFC is closed it would meet the criteria (regardless of the second question). The second question is a bit odd as the inclusion criteria of the list isn't having a RFC about whether to include something. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:30, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  I raised the question because the inclusion criteria was not entirely straightforward to me. When posting a new topic here, it states that an RfC can only be started after prior discussions, so it felt somewhat contradictory already that it could've been listed following either an RfC, or following the criteria to start an RfC. Given what felt like policy incongruence, I wanted to err on the safe side. Perhaps it is more a question of clarity for myself and confidence from other's survey replies. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Consensus doesn't need an RFC, so the RSP criteria are either multiple discussions on RSN or a RFC. Separately on RSN you shouldn't start a RFC on a source without it being previously discussed. Those two things are not related to each other. The RSP is a log of discussions on RSN, so there should never be discussions on "should this be added to the RSP?". That makes no sense when you think about it, as the RSP would become a log of discussions about whether discussions should be logged. Discussions on RSN should always be "is this source reliable", whether that source is logged on the RSP is a secondary matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  Consensus doesn't need an RFC, so the RSP criteria are either multiple discussions on RSN or a RFC. Separately on RSN you shouldn't start a RFC on a source without it being previously discussed. Those two things are not related to each other. This still confuses me and feels very much like they are related. Let's call "multiple RSN discussions" A, "an RfC" B, and "listing on RSP" C:

  If A or B, then C; however, B requires A, so really the existence of B seems irrelevant, since A is always required for C. But that obviously cannot be the case, as B is subject to higher standards and greater scrutiny. So it seems there is some unspoken understanding of which sets of A meet the criteria for C, and others which don't and instead encourage B before C.

  I understand your point about it being a log on the other hand, and why that would make Q2 mostly irrelevant. ~ oklopfer (💬) 17:53, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  The issue is that you're still mixing listing at RSP with starting a discussion there. A RFC requires prior discussion, Ian entirely unrelated many listing at RSP require a RFC or multiple discussions.
  It's not A, B, and C, rather it's A, B and μ. The criteria here have nothing to do with the criteria at RSP.

  1. If A is a discussion at RSN, and B is a RFC at RSN, then B requires A. On RSN you should start a discussion rather than just jumping to a RFC.
  2. If μ is listing at RSP it requires either multiple A or B. This has nothing to do with the discussion ongoing on RSN, only after discussions on RSN has finished is this relevant.

  The first set of requirements are separate from the second and can't be mixed together, and the purpose of a discussion (or RFC) on RSN should never be to add something to the RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

  This helped, thank you! ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:36, 23 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° 19:06, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

References: Omniglot

References

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, 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 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.

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)

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. 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. 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 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 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):

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

  Interview with Gary Hart:

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

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

  Israeli ambassador Dan Gillerman on the 2006 Qana airstrike: *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:

  James Ridgeway on an editorial shakeup at The Village Voice: *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:

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

  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):

  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)

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)

  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! with an iron fist. Let's even assume she commits human rights violations against 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)

LifeWiki and ConwayLife forums

I noticed that the article on Conway's Game of Life frequently cites LifeWiki and the related ConwayLife forums. I asked @LaundryPizza03, who also contributes to them, about how reliable they may be, and he pointed me here. My main point was that despite these two sources being user-generated, they are essentially the experts on cellular automata. I pointed out that the two authors of the Game of Life textbook are active on the forums and that several others have been cited in this Quanta article. Would this be sufficient to establish these specific individuals as subject-matter experts? Would it be acceptable to cite individual forum posts by them? LaundryPizza told me that the forums are at least as reliable as Stack Exchange, which isn't actually saying very much according to the perennial sources list. I would guess that the wiki is less reliable than the forums because it is also edited by individuals who are less qualified. Wreaderick (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Unless I seeing this wrong anyone can create an account on LifeWiki and edit the website, that would make it WP:USERGENERATED and generally unreliable. Anyone could edit there and then post here using there additions as a reference, or a host of other problematic actions. Maybe LaundryPizza03 could clarify if there is any account control or editorial process.
No forum is reliable, but the selfpublished work of people who are WP:EXPERTSPS can be. So although the majority of forum posts wouldn't be reliable, the post made by accounts confirmed to be authors of the Game of Life textbook might be. I say might be as they would only be reliable for details within their expertise, not for everything they might post. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

It is quite easy to confirm the identities of those whose real names are publicly available. That was actually one of the points LaundryPizza made to me earlier. I think we can trust the forum and wiki moderators (two of whom are the authors of the textbook I mentioned earlier) that the individuals' associated usernames, such as the one here (who is also listed as an author of this paper) are accurate. I can't really think of a more rigorous approach, we could ask LaundryPizza as you said. Wreaderick (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes the same would be true of any forum post by a named individual, if it can be confirmed the post is by them and they meat the requirements of WP:EXPERTSPS then they could also be considered generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think we can apply WP:EXPERTSPS to a wiki. By its nature, it's a collaborative project; parsing out "this particular bit was written by an expert with a confirmed identity" involves too much editorial... parsing, I guess I'd say, even when it's technically true. Wiki edits are also generally without the "context" that would make me comfortable asserting that an expert author says XYZ - that is to say, a wiki edit might reflect the requirements of the policy on the wiki they're writing, or it might be a quick-and-dirty fix that is better than what was there before but which doesn't actually reflect the writer's expertise even if they have it. An ideal EXPERTSPS source is something like, say, an expert writing a blog-post where they say "as an expert on XYZ, here's my summary of this subject." A wiki is almost never going to be like that. The forum posts might be usable but I'd be cautious; an off-the-cuff bit of speculation by an expert isn't worth as much as a reasoned opinion, which in turn isn't worth as much as (and is less likely to be WP:DUE than) stuff that actually passed through the editorial controls and fact-checking process of a true RS. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

  In principle, yes, but in practice it might be less of a problem than anticipated. Spot-checking the pages on LifeWiki that are cited in Conway's Game of Life, it looks like it's pretty common for them to have been created years ago and modified very little since. Moreover, it is possible to cite the specific version of a page that was created by a subject-matter expert, which would fall under WP:EXPERTSPS just as much as a blog or forum post would. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  If a recognized subject-matter expert went "on the record" and wrote a blog post where they said they looked at each of the LifeWiki articles that Wikipedia cites and vouches for their accuracy, or even if they made that statement on LifeWiki's talk pages, I'd be willing to accept the LifeWiki articles as WP:EXPERTSPS. This is partly because it's a low-stakes topic. The failure mode here is that we would be slightly too nerdy about recreational mathematics. Oh no.

