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

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

---

Is Iran International a reliable source?

Per @331dot's recommendations here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025%E2%80%932026_Iranian_protests#Iran_international_is_not_a_reliable_source), I think it might be a good idea to start a discussion here. The context refers to this specific article: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202601130145 Genabab (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes Since the discussion linked above by Genabab, CBS News corroborated[1] Iran internationals estimate on fatalities. Ecrusized (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it’s generally reliable. In the “fog” caused by the internet shutdown combined with misinformation by pro-regime sources, there is no way to know exact casualty figures, but it broadly aligns with other reliable sources. FortunateSons (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• My impression is that Iran International is generally reliable, with similar levels of occasional errors or misleading statements to the BBC, CNN, The Guardian, NYT. This is based on my feeling for the compatibility of its reports with those of other media, and from browsing our Wikipedia article Iran International. It's clearly biased, more overtly than Western mainstream media due to its Saudi funding, which doesn't necessarily imply a lack of editorial overview and fact-checking. Per the Wikipedia article, The channel has received media attention for its reporting on human rights violations, political developments, LGBTQ+ rights and women's rights in Iran, which is circumstantial evidence against strong Saudi editorial control beyond macro-level geopolitics: attention to and support for LGBTQ+ and women's rights in Iran risks encouraging support for LGBTQ+ and women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Of course, that might be intended as reputation-washing, but it still risks encouraging Gen Z in Saudi Arabia. Getting back to reliability, I haven't done a systematic check; this is just my general impression. Boud (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

  No, Iran International is aimed at Iranians and is only read by Iranian's, which is something we almost never see here about sources on other topics here. Saudi's don't care if it promotes LGBTQ+ rights, they just care about being anti-Islamic Republic as you said. It's impossible to verify it's claims because everyone else who reports on these topics are usually as dubious as it, the recent protest count's being an exception as they got mainstream coverage. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Perennial sources say's. AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Iran International is a bit clickbaity: this article about Wikipedia coverage of Iran has a clickbaity title for summarising (without the URL) this source which is not too careful in its analysis. This report mostly looks serious, and is compatible with other reports, but has the clickbaity statement "making it the deadliest two-day protest massacre in history, according to documents reviewed by Iran International's Editorial Board", of which the in history claim is dubious, given the improbability of an editorial board having that much expertise in, and a documentary record of, the whole of human history.

  I don't think that these two examples contradict general reliability; newspapers of record are not perfect either. Boud (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes for some things, and No for others. My impression is that Iran International is generally a credible outlet; however, its coverage appears to have a very strong bias in favor Reza Pahlavi in a manner similar to how partisan media promote their preferred political figures. For this reason, I would avoid relying on it for content related to Pahlavi, while considering it acceptable for reporting on other topics. JoseJan89 (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, it is generally reliable - It is an important source of news for citizens living in Iran. They have a published editorail guideline and journalists write under their own name. Guz13 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
• I've seen the argument somewhere (can't remember) before that it wasn't reliable because it was anti the Iranian regime. To me that stood out as a particularly shit argument. Being anti that particular regime is a good position to be in and I've not seen anything else which would lead me to a conclusion that the source is anything else but generally reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 23:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've also consistently seen the same argument be made by regime supporters/apologists, where they try to devalue the credibility of sources like Iran International, which is an example of WP:POV.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Generally reliable per above. Maybe a bit too favorable to Pahlavi at times, but I've yet to see any proof that they report misinformation, and their editorial standards look good. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Right now… with things very chaotic in Iran and events happening rapidly… I am tempted to say NO source is reliable - Even our most trusted sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, but we need a source, and when looking at the options, this one is better than most FortunateSons (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably not to be relied on for critical information or extraordinary claims as the sole source, but otherwise probably OK for the citing of basic, uncontroversial facts, opinions, quotes, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, Iran International is more like a news-cum-advocacy platform whose hyper partisan positions have extended to praising terror attacks in Iran, and giving extensive coverage to the MEK, which the Guardian describes as: a cult-like organisation. It should be one of the last sources used alone for WP:ECREE claims about events in Iran. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

>Ofcom is scrutinising a UK-based Saudi-linked television network after it gave airtime to the spokesman for an extremist separatist group who praised last month’s terrorist attack in the Iranian city of Ahvaz, which killed at least 24 people, including children.

Iran International didn't praise the attack, the attack was praised by someone they had on. That's like blaming every mainstream outlet for having Hamas spokespeople that praise the Oct 7th attacks. ~2026-28076-0 (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, it is generally reliable per above.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Based on how their reporting of the protests has been going, I would say they are not even remotely a reliable source. They are reporting based on multiple anonymous sources, all very high within the government, this article has a source from an anonymous source from within the Supreme National Security Council, two sources in the presidential office and several sources from within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and then they add that the number is also based on information from doctors and nurses, again without specifying much details around which medical units or hospitals. Given the sensitivity of the topic, any information that is thrown out there is the beginning is very hard to correct later on, similar to what happened with Gaza events. Even when CBS corroborated the figures, it was also based on an anonymous sources which could be very well the same that Iran International are reporting from. In my opinion, having an extreme biased to Pahlavi is one thing, but coupled with reporting solely based on what seems to be very high ranking anonymous source just scream misinformation, and citing them as a source further damages any chances of the real reliable numbers getting to the people first. ~2026-36210-8 (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

It is absolutely reliable. They have a lot of inside sources in Iran and is literally one of the 2 main channels watched by actual Iranians for news alongside Manoto (70% viewership compared to state media's 10%). Proof in their reliability can be seen in real time as they were the first to report over 12000 dead in the protests, and mainstream media (CBS, Sunday Times...) and Human Rights orgs like HRANA are slowly but surely starting to corroborate that number to the extent that it was an undercount. Questioning its reliability is absurd when it's the equivalent of CNN for Iranian people. ~2026-28076-0 (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

HRANA death toll report is still around 2000, where dis you get the figure of HRANA catching up to the 12000 figure? And the other agencies such as CBS reported the figure the same say as Iran International also based on an anonymous source. Which is taken into account just because the huge presence CBS has but it in no way adds to the credibility of Iran International. The rest of what you said is purely subjective unless you can provide a reliable source on that viewership percentage. ~2026-36210-8 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Sunday Times literally cited doctors in Iran saying that the deaths are in the 16500 to the 18000 range. Keep up with the news please if you're looking to engage in this topic. ~2026-38675-7 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you read the entire thread before engaging? He specifically said that HRANA figures are catching up to the figure reported by Iran International which is false. He said that the number was reported by CBS and I pointed out that CBS also reported based on an anonymous source which doesn’t add to the credibility of Iran International. Now regarding the Sunday Times figures, I’ve seen the headline if the article but given it’s behind a pay wall I couldn’t read the article to comment on it, which again is something you should start doing before engaging in a thread. ~2026-36210-8 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

How is that false? The numbers from HRANA keep increasing day after day, also the number you stated is HRANA's official figure is from several days ago, HRANA's figure currently is 3300+ with over 4000 deaths under review. Like I said, please catch up on sourcing before trying to propagandize for the regime. ~2026-38675-7 (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

https://x.com/i/status/2012969540154437634 And just as I say that, the numbers are projected to catch up to Iran intl's. ~2026-38675-7 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

just checked their official X account and there is no updated figure ad that page you linked claims ~2026-36210-8 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, an increase from 2000 to 3300 in a span of a almost a week is not catching up to 12000 which by the way is now around 16500+ as reported by Iran International citing The Sunday Times. Additionally HRANA has stated that out of the 3300 they reported, 166 are government forces. And out of the 4000 under review, most probably there will be some who are security forces. Now Who is spreading propaganda by utilising security forces casualties in a misleading way. ~2026-36210-8 (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - I am reluctant to second-guess the views of the people of Iran with respect to coverage of their own country. According to this study, Iran International is their most trusted and most watched source of news. Coining (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2026 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable or Use with attribution at the very least - the organisation (GAMAAN) that ran the study claiming it is the most trusted source in Iran is itself heavily biased, being a Dutch outlet run by a "pro-democracy activist". (Quotes are because that's how he describes himself.) That's not to say that such entities can't be reliable sources (indeed, the perennial sources list is littered with such organisations) but I don't think we can use those figures to assess if the publication itself is reputable. Our own article makes it clear that Iran International is itself heavily and openly biased, so I think in line with other, similar outlets, if we do find that it's reliable, we should be sure to include attribution. Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

  Biased against the Islamic Republic. This is not a bad position to be in. Any regime that beats a girl to death for not wearing a hijab is one that any decent person or group ought to be biased against. Also WP:BIASED is a guideline and it states "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  That guideline also says Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate and I think that's the case here, regardless of the direction the bias is aimed. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  It's not like how some newspapers are biased as in "it has a Pahlavi-leaning stance", it's more a news-advocacy platform as Iskandar said. I don't think you have actually ever watched International to see how extreme it is, there's a good joke describing it as "The regime is going to collapse tomorrow" everyday. The written coverage is less extreme but they come from the same outlet. AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Judging by above, I think everyone agrees that Iran International is very heavily pro-Pahlavi biased and is funded by Saudi's. It's also clear that the network is established with the aim of promoting anti-Islamic Republic sentiment. I don't know how that doesn't cause it to be unreliable, seeing that for example Tasnim is deprecated for "being an IRGC-controlled outlet that disseminates state propaganda and conspiracy theories.". Iran International being a source of a very large fraction of Wikipedia in this topic doesn't mean anything, Iranian outlets being deprecated here hurts coverage extremely but they still are. Notability say's if RS don't report we don't write it here. Should at least be "cite with attribution" for being extremely biased in topics related to Iran, ie everything it reports. So Generally unreliable or Use with attribution as Smallangryplanet said. AlexBobCharles (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  >sees most people saying it's reliable

  >your takeaway is that everyone agrees with something that a minority of people agree with

  Alrigh, then. ~2026-49805-0 (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  See my comment above. TarnishedPath^talk 09:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

There are a good number of claims about people being killed which have appeared on Iranian television alive, Mahdi Samavati seem's to be the one best documented in english here, محمدرسول بیاتی seems to be more provable but not documented in english. As i said it's very hard to discuss this source while every source from the other side is deemed deprecated and better sources don't document it. How is it that it's assumed to be reliable with this context and expected to be disproven. AlexBobCharles (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to this report by Iran Intl, which has five brief paragraphs reporting Iranian officials' POV, one paragraph stating Some sources reported that an 18-year-old, identified as Mahdi Samavati, was killed by security forces' gunfire, and a final paragraph stating In recent hours, Iran International has received multiple videos that appear to show security forces firing directly toward protesters in the city. For a reader sceptical of the authorities, the wording overall suggests that Samavati was actually killed, but leaving that to the reader's interpretation rather than Iran Intl's definite assertion. A reader with confidence in the authorities will dismiss the death claim. This seems like more or less NPOV wording not too different from regular mainstream western WP:RS, although it is written in a way that hints between the lines that "because the authorities are denying this, it's likely true". A complementary source for the specific incident is The Jerusalem Post, which adds some interesting nuances. This doesn't seem like evidence against "general reliability" to me, comparing to mainstream media sources that we accept as generally reliable. Boud (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Generally unreliable Generally reliable with bias: As someone who have talked about the reliability of Afghanistan International (in Chinese Wikipedia), Iran International's sister channel, my point is that, I don't see the problem (such as disinformation or media manipulation) on Afghanistan International and Iran International of fact-checking.

It was talking about whether a certain word of the newspaper choosen is misleading, but we generally believed that the choosing may have bias, not it did not affect its reliability. I think the link between Iran International and Saudi Arabia may be an issue, but I don't think the funding affects its reporting quality on Iran or Afghanistan. Saimmx (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean unreliable? FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. It was a typo. --Saimmx (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: There's a Sep 2022 BBC analysis of Iran International. It seems to me that the closest thing to a summary for the question of reliability is BBC's statement "Its [Iran International's] high-quality output ...". Overall, the rest of this BBC analysis adds a lot of nuance, and seems to argue that Iran Intl is a good complement to other sources of Iran news. There's a comment about the headlines being a bit clickbaity: often highlight[s] clickable headlines. Boud (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

References

RFC: Sources on a JKR footnote

The following questions are regarding this footnote on J.K. Rowling regarding proposed gender self-recognition law reforms that Rowling opposes.

1. In this footnote, is Pedersen 2022 a sufficient source for the information it's citing?
2. In this footnote, is Suissa & Sullivan 2021 a sufficient source for the information it's citing?

Loki (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Survey (JKR footnote)

• No to both: Pedersen 2022 says that Rowling's influence [...] in this particular debate must also be acknowledged but it doesn't ever say what that influence is. Without outside knowledge of Rowling's politics in general this could just as easily mean that she supports the law in question. Suissa & Sullivan is even worse because all it says about Rowling is that she's been harassed. It doesn't say she's been harassed for her politics, it doesn't even mention her politics. Certainly it doesn't mention her specific opposition to any law at all. Loki (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• Bad RfC - the discussion is at the Rowling talk page, where the principle of replacing the sources with better sources is agreed by all (at least regarding Suissa & Sullivan). RSN is there to discuss if the source is reliable and this RfC studiously avoids the question. It seems to me that you either want an RfC at RSN that individually asks if the sources are reliable or you want an RfC that asks if gender critical sources can be reliable sources (as per Adam's comments in the previously aborted RfC, Both these sources are extremely gender critical sources). But an RfC asking if they should be used in that place on that page belongs on the Rowling talk page. It also won't yield the answer you hope for. Suppose this RfC closes with "no to both" and they come out - any editor may put them straight back against something they do clearly support (e.g. that Rowling has been the subject of attacks for her stated views). The question as framed here does not answer whether the sources are reliable - only a content question on that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• No to Suissa and Sullivan, no comment on Pedersen 2022 I haven't read Pedersen 2022 or looked at its provenance so I won't comment on that but Suissa and Sullivan is effectively nothing more than an editorial by a pair of people with strong ties to anti-trans advocacy groups and should not be used for anything other than the opinions of Suissa and Sullivan where due. It should rarely rise to the level of due. Generally it should not be used and should never be used for statements of fact. Simonm223 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
• No to both Neither have any real discussion of Rowling, certainly not sufficient to connect her with specific laws as proposed, and both are highly biased sources. I don't think either say what they're meant to say, but with so little text on Rowling (two to five vague sentences each), I'd question whether anything in Rowling's article could be cited to them, even if their reliability wasn't pretty questionable. I'd also say there's a real oddity in using Suissa and Sullivan to say the Equality Act protects trans people given that the consequences of For Women Scotlabd v The Scottish Ministers, which Rowling supported, removed most of those protections. That's after Suissa and Sullivan, but still... Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
• No - WP:SNOW: I'm confused. If what @sirfurboy is saying is accurate, we all agree these sources are not reliable for the claims that are being expressed. And I agree, discussing them in the context of this unique claim does not prove or disprove their overall reliability, rather, only their reliability in this unique context.