  Still, that only goes so far as WP:EXPERTSPS. They'd count little toward deciding what is WP:DUE, and all that. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

  I'm mostly going to be using the Game of Life textbook I mentioned earlier to establish WP:DUE weight, and forums posts (and perhaps in more limited cases wiki articles) to provide direct context. I'll also look for more academic sources on this topic, but I anticipate they would be much behind. The people on those forums are on the very forefront of cellular automata research. Though I am aware I shouldn't be biased towards more recent advancements and discoveries. Wreaderick (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

• It seems that where a statement can be attributed to an identified subject-matter expert with independently established expertise, WP:EXPERTSPS may apply, depending on the nature of the claim and the context in which it is being used.

Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

LifeWiki is a pseudonymous open wiki. Just like here, articles do not have individual named expert editors. There is no way that EXPERTSPS can apply to that sort of material. The forums may have contributors who could reasonably be described as experts (like, say, they are also authors of a published book on the topic) but if a contributor is only known there and not elsewhere I don't think that applies any more than we would treat enthusiastic but otherwise unknown forumgoers on other topics as being experts. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That's an important point. Thank you for clarifying that. I don't see how EXPERTSPS can apply to LifeWiki itself, even if I can see a possible argument for specific posts by experts whose identities and expertise can be independently verified, but not for ConwayLife forums generally. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

NEWSORGNIGERIA

I don't think the guidance at WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA is great, at the moment it is very vague and strongly implies that all Nigerian news media is largely unreliable because of brown envelope journalism, but that only affects WP:INDEPENDENT (and it isn't particularly hard to spot promotional news articles), unless there are documented cases of journalists across the board being paid to promote falsehoods? The point about notability is fine because non-independent sources don't contribute to that, but the rest needs rewriting imo Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:55, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why Wikipedia needs to softball the dire state of the Nigerian news landscape. I think the cited sources make the case evident. the claim it isn't particularly hard to spot promotional news articles might be true for you, but for editors unfamiliar with the Nigerian news landscape who see these articles, which are generally not well disclosed or disclosed at all, they could easily interpret promotional spam as reliable, significant coverage. To quote the Carnegie Endowment in 2018 :

Although Nigeria has a vibrant and (mostly) free press, brown envelope journalism is rife: for both media moguls and the journalists who work for them, accepting—or even soliciting—cash from politicians is a perquisite of the job. Over 75 percent of journalists surveyed as part of a 2013 study admitted to accepting such financial gifts, euphemistically referred to as “transport money,” “matter,” “load,” and “kola nut.”14 As one presidential spokesperson told Al Jazeera: “There is a saying that ‘the music that hunger plays in your stomach makes you deaf to reason.’ You don’t begin to preach ethics to a hungry man. Therefore when journalists are not paid, they are prone to being compromised.” Above the working level, editors and publishers often receive even bigger bribes to manipulate their coverage and quash stories that might embarrass their political patrons. Nigeria’s main anticorruption agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), is currently prosecuting Daar Communications—owner of Africa Independent Television—and its chairman for accepting ₦2.1 billion ($12.4 million in 2015 dollars) in public funds diverted into then president Goodluck Jonathan’s reelection campaign. Such grand corruption not only erodes press freedoms and fuels media bias, it also sustains many fly-by-night media outlets that rely on brown envelope journalism to stay in business.

Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Here are some sources from the last few years showing that brown envelope journalism is still an issue , , , Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

that appears to affect bias and independence, not reliability? Reliability refers to factual accuracy, are there documented instances where this has affected that? In case there are such instances but they're not widespread enough to indict the whole industry, I don't see why this couldn't be covered in entries for individual publications at RSP. While very far from gold standard sources, I expect Nigerian news media are still reliable for most claims, we just have to caution editors about adding WP:PROMO content etc. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Tbf this journal article says

With the brown envelope syndrome comes a worrisome disregard for objectivity, balance, accuracy and truth, which form the soul of journalism. “It puts objectivity in reporting at stake as far as the journalist is concerned because he may not report the facts of the news” (Akabogu, 2005:203).

and this one says

Many scholars have opined that brown envelope ideology has affected the pillars of truth, accuracy, fairness, balance and objectivity on which journalists stand to practice their profession (Ekeanyanwu & Obianigwe, 2012; Mbagwu, 2021; Agency Report, 2021).

and

Similalry, Nwabueze (2010) investigated the perception of Nigerian journalists on brown envelopes and the need for ethical re-orientation and found out most journalists engage in the practice because they see nothing wrong in the practice.

But still deeming a country's whole press industry as completely unreliable can't be the best approach, surely we can at least identify topics that are most susceptible. That our own coverage of it is very poor doesn't help matters Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think NEWSORGNIGERIA means that the whole [Nigerian] press industry [is] completely unreliable, it suggests its "questionable" i.e. a yellow label at RSP, which means you should think critically about the content and context of what you are reading. Obviously the reliablity of Nigerian news varies from publication to publication, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources exists for what it's worth. Dedicated reliable external news coverage of Nigeria also exists, like BBC Nigeria, which doesn't have the same issues the local press has. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

it just needs to be expanded, we'd never take this approach to a western country or one that most editors are from, we'd try to understand it and give nuanced guidance rather than make sweeping off-handed assumptions that reinforce orientalist bollocks about corruption (AFAIK it's usually unconstrained capitalism exploiting pre-modern cultural artefacts around reciprocity or legacies from collaboration during the colonial-era). For starters, does anyone fancy expanding Mass media in Nigeria#Media corruption? There's loads on Scholar. I could but have too much to do already Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:23, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

we'd never take this approach to a western country because Western journalism doesn't have the same pervasive widespread corruption issues, and their journalists are actually paid a regular salary instead of being expected to write undisclosed puff pieces in order to be able to eat? A complete apples to oranges comparison. The undisclosed promotional articles in Nigerian news is so pervasive that it's basically impossible to tell who is genuinely notable for a non-Nigerian. I don't see how it's any worse than WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

that bit was hypothetical, but there's no shortage of client journalism in the west (eg. Oborne 2012: The evidence that British public life is dominated by a culture of client journalism is, by contrast, widely available and well-documented.), and yet. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

do I need to start soapboxing about media moguls like Murdoch, Rothermere, [insert your favourite one here] directly interfering in editorial processes to promote their business interests Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

And when that happens, those sources get discussed here.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Rewriting how? I don't see how the issue 'only affects WP:INDEPENDENT'. Undisclosed paid-for promotional content is unreliable by any measure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

NEWSORGNIGERIA is meant to imply the exact opposite, that news organisations in Nigeria are reliable but that special care should be taken with potentially promotional content. That was the consensus that came out of the discussions that led to NEWSORGNIGERIA, so it shouldn't be used as to say that all Nigeria news media is unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I have seen comments at AfD along the lines of "Nigerian news media is unreliable, NEWSORGNIGERIA", which is wrong. "All the sources in the article are promotional, NEWSORGNIGERIA" could potentially be correct. NEWSORGNIGERIA doesn't say that editors can dismiss out of hand the media landscape of an entire country. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the wording as a result of this discussion (I wrote the original text of NEWSORGNIGERIA to begin with) to focus solely on the undisclosed promotional articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I like the changes you've made. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Same, that’s way better, thanks Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 18:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

The prior language was agreed with a wide consensus -- I don't see enough consensus to make a sweeping change to narrow the scope here. The brown envelope journalism is the biggest issue, but isn't the only issue. A news publication that is willing to publish undisclosed promotional material is, by definition, not reliable in general. 🄻🄰 14:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक You think so? Do you know the amount of incivility that you've portrayed in the name of NEWSORGNIGERIA? I don't have enough time for filing an ANI report, I would have by now, but in the meantime, please stop incorrectly labelling ALL Nigerian articles as bad. It sucks to me both as a Nigerian and as someone who is working tirelessly to improve the quality of Nigerian perspective on this encyclopedia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

To repeat my early point the consensus of those discussions was never to label all news media in Nigeria generally unreliable. Instead it was to warn editors about promotional reporting in otherwise reliable sources. Anyone framing it as the former is just wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:10, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

लॉस_एंजिल्स_लेखक - can you point to exactly where the current text at RSPS was "agreed with wide consensus"? From experience, it's rare that this happens. (Indeed a big problem is some text is added to RSPS based on previous discussions at RSN and people then treat it as an accurate summary of the discussions at RSN. But then someone looks at the RSN discussions particularly concluding statement and, there's then big disagreement over whether the text at RSPS actually does summarise the conclusions.) I looked at the archives for Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and cannot find any discussion. There was discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_464#Nigerian newspapers but I do not seen any agreement with wide consensus. Indeed there doesn't seem to be much discussion of the exact text at all instead the discussion more focused on how we should treat Nigerian sources than on any text. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nil Einne This user in question has literally been a sponsor of the NEWSORGNIGERIA misinterpretation, and as such has literally said very demeaning and disappointing comments about Nigeria-related contents… it sucks to see this happen, you can read some of their AfD comments for context. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

A Coupe is defined as having 33 cubic feet of interior rear passenger space?

In this Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEngineers/comments/1u0dbku/falling_down_a_rabbit_hole_where_does_the_sae/

the claim was made that

"I fell down this rabbit hole recently because of all the automakers marketing their cars as "four door coupe" and "coupe SUV", and it made me wonder what the definitions of "coupe" or "sedan" actually are.

What I've found is that A LOT OF PEOPLE claim that the Society of Automotive Engineers defines a coupe as "a fixed roof car with no more than 33 cubic feet of interior rear passenger space," and more specifically they cite SAE J1100 as the document that provides this definition. It's so prevalent that it's made it to Wikipedia and dealership websites, and obviously in very authoritative-sounding forum posts.

The "problem" is that no version of SAE J1100 seems to contain this definition."

so I checked. Our Coupe article does indeed say

"The United States Society of Automotive Engineers publication J1100 does not specify the number of doors, instead defining a coupé as having a rear interior volume of less than 33 cu ft (934 L)."

I also could not verify this claim in any SAE document, and the other sources (hemmings.com and autoweb.com) don't appear to be RS for that claim, Also, the hemmings.com page doesn't exist and the autoweb.com site doesn't exist (it redirects to another site). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This is J1100. I can't see any reference to coupes, but it is not a searchable document, so I can't swear to it. If it isn't there, delete the claim. We don't need to have a logical definition of coupe if one doesn't exist.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I googled "online PDF OCR" and started trying what they say are free online tools. The Internet in general and Google in particular having been converted to 90% shit recently, the first 6 wouldn't work or asked for money before even trying, but number 7 gave me a searchable PDF that I could save to my local disk! www.ilovepdf.com

No reference to "Coupe", or any variation of "33 cubic feet". I see that the claim has been removed.

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't work for them, but I have zero surprise that the one that worked and was free was ilovepdf.com. It's incredibly useful. Black Kite (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

The information was added in this edit by User:MrsSnoozyTurtle, who stopped editing Wikipedia in September of 2023. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Google has become so bad. I remember in about 2010 when it found you absolutely anything you needed. Now it gives you an incorrect AI summary of an answer to the question it imagines you want answered and links to 50 sites that have nothing to do with what you are looking for.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Google are in the process of replacing their search engine with LLM based results, unfortunately the days of being able to drill down into result with context commands are long gone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Like AWD vs 4WD, the terms are most often decided by a marketing team vs any clear technical specification. I ran the linked file through Acrobat OCR. It did not return a hit for "coupe" or "sedan". I did search some other terms to verify the OCR did return results. I found a 2005 version on Scribd. It was searchable and also didn't include the term "coupe". Springee (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

If coupe isn't actually a thing, is there an argument for deleting the article?Boynamedsue (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

is filmbooster.com's database user-generated?

we have a number of references using filmbooster.com or one of its national variants such as filmbooster.co.uk or filmbooster.com.au. It acts a site for people to post ratings and reviews of films and make lists, and such; that side of it is obviously user-generated content. What's not immediately clear to me is whether its actual database of films is user-generated. On the website there's a submission facility, but it's not a form like IMDB has, but a sort of "tip line" - you provide a title, some info, and a link. It's not clear to me how much editorial control the mods of this site actually would exercise over this material, or indeed how much they themselves would rely upon a user-gen site like IMDB for verifying submissions. I would appreciate your thoughts. Morwen (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviews and lists are user generated, but the rest isn't. Having a "tip line" doesn't mean they will publish what's submitted. I wouldn't suggest using their biographical information, especially not in articles about living people. It's user submitted, and although reviewed there are no details of what that review entails. It's quite possible that at least some of the information may be based on Wikipedia, risking citogensis. Otherwise it should be generally reliable for cast, crew and dates of films and such. It would be nice if they disclosed more information about their setup, but for noncontroversial details I don't think it's a massive issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:21, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm a little leery of using them for details and I say that as someone who often uses IMDb as a jumping off point for non-controversial details. The site does appear to accept user submitted content by way of the statement "Help us complete the database of world cinema". We have no way of knowing how vigorous their fact checking process is or how much evidence they require, if any. IMDb does require some limited evidence to make additions or changes to their database and it's well known that IMDb has a lot of misinformation. Filmbooster's own TOS even says that their info may not be accurate:

We hereby inform you that inaccuracies and deficiencies may appear in the information presented on the Portal, particularly due to the involvement of third parties. As soon as we become aware of a shortcoming on the Portal, we eliminate any such inaccuracies or add missing information as quickly as possible.