1. I would welcome a conversation as to the sources' overall bias/reliability, which seems more appropriate for this page.
2. I would also welcome a conversation suggesting sources that would be better suited for the Rowling claims, but that is likely a better conversation for Rowling's Talk Page. Maybe I'll flit over there. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 15:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Pickalittletalkalittle, Sirfurboy, Simonm223, and LokiTheLiar: I've started a section to discuss reliability in general. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 22:13, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (JKR footnote)

• Pinging everyone who participated in the previous malformed version of this RFC: Adam Cuerden, Hemiauchenia, ActivelyDisinterested, Guy Macon, RadioactiveBoulevardier, The_Gnome, and Newslinger. Loki (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  Couod you sign it at least date the RFC question? And thanks for re-wording the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar could we possibly reword "sufficient source" to "reliable source" in the RfC or is it too late? I think that was the intent of the RfC here Katzrockso (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

  I think given the narrowness of the wording RFC question, that change doesn't make a difference. Loki (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Please don't ping me. I only commented on whether the RfC was malformed. I would rather jump into a swimming pool full of razor blades and salt than make any comment about the fight between J.K. Rowling / her supporters and her opponents. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Firstly, Both are used in a footnote to the text "Rowling has opposed proposed gender self-recognition law reforms", which reads "The laws and proposed changes are the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill; related are the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018, and the UK Equality Act 2010, which makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic." This means that the sources need to be explicitly about Rowling's opposition to these laws. They are not law sources, and they aren't even sources for Rowling, as they only have two to five sentences that even mention her each.

Suissa and Sullivan, which can be read here has very little text on J. K. Rowling. Its sourcing for the sections on J. K. Rowling includes the website Medium, an unreliable source, and says nothing worth including in an article. Hence, it's a terrible source for Rowling. It is used for the text "...the UK Equality Act 2010, which makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic", which, especially after For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers, is a very questionable claim to make, especially to a non-law citation that predates that case, and it does not connect this to Rowling in any way.

The citation for Pedersen is to the abstract, which is very strange, as no reference to Rowling appears in the abstract. The full text does mention her (in two sentences), with "the influence of J. K. Rowling in this particular debate must also be acknowledged." being the only connection to the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill made. Again, very weak source for Rowling, and not a law source.

Both these sources are extremely gender critical sources, and have a very strong bias in that direction. While biased sources aren't entirely a problem, it means they need to have something unique to offer, and... they offer nothing that's not trivially replaced. For BLPs, questinable sources should never be used when they can be replaced with non-questionable sources, especially when they only mention the BLP in passing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• [Moved following comment from survey section in reply to me.] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - There shouldn't be a concerted effort to force these sources into the article when they have so few sentences that even mention Rowling. Like, these aren't going to come up in a search for her very readily, so if they are constantly appearing, then someone is probably engaging in tendentious editing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't follow where the attempt to disrupt is. This RFC is in the wrong place, and it is probably significant that to date it only has comments from people who recently edited the Rowling page. It is not asking about the reliability of the sources; this RfC is a content question. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

You: 'Suppose this RfC closes with "no to both" and they come out - any editor may put them straight back against something they do clearly support'

Doing so would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, since these have only trivial content about Rowling, and all the votes have commented on them being bad sources for Rowling. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:06, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that is just hypotheticals then. My point, of course, is that the question being asked does not resolve that. Your quotes below certainly show that the sources do support text on the kickback and threats she has received. We are not asking if the sources are reliable for that, and as I understand it, that was why Suissa and Sullivan was first added to the article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

That was already rejected, see previous RSNs on them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 13:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Where was that decision? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

You've been told this before. You know this. It's why they aren't used for that in the article; it's why it's shocking they've been readded. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Surely they never left the article, and neither was there any consensus in any previous discussion, was there? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Suissa_and_Sullivan was pretty firmly against. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 18:30, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

That's your reading as someone involved in that discussion, but there is no resolution coming out of that discussion. Your insistence otherwise notwithstanding. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

All text about Rowling in the two sources.

To simplify things, This is every sentence that's even slightly about Rowling from the two sources:

Suissa and Sullivan

• "The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read" [The novel is not named]
• "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling,2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired."

Pedersen

• "However, the role of creative writers as public voices on contemporary issues may also be a particularly Scottish element, and the influence of J. K. Rowling in this particular debate must also be acknowledged."
• "Threats to their well-being and job security have been made against many of the higher-profile women involved in the debate in Scotland, from Joanna Cherry MP to the author J.K. Rowling, and – as will be discussed – to several of the interviewees."

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 10:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

On reliability in general

Roughly speaking, these do not feel like sources with a strong interest in unbiased facts. We've discussed Suissa and Sullivan in detail before (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Suissa_and_Sullivan, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 503; views that it's reliable are definitely in the minority. Pedersen is a primary source research paper which reports the results of interviewing 18 women; almost all sourcing is in the introduction, setting up the concept of a cooperative constellation, the sourcing largely disappearing after that. Offhand, the only source that appears to even be about gender critical thought in Pedersen is (sigh) Suissa and Sullivan.

Some notes:

• Suissa and Sullivan uses blogs as sources, and changes the text from those blogs to add hyperbole. For example, the "tidal wave of requests" in the quote above is sourced to Leng, which is an article on Medium (website), an unreliable source, and lacks the hyperbole added.
• Pedersen is based on, "Eighteen one-hour interviews were undertaken with women identified as members of a

Scottish women’s cooperative constellation around the issue of GRA reform and its impact on women’s sex-based rights, including politicians, researchers, journalists, and activists." - and makes it clear the women were selected specifically for their gender critical views.

• Suissa and Sullivan is written in a very stream-of-consiousness style. Very, very little is discussed in any detail, and it jumps topics rapidly. This is not consistent with any sort of detailed analysis.
• Pedersen is a very strange source in general, with some odd claims, and strange selection methods, and, in the end, is based on short interviews with just eighteen people, all from one side. Some statements by the author (one of which she cites herself for) in it include:
  • "As far as the UK debate on the subject of potential reforms of the Gender Recognition Act is concerned, the parenting site Mumsnet has been identified as functioning as a subaltern counter-public for the expression of gender-critical feminism, which has been censored from other parts of the Internet such as Twitter and Reddit (Author)."
  • "The ‘writers’ group was originally conceived as containing members of the media – journalists and newspaper columnists who had written on the subject of GRA reform, including personal opinion pieces, and followed Seibicke’s (2017) suggestion that the media should be included in such constellations. However, it was augmented by the inclusion of a number of creative writers and bloggers, who were identified by other interviewees as key voices in this cooperative constellation in Scotland."
• Both Suissa and Sullivan and Pedersen are unabashedly biased sources. They make the fact that they are written entirely from a gender critical perspective absolutely clear.
• Scottish Affairs and Journal of Philosophy of Education are very low impact factor journals (about .5 and .7 respectively)
• I would struggle to identify much these would be useful for. Maybe as primary sources for gender critical thought, but using them in such a way feels like it would strongly run into issues with WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
• So, on the whole, I would consider these as Unreliable sources, which should only be used in exceptional circumstances Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 17:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I've said all I am going to. It's purely an opinion piece penned by people who combine significant bias with minimal relevance. It is unreliable for fact and undue as opinion. Simonm223 (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

British publications and the "far-right" label

This thread is prompted by an impromptu discussion in an RfC on labeling Reform UK, where it was posited that British publications may be hesitant to use the "far-right" label to describe Reform UK, while many academics and foreign publications have no qualms about doing so.

In the UK, the Reform UK party has been pressuring and threatening British broadcasters, news publishers and unions with legal action over using the "far-right" label to describe Reform UK, calling the label "defamatory and libellous". As can be read about in the following sources:

• Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, said: “There are very significant implications of calling a political party, and by implication, its leader and senior leadership team far right. It is that which is defamatory and libellous. That is why they have apologised immediately.” He also said he expected the BBC to change its editorial guidelines.

Tice said the label of being “far right” would have “huge implications”, if other media outlets used it and suggested that he and others could lose their bank accounts or the ability to get a mortgage. He said his lawyers had also been in touch with other organisations. (emphasis mine) The Guardian

• “It was Trumpian,” said Mark Mansfield, editor and CEO of Nation.Cymru, a small English-language Welsh news service. “It has perhaps given us a flavour of how a Reform UK government would behave towards the media.”

Mansfield is referring to what he described as an attempt by a figure at Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party to “bully” his publication, but he believes a wider lesson might be learned. The Guardian

• Clearly, one of the reasons so many journalists and media outlets have refrained from describing Reform UK accurately is through fear of legal repercussions. The party is adamant that it is not far-right and is willing to litigate the point. Hope Not Hate
• "The National Union of Journalists in Wales condemns unequivocally the recent attacks on Welsh media by Reform UK." National Union of Journalists
• The far right is threatening to stiffle state-owned media corporations or put them at its service if it comes to power ... Also in the United Kingdom, Nigel Farage’s far-right party, Reform UK, has long targeted the BBC, which is historically renowned for its quality standards. El Pais
• A row has erupted between Nigel Farage and Britain's biggest teaching union after it branded Reform UK a "racist and far-right" party.

Farage reacted angrily to Mr Kebede's claims, accusing him of encouraging "indoctrination of teenagers in our schools" and vowing that his party would "go to war" with the teaching unions if it won the next general election.(emphasis mine) BBC

This is both an invitation to join the discussion on the reliability of sources calling Reform UK "far-right" and a discussion on whether British newspapers and publications can be considered generally reliable when it comes to labeling British politicians and parties as "far-right", in light of the legal threats. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Point of information: Reform UK, Ltd. is a private company, not a political party. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Huh? The Reform UK article states as the first sentence of the lede: Reform UK is a right-wing populist political party in the United Kingdom. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Its a private company [[2]]. Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

From your link: Nigel Farage has given up ownership of Reform UK, with the party saying it wants to give more control to its members. (emphasis mine) TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

And "This is now being taken over by a newly registered business called Reform 2025 Ltd, according to Companies House filings, with Farage and his deputy Richard Tice no longer holding shares.". Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It was set up legally as a private company to eschew some of the regulations they would have had to abide by had the been set up as a membership association like other political parties. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

This is covered well in the “Funding and Structure” section of the Reform UK which ought to be summarised in its lead BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Britain has very strong press neutrality laws, but I am unsure what your question is. Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I am unsure what your question is

"This is both an invitation to join the discussion on the reliability of sources calling Reform UK "far-right" and a discussion on whether British newspapers and publications can be considered generally reliable when it comes to labeling British politicians and parties as "far-right", in light of the legal threats."

Which part of that sentence are you struggling with? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:20, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

What this has to do with them being reliable or not. Not having an opinion is not the same as being unreliable. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Did I say unreliable? If you look at WP:RSP many sources are qualified with an "additional considerations apply", where editors agreed that an otherwise reliable source is not reliable in a single area or for certain claims. So I am asking if the same can be said in regards to British publications when it comes to labeling individuals and parties as "far-right" since they have been threatened by legal action? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

No additional considerations need apply; if they choose not to use a term, that does not imply a lack of reliability. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

If the threat to legal action is inhibiting them from WP:Call a spade a spade, that would indeed make them unreliable on this question Katzrockso (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The more I see, the more I hear, the more I'm inclined to agree. What is this private company nonsense, is it some shield against liable or something? I've never heard of British publications (as a broad group) being unreliable for well anything specifically; but then I've never heard of a party with majority % support in a country masquerading as a private company either so I'm out of my depth. I'm awaiting a reasonable explanation here, as giving the sourcing in the RfC (aside from British publications) it's abundantly clear for all to see; Reform are far-right. So what gives. CNC (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

They're generally heavily biased on transgender topics. Like any time something is being cited to a British publication in GENSEX, the wikitext will be like "Transgender women in the United Kingdom sometimes have to source medication through alternative means due to the inaccessibility of treatment through NHS channels in the UK" and the source text will be like "There DANGEROUS biologically male RAPISTS are using underground cowboy internet pharmacies to source their HORMONE DRUGS that turn CHILDREN into more of them because they can't SUCK IT UP and accept NHS psychotherapy as an acceptable treatment! Subscribe to the The New Statesman for more!" Snokalok (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

That issue isn't isolated to British publications I'm afraid. CNC (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

No but it started with the UK media (see Anti-transgender movement in the United Kingdom if you wanna know more), and it's still the most pervasive in UK media. Even the NYT is only so open about its bias, meanwhile you open the BBC and it'll describe trans women as "biological males who identify as women intruding upon female changing rooms" without blinking Snokalok (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

The UK might have those laws but enforcement is sketchy, infrequent, and easily circumvented. The press regulator rarely issues sanctions and media outlets can opt in or out of IPSO's purview - the BBC, for example, is generally regulated by OFCOM and not IPSO. (with some exceptions) Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a question of reliability, however, it would factor into a discussion on how much weight we put on the descriptions of Reform UK made by British media organisations. That doesn't mean those descriptions are invalid, but it is something we should talk about. I would still put Reform somewhat to the left of the Republican party in the US, and it is not particularly common to see mainstream American sources describe the Republican party as far-right.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, but the Overton window applies there, since the USA doesn't have any left-wing political parties that could be described as such in European terms. The Republican party (especially in the last year) could easily be described as far-right in European terms (because it is), but in American terms it is only a bit further right than it was previously. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, the BBC apologised for describing Reform as "far-right" because they said that particular label as it "fell short of our usual editorial standards," an acknowledgement that Reform is not far-fight. Tice had called the statement "defamatory and libellous". Defamatory allegations are untrue statements presented as facts that harm reputations, and are pushed by sorts for reasons, like we see for the push to label Reform as "far-right". One doesn't get taken to court for libel for stating the truth or facts. Halbared (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

One doesn't get taken to court for libel for stating the truth or facts.