They do try to fix it when it's made apparent, but that they have to be told that it's inaccurate. That's the same way that IMDb works. They'll remove bad info, but someone has to flag it first. Basically, they'll provide info but they give no guarantees as to its accuracy. I'd say that you should treat this like I do IMDb: you can use it to get a better idea of what to search for as far as release dates, cast, and such goes but you shouldn't use it as the only source because it's entirely possible that you may have someone feeding it bad information, either intentionally or not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:43, 15 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)

Citing interviews from deprecated source

... is allowed? I believe it is, since the interviews are not affected by the sources' reliability. This has been raised in this article, whether to cite The Sun's interview with Ms. Ellie Goulding. Also I've seen many sources citing an interview with The Sun, however, they did not cite the full interview of it. (Ping: Nikkimaria Katzrockso) Camilasdandelions (✉️) 00:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Interviews are absolutely affected by source reliability - poor-quality sources have been known to misquote interviewees, or even make up interviews entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that a source like Zero Hedge or InfoWars can't be trusted to convey the contents of an interview. But not all sources are InfoWars and casting every deprecated source in the same light as InfoWars would make the entirety of Wikipedia:Deprecated sources#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources pointless.

This is an instance where a healthy dose of common sense applies. Previous discussions have achieved a consensus that statements in e.g. SPS that are not the author themself (e.g. an interview in a SPS that isn't the subject) are usable in an WP:ABOUTSELF manner. There is a concurrent discussion above (WP:RSN#Interviews of a subject from a distinct self-published source) that also discusses this topic. Katzrockso (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that if an interview is notable, it will be covered in more reliable sources. Those other reliable sources can be used, instead of the depreciated source. Ramos1990 (talk) 07:24, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Notability doesn't determine article content or whether something should be included in an article. Katzrockso (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Notability does not apply to article content. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the right word here is "noteworthy" rather than "notable", i.e. is it DUE. DUEness is determined by reliable sources, so if (and only if) the interview is reported by reliable sources than it may be DUE. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It has been reported on by a number of reliable sources, including NME, but that is beside the point. Does nobody acknowledge that reliability is contextual anymore and we should rename "generally unreliable" to mean "always unreliable"? Katzrockso (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, then, cite it via those WP:RSes. If (and I assume this is the case or we wouldn't be having this conversation) they don't emphasize the part of the interview that is proposed for inclusion, it is likely that that part is undue; part of the advantage of relying on secondary sources in general for interviews, regardless of the quality of the primary source, is that it avoids a situation where editors are personally going "well this sounds interesting!" and pulling one line out of a giant interview. It's not always a problem, but an editor going "oh wow, here's an important quote deep in this massive interview that provides key insight into this person, I'd better pull it out and put it up where people can see it!" is potentially WP:OR in that we're focusing unusual attention on something that no secondary sources have highlighted in a way that inevitably leads the reader to a conclusion. And reliability does matter in this context because a reliable source, even in an interview, will usually perform at least some basic degree of fact-checking; if the source can't be trusted to do that then citing an interview whose accuracy we don't doubt seems to me to be similar to citing an WP:ABOUTSELF source, ie. the publisher is adding nothing. And that comes with a lot of restrictions. (In this case, the statement would probably pass WP:ABOUTSELF so I'd say it's fine as long as there's no doubt as to the interview's accuracy. But I would be reluctant to use it for anything unduly self-serving, or about third parties, or other stuff that wouldn't pass ABOUTSELF, because it's not getting any reliability from the publisher.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The two sentences in question cited to The Sun are In an interview with The Sun on 1 December, Goulding revealed that she drew upon a "personal place" while writing songs for the album. and According to Goulding, the lyrics of I Know Too Much include "observations" about her personal life, friendships, and connection with nature, and taking more time in the studio allowed her to write with greater emotional depth. She added: "I've made a classical album that's not out yet. I have a huge passion for classical music."

Other reliable sources referring to the same The Sun interview include

Cover Media; ;

Though Ellie didn't reveal when the record will be released, she explained that the lyrics to the new songs flowed from her and include "observations" about her personal life, friends, and "connection with nature".

(note this matches the second claim in the article perfectly)

NME (magazine); ;

Now, according to a new interview in The Sun, the ‘Anything Could Happen’ hitmaker is working on something different, saying her last record was “intentionally impersonal”.

“I’ve been writing about what’s been going on in my life,” Goulding told the publication, although she didn’t give a prospective release date. “But also just observations, friends, my connection with nature — the usual things that I tend to gravitate towards writing about, maybe slightly more elevated or evolved from the last album.”

...

Elsewhere in the interview, Goulding also revealed that she had a secret project in the works, saying: “I’ve made a classical album that’s not out yet. I have a huge passion for classical music.”

This verifies everything from the second section.

Beat 925 Montreal (local radio station);

Ellie Goulding drew upon a "personal place" while writing songs for her upcoming album.

verifies the first sentence in the article.

(however pulling all these quotes out does raise worries about close paraphrasing in the article. Pinging @Camilasdandelions for comment)

These were just the first three articles I found on google.com that cite The Sun interview in question.

As for the remainder of your comments, there is absolutely, positively no WP:OR in highlighting something that a reliable source might not. That's an issue with WP:NPOV (specifically WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION), not WP:OR. Misciting policies and guidelines confuses new (and experienced) editors.

And reliability does matter in this context because a reliable source, even in an interview, will usually perform at least some basic degree of fact-checking - reliability does not matter in this context because the information in question is not something that any reliable source can verify. No reliable source is privy to Ellie Goulding's inner thoughts, intentions and beliefs - only she is. No reliable source can fact check whether or not she believes her record is "personal" or whether she likes classical music.

The rest is off-topic / not relevant to this discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I think its more about dueness. If the interview isnt covered by others and just stays in a poor source, its a bir harder to make case it belongs User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:56, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Previous discussion on interviews in sources that are known to be unreliable has varied, but generally has been against them. Generally using a controversial source for something that can be found in a none controversial source is a waste of everyone's time. If the details aren't covered by other sources that may point to the known issues with the unreliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This is too vague to be applicable or helpful in this specific context. Katzrockso (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

If details have been mentioned in reliable sources they could be included, but if only an unreliable sources cares about specific details those details are really due inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The argument (made below) is that the source is perfectly reliable in this context. Generally unreliable means generally, not always. Katzrockso (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The interview is not outside of the editorial control of the source. It is not a word for word recreation of what was said, it probably won't contain everything that was discussed, or necessarily be in the original order. What is present is a editorial construct, where how things are presented and what details are emphasised are determined by the source, and when that source is a rag like The Sun then what details are worth reporting or including should be left to other reliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:17, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that "generally unreliable" should mean "always unreliable" and we should abolish WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:DEPRECATED#Acceptable uses of deprecated sources, that's an admirable POV, but it certainly isn't reflective of existing P&G. Katzrockso (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that, it's unrelated to my point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:13, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You have made no argument as to why this interview content, which consists largely of direct quotes and paraphrases thereof, should be considered unreliable, beyond a base appeal to the general unreliability of The Sun. It's hard to take that as anything other than the argument that The Sun is always unreliable.

I disagree that it doesn't present everything that was said. The interview in question was conducted right before she went on stage at a concert, meaning that it was certainly brief rather than an in-depth interview that is subject to more cutting/removal of content. Even if comments are presented out of order, reading the interview makes it clear that the quote that the source is being used to support is indeed an accurate summarization of the verbatim words Goulding said.

Moreover, there is no analysis of the particular context that the subject in question is Ellie Goulding. She has given a number of interviews to The Sun. If she were concerned about their presentation of her commentary, she is perfectly free to stop giving them interviews, as many other public figures have done for other outlets. Katzrockso (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I literally just made an argument which you have failed to engage with, I won't be responding further. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I just wrote a post responding to your so-called arguments, so the idea that I "failed to engage with [your argument]" is laughable. Katzrockso (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

There are two distinct questions here

1. If an interview has been published in an unreliable source AND covered by RS, should we add a citation to the original interview?
2. In the same situation, can we mention things said in the interview that weren't mentioned in other RS?

I think that the answer to #1 should be "yes" as it doesn't harm anyone. The answer to #2 should be generally "no" due to WP:UNDUE policy, but common sense should be exercised and I can imagine situations when it's appropriate. In practice the answer is resounding "no" to both. Alaexis_¿question? 21:27, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No, this still makes the mistake of assuming reliability isn't contextual. If we accept that reliability is contextual, then we have no problem with acknowledging that a generally unreliable source can be perfectly reliable in a particular context (e.g. perhaps an interview) and it would be perfectly acceptable to use it as a source and indeed claims from said interview would be DUE for inclusion. Katzrockso (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@Katzrockso, yeah, but in this hypothetical case, if something is said in an interview but not mentioned/commented upon by RS, this would *likely* be undue, no? Alaexis_¿question? 13:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

In this context, The Sun is a perfectly reliable source for this statement. Katzrockso (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with that. Alaexis_¿question? 20:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of gaps in coverage for topics where this appears. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Happened to me too. Someone was interviewed by a deprecated media outlet, RS reported on the contents of the interview and I wanted to add the original too. I don't think the deprecated source in question (for the record, I think it should stay deprecated and I'm not naming it on purpose) has ever published a fake interview and there was no reason to suspect it in that case. Alaexis_¿question? 13:45, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I've had a look at the edit dispute here and the quotes seem like uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF statements which is an allowed exception with regard to using deprecated sources. I'd question how WP:DUE is particularly relevant in this case. Simonm223 (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF allows a questionable source to be cited for information about itself, not third parties. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

That's not what the most recent RfC determined Katzrockso (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Interesting - can you share a link? Alaexis_¿question? 16:29, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I was looking in the wrong noticeboard archives to try to find it. Here is the RfC .

Note that I !voted against the change in question. Katzrockso (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

IMO, even if, as a secondary source, a deprecated source interviews a primary source (i.e. an interviewee), perhaps we should think twice before using that deprecated source's interview. Sad that we can't use a primary source, but reliability of a deprecated source would outweigh that of a primary one. Why are we arguing about this continuous and extensively instead of going for the "end of story" approach? (Also, really wish there's a noticeboard about source's independence of a notable topic, honestly.) George Ho (talk) 05:07, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this interview in The Sun should be cited to The Sun. In the unlikely event that Ellie Goulding says something didn't happen, The Sun has in advance accepted compulsory arbitration via IPSO. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 15 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)

, . 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)

[]. 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 . They have no editorial independence policy that I can find. It may also be a front for Russian propaganda . I think it would be worthwhile to have a RfC for depreciation of the source. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Chalkbeat on school programs

Draft:Pioneering AI in School Systems was recently declined. I was surprised that the reviewer did not consider Chalkbeat to be a good source. I think this is a premier source on education news in the United States and helps to establish facts about school programs Czarking0 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Theh look to be reliable, but do seem to be local reporting. How that reflects on notability is a bit outside my knowledge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:04, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• Local coverage is kind of tricky. You have to be able to show that the coverage isn't just a local paper covering local people. For example, many years ago my little sister got a full page spread in one of our local papers. Although it was certainly cool and not something they do for everyone, it was ultimately just your run of the mill piece that wouldn't have been written if she wasn't local. To really help establish more widespread notability you have to show where people outside of the specific city/area are discussing the topic. I think what concerned the reviewer is that the coverage was specifically from Chalkbeat Philadelphia as opposed to Chalkbeat National. Now, that doesn't mean that local coverage is going to be across the board unusable. Coverage from a major newspaper can definitely count, but offhand the coverage here is just very light. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Chalkbeat is a reliable source. The reviewer appears to have an issue with the level of coverage of the article subject.  81567518  W  22:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Airlinehistory.co.uk

I've seen a few articles used these website for the ceased operation date (e.g. Athena Air Services, Ked-Air). however, it runs by one person fixing the article from internet request. Every single of them are unsourced. TBB (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it is far from reliable. Must be added to some bad source list. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