Important to note that the BBC was not found guilty of libel/defamation by a court. For a lot of organisations the threat of litigation is enough, as it can be very costly. A high profile court case would be advantageous for Reform because it would give them publicity, regardless of whether the final verdict would be in their favour. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes that’s correct. Tice called it defamatory but he would say that wouldn’t he. Neither the BBC nor any other media source had conceded it’s defamatory and no court has found it such. The fear of litigation dampens media accuracy. The BBC is also under massive political pressure not to appear “woke” so are bending over backwards to appease their critics. This doesn’t make UK media unreliable by any means, but as Boynamedsue says it means we shouldn’t accord too much weight to them not using this term in deciding whether or not we should. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

We have an WP:Academic bias. If academics state it as such, we should as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:10, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

See sourcing, that's what academics are saying. CNC (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be less an issue with reliability and more to do with NPOV. If there are differing views on a matter in reliable sources both should be included in the article, "Rightwing - Far right" maybe and discuss the discrepancy in the articles main body. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:20, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

As an update, after expanding the source review, it doesn't appear that British publications are that misaligned with other reliable sources. It's only the academics and subject matter experts that appear to have a grip on this subject with any real precision, the rest are all just passing mentions without any discussion of the subject in hand. It serves as a great example of why academic bias exists, seeing the disparity between news orgs and academics (even the inconsistency within news orgs themselves). But to be fair to news orgs it's not their area of expertise, so we shouldn't be expecting them to be politically labelling anything that accurately anyway. TL:DR: I think the "British publications" issue is a red herring here; it's just a newsorg issue. CNC (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• This isn't really a reliability issue, it's a weight and WP:BESTSOURCES issue. Academic sources are generally higher-quality than news sources (though of course there's dramatic individual variance), so if the news as a whole broadly says X but high-quality academic sources as a whole broadly say Y, we go with the academic ones. And with regional news sources there's also a WP:GLOBAL issue; if we can clearly identify that British sources, specifically, refer to something one way and the entire rest of the world refers to it another way, we shouldn't give too much weight to the regionally-specific British outlook. This naturally prevents things like region-specific legal situations which may prevent sources from saying something (which may be the case here) from being given too much weight. --Aquillion (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2026 (UTC)
• Is the argument here that these publications are cow-towing to pressure and are, therefore, unreliable? OR is it possible that they represent a more neutral point of view than the academic publications? Someone weigh in for me. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 16:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• So I just did a body-text search of our articles Donald Trump and Republican Party (United States), and I note that the term "far right" is not mentioned anywhere in the body-text of either, despite it being used by at least some of the references. Sure, WP:WAX, but it just seems it's easier for people to be condemnatory of anything to do with the UK on EN WP than it is is for the US.

Neutral on whether the descriptor should/shouldn't be used for Reform UK though. Look at the sources. FOARP (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Redo the search. In the Political positions section for the Republican Party it says: The election of Trump in 2016 saw the Republican Party shift to embrace and bring far-right, fringe, and extreme ideas and organizations into the mainstream. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

And here it is for Trump: In 2016, he helped bring once-fringe far-right ideas and organizations into the mainstream. and He is described as embracing extremism, conspiracy theories such as QAnon, and far-right militia movements to a greater extent than any modern American president. You must have searched for "far right" instead of "far-right". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:04, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Also Donald Trump and Fascism (8 in body including in lead as summary): some scholars have described Trump variously as an authoritarian populist, a far-right populist, a nationalist, or of a different ideology. and in body: Referring to the definition of fascism as a far-right authoritarian ideology with elements of ultranationalism and a dictatorial leader, Kelly stated that Trump "certainly" meets the definition of a fascist, making it the first time a president has been called a fascist by a former hand-picked top adviser. Given Trump/Republicans have 100+ articles between them and Reform UK have only one (two inc. a list), it's only fair to compare the two topics based on all the content that is included. CNC (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Film Threat and paid reviews

I'm following up on this discussion from 2022. The gist of that discussion is as follows:

Film Threat is still technically a RS on Wikipedia despite offering a "fast pass" system where people can pay to have their films reviewed in a timely manner. Films using this service are not clearly marked and people have questioned the site's neutrality at AfD and other locations. A dissenting editor (JoJo Anthrax, pinging them here) recommended seeing when the site started offering the "pay to play" system, as not all of the site's content was promotional.

Looking into the site, they have been pay to play since early 2011. They stopped being entirely free in 2010, when they shut down their submission page. The prices started at $10 and rose to about 2014. They stated it was a way to reduce what they called "joke" submissions and pay writers. It was also the only way to receive a review unless directly solicited by the site for a screener copy.

The site briefly went down for a while. When it returned in 2017 the site lacked information about paid reviews but did have mention of a marketing package. Since they did paid reviews in the past, it's not unreasonable to suspect that the marketing package included paid review packages. The review submission page was readded in 2018. There was an option for a free submission as well as the fast pass option, which was now $50. What is concerning about this is that this version of the submission page lacked the "no guaranteed positive review" language and the submission fee section specifically talks about promoting films and offered several other ways to promote the film for a fee. Their terms and conditions page says they will work with filmmakers if they are unhappy, which doesn't come off great. As far as I can tell, they never re-added any of the explicit "no guaranteed favorable review" content to their submission page.

Aside from reviews, the site also does articles, interviews, and has their own award. The award is only available to those who have purchased one of the review marketing packages. A search for coverage of the award produced little. No one seems to be really covering the award other than Film Threat. As for the articles and interviews, it's unclear if those are offered as part of a marketing package. There is a marketing page for film festival submissions that follows a similar fee scale as the reviews, but I can't find any clear indication that they also use a similar pay scale for everything else. At the same time, if they're offering paid marketing for reviews and festivals, then it's not unreasonable to suspect that this is also part of a marketing package.

So with all of this in mind, I would like to suggest the following

1. Film Threat deemed unreliable for any film reviews after 2017. Although it seems highly likely that this paid scale existed when the site returned, we don't have any explicit confirmation of this. I'd honestly rather only use reviews prior to 2011, but they did at least have some semblance of neutrality on their submission page from 2011 through 2017 and they were generally considered a RS elsewhere during that time as far as I know.
2. Film Threat's Award This! review is not usable to establish notability.
3. Film Threat's non-review coverage be deemed either outright unusable to establish notability or heavily discouraged for notability purposes. I have no reason to suspect that the site is unusable for backing up basic details, but the site's paid offerings makes me leery about everything else.

What is everyone's thought? I'm going to post a note at WP:FILM so that people from there can come comment. I'm open to the third suggestion being tossed to the side since there's no outright proof that they do paid articles and interviews, but I would recommend the award and reviews (post 2017) be deemed unusable for notability purposes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the analysis. I Support Option 1 above. Recognizing that perhaps a case-by-case basis can be used for the 2011-2017 epoch, I agree that we should probably only use that source for material dated prior to 2011. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@JoJo Anthrax: What do you think about the award? In my opinion usable awards can go one of two ways for establishing notability. One is for an award to be so major that receiving it is enough to establish notability (ex: Oscar). The other is for it to be notable enough that it can count towards notability akin to how a review or article can help count towards notability.

Since nominations are only available for those people who have purchased the marketing/review package (see note below), I don't think it should be usable to count towards notability at all. It's not super common, but I have seen people list it on pages and I believe I've seen it used to establish notability at AfD. I figure it would be implied that the award isn't usable, if we aren't accepting the reviews, but I also figure that it would be good to explicitly state this just in case. I don't see it as a vanity award in the same vein as say, the Red Movie Awards, but it's not great that it's only available to those who pay to have the review/marketing bundle.

(note) Something I did notice is that while the eligibility requirements for the award just say that it has to be reviewed on the site, the actual review page only considers paid reviews to be eligible.

For the 2011-2017 case-by-case basis, what would be your recommendation on that end? The main reason I saw those as maybe usable is because during that time the reviews looked to only cost about $20 at most during that time and the site has been seen as a RS in the past. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I am uncertain that awards from Film Threat, from any time, are significant. Have these awards themselves ever been discussed in sources independent of either Film Threat or the recipients? I might be wrong about this but as a vehicle for establishing notability, no matter when they were bestowed, without such secondary recognition (either in general or focused upon specific films/people) these 'honors' don't seem to cut it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really. There's very little out there. Almost nobody is reporting on this. Normally we can argue for notability if media outlets have reprinted the lists of nominees and winners, but there's almost total radio silence on that end. Most of what I found was unusable, as it was either a SPS, social media, or a false positive.

The best sources were pretty lacking. There was an article about a specific film at Jedi News, which I'm not sure is reliable. BroadwayWorld.com and ComingSoon.net reprinted the nominees, but not the winners as far as I can tell. First Comics News did print the winners. I'm not sure if they're usable - the only thing that points towards maybe being usable is that they won an Inkwell Award last year.

I'm not really sure that just printing the nominees is really enough, considering that almost no one wants to print the list of winners. Maybe it'll become notable in the future, but it's not at this point in time and I don't know if it ever will be. It kind of hurts to say this because it feels like it's overkill, but it kind of feels like they've become more or less irrelevant to the media and general public after 2017. I looked for mention of the site in books between 2020 and today and only two results came up, both of which used 2000s era reviews as references. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm generally leaning towards even 2011 based on your research as its a bit too hard to judge what beyond that was valid? Perhaps on an author by author basis to find an expert per WP:RSEDITORIAL? Even then, I don't know if there's anything there. I don't feel strongly about this. Even just going through their news section in 2014 everything feels ultimately like promotion or material you can get elsewhere. (Its also kind of shocking to see in a world of churnalism, that their "news" section has 15 articles and dates back to 2011 (!). Surely we can find a generally better source to discuss the death of Roger Ebert or Vimeo-related news? I'd agree from what JoJo said that their awards also seem like the most weak edge case. If they are already having you pay to promote their material, pay to write content for them, this doesn't bode for must prestige for their awards. If someone feels some content being reliable from it, I think they'd have to really go to bat to make us get it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to do an author to author basis, if there was one who ended up being an overwhelmingly reliable journalist. What do you think about saying that reviews by Gore himself (regardless of time period) are usable? The site is dodgy as all get out nowadays but he does have some bonafides.

On a side note, I didn't realize exactly how poor their reviews had become until I saw this one for an app game. It's marked as a review but it doesn't even seem to really be a review. It comes across like they just copy/pasted what the developer sent them and called it a review. I also ran this through a couple of AI detectors and it was flagged as almost certainly being written by AI. Both were tagged as written by "Film Threat Staff", so that's probably their way of posting stuff that wasn't actually written by someone on staff or even by an actual person. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Does everyone generally agree that they aren't usable as a source post 2011? If so, then I want to bring this up at the film WP so that if they have a place to list unreliable sites (as others do) then it can be listed there. I'm also going to list it as unusable at the resource page for WP:HORROR. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:32, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I Support Options 2 & 3. I think their non-review coverage reads like AI and the awards need more coverage in secondary sources, especially for winners.

Looking at Film Threat's reviews aggregated on Rotten Tomatoes, I can't help but see the obvious: overwhelmingly positive reviews for films mostly made independently outside of a studio. Some of the reviews are scored too high for how honest they can be written. There's no way to know for sure, but I do suspect most of what they cover in general is pay to play. If their reviews start to read like AI, I will have a different opinion. But they do have editorial oversight and continue to offer free submissions. –Filmforme (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you also support option 1? If the site is pay-to-play and their reviews are almost entirely positive, then that's a sign that they're likely a positive review mill. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Oral citations being a source for history articles

Lately I have been doing research on the history of the indigenous people of Canada and the United States, specifically on the Ojibwe people. When doing research on this ethnic group it appears that the majority of their history is based on oral tradition rather than written records.

I also stumbled upon this documentary about using oral citations on Wikipedia, and this project page. Then I scrolled through some past discussions here and here.

Basically I think oral citations of some kind might be useful in writing history articles on Wikipedia and biographies on historical figures on this site.

I do have a few more things to say and I do wanna get other people’s thoughts too. CycoMa2 (talk) 01:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Before saying anything I haven’t watched the whole documentary and haven’t read all the comments at the past discussions nor have I read all the content at the project page. CycoMa2 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

CycoMa2, there’ve been two research projects a decade ago, Meta:Research:Oral Citations and Wikipedia:Oral citations experiment. The main issue people brought up with the first one was copyright, while it was WP:V for the second. To add to this, in lots of societies there are authorities on knowledge, and at present WP completely ignores them. Oral sources are valid in African history after a protracted academic struggle (see African historiography#Postcolonial historiography), oral history remains popular, and the validity of traditional knowledge (TK) is now widely acknowledged in academic circles (particularly traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)). Pgallert is the person to talk to about this, he’s done a lot of advocacy for it and has a vision for it that he may want to elaborate on here (personally I’d favour making oral citations adhere to WP:PRIMARY and generally attribute (ie. fit them into existing policy) and use audio recordings). Kowal2701 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@CycoMa2: Do you have an example of something you would cite? A video or audio recording would probably be fine (eg. through CBC), while a Wikipedia editor conducting interviews to cite would probably violate WP:OR ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:29, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@ARandomName123

When I was researching the history of the Ojibwe I did see that PBS was interviewing tribal elders and many of these tribal elders had associations with universities and historical societies.