There's no indication of how the website is run, or how it's run, but it does have some limited use by others. I've left notify with project Airlines and project Aviation, to see if anyone has more to add. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:19, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable Random website run by some person, check. User generated update system, check. The line "Unfortunately there is a significant number of “Zombie Airlines” (shown as active but are not). Work in progress on these", meaning you can't even trust any specific page to be accurate anyways, check. Looks like your classic unreliable, terrible source for an encyclopedia. Silverseren^C 19:35, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ukhrul Times, Eleven Media Group, Channel News International Myanmar, Big News Network, and Digital Journal

Reviving this yet again

Ukhrul Times is cited in 79 articles mostly related to Northeast India and Manipur. Recently, the Indian fact-checking website, AltNews, published an exposé on a suspected disinformation network; this alleged network revolves around content related to the Myanmar Civil War and rare earth minerals. AltNews noted that Ukhrul Times published an article on December 14, 2025 about the Kachin Independence Army and India supposedly signing a rare earth deal where the primary source is a November 24, 2025 article from the questionable at best Silicon Valley Times. These articles started coming out two months after Reuters reported on rumors of the Indian Ministry of Mines exploring possibilities of obtaining rare earth metals from territory controlled by the KIA. The Diplomat also reported on similar rumors. Both publications stressed that these were preliminary moves, and did not mention deals being reached or Burmese officials complaining that India was intruding on Myanmar's sovereignity.

Eleven Media Group is cited in almost 500 articles related to Myanmar. Channel News International (CNI) Myanmar is cited in 23 articles. While both appear more neutral than the Global New Light of Myanmar, they publish mostly positive articles about the Tatmadaw. Both publications also cited the Silicon Valley Times "article." in stories covering the KIA and India. Worth noting that the pro-Tatmadaw NP News covered these allegations and noted a purported denial by the Indian Embassy of Myanmar.

As  81567518  W  pointed out, Big News Network (cited 200+ times in articles) and Digital Journal (cited almost 1,530 times in articles) also passed off these flimsy rumor mills as news. Not only that, Big News Network also "ran" an article about alleged abuse perpetrated by the Dalai Lama's late nephew, Tenzin Taklha on June 12, 2025. However, looking up the exact title of that Big News Network article leads to another article by the so-called Daily Silicon Valley with the exact same title and text. Both echo an anti-Dalai Lama narrative. As pointed out in the AltNews piece, Daily Silicon Valley published their unsubstantiated article on India and the KIA 6 days before Big News Network published their "reporting."

Factoring in all of this, the preponderance of the evidence shows that Big News Network and Digital Journal are untrustworthy in terms of source credibility. Additionally, Ukhrul Times, Eleven Media Group, and CNI Myanmar should be cited sparingly not just because of bias, but also their willingness to publish analyses from extremely questionable sources.

References

Battlesnake1 (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Man, where to start with this... Thank you for that link to the AltNews piece - I've dug into that same rabbit hole so many times now and it's great to see someone finally map it out. TechBullion was blacklisted here a while back for just this crap; they would literally publish anything as long as they were paid, and many editors were with confused or put out a deliberate conflict-of-interest fog. Silicon Valley Times and Daily Silicon Valley are straight-up fake news/SEO farms and have been on my fake site watchlist for a long time - I usually only blacklist them where there is sustained abuse here on wiki, and I have not seen sustained drama from those two. No objections to doing so if there's consensus. Big News Network is a bigger problem. I've previously cataloged them here, but beware that they operate a very, very large farm of regional, state, and city-themed sites that would also need to be delt with. Not clear if Ukhrul Times is one of those; not obvious from the meta links I did in the original study. Digital Journal is another really odd duck. I think they're another take-all-comers site (I've seen known spammers pushing junk there), but they have some content in there that may be legit. There are certain sub-domains of the site that I watch, since they very frequently turn up in paid placement, but not clear on the overall site.

Overall, I would agree with depreciating or blocking Silicon Valley Times, Daily Silicon Valley, and probably the full spectrum of Big News Network (given the incredibly shady behavior documented in the article). Not sure of Digital Journal, or Urkhrul/Eleven/CNI - would need to poke around more. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Note that @Battlesnake1 had taken it upon themselves to wipe these sources from articles without about explanation, except when pressed, and is leaving behind content without a source, and not leaving citation needed tags or anything of the sort. Per WP:DEPS, Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately. At the moment they’re being removed indiscriminately. Please stop and at the VERY LEAST tag the content you’ve left unsourced with a citation needed tag. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:41, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s been three days now and no movement, so I’ll revert the removals until such time as there’s further movement. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:43, 17 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)

Karl Jobst being described as an 'investigative journalist'

As well as being a Wikipedian, I'm a journalist, academic and the editor of the magazine Paper Chained. Paper Chained mostly prints poetry and art from non-notable people, but in each issue we feature journalism from external contributors, which have included doctors, lawyers and professors, plus I feature a journalism piece I've written myself. Journalism is exclusively about the legal system. I have worked as a journalist (albeit infrequently) since 2019, and I've been published multiple times in academic writing in the field of law, such as in the Alternative Law Journal. My list of journalism and academic articles published by notable secondary sources is actually in my Wikipedia user page in the bibliography section. Paper Chained is staffed by myself, another academic and published author, and a practicing lawyer: .

I wrote an article surrounding a legal issue involving Karl Jobst. I spent weeks working on the article, which as you can see from reading it, involved both contacting the subject himself, and also interviewing an expert in defamation law regarding his opinions on the case. These are standard journalism procedures. Over the course of researching I formed the opinion that Karl is an investigative journalist.

Even though the article was published on May 23 and I have been watching the Karl Jobst article on Wikipedia for longer, I chose not to initially cite myself there. However yesterday, someone removed the self-published source that supported Karl being described as an investigative journalist (which I don't particularly object to). I Googled "Karl Jobst" and "Investigative journalist", and my article was one of two secondary sources I found that used these exact terms. The other secondary source called Karl a Pro-YouTuber but also mentioned that Karl refers to himself as an investigative journalist. As the other source only referred to him calling himself this, I also cited my own journalism. This way the article had Karl referring to himself in this way as covered by a secondary source rather than a primary source, and also a secondary source describing him in this way.

The same editor who removed the self-published source has now reverted my edit: . Regarding my source, they have done so on the grounds that "The other source belongs to the user themselves and seems to be circular."

As per WP:SELFCITE it's my understanding that the fact the other source 'belongs' to me (ownership is more complicated than that but I won't split hairs) is neither here nor there, since my citing is not excessive and I believe it is within reason. My description of Karl as an investigative journalist was not circular, and the editor has provided no proof that it is. I can't prove it isn't either, but my history as a published writer combined with the effort spent researching the case should be evidence to the contrary.

1. Can Karl Jobst giving an extensive breakdown of why he called himself an investigative journalist on his own YouTube channel be used to say he is an investigative journalist?
2. Can the Townsville Bulletin (behind paywall ), which says Karl identifies as an investigative journalist, be used to say he is an investigative journalist?
3. Can a Paper Chained article about law written by a person (me) who has experience being published in multiple RS news and academic source related to law, which calls Jobst an 'investigative journalist', be used to describe him as such?

Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The use of the Paper Chained article runs into the problem that as you are author and editor (and some form of owner of the publication, or merely of the article?), it can reasonably be viewed as a self-published source... and while we allow self-published sources for many matters where the author can reasonably be viewed an expert (and I'm not taking any stance on your expertise, which I have not evaluated), there is one strong exception: self-published sources cannot be used for information about living people (unless the author is also the subject). As Jobst is a living person, your source could not be used. I understand that's tough. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

As for 1 & 2: there are some things we allow self-identification on (such as religion and gender), and some we do not (messiahhood). It seems to me that "investigative journalist" falls into that latter category, but that's a judgement call other people will probably voice in on. The sources could certainly be used to say that he identifies as an investigative journalist. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thanks for explaining, I appreciate it. It's not too tough to hear since I didn't write the article for Wikipedia and wasn't planning on using it as such, I just thought it could be helpful since the existing source was removed, and I also wasn't expecting it to be one of the top Google responses.

Jobst probably doesn't want to be called a 'investigative journalist' anyway, not that his feelings should impact the Wikipedia article. His Youtube video linked above was basically him defending describing himself that way in a legal briefing after he was attacked for doing so by his critics. As he explained in the video, he used the term in a legal briefing because it was a formal document and he believes he meets the dictionary definition (which I would completely agree with), but he chooses not to describe himself as such in general, instead just calling himself a YouTuber.

You know a lot more about this than me so can I trouble you a follow up question regarding ownership and self publishing? I do indeed have a high level of editorial control over Paper Chained. However, the magazine is funded by the Community Restorative Centre (CRC), an NGO with about 70 employees which also publishes a weekly radio program. I would say they have de facto ownership, as they can veto anything I want to publish (There is no written formal ownership - the agreement is that CRC has editorial control while they fund the magazine, but if they withdraw funding the magazine ownership will revert to me). It gets more complex and I won't bother you with the details unless you request them, but hypothetically, if the magazine was formally considered owned and published by the Community Restorative Centre, rather than by myself, would it still be considered a self-published source? Or would the CRC also be considered a self-published source themselves? Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Ownership is generally less an issue in discussion self-published sources than who has the step by step control. I don't own BlueSky, and BlueSky has the ability to block or delete anything I post, but I'm still the primary decider of what posts contain. But the mere fact that the CRC is the publisher does not make everything they publish "self-published", as everything published is published by someone. If you were editor of the article but not the author, then that's just plain publication, and it might be able to be used (the question would then be whether Paper Chained is a reliable source for such material, which I have not investigated and make no claim on.) This gets particularly important if Jobst "probably doesn't want to be" called that, because that makes it a contentious matter and we tend to require a bit more rigor on contentious matters. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks again, your analogy is interesting and helpful. I am indeed the primary decider of what the magazine will contain, though when I submit the magazine draft to CRC for approval they do have the final call and can refuse to publish an article, since they control printing. I'd be interested to know if that changes things, in the sense that BlueSky don't actively review every thing you attempt to post and then decide if you can or not, they just have the ability to delete it after the fact. Last annoying question: does the fact that everything I write is manually reviewed by my publisher who then decides if they will accept it or not make it no longer a self-published source? In any case, it's interesting to learn the article would have more chance of being accepted if it was written by someone else. I should also clarify I'm not overly fussed about this specific case so you don't have to weigh in on the source in general. I don't really care if Jobst is an investigative journalist or not either, I was more just surprised at the justification given for removing the sources and didn't know if that was appropriate or not as this is uncharted territory for me.

Oh I should have clarified the point about what Jobst doesn't want better. I meant Jobst's video makes it clear that he doesn't actively pursue being called a investigative journalist and doesn't describe himself as one in general, but he does agree the term applies to him and doesn't have a problem with it. So it would have been more accurate for me to say he doesn't seem to care. In any case, I don't think the term is contentious to anyone except the editor removing it. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute that should be handled by opening a discussion on the article's talk-page, rather than an issue of source reliability. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

... I didn't know whether any of three sources removed was acceptable, so I wanted feedback from someone neutral who knew more about reliable sourcing in this circumstance. In any case while I had a follow up question, if you have a problem I'll just ask it at the talk page of the editor who responded in a helpful way instead, so you can consider this thread resolved now. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a problem, but when you've been reverted, even if you come to a conclusion separately that the reversion was mistaken, you'll still have to discuss that in some way with the editor who reverted you. So it is more natural in the first instance to discuss with them directly, in the context where other parties interested in the topic can weigh in — the article talkoage. Discussion is not conflict; you subsequent discussions with additional parties will be more valuable if you've taken the time to understand the objection to your edit, for example. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Cinemablend

I came across this site while looking for sourcing for an article currently up for AfD. I'm familiar with the site but had heard differing opinions. This source won't be one that will make or break the AfD, but it would be useful and overall it would be generally helpful for film related topics. The site was brought up twice in the past at RS/N, neither of which had much participation. The first time people leaned towards it being unusable, while at the second it was seen as generally OK.

Looking at the site, they do mention doing sponsored and advertorial content, but also say that they will clearly mark these as such. They also put in their FAQ page that they will not accept pay in exchange for positive opinions (ex: paid reviews). They do have an editorial staff and as far as I can tell, they will only post content that has been written by the editorial staff or their set writers. They also have a disclaimer about how they get their info in that they will do their best to fact check anything sent their way and that they will not post anything that is too far fetched or inflammatory. The site has also been used as a source by or named in places like this McFarland book, the Film Review journal, Rowman & Littlefield, and Time magazine. They also partnered with AMC to do a free screening of Barbarian at the San Diego Comic Con.

At the same time, I do see where one of their reviews was criticized as sexist and racist. They did backtrack, apologize, and so on, but that does give me pause.