Other cases where I see oral citations being useful would be stuff like interviews conducted by universities, tribal colleges, interviews by respected outlets, and interviews by journalists.

Personally I don’t think a Wikipedia editor conducting interviews would violate WP:OR unless the wikipedian makes sure they don’t asked questions to get desired answers or the wikipedian doesn’t misinterpret what they think the person said.

I do think oral citations might have use in cases where a wikipedian asks the person what they mean by this or that. CycoMa2 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

If editors have carried out the interviews it would be close to WP:SELFCITE. I would also worry about how questions were phrased, an answer is only an answer to the question asked. An editor without training in the area may unintentionally ask misleading questions. This is part of the reason that SELFCITE mentions WP:SELFPUB. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It would be helpful to see that PBS example to understand what role PBS plays as an intermediary - for example, are they making any editorial decisions? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I do wanna clarify something the reason I am mainly talking about Ojibwe is because I don’t know if the things I say apply to all indigenous ethnic groups. CycoMa2 (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I mean this is already governed by other policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. Can other people access the recording to check? Does the person speaking meet the criteria for EXPERTSPS? I don't think that someone would qualify unless they had published work in the field. (t · c) buIdhe 06:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Buidhe what if they have a PhD in history?

What if they looked at primary sources before hand?

Plus tribal elders have actually been used as sources by historians for a very long time. CycoMa2 (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Politicians' speeches have been used as sources by historians as long as history has been a thing, but that doesn't mean they are usable sources for wp because politicians lie all the time.

Being a reliable source per WP is a very different standard than being a source of interest to historians because we do not have the training to evaluate the truthfulness of the sources and their content.

If they have a PhD in a relevant field they have already effectively been published. (t · c) buIdhe 14:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Oral historians aren't just of interest, they are expert caretakers of collective knowledge accrued and reviewed and revised over millennia.

If they have a PhD in a relevant field they have already effectively been published. Not by Wikipedia standards. They would still be considered an expert primary source.

I would contend that oral histories are secondary sources, because they are a collective endeavor.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:37, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Buidhe don’t tribal elders have training in preserving old stories in a community?

The reason I ask is because the Ojibwe have story stating that they originally came from the Atlantic coast and migrated westward.

Reliable secondary sources have directly said that archeology and other sources have confirmed that the ancestors of the Ojibwe have indeed originated from the Atlantic coast and did indeed migrate westward. CycoMa2 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

then why not cite the reliable secondary sources? (t · c) buIdhe 18:46, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Oral histories are not like an ancient secondary source; no matter their quality, they actually are a primary source; authors cannot critically review and collaborate, revisions go one way; the work is modified diversely with every generation. People who relay these stories are skilled in their own art, like being a skilled Bard, and though some are also Doctorate holders, the oral history they carry is not inherently processed in a way that allows it to be freely used on Wikipedia. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that Wikipedia should adjust its standards to include other knowledge forms, rather than require those knowledge forms to match up with Wikipedia.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue with "published work in the field" is that this typically isn't how oral histories work.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:44, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@3family6 CycoMa2 (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:PUBLISHED prevents us from using oral citations. The policy does require the media to be "recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party" and for "an accessible copy of the media [to] exist". Both requirements make sense. Alaexis_¿question? 12:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis what if they were interviewed by a university and anyone can access the recording online or in their archives. CycoMa2 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be perfectly acceptable.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts: Oral histories are about as good as the Bible/Quran

Oral histories are evidence that needs to be not only reproduced but *interpreted* by the experts. Ideally, this will be in a process where multi-expert criticism and revisions can be expected.

It is not possible for us to give devoted or detailed coverage to anything coming out of an ethnic group that hasn't been processed academically.

It certainly will not be possible for us to analyze and build articles on primary sources. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Oral history knowledge doesn't fit the classic Western academic system. At which point we ask, is Wikipedia only for Western academia, or are we going to be more comprehensive and be a global source?--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I have thought about Wikipedia being designed around the Empire's way of learning things. However, this case does not actually demand a solution to that deep question. It is not too much to ask that conventional modern dialogue exists on top of these oral histories; we don't use European myth on its own merits either.

It is acceptable for these oral histories to be recorded on the internet. It is likely acceptable for these things to be put on Wikimedia Commons and Wikisource. For Wikipedia's purposes, they serve as real-world material and NOT secondary sources that contribute to notability or open themselves for our analysis. They are art that needs to be understood through a critical lens, which must be provided by a solemn modern analysis in a peer-reviewed publication by experts or, failing that, in an Expert Self-Published Source.

You can't build an article directly on Livy's writings either. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

They are art that needs to be understood through a critical lens not anymore or less than academic textbooks are "art".

peer-reviewed publication by experts i.e., filtered through the Empire's way of doing things.

in an Expert Self-Published Source which would be the oral histories? These are encoded and memorized by experts.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 20:04, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no intent of correctness in a cultural source. Yes, it intends to be believed, but there's no representation of fact checking or directive to refine. We use things that are supposed to be secularly informative- things where the premise is that it will be corrected and overwritten if new information becomes available. This isn't always perfectly realized, but it's a basic tenet of anything usable on Wikipedia.

Any form of oral history, whether it be as retold by one tribesman or by a culture systematically, or whether it be a non-oral but still non-critical literary history, serves as potential evidence- subject matter- that may either attract professional investigation or not. If not, it's unfit for Wikipedia.

In no circumstance is any source self-actuated and qualified for use by virtue of its heritage.

I think you would be interested in responding more directly to my comparisons to how we cannot write our own commentary on the Bible or Quran, or on Livy's antique scholarship. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

First off, categorising them as "art" and denying their epistemological value is pretty behind the times. They aren't only qualified by heritage, the speaker (who would be widely revered for their wisdom and knowledge etc.) also treats things critically, it's partly how traditions change. Traditions do self-correct, it's called feedback, and tbh for history it's more of a problem than a strength since it's not the reason people do fieldwork. The reliability of a source is on a per-claims basis, I'd expect much of the content to need attribution (which is needed anyway if it presents a different POV to another source), but also there'd be lots of statements (especially knowledge about localities etc.) which imo they would be reliable for. Imagine how much it'd improve our coverage of towns and villages etc. And no, it wouldn't be like interviewing a random passer-by on the street Kowal2701 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the use of primary sources where they are appropriate. That is already comfortably possible and regular practice on Wikipedia.

As an oral history goes from one generation to the next, it gets feedback in a way. The priorities of the teller and learners are both based on the evolving social environment, among other factors. This is a beautiful tool in the hands of a credentialed historian to provide insights to the past.

An oral history is never an academic secondary source. It may be subject to collective changes introduced by living persons who interact within their echo chambers, but it is never a live collaboration between its principle authors. It also is not revised deliberately for matching the original factual events described.

If we wanted to use these histories more than we currently are, the actual change made to this project would be freely providing our commentary on their cultures and histories because we've upgraded them to something we have the prerogative to originally research ourselves as volunteer editors and to directly challenge contemporary knowledge with. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

If you'd like to propose that we change WP:OR then you're welcome to do so but until that critical policy is changed then I'm afraid I don't see any place here for editors who would like to "originally research ourselves as volunteer editors and to directly challenge contemporary knowledge." ElKevbo (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

What historians say about using oral citations

Obviously, oral histories are valuable for historians who have training on how to use such sources and cross-reference information—which would be original research if Wikipedians were doing it ourselves. Here are some of what they are saying about oral histories:

• "Oral history is normally not the best method for obtaining factual data, such as specific dates, places or times, because people rarely remember such detail accurately." Texas Historical Commission
• Oral History Association best practices: "recognizing the subjectivity of the interview, including, when possible, verification of information presented as factual;"
• "inconsistencies and conflicts among individual interviews and between interviews and other evidence point to the inherently subjective nature of oral history. Oral history is not simply another source, to be evaluated unproblematically like any other historical source... interviews routinely include inaccurate and imprecise information, if not outright falsehoods. Narrators frequently get names and dates wrong, conflate disparate events into a single event, recount stories of questionable truthfulness." Linda Shopes, “Making Sense of Oral History,” published by Michigan State University among others
• "historians must exercise critical judgment when using interviews--just because someone says something is true, however colorfully or convincingly they say it, doesn't mean it is true. "[3] George Mason University
• "In common with other types of evidence, interviews contain a mix of true and false, reliable and unreliable, verifiable and unverifiable information. Details of accounts can often be incorrect. Interviews may contradict each other, and, occasionally, interviewees provide inconsistent accounts in different interview situations."[4]

All of this suggests that oral history by itself in general does not have the reputation for fact checking and accuracy required to be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia. (t · c) buIdhe 03:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be conflating first person interviews with the systematic oral histories used by many indigenous peoples.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 00:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, an agreed-upon oral tradition is different from one individual's personal recollection. Oral traditions are how many ancient works were transmitted to the print age.

From Wikipedia's POV, an oral tradition needs to be in a fixed format (e.g., this video of the singer or that book containing a folk tale) and should not be treated as the truth. The Odyssey exists today because of an oral tradition; it does not follow from there that the Greek gods actually existed, or that the sea was a different color back then (the culture didn't have a word for blue at that time). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Oral tradition has most of the same problems as oral history with an additional risk of details getting changed over time. (t · c) buIdhe 06:48, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

CEOWorld Magazine

CEOWorld Magazine (https://ceoworld.biz/) was previously discussed in July 2019 with no clear consensus. It's referenced quite a lot, currently 293 external links. Many Wikipedia articles that cite it are BLPs and company articles that have other problems with promotional content and COI contributions. I'm bringing it up because I'd like to check for consensus on whether this is a non-reliable source that should be removed from most articles in most cases.

The magazine appears to primarily consist of pay-to-play articles, lightly-edited press releases, and rankings with little methodology. Evidence for pay-to-play and lack of editorial standards:

• 2022 Media Kit, page 9 lists prices including: "Full page advertisement + 2 page editorial: $24,000", "CEO PROFILE: $10,000", and "PR article: $5,000".
• Pressfinity listing says "Editorial Control: No" and "Companies...can leverage CEOWORLD’s authoritative platform to amplify executive profiles, corporate initiatives, and innovation narratives...Public relations firms and branding consultants focused on C-suite visibility and influence find CEOWORLD's ecosystem ideal for crafting narrative-driven campaigns that integrate rigorous data, qualitative insights, and compelling storytelling."
• CEOWORLD Executive Council: "Opportunity to publish original articles on CEOWORLD Magazine...SEO-optimized content with distribution to millions of readers globally."
• "Write for Us" - They invite apparently unpaid contributions, with the basic guideline being: "We reserve the right to refuse, edit, add, remove, or change anything as we see fit."
• Critique of ranking methodology from another website

I checked the profiles of several article authors who are also described as "editors", and I can't find evidence that they really exist (such as independent LinkedIn or social media profiles): Anna, Katherina, Despina, Alexandra, Harris. Their credentials sound made up, such as "PhD in Cross-Cultural Media Innovation & Global Editorial Strategy". The names are different from the people listed on this Editorial Staff page, and I can't find evidence that those people exist either. For example, two that show up on LinkedIn have one connection each: Caroline, Elizabeth. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

The reason you can't find those editors is because they don't exist, or so I would assume given they all have AI generated photos. I wouldn't trust a source that is making up fake editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:27, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I ran into many red flags last time I looked at this source; it shows up quite frequently with much more obvious pretend news sites that are run by SEO companies. Many of the authors don't seem to exist, and in some archived versions of the site, there are "boards" made up of fake and fraudulent people. Locations are ambiguous, and the site owner is quite the personality. Puffery in site descriptions like "world's most iconic news organization" and "rigorous reporting and unsurpassed storytelling connect with millions of business leaders every day" does not help. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CEOWORLD magazine and the deleted and salted revisions at CEOWORLD magazine. Also worth considering recent expansion sites by the same people at chiefeconomists.com and ceopolicy.com. I can't see any reason to utilize this site. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Unreliable and should not be used. I've run into this source on several occasions in new page review and it's clearly a pay-to-play operation that is not independent of the subjects it covers. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no valid use case for this source. Unlike press releases, which can be used as primary sources under the restrictions of WP:ABOUTSELF, there is no way to confirm that the content of CEOWorld magazine has been authorized by the subjects in question. Sources of this nature are frequently used to introduce spam articles into Wikipedia, and I would support adding CEOWorld Magazine to the spam blacklist if there is a pattern of it being misused for spam on Wikipedia, which is how   Lulu.com (RSP entry) is handled. — Newslinger talk 09:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger Yes, from what I've seen, many of the Wikipedia articles that cite CEOWorld Magazine articles are undisclosed paid editing. Actually a great way to find UPE! I'd support blacklisting it. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed there's no valid use for this, I support blacklisting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I also fully agree with blacklisting, redlisting, blocking in whatever way possible. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

www.americamagazine.org

I've only been able to find one discussion of www.americamagazine.org, what do we think about this source in terms of reliability and use especially for establishing notability? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

It is cited quite a bit for example on the article for Loyola Jesuit College. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:10, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

This was the prior discussion from 2020 that I can find. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:11, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, reliable - I would say its reliable. They have a large editorial team of journalists who cover news and developments in the Catholic community. They have a submission guideline with editorial oversight so this passes the bar considering other major outlets have similar submission guidelines. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 05:27, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  Ok thank you. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 18:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn: - Would like to note that they also have op-eds and theological/philosophical articles that writers produce over time. Those fall under a different category than news updates and should be treated based on who the writer is (if they are an expert in their field or not) and attributed accordingly (examples where to exercise caution: [5]). But for news updates or longer form journalism on Catholic biographies, developments, etc., it is reliable (good examples here: [6]). Exercise caution for potential promotional/religious language as you would for any other opinionated source.

The outlet’s political commentary tends to reflect a left-leaning perspective and frequently critiques the Trump administration. As such, it would be best avoided for general political analysis. It may be appropriate, however, when used to describe the views or experiences of specific Catholic groups, or when the commentary is clearly attributed to a recognized subject-matter expert. In any case, the publication is not generally regarded as an authoritative source on politics. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 19:10, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, reliable, although as noted above they do publish opinion pieces and editorials which have different requirements for use. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Is HousingWire a reliable source?

HousingWire isn't a particularly widespread source, but is used in a few article, some of which are BLP. What are everyone's thoughts on this source? They do have an editorial policy, and the articles seems fine at glance. However, an editor from a decade-old discussion considered some of their content promotional. Cortador (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Why would anyone be using a 'housing market intelligence' website for BLP content? That seems questionable, for a start. As for anything else, we really need some specifics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, reliable. The editorial policies are clear and include editorial oversight. I would advise we shouldn’t use it for BLP but should be fine if the info is not controversial. This is a strong source for housing, real estate, mortgage topics. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 08:57, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, generally reliable, but with the caveat that it is a WP:TRADES publication and coverage in it should in most cases not be used to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

SiliconAngle for technology companies

Hello. I'm looking for some input on whether SiliconANGLE is generally reliable for coverage on technology companies.

SiliconANGLE is a technology news outlet and it is cited fairly widely across Wikipedia. This question appears to have been raised once in 2020, but with limited participation so I wanted to bring this up again for discussion.

They have a sister organization called theCUBE that produces conference and executive interview coverage and is more promotional in nature. However, it appears that SiliconANGLE states in editor disclosures that it does not accept payment for editorial coverage and operates independently from sponsorship. I also looked at their editorial team and several have been in the tech journalism industry for a while. Perhaps we could use it with caution as long as it covers statements of fact? What do you all think? Morogris (✉ • ✎) 05:08, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Some of their coverage, such as [7], appears to be quite good. Other coverage, such as [8] and [9], appear to be super promotional and strongly resembles press releases. In at least one case ([10]), they uncritically presented OpenAI's narrative about ChatGPT Health, totally ignoring the storm of criticism about uploading your medical data to an AI and then having it give you medical advice:

• Is Giving ChatGPT Health Your Medical Records a Good Idea? -- Time Magazine
• Giving your healthcare info to a chatbot is, unsurprisingly, a terrible idea -- The Verge
• ChatGPT Health feature draws concern from privacy critics over sensitive medical data -- Electronic Privacy Information Center
• 230M Users Trust ChatGPT With Health Data -- Without HIPAA -- Tech Buzz
• OpenAI introduces ChatGPT Health to answer users’ medical questions -- Silicon ANGLE

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a way to distinguish their good coverage from the bad? I note that they claim to be "the voice of enterprise and emerging tech". I'm wary of using something that is the voice of something as a source. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Good points, Guy Macon. I view the Health article as an attempt to explain usage in a non-controversial way, though the staff writer could arguably have taken a clearer point of view. The promotional sources you shared appear to be drawn from interviews or events associated with theCUBE, SiliconAngle’s events subsidiary, as noted above.

My view is that SiliconAngle can be a reliable source for technology news, but content that originates from theCUBE should be treated as potentially promotional or used with extreme caution. They do have interviews with executives of relevant companies and don't think "blacklisting" theCUBE altogether is the right move, but open to suggestions.

That said, SiliconAngle does publish in-depth, original reporting by staff writers that do not seem promotional in nature and could be useful to expand articles, such as: [11] [12] [13] Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that they have a fair amount of good stuff, but even The Daily Mail and InfoWars occasionally publish good stuff. The question is, how do we tell the good from the bad?

I looked at their about us page, hoping for an indication of editorial oversight. Instead I found:

"We connect the worlds most powerful technology brands to a global audience of senior technology professionals through our industry news site siliconangle.com... If you are a marketer looking for ways to connect your brand with siliconANGLE’s global audiences, please contact us."

I also could not find a single retraction or correction anywhere on the website. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

As well as distrusting any web site that claims to be "the voice of" anything, I also distrust sites that are so hung up on marketing and branding that they focus their whole "about us" pages on them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I found that some of their staff writers have disclaimers around editorial control (you have to click their pictures in their About Us section), here are a few examples:

"I have disclosed my editorial role at SiliconANGLE fully to all my clients and have made it clear that our business relationship can never affect my judgment as a journalist. Nevertheless, to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest I have removed myself from any direct coverage of companies with which I have a direct business relationship." (from staff writer Paul Gillin)

"I report and write stories independent of influence from clients of SiliconANGLE Media or theCUBE ... I don’t write or consult for companies I cover. I accept no money from any company I cover or from public relations firms, and I don’t accept gifts from these companies." (from staff writer Duncan Riley)

I guess it depends on who the writer is and if they have an editorial disclaimer? Or is that not enough? Morogris (✉ • ✎) 19:59, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you sure about the "from" here? I chose a picture pseudo-randomly (it happened to be that of Mike Wheatley) and it had exactly the same bio as that of Duncan Riley. They even tell bare-faced lies in their bios, and nobody there picks them up on it. I certainly don't trust this outfit. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I clicked on the author of the ChatGPT article, [14] Maria Deutscher, and it states Maria Deutscher is a staff writer for SiliconANGLE covering all things enterprise and fresh. Her work takes her from the bowels of the corporate network up to the great free ranges of the open-source ecosystem and back on a daily basis, with the occasional pit stop in the world of end-users. She is especially passionate about cloud computing and data analytics, although she also has a soft spot for stories that diverge from the beaten track to provide a more unique perspective on the complexities of the industry. Her coverage seems to just be factual-based descriptions of developments of different technologies, rather than anything evaluative. So I think that her articles seem more like WP:BREAKINGNEWS.

Some of the content in those biographies is shared between different biographies (e.g. SiliconAngle Media’s current business model depends partly on revenues from theCUBE, which is paid to conduct some unscripted executive interviews at company-sponsored conferences such as EMC World and SAP Sapphire Now, distribute them on social media and, with clear disclosure, run them on parts of SiliconANGLE.com. appears in Kyt Dotson, as well as the strange shared Mike Wheatley/Duncan Riley biographies you noted), but they are largely dissimilar. It could be an error that those two have the same biography, however the editor-in-chief Robert Hof also shares most of the same biography. Katzrockso (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha thank you both. If they're sharing similar profiles, does that mean likely bots and/or that there isn't a formal editorial team and its just a loosely organized publishing group? I'm new to business articles as a whole so many of the sources are new to me and I'm struggling to evaluate which are good. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 00:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think you can start with this: If they never retract or correct anything, they are not a reliable source. Even the best sources make errors, The question is what they do when they find out about them. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Should we flag it so it’s blackisted? I’m seeing it in many tech articles and can start doing cleans ups here and there when I see this source. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 07:59, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

How many are we talking about? It took us years to remove The Daily Mail. Blacklisting only stops new additions. I think you can go ahead and start removing them based on this discussion. Depending on the claim, you could remove the text that depends on the citation or tag it with a citation needed. If you have time, it is always nice to do a quick search and find a better source. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Easily over 200, did the search yesterday. I'll tackle later. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• I used to look at that site long ago. Over time I gradually stopped because the content started to get diluted and semi-promotional. The term Silly Angel seemed to become appropriate. It appears that they have started to push the gas pedal hard and move away from reliability. I have no doubt that in time they will become 90% useless. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Flightradar24 for aircraft liveries

Apparently RSN is needed for this according to @Arnav Bhate:, despite it being obvious so here goes…

Flightradar24 is being used to verify the current livery of an aircraft, such as at Air India Fleet#Special liveries. An example of a source is [15]. FR24’s own support page states clearly that this information is primarily sourced from user submissions - [16]. Perhaps someone can explain to me just how exactly this isn’t WP:UGC? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:22, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Firstly, I had said either the article talk page or here, instead of on my talk page. Secondly, there is an editorial team that reviews all the things that users submit, so I don't think it counts as UGC. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:03, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The point I was trying to get across is that not every source needs to be discussed at length - where it's obvious that a source is unreliable, a discussion isn't necessary. And the exact wording it Our database editor team will review and update the information as soon as possible, which to me simply reads as "the maintainers of the database" - which, put simply, is equivalent to an IP making an edit request or pending changes edit on a Wikipedia page, and another editor implementing that change. But Wikipedia is very much not a reliable source, because it is still WP:UGC - specifically covered under WP:CIRCULAR. Obviously I'm not saying that FR24 is Wikipedia - I'm merely giving an example. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:07, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The comparison is faulty - the editor team at FR24 are employees of FR24, but the other editor is a random user of Wikipedia. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Just commenting to keep the topic from being archived Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Anyone able to weigh in on this? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:17, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Still no responses, so keeping this open. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Cosecha Roja (cosecharoja.org) for contentious BLP allegations regarding Mahavatar Swami Bhai (Victor Truviano) behaviour

I’m seeking input on whether Cosecha Roja (cosecharoja.org) is generally considered a reliable source for supporting *contentious BLP allegations* about a living person, and what weight/handling would be appropriate under WP:BLP.

Context / on-wiki use

The article Mahavatar Swami Bhai previously stated (older wording):

• “Multiple women have accused Truviano of sexualized abuse.”

It was later rewritten/handled as attributed/neutral phrasing and (at one point) moved into a standalone Controversies section:

• “In 2019, the Argentine outlet Cosecha Roja published a report that included allegations from former followers regarding Truviano’s conduct.”

Relevant diffs:

• Diff adding the original allegation wording (Iluzalsipal revision): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahavatar_Swami_Bhai&diff=prev&oldid=1323773506
• Diff moving the allegation sentence to a standalone Controversies section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahavatar_Swami_Bhai&diff=1328236403&oldid=1328235260
• Diff where the allegation content was removed/restructured (Tabatis revision): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahavatar_Swami_Bhai&diff=prev&oldid=1330314418

The source in question

The allegation content is sourced to this 2019 Cosecha Roja article:

• https://www.cosecharoja.org/victor-truviano-el-guru-que-no-come-lo-denunciaron-por-violencia/

The piece is a long-form report based largely on interviews/testimony; some accusers are anonymized (e.g., “Tres de ellas dan su testimonio…”) and it states a complaint was filed and is ‘in progress’ (“La denuncia está actualmente en curso…”)

Question for RSN

1) Is Cosecha Roja generally reliable for this type of contentious BLP claim?

2) If it is usable, is it sufficient by itself for inclusion of serious allegations, or should Wikipedia generally require broader corroboration/multiple independent high-quality sources before including such material (WP:BLP / WP:UNDUE considerations)?

3) If inclusion is appropriate, is best practice to keep it strictly attributed (e.g., “Cosecha Roja reported that…”) and to minimize detail?

I have not located additional high-quality independent sources that substantively corroborate the same specific allegations beyond this single outlet. Comments on appropriate handling/weight would be appreciated. Tabatis (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for sharing. I would say Cosecha Roja is a reliable source for certain topics like gender violence/security topics. They have a large editorial team that appear to be notable in their field. Here's an overview of Cosecha Roja from another source that makes me think this is a reliable source. Here are others: [17].

That being said, I would advise removing these claims right away even if they are cited by Cosecha Roja because we need more independent sources to cover this. Ideally, I would say the subject would need to be formally charged in a court of law for this to be worthy of inclusion (considering he is a living person). Until that happens this could be hearsay but at least with formal charges that means it was put in front of a judge and they deemed the evidence sufficient for trial. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Morogris, thanks, your feedback is helpful.

I agree with the distinction you’re drawing: Cosecha Roja may be a generally reliable outlet (thanks for the links), but BLP handling/weight is a separate question—especially where the allegation is serious and currently supported by a single investigative piece with no additional independent corroboration located.

One clarification on process: according to content policies, WP:BLP doesn’t require formal charges before allegations can be mentioned, but it does require high-quality reliable sources, careful attribution, due weight, and removal where those standards aren’t met—especially for non-public figures.

Given that (a) the allegations are serious, (b) coverage appears limited to this single outlet, and (c) editors previously placed it in Wikipedia’s voice / standalone “controversies” framing, Would you support framing the RSN takeaway as: Cosecha Roja is likely to be used as an RS generally, but it should not be used alone for serious BLP allegations without multiple independent, high-quality sources?

I’m leaning towards this option pending corroboration, but would highly appreciate your view to finally confirm it. Tabatis (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@Tabatis: Thanks for the response. My take is that even though WP:BLP doesn't require formal charges, the fact that only one source mentions this and no other reliable source has picked it up just isn't enough for inclusion for me. That doesn't make Cosecha Roja unreliable, but these are very serious claims, and I think this is where WP:COMMONSENSE kicks in and that's what brought you here which is great.

I'm not sure if there have been other discussions on Wikipedia about cases like this, but in my view, when it comes to sexual harassment claims, either the person needs to have been formally charged or there needs to be broader coverage from reliable sources before we consider including it.

And yes, I think Cosecha Roja is a reliable source, but claims of this nature for a BLP require way more coverage than a single source. If you read this old discussion here, there was consensus that the number of sources are important in including crime accusations against BLPs. Hope this helps. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Morogris. I really liked reading the WP:COMMONSENSE and this discussion fully support the confirmation of this notice.

To summarise what seems to be emerging here: Cosecha Roja appears to be a generally reliable publication, but for serious BLP allegations, a single investigative/testimonial article is not sufficient by itself to justify inclusion, absent broader independent high-quality coverage / due weight considerations.

If others agree, I propose the RSN takeaway as: Cosecha Roja is a RS in general, but it should not be used as the sole source for serious BLP allegations; such material should be excluded unless corroborated by multiple independent reliable sources (and presented with appropriate weight/attribution).

Does anyone disagree with that framing? Tabatis (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Is AudioFile still usable as a RS?

AudioFile got brought up in a current AfD and is pretty much the lynchpin of whether or not something would pass NBOOK.

The basic issue here is this: there is evidence that the site charges indie publishers/authors for reviews and did even prior to being acquired by Kirkus.

Evidence supporting their pay to play model was kind of hard to come by. I found a couple of reddit threads where people discussed their pay to play model. In one someone mentions that they charged indies a ton to review their work and that the subsequent reviews were of poor quality. Another suggests that it was about $550 a pop. I tried looking at the AudioFile site with Wayback but couldn't find anything super definitive.

The other issue is that if they were pay to play for indies, they didn't clearly mark the reviews like Kirkus Indie does. So to use this book as an example, the work itself was put out through Inkshares. It's a pretty indie publisher, as the gist is basically that authors will post a bit of their book and if enough people back it, Inkshares will publish it. While I don't know exactly what AudioFile considered indie, this sounds like it would have counted given their business model. There's no info on the review that suggests that pay ever came into question.

So basically, the question is whether or not AudioFile could still be used as a reliable source. I will be honest that I'd much rather that it continue to be reliable, as I've used it on more than one occasion to push something past NBOOK thresholds, but I don't want to use something if it's not reliable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack: - I found this book that says that you can choose to pay to have them advertise for you. And then the idea is that someone will see it and want to write a review for it. This doesn't necessarily unreliable. It just ensures that their work is prioritized in terms of viewership. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

@Morogris: That doesn't really resolve the issues though, which are:

• There is evidence that indie publishers can only receive reviews if they pay for one.
• They do not clearly mark reviews that were received through their paid service.

The book was was also published in 2016 and the evidence I linked above is from 2021 and 2022, so it looks like there were some major changes between then and 2021. Unfortunately the website itself isn't a huge help because it looks like if there was indeed a charge for the review, it was all handled via email. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

RfC on HOPE not hate

Is HOPE not hate a reliable source?

1. The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
2. There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
3. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
4. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable and should be deprecated.

Previous discussions: August 2018, April 2019, February 2025. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 23:17, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Comment. The issue came up at Talk:Reform UK#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK? where editors are questioning the reliability of HOPE not hate. I would also like to add that a report written for HOPE not hate, by their senior researcher, Dr Joe Mulhall, has been published on the UK government website, for their Commission for Countering Extremism. (report) I mention this as relevant per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Dr Joe Mulhall is a recognised subject matter expert in fascism and far-right politics [18] [19] TurboSuperA+_[talk] 23:23, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. If the quarrel is about whether to cite Hope not Hate for their opinion re Reform UK, a reasonable question here could be: whether it's okay to cite Hope not Hate for their opinion re Reform UK? WP:RS says reliability is about the piece of work plus the creator of the work plus the publisher of the work; a 4-way tick-a-box RfC about the publisher alone is inappropriate. As for the quarrel: sure, they might be jerks but attributed opinions shouldn't be declared unreliable. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Or more precisely, is it a reliable source on fascism and the far-right? Judging by the previous discussions here on RSN, it is a source that pops up frequently. Its WP:RSP entry says: Most commenters declined to make a general statement about publications from Hope not Hate. But that might be because we've never had a formal RfC. This is an attempt to find a consensus so that we don't have to have a discussion every year on whether they can be used. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 00:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Making convenience an objective makes the RfC even worse, I think. By the way, you linked hopenothate.org.uk, which is run by Hope not Hate Limited, not recently renamed Hope not Hate charity. Intentional? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable. Their investigations are regularly covered by reliable sources, and reliable sources cite them as subject‑matter experts. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, they should be regarded as WP:GREL. TarnishedPath^talk 00:43, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

As reliable as the SPLC is, so Option 1. This does not make their opinions automatically due weight. Attribution is necessary when the content falls under RSOPINION, but not otherwise. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center? Halbared (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

And for what it is worth, my opinion on the SPLC is that they are generally reliable for facts but their opinions or judgements aren't magically more due weight than any other source's. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Ta, I wasn't aware of the SPLC, I had to look them up, seems they have their own issues with connexion to reality on some issues, but they seem connected to reality stronger than hatenothope. Halbared (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I generally think the SPLC is better than Hope not Hate but the reasons why I think this require lengthy and specific to the topic area explanations that no one here would read. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Option 4: Deprecate - nakedly partisan far-left activist org, zero evidence of reliability, fact-checking or the existence of a corrections policy. (Less pertinent to the point, but worth mentioning: it claims "HOPE not hate exists to challenge all kinds of extremism" yet laser-focuses on baselessly calling everyone ever-so-slightly to the right of Mao a far-right extremist [SPLC/ADL style in that regard] and quintuples down on it, without regard to the violence victims of that label are routinely exposed to from self-described "anti-fascists".) ~2026-58663-2 (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Bias even extreme bias isn't a reason to consider a source unreliable, see WP:RSBIAS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

If we were going to toss out all sources on the topic of far-right extremism that weren't biased against the subject, we would have no scholarship at all. The scholarship (as in academic journal pieces, academic books) on the topic is, with limited exceptions, very similar to Hope not Hate in tone and goal.

Also, both the ADL and SPLC are generally reliable on this topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

This isn't ANI so I'm hatting the whole thing rather than let it spiral any further. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:40, 1 February 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would suggest looking at this TA's previous edits for their worldview. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I can only see one? Halbared (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

For those that can see the IP behind the TA, there is lots more. The location of the IP is telling, as well. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

not to question a temp account, but this is the only contribution from the temp account.
its hard to weigh this argument highly per WP:NOTAVOTE. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The reference is to what's under the hood, my lips are sealed. CNC (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

We're allowed to connect TAs to each other if we don't say what the IP is, so I'll just say that other TAs on the same IP have been disrupting Christine Blasey Ford and the Somali fraud controversy. We're dealing with a right-wing POV pusher here. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually disrupting, or making sourced edits that you personally disagree with? (With diffs, please, as you've already turned this into a mini AN:I.) ~2026-70705-3 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

interesting that this is the only edit by this TA so far Laura240406 (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not, unless I misunderstood other comments. WP:TAIVGRANT says editors requesting "Temporary account IP viewer privilege" must "Agree to use the IP addresses in accordance with Foundation policy, solely for the investigation or prevention of vandalism, abuse, or other violations of Wikimedia Foundation or community policies, and understand the risks and responsibilities associated with this privilege ...", therefore I suppose this IP was investigated for one of those reasons. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 but clearly WP:BIASED, as an activist group, and therefore almost always requires attribution; it's also important to distinguish their published research from press releases. That said, there's significant WP:USEBYOTHERS that treats their reports as an expert source on the far right, eg. There's no reason to think their published research would be unreliable, and they do seem to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy among researchers studying the far-right. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 but clearly an advocacy group, thus need to be attributed for opinion pieces etc. Though, they're actually fairly reliable for an advocacy group and have been quoted many times in the mainstream press, even by right-wing sources such as the Telegraph [20] [21] and the Express [22]. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Advocacy groups with an established reputation for factual accuracy do not automatically need to be attributed. Their opinions, sure, but they do publish factual materials. If we are going to make them attribute-only, should this not go for all scholarship on this topic, which is also advocating anti-hate, even if published in academic journals or books? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 Being a political advocacy group, there is going to be a bias in their articles. I haven't seen them print anything beyond opinion or demonstrably false to justify anything further. But I do think we do need to always make considerations for sources from a group that are going to be endorsing their preferred viewpoint, even if it may be done unconsciously. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Bias is not a reason for unreliability, though. How would you propose we write about the far-right if we declare all sources with a bias against it to be less than generally reliable? What sources would we have left? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  • I would go for a source that is not outwardly ideologically opposed to the organisation that people what to reference. I'd go for more middle ground news organisations and take an average. There are much better sources that could be used to describe an organisation as far right than HnH. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Not in this specific case, but such sources (the SPLC is another) are often amongst the only sources for more minor far-right groups, as they're rarely covered by the mainstream press. The same actually works in reverse for minor far-left groups, too. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  That would eliminate virtually all academic scholarship on the far right, and the news is often just recycling the investigations releases of these organizations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Well part of the problem is who hatenothope smear as 'far-right', a pejorative in the UK, that mainstream media does not wish to copy for some of their more daft examples, and withhold only for those who actually are far-right. Plus the bloke in charge of hatenothope has a personal beef with Nigel Farage, which colours his judgement there somewhat. Halbared (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I note you're still deliberately typing the name of the group wrongly there (as per [23], which contains BLP violations by the way). It's very juvenile, and I'd suggest you stop it and let the adults continue the discussion. Black Kite (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  OK, Blackkite, it is juvenile you are corrct, I'll stop. It's just a daft habit I got into years ago. I shall leave the chat, apologies. Halbared (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  If you can post constructively and stop doing that, please stay. It's pointless anyway as it just makes people take your comments at lesser value. Black Kite (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, if I can see myself adding in a constructive way, I shall. Mostly I like to see what experiences editors chip in with. Ta. Apologies all. Halbared (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Does this again, not go for academia? They also frequently call politicians "far-right". News sources are rarely great sources for anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  What if Academia are not agreed on the terms, or are in conflict with media? Halbared (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  We prefer academia over media in most cases. And well, then we treat it however we treat it when any sources don't agree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 I've never seen a serious scholar or journalist treat them as anything less than subject-matter experts. Indeed, the only critiques I am aware of come from highly unreliable sources known for peddling bigotry. Which only adds to their luster, from where I sit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2. They are a clearly partisan organization with a particular POV and agenda. The editorial controls also appear weaker than they could be. As such, I would say caution is needed when using this source, and it should always be attributed in text when citing them, and editors should be encouraged to use other/better materials when possible. I wouldn't outright ban it. 4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable: especially when they are the only source on something.

Of course they are biased -- they self identify as Antifa -- but bias does not equal unreliability.

Hope not Hate isn't like the SPLC, which [A] totally fabricated the existence of a hate group based upon nothing other than an anonymous post on a Nazi message board and defended that decision for over a year, and [B] gets quoted a lot by reliable sourced because they used to not suck. I have looked extensively at Hope not Hate and can't find any fabrications or any of the "they disagree with our politics so they are a hate group" nonsense you see with the SPLC.

However, I also haven't seen any evidence of corrections or retractions, any evidence of editorial oversight, and in most cases they just write something as if it was an established fact without providing any sources or evidence for it.

I looked at https://hopenothate.org.uk/case-files-odinist-fellowship/ especially carefully, because I have studied that group a lot (they intersect heavily with my main interest, which is pseudoscience -- they have this bizarre racist pseudoscientific belief that the ability to communicate with the gods is encoded in their DNA). Here is our coverage of the group: Heathenry in the United Kingdom#Odinist and Wodenist groups

My problem with Hope not Hate is that, for example, they don't tell you how they know that the Odinist Fellowship "emerged from the Odinic Rite in the 1990s". We, on the other hand, say "In 1990, the Odinic Rite split into two separate organisations that initially both retained the original name. One continued to be known as Odinic Rite while the other changed its name in 1998 to the Odinist Fellowship" with a citation for the split and a citation needed tag for the name change. With Wikipedia, you can check out the sources for yourself. With Hope not Hate you just have to take their word for it. Not Reliable.

BTW, what's up with labeling options ABCD and then !voting for option 1234? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, you keep saying this about the SPLC, even though your assertions were repeatedly debunked in the last RFC. Please stop saying known falsehoods that have been debunked. You saying it over, and over, and over, does not make it true.

That goes for EVERY SOURCE. Giving inline citations is not at all universal, and nowhere at WP:RS does it say that is a requirement to be considered true - and none of the sources we use to cite the information you note do so! By your own logic, are those not unreliable sources? And if so, why are you using our article as a strike against it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I stand by my comments about the SPLC. If you have a shred of evidence that The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub exists or has ever existed, in Amana or anywhere else in Iowa, post your evidence and we can discuss it (again). If all you have are the same claims from the SPLC itself and from the Daily Stormer website that I have seen and rejected already, I am uninterested in re-opening the discussion. Please retract your claim that I am knowingly saying known falsehoods that have been debunked. That is a clear violation of WP:NPA. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The SPLC did not claim that the "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub" existed. [24]. Everyone in the discussion agreed besides you on this point. If you have a shred of evidence that they said "The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub" as distinct from the Daily Stormer, you can post it and we can discuss it here. But last time you did not, and you continue to claim this, providing no evidence. And I will strike my statement that it was a known falsehood, as perhaps you did not know. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

"The group [SPLC] had earlier stood by its claim that the Amanas were the home of a hate group, noting that it had confirmation that a group of individuals met sometime in September 2016 at a restaurant in the Amanas. A thread, originally posted on the Daily Stormer and since cached by Google, backed the claim.

" The First Iowa Stormer Bookclub was a success!' posted a user with the screen name Concerned Troll in a Sept. 26, 2016, thread. Concerned Troll, who did not post specific details about the visit, went on to suggest a subsequent meeting in Des Moines sometime in the late fall or early winter.

"But officials were quick to denounce the SPLC’s claims, stating there are no such groups active in Iowa County and – while denouncing hate groups and their activities, saying none of their messages or activities are welcome in their town – demanded that the civil rights organization remove their community from their hate map." -- Source: Iowa City Press-Citizen

I am not going to respond to you again. Please leave me alone. Your opinions concerning me are not welcome. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI if you think you have a case. Otherwise, drop the WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Refer to previous thread [25]. This is about The Daily Stormer, which is a real group. The sources are debating if The Daily Stormer was active in Iowa, this is not making up a group. If a group says on their official channels "we are active in Iowa" it is perfectly acceptable to take this as that group being active in Iowa. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Do they “self-identify as Antifa”? I don’t think that’s right, though I’m willing to stand corrected. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, they do, using terms such as "we" and "our movement" when referring to anti-fascism.

• "While some anti-fascists have retreated to targeting often marginal extra-parliamentary groups, using traditional tactics, our movement risks irrelevance if we do not also find ways to modernise and expand to better oppose more mainstream and powerful manifestations of the far right."[26]
• "It also gives us concrete steps we can take as anti-fascists to better integrate these into our work today, and learn too from their mistakes."[27]
• "A lockdown gig in the name of antifascism: Looking to support HOPE not hate, one artist took his music online to raise money for our work."[28]

Again, that doesn't make them unreliable. Many biased sources are reliable when making factual claims as opposed to opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

"Antifa" and "Anti-fascist" are not the same thing. Antifa is a somewhat contested label, but usually its proponents accept that a physical force response, and other tactics that may break laws, may legitimately be used in the social context of a peace-time democratic society. Not all anti-fascists share that viewpoint. The most prominent historic anti-fascist movements in Britain were not "antifa", for example the Anti-Nazi League, whereas AFA, a group which engaged in street-fighting would now be retrospectively classified as antifa.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Exactly what Boynamedsue said. When right-wing governments are declaring "Antifa" domestic terrorists, claiming that this is how someone describes themselves when they don't is a pretty weighty thing. Unless you're writing in German, putting a capital A at the front is a bit of a tell too, as if it's a proper noun BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

AFA refers to Anti-Fascist Action for anyone who didn't know, based on Antifaschistische Aktion, ie the origins of Antifa. "Antifa" in Britain is otherwise not really a thing, it's more often organised under anti-fascist groups of varying names. Groups are tarnished as Antifa as a convenient reference point but you don't hear academics of subject matter experts refer to Antifa in the UK, as it'd be factually inaccurate. CNC (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Without wanting to get too far into angels on pinheads, in my post I did imply that to use "antifa" to describe UK AFA would be anachronistic. The term certainly wasn't used at the time AFA was active. However, many younger British physical force antifascists would probably accept the term "antifa" (as Bob correctly said, uncapitalised) to describe the methodology they practice in confronting fascism, rather than as an organisation (no such organisation has ever existed).--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait what? You are conflating "anti-fascism" and the nebulous organisation "Antifa", and if you believe they are synonyms I'm going to be unconvinced as to how valid the rest of your comment is. They are not the same thing under any definition. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

! Is a symbol often used in computer programming to denote “not”, and has become used on Wikipedia with !vote to indicate that the reply is “not a vote” Mitchsavl (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the remark is about the list being A,B,C,D, but editors writing "option 1/2/3/4". I have now changed the ordered list to numbers. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 11:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Regarding specifically its use to MOS:LABEL political parties, I wouldn't recommend using it unattributed because it's a biased advocacy group—"GREL" or not. This is consistent with how WP:SPLC is treated. I'm not familiar enough with it to comment more broadly. (Ran into it in 2024 as a source for labelling a party neo-fascist, which is more clearly a contentious label, but "far right" is also fairly contentious) Placeholderer (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, they're not used to label any party, they were used to relay a comment by an academic (Cas Mudde) in this article. The quote possibly comes from this interview (I haven't listened to it). TurboSuperA+_[talk] 22:44, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Whoops—I guess then I'd just give a boilerplate "it depends on the expertise of Cas Mudde". There's no reason to think, like, HNH fabricated the quote Placeholderer (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Cas Mudde for reference sake, who is a subject matter expert. CNC (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  The SPLC and the ADL are regularly used unattributed. That is most of their usages. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  WP:SPLC says The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION—statements of fact like what an expert said in an interview wouldn't be SPLC's views Placeholderer (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but the SPLC and Hope not Hate publish things that aren't their views OR experts in interviews. That is in fact most of the SPLC's output! Same with the ADL. That is just a reminder to follow RSOPINION which is true even with the New York Times, or any academic piece. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  I only mean to comment on the narrow issue of HNH being used in a certain way regarding Reform's being "far right" or not. I am not well-read on the mountains of discussion around SPLC, ADL, or this group Placeholderer (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

  (It turned out I misunderstood what the issue was) Placeholderer (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 with attribution per above. Seem to be regarded as subject-matter experts and have been quoted, published, endorsed, etc in a number of RSes - I agree with the SPLC comparison, and the community regards SPLC as GREL. However, given their open identification as an advocacy group, attribution should be expected for any opinion-based/editorial content. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 per TarnishedPath, Aquillion, etc. Subject matter experts with academic credentials who do robust investigations regularly cited by reliable sources and scholars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1, they take the nowadays extreme position that fascism is a bad thing in and of itself, but EVERY SOURCE EVER WRITTEN has bias, and most sources written between 1945 and 2020 shared that particular bias. Use by others shows Hope not Hate to be a reliable source, although of course, given the nature of its focus, attribution will frequently be necessary.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Option 1. They're cited/referred to by other sources, like The Standard, Independent and The Guardian (WP:USEBYOTHERS). Mediabiasfactcheck.com rates them as "high" for factual reporting. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 (ish) They are reliable but as attrubuted opiniion, not as fact. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Not Option 4 While a source associated with an activist source is less than desirable, the group conducts their own reports and investigations, which may make them a valuable source for providing otherwise unavailable information [29]. While I am unfamiliar with this source and not willing to state how reliable it is, this potential importance of the source makes me rule out deprecation.

Mitchsavl (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 4, deprecate it. It fails to meet the fundamental requirements of a source as set out in the WP:SOURCE policy. Firstly, we have seen no evidence that anything it publishes is independent of its own campaigning. Take a look at its current anti-Reform UK campaigning, for example. Five of the thirteen offerings in the carousel of activities on its home page are anti-Reform UK or anti-Nigel Farage. It has: "Are you a Never Nigel?", "Who supports Reform UK and why?", "Subscribe: Reform Watch Newsletter", "State of hate 2025: Reform Rising and Racist Riots" and "Join the 2026 Club: Help Stop Reform UK". Could we, legitimately, imagine that anything it publishes about Reform or Farage is going to be totally independent of its apparent hate of them? Secondly, we have seen no evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Secondly, we have seen no evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

  According to Media Bias/Fact Check they have had no failed fact checks in the last 5 years (as of 5 April 2024). In general, Hope Not Hate holds progressive left editorial and advocacy biases while consistently publishing fact-based information. ... Overall, we rate HOPE Not Hate as Left Biased for its critical stance on far-right politics and high for factual reporting due to its use of credible sources, detailed data analysis and clean fact-check record. [30] Do you have any evidence of infactual and inaccurate reporting? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:47, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  There are facts included and facts excluded. Is there evidence that the context in which it presents its 'facts' is valid, and that it is portraying not only the truth, but the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

So we can note down that you do not have any evidence of uncorrected false information published by Hope not Hate and so have withdrawn your claim? The "whole truth" is not a falsifiable claim, certainly none of the sources we list as perennially reliable publish the whole truth. Furthermore, semantically "nothing but the truth" means the same as "no false claims have been made". The onus is therefore still on you to falsify the claim by providing evidence of uncorrected false information published by HnH at a rate equal to or greater than UK sources we accept as reliable like the BBC, The Guardian, The Times and The Telegraph.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+ I agree with your broader point (re: they haven't published misinfo nor does bias equal unreliability), but it's worth saying that Media Bias/Fact Check isn't really considered a reliable source in itself. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:48, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh. I wasn't aware of that. I thought I it mentioned in RSN discussions before, or perhaps that was another, similar site. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Firstly, we have seen no evidence that anything it publishes is independent of its own campaigning. I can honestly say that this is the very first time in my entire 10+ years on this project that I've seen someone suggest that a source needs to be independent of itself.

  By that logic, there's no such thing as an independent source.

  Secondly, we have seen no evidence that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's just flatly untrue. As TSA+ pointed out, they've been graded for high accuracy by MBFC, and as I (and several others) have pointed out, they have significant WP:USEBYOTHERS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The times I have seen it used is to support negative material about groups or individuals against which it is actively campaigning. It's like proposing that using output from the Liverpool supporters' magazine to support criticism of a referee's decision to award a penalty to Manchester United in a match against Liverpool. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:31, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  This would go for any source that ever said anything negative about anyone. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  No, a proactive attacker is not usually considered to be a suitable source for coverage of the attack. And what if they are also known to have been involved in spreading misinformation or the labelling of legitimate views as hateful? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  It is also those activist groups that push hardest for information, and being dedicated to the topic, will use all resources available to them. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The times I have seen it used is to support negative material about groups or individuals against which it is actively campaigning. Uhhhh... Yes. So?

  It's like proposing that using output from the Liverpool supporters' magazine to support criticism of a referee's decision to award a penalty to Manchester United in a match against Liverpool. That's actually a very valid use of a source. So long as it's attributed, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

  Pardon me for skipping to your next comment, but...

  No, a proactive attacker is not usually considered to be a suitable source for coverage of the attack. You phrase this as a criticism, but this kind of use is actually so good that it's an exception explicitly carved out of WP:BLP, our strictest content policy.

  And what if they are also known to have been involved in spreading misinformation or the labelling of legitimate views as hateful? That is a contentious that would need evidence. Simply assuming that a source is spreading misinformation because they are being critical is textbook WP:OR.

  Not to be too harsh, but your understanding of our policies seems to be wildly divergent to both the common understanding and the explicit text of the policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:58, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Wow, let's go through that one-by-one:

  • Uhhhh... Yes. So? - That sounds like you think that a self-published primary source from a group which has no obvious reputation for fact-checking and which has skin in the game makes a sound reliable source.
  • That's actually a very valid use of a source. ... there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. - You cannot see anything wrong with using a self-published primary source from a group with no reputation for fact-checking?
  • ... but this kind of use is actually so good that it's an exception explicitly carved out of WP:BLP, - Which section of BLP allows for the details of an attack to be supported by a self-published primary source written by the attacker and published by the attacker that has no reputation for fact-checking?
  • That is a contentious [sic] that would need evidence. - If anyone were to claim that they are known for that, then, presumably, sources would be provided. I just posed the question.
  • Simply assuming that ... is textbook WP:OR. - No it is not; OR is only concerned with article content, not personal opinion expressed on a talk page.
  • Not to be too harsh, but... - You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but based on your comments, I'm not sure that much weight should be attached to it.

  -- DeFacto (talk). 21:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  That sounds like you think that a self-published primary source from a group which has no obvious reputation for fact-checking and which has skin in the game makes a sound reliable source. Red herring. I don't much care what wild imaginings you engage in upon reading my reply, my logic still stands.

  You cannot see anything wrong with using a self-published primary source from a group with no reputation for fact-checking? Please read WP:HONEST before you continue to repeat such false claims as "no reputation for fact checking" after being corrected multiple times.

  Which section of BLP allows for the details of an attack to be supported by a self-published primary source written by the attacker and published by the attacker that has no reputation for fact-checking? The one I linked to. Duh.

  If anyone were to claim that they are known for that, then, presumably, sources would be provided. I just posed the question. Ahh, I see. Your claim that they are spreading misinformation does not require a source, but my rejection of that claim does. Wild.

  No it is not; OR is only concerned with article content, not personal opinion expressed on a talk page. Fair enough, I should have said "worthless bullshit" instead of WP:OR. Because it is, in fact, worthless bullshit.

  You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but based on your comments, I'm not sure that much weight should be attached to it. lol Pot, Kettle. Which one of us is getting pushback from multiple other editors? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  The first was an opinion, not an assertion. The second was a question, not a claim of any sort. With the third one, I didn't notice that the underlying link did not match the label, apologies - I cannot see anything there though that supports the use I described. The fourth one was a question, not a claim. Thanks for recognising your error on the fifth. On the seventh, my opinions are supported by policy, but I'm not convinced that yous are. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  The first was an opinion, not an assertion. Doesn't change anything.

  The second was a question, not a claim of any sort. Doesn't address my response.

  With the third one, I didn't notice that the underlying link did not match the label, apologies - I cannot see anything there though that supports the use I described. Thank you for recognizing your error. The 'attacks' you keep referring to are the words of HNH. The nature and character of those attacks are contained within those words. Citing HNH for their own words is such a valid use of a source that it's an explicit carve-out in WP:BLP, our strictest content policy. Hence, your objection was worthless and ignorant of our policies.

  Thanks for recognising your error on the fifth. Moving forward, I will endeavor to always properly label any worthless bullshit you engage in.

  On the seventh, my opinions are supported by policy, but I'm not convinced that yous [sic] are. Well, Mitchsavi, PARAKANYAA, TurboSuperA+, Boynamedsue, ActivelyDisinterested, BobFromBuckley, Black Kite and CNC all seem to disagree with you. And given the fact that I've literally never heard such claims about policy as you've made in more than a decade editing WP, I think I'm safe in my interpretation.

  P.S. There were only six, not seven points in my comment. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Life's too short to go o through all that again. So, although I haven't been able to persuade you that to be a reliable source, a source needs to be, at the very least, independent and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and preferably not self-published, I'm going to leave you there. And thanks for highlighting the deficiency in my numeracy skills, it should have been 1-2-3-4-5-6, not 1-2-3-4-5-7. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Life's too short to go o through all that again. Retreat is, in fact, the best course when one arrives at a battlefield with imaginary armament. Good choice. I would advise you to take a similar tact with the eight other editors who have expressed shock at your creative interpretation of policy, as your arguments there are similarly ineffective in doing anything except harming your own reputation.

  So, although I haven't been able to persuade you that to be a reliable source, a source needs to be, at the very least, independent and with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and preferably not self-published, I'm going to leave you there. You might be excited to learn that I wholly agree that sources need to meet those criteria. As for myself, I'm content to be disappointed by the fact that you don't seem to understand what any of those words mean. After all, there are plenty of editors on this site who will happily impress me with their arguments and understanding. A few misses is to be expected. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Let DF bow out gracefully, no need for last words. CNC (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Taking a political stance is something common to many sources, The Times and Telegraph being opening opposed to a Labour government comes to mind. It would be true of dozens of easily named sources. Bias isn't a reliability matter per WP:RSBIAS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, but we're not talking about simply supporting one political side here. We are talking about using a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views to support that stance. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sorry I don't see how they differ, and even if the is a difference in the nature of their bias - bias isn't a matter of reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  I've never said bias is an issue, it's its lack of independence and lack of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that is the problem. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Worth noting, you still haven't provided any evidence for lack of fact-checking and accuracy. The fact it is used as a source by academics and mainstream media organisations strongly suggests it has a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Once again, a source is not required to be independent from itself.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The default is 'unreliable' until it is shown that they do have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That others use them is totally irrelevant. Others, including academics and mainstream media organisations also cite the Daily Mail, The Sun and even Wikipedia - that fact is clearly not a reliable measure of reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And once again, we are not talking about being independent from itself, we are talking about being independent of the subjects involved and not having any influence on them. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

That other sources use it is relevant, as per Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS: "How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation." While it is definitely not the only indicator, the fact that it is relevant enough to be used (while not having reliable claims against it) should be factored into this assessment. Mitchsavl (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

To an extent, but that does not trump the requirements to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and to be independent of the topic. It clearly says: If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of a topic as far as we can determine them. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This is painful to watch. First, use by others, a key plank of our standard practice for determining reliability, is scoffed at. Then once it’s pointed out that it’s a key plank of our standard practice for determining reliability, the goalposts are moved to a totally different argument. Here’s a radical suggestion: we follow our normal policies instead of attempting to redefine them to avoid using anti-fascist sources in our coverage of the far right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Painful? Yes, it seems like some editors are happy to compromise on the fundamentals of verifiability here:

1. Reliable sources
   1. Independent
   2. With a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
2. Secondary sources
3. Published, but generally not self-published, sources

AFAICS, general use of HrH doesn't comply with any of those requirements, let alone with all of them. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This is painful to watch. First, use by others, a key plank of our standard practice for determining reliability, is scoffed at. Then once it’s pointed out that it’s a key plank of our standard practice for determining reliability, the goalposts are moved to a totally different argument. Here’s a radical suggestion: we follow our normal policies instead of attempting to redefine them to avoid using anti-fascist sources in our coverage of the far right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed this a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views to support that stance. Hope not Hate is an antifascist organisation. Fascism is not a legitimate political point of view. And HnH is considerably less hateful than the Telegraph or Times in its coverage of its political opponents.--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

That says it all really. It's not legitimate to maliciously and deliberately brand a person or an organisation as fascist so that you have an excuse hate, or even feign hate. Again, what happens wrt other sources is irrelevant - this is about HnH alone. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you implying that fascists don't exist? Once again you are stating an unsubstantiated opinion that HnH brand people who are not fascists as fascists. Accusations without evidence carry no weight here.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

You asked: Are you implying that fascists don't exist? No I am not, what a crazy question - what perverse logic led you to ask that?

Then you asserted: Once again you are stating an unsubstantiated opinion that HnH brand people who are not fascists as fascists. Clearly that's based on similar wonky logic. Read what I wrote again. -- DeFacto (talk). 00:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok fine, let's get your meaning clear.We are talking about using a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views to support that stance. The "source" in this phrase must be Hope Not Hate. Why do you say that Hope Not Hate "promotes and encourages hate"? What are the "certain legitimate political views" that you say it promotes hate of?

It's not legitimate to maliciously and deliberately brand a person or an organisation as fascist so that you have an excuse hate, or even feign hate. Who has Hope not Hate "branded as a fascist so you have an excuse to hate"?--Boynamedsue (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Here are a couple of articles that might help you understand what I'm saying (and a few quotes from them if you are too busy to read them):

From the left, "Would the Real Anti-Racists Please Stand Up?" (June 2024) Novara Media:

• It isn’t just Farage HnH has in its crosshairs, though.
• The group [HnH] has also been shoving pieces of brightly coloured paper with George Galloway’s face on them through letterboxes in Rochdale'
• called for Liz Truss’s expulsion from the Conservative party.
• HnH has it in for everyone, it seems, except Labour. Curious.
• Could it be the fact that two of HnH’s six charity trustees,... are Labour candidates?
• Or maybe HnH’s studied silence isn’t simply the product of this specific conflict of interest.
• HnH does this supremely well, cherry-picking which hatreds it hates in a way that just so happens to swerve centrists:

From the right, "Hope not Hate threatens Anglo-American relations" (September 2025) UnHerd:

• Searchlight evolved into HNH in the mid-2000s under Nick Lowles, retaining close state ties and willingness to smear opponents, including many Americans.
• US conservative commentators, migration critics and academics labelled “extremist” have been directly targeted and maligned by HNH.
• Its reports, cloaked in the legitimacy of a charity with a virtuous name, are cited internationally, jeopardising reputations and careers.
• Once targeted, Google search results tie individuals to neo-Nazi networks or “extremism” in general. After that, anyone — such as Wikipedia editors — could reasonably assume that the person in question is “far-Right”.
• HNH has used fake passports, circulated hoax lists of “planned far-Right attacks” to the Home Office, and published false claims about assaults on minorities.
• Yet the British Government continues to take the organisation seriously. Lowles has given hours of evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee on “extreme Right-wing terrorism” and advised the Commission for Countering Extremism, positioning HNH as a de facto extension of official oversight.
• It is perhaps unsurprising that the organisation has many supporters in the Labour Party.
• Downing Street Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney, arguably the most powerful unelected figure in Government, campaigned with HNH.
• In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, a leader in American politics who Hope not Hate repeatedly branded as “far-Right”, Washington has been given pause for thought.

Hope that Helps. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you please link to the specific articles? This will make it easier for others to make assessments and determine their reliability in this context. Mitchsavl (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I already have, the first link is to the left of the "Novara Media" label, and the second is to the left of the "UnHerd" label.

Sorry if they weren't clear enough - here they are again in the raw:

• https://novaramedia.com/2024/06/17/would-the-real-anti-racists-please-stand-up/
• https://unherd.com/newsroom/hope-not-hate-threatens-anglo-american-relations/

-- DeFacto (talk). 11:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Hang on, you think HnH is unreliable for talking about Reform, but you think UnHerd is reliable for talking about HnH? (Currently on UnHerd's front page: "Tim Walz: from Democrat hope to chump" and "The white women turning to Dark Woke"). Black Kite (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  No, firstly, I think HrH is generally unreliable - full stop, and so is unsuitable for general use in Wiki articles. Secondly, I offered valid and verifiable left leaning and right-leaning views of HnH as part of the conversation on this talk-page and for which there is no requirement that such views are also supported by reliable sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:14, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  HrH does seem to have a feud with Farage, which helps their unreliability with regards to Reform. Halbared (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Well if I was trying to make a point about unreliability, I wouldn't deliberately use obviously unreliable sources to try to make it, but maybe that's just me. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Is the fact these sources are "unrated" not a concern for you anymore? There is no RSP entry, and archives don't confirm reliability. I would of thought this RfC would be a red flag based on your high standards of thorough scrutiny? This doesn't look like consensus either. I'm surprised you're referencing these without noting this, given your strong opinions on source reliability. Failing to see how this isn't a dose of double standards. CNC (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It’s definitely amusing to see someone taking an ultra stance on source reliability and then rely on two particularly fringe and conspiracyish websites whose entire brand is publishing stuff that mainstream media won’t touch BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Novara's a pretty good source, in that it is regulated by IMPRESS and tries to fact-check. However, this article is an opinion article and it does not claim that HnH makes false claims of fascism, or anything else, rather that it turns a blind eye to racism from some centrist individuals. Unherd is not a reliable source and, in any case, does not state that HnH spreads hate or accuses non-fascists of fascism. It claims it "smears" people, without saying how or providing evidence.--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You must surely understand the difference between informing a discussion on a talk page and adding content to a live article. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you are conflating the requirements for a talk page with the requirements for article content in an apparent attempt to belittle my contribution. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Conflating a discussion over source reliability with a discussion over the reliability of sources? Right. CNC (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You are not following properly. The reliability of a source is not relevant when that source is used to establish the reliability of another source. However, the reliability of said source cannot be established by another source which is its ideological opponent, as in this case, the second source would not be independent of the first source. So, ipso facto, in order to establish the reliability of any given source, we would require nothing more than a scribbled message on the wall of the public toilets on Clacton promenade suggesting the source is accurate (providing, of course, the scribbler was not an ideological critic of the source). I am not sure what colour of crayon would establish greatest reliability, though my suggestion would be turquoise.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Failure to identify the tone. CNC (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The reliability of a source is not relevant when that source is used to establish the reliability of another source. Could you point me to the policy or guidelines on this? CNC (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That's my summary of DeFacto's point. You are right to state there is no basis in policy or guidelines for this position.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not tracking the opinions of editors for cues here. CNC (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Ha-ha. No. I think I've made my point. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

We are talking about using a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views Your contention that HNH promotes "hate" and that the bigotry they campaign against represents "legitimate political views" is unsupported by evidence, wildly irrational and broadly considered unethical. You may wish to choose a different line of reasoning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Your interpretation misrepresents my comment. I did not write that the bigotry they campaign against represents "legitimate political views". That is either based on a misreading or is a deliberate misrepresentation. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I did not write that the bigotry they campaign against represents "legitimate political views" That's exactly what you wrote and it's plain for all to see, as others have made clear. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The word "bigotry" appears 4 times on this page, and those appearances are either in a post by you or in a direct quote of something in a post by you.

What I wrote, in this post, was: We are talking about using a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views to support that stance.

You misrepresented that as Your contention that HNH promotes "hate" and that the bigotry they campaign against represents "legitimate political views" in this post. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

a source that promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views

You still haven't provided any proof of this. None of the quotes you posted show or say that HNH "promotes and encourages hate". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I provided some quotes from both left leaning and right leaning sources. But I think it's general knowledge anyway amongst the politically enlightened. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You provided quotes, but none of them say or show that HNH "promotes and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views", which is what was asked of you.

I think it's general knowledge anyway amongst the politically enlightened.

Ah yes, when you can't show evidence allude to it being common sense and call it a day. The "politically enlightened" bit is just the cherry on top. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 18:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Our own article on Hope Not Hate states that it is an advocacy group based in the United Kingdom which campaigns against racism and neo-fascism. (emphasis added)

You stated that they promote and encourages the hate of certain legitimate political views. (emphasis added) You made no claim that our article is wrong, or that HNH misrepresents who they are actually opposed to. You merely described their activism as the promotion of hatred, and described their opponents as legitimate political positions.

To whit, you referred to racism and neo-fascism as legitimate political views. (I'm leaving the task of addressing your characterization of their activism as the promotion of hate to others, who are doing quite well in showing that your arguments are utterly worthless.)

As a final note, the word 'bigotry' which you seem to fixate upon was the result of me using a highly obscure and little-understood element of language called a synonym. And if you ever find yourself in the extremely unlikely position of coming into possession of one of those almost-legendarily-mysterious artifacts known as a thesaurus, you will be able to confirm for yourself that 'bigotry' is, at least in this context, another word for 'racism'. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• DeFacto On that basis, are you OK with deprecating the Daily Telegraph because of its multiple transphobic articles and obvious hatred of Starmer? How about the Spectator? No, didn't think so. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Haven't we seen evidence that they publish content that is independent of their own campaigning? Haven't we seen evidence that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Well, the Telegraph is slipping, as the latest discussions show. But you were basically saying that HnH is unreliable because it's anti-Farage, whereas the Telegraph is virunlently anti-trans and anti-Labour. You can't deprecate source X just simply it is biased against subject Y. Black Kite (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  That is a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Here we need to establish if HnH is independent of the subjects it covers and do not have any influence on them. Not forgetting that we also need to show that it has reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You seem to have an obsession with The Telegraph (which is deemed generally reliable with an exclusion for one set of subjects), but that in not relevant here. Although I suppose we could say that HnH is generally reliable except for on subjects related to politics to the right of left-wing. ;-) -- DeFacto (talk). 10:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  I was using the Telegraph as an example of an obviously biased source that we still use for other topics. But it's a useful comparator, because if one is arguing that HnH should be seen as reliable on one set of subjects and not for another set of subjects, then we would need an RfC on that particular subset of topics (very much like the Telegraph one on trans issues). And I can't see an RfC succeeding on one flavour of politics rather than another, that would be incredibly messy. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  This is a perverse definition of independent. If you want us to change our understanding of what we mean by an independent source, this noticeboard is not the place to do it as you are asking us to rewrite our entire verified ability policy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley, perverse? I assume you are referring to the post of mine to which you were replying where I wrote: Here we need to establish if HnH is independent of the subjects it covers and do not have any influence on them.

  Here is what I was basing that segment on...

  The first line of the overview section in the Wiki WP:RS policy says: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The word "independent" is linked to WP:Independent sources, which says in its 'nutshell' box:

  • Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. Wikipedia encourages the use of independent sources because these sources are typically associated with reliability, a lack of bias, and factual accuracy.

  Please compare these:

  Me: Here we need to establish if HnH is independent of the subjects it covers and do not have any influence on them.

  Wiki: Independent sources are distinguished by their lack of any direct influence with the subjects involved. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes I know how we define independent. And it’s very obvious that HnH is independent of its subjects in that sense. You’re saying because it opposes its subjects it’s not independent of them, a standard by which we could use pro-Kremlin sources to describe Putin and only use pro-Nazi sources to describe neo-Nazis, which as I say is… perverse. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  You said Yes I know how we define independent. So why did you say that my summary of Wiki's definition was perverse? And if you now do know, how can you claim that HnH is in any way independent by that definition? -- DeFacto (talk). 00:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This is approaching WP:SEALION