What does everyone think? I've heard of the site but am not really all that familiar with them. I am thinking that they may be OK for reviews and non-controversial details, but the Turning Red review does give me enough pause to want some sort of consensus. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

For those who don't want to click the link, here's the racist line that was published in a Cinemablend review for Turning Red: I recognized the humor in the film, but connected with none of it. By rooting ‘Turning Red’ very specifically in the Asian community of Toronto, the film legitimately feels like it was made for [director] Domee Shi’s friends and immediate family members. I personally have my doubts that media circus over a dumb review makes a source generally unreliable or should even be factored in. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

That's good to hear. I'm just trying to be super cautious when it comes to adding anything to the horror sources list. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Granot 2019 in a context where it's an example of Austrian economics coverage of Hayekian triangle

In the Hayekian triangle article, there is as of now a template complaining about the source Granot 2019. I asked the user who added it, and they said it was added by a script and I should ask this noticeboard. I would agree that Granot 2019 is not a reliable source if the article were making a claim in Wikipedia's voice in support of its theoretical conclusions, but surely it's a fine thing to cite as an example of an author who worked on the Hayekian triangle – I think the automated script might be failing to take context into account, but I figured I'd check. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s from the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, published on Mises.org which has been red flagged for years now but not listed at RSP.

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 153#"Walled garden" argument with regard to the Austrian School and the Mises Institute BobFromBrockley (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Fillieule 2007 is also QJAE, so I'm not sure that's why it happened. Anyway, I think in this context it's RS. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Are there any secondary sources that comment on these mathematical formalizations? If not, it may be undue to mention them at all. ~2026-28259-76 (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a secondary source in this context. The article is about the Hayekian triangular structure of production, so the primary sources would be works by Hayek (or precursors), and this is a secondary source that talks about it. The issue is whether it's RS. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

An article by Granot is a primary source for the claim "Granot did X" and a secondary source for Granot’s discussion of things Hayek did. The section in question (where Granot is being used) is of the former kind, not the latter. ~2026-28744-62 (talk) 00:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Separate from whether the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics is reliable or not, the output of scripts should only ever be considered advisory. They're prone to false positives, and at least one of them relies on discussions that aren't on English Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:14, 16 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)

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 , 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 ? 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)

radiolineup.com

Can this source be used for notability/facts? At first glance it seems like UGC. They have a news section, but no authors, or editorial policy that I could find. But then again, there isn't a reason to distrust the website because I don't think they have an incentive to make up non-existent radio stations. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:21, 17 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.

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 and in the Congo . 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)

Hallucinated content on Google Books

Google Books' content preview has hallucinated the text of a recently published book - see Wikipedia talk:AI noticeboard#Google Books hallucinating book contents - possibly because the publisher didn't provide text. In the case discussed, the Google AI text is a complete misrepresentation, anodyne and entirely different in style and content from the author's text. Is there any useful guidance we could give to editors, somewhere? At the moment, I can't think of a good way to even find out how often Google's done it or monitor to see if it's a growing problem. NebY (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The entry on Google books gives the author as the publisher, has no ISBN number and is a 73 page ebook released in 2024. There is a book with the same title and author published (in hardback, ebook and audio) by imprints of Penguin in April 2026. In addition to being a Google-created hallucination (which we have no evidence of), it could be an early, self-published draft or a LLM-produced hoax - I've not looked closely enough at the contents. Orange sticker (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've reported it to Google as a problematic record. Orange sticker (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I did look at the contents, comparing the Amazon Kindle edition's preview. The difference was radical. The Google Books Chapter 1, The Birth of Israel, is an anodyne AI summary; paragraphs begin "The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 stands as a defining moment in the history of the Jewish people"; "The idea of a Jewish homeland dates back centuries"; "The Zionist movement, however, was not monolithic"; "After World War I, the Ottoman Empire collapsed".

The Kindle preview shows a different author. Chapter 1 is "Israel's Forever War" and its first four paragraphs begin "On November 10, 2023, in an opinion essay for The New York Times, I issued a warning"; "As a historian of genocide, I believed at the time that there was, as yet, no proof that it"; "In retrospect, we know that had the Biden administration put down its foot in November or"; "By the time I wrote that op-ed, it had become clear that the daily violence unleashed". That's not the same author. NebY (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I haven't yet figured out where to find the 2024 date you mention. I do see the Google Books preview has a page saying copyright 2025.

Our WP:RS problem is that however generated, the Google Books preview text is utterly unlike the published work and editors should not cite it. I don't know if the Google AI explanation that "When publishers upload metadata ahead of a book's release, platforms like Google Books or Amazon occasionally use automated AI algorithms to populate a "sample" or outline if the actual text restriction settings are strictly locked by the publisher" is based on anything real or itself a hallucination. NebY (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Then we go with the actual published copy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, typo, I meant 2025 not 2024, as in the copyright notice on the Google book. Seeing as the book is for sale on Google Books there's a good chance it's a deliberate scam by someone posing as the author. Orange sticker (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't thought of a scam, or realised Google Books might be a vector for scamming. That's a whole other risk for editors relying on Google Books previews. I hope it's a rare one but as I've only just learned about it from you, well, I don't know. Somewhat serious consequences but low probability? NebY (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've definitely heard of scams and pirated copies being sold on there, but I can't find much other than Reddit threads as evidence. I've certainly come across many self-publishers on there who try their best to pass as independently published when looking for sources, but even they have ISBNs. Orange sticker (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been hearing from authors who have had fake versions of their books, sometimes with a slightly reworded title, popping up under their names through self-publishing channels. As such, I wouldn't assume Google is the source of the problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Amazon is plagued with such AI knock-offs. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 22:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Something weird is going on, but I don't think it's an AI hallucination. The weird entry is this one YEjTEQAAQBAJ, the proper entry is this one ETFYEQAAQBAJ. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Kompasiana

Kompasiana.com is a blog hosted by indonesian newspaper Kompas. And these is not WP:NEWSBLOG since anyone can register and make post (WP:UGC). Currently there are 297 articles using Kompasiana.com as it's source. - Ivan530 (Talk) 15:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Their about us page is quite clear (via Google translate) "As a platform based on user-generated content such as social media, every content (articles, photos, videos and comments) is created and broadcast directly by Internet users who already have a Kompasiana Account". Should be replaced or removed as appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with ActivelyDisinterested here. This is WP:UGC and should be considered generally unreliable. It would be worthwhile to go through the articles that cite the source to remove/replace said citations. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 17:28, 18 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, 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."

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. . 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:

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)

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)

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)

• I think he is now more a crusader than a journalist. 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)

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. I did a search on Google News and could only find two other sources that corroborate this. 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.

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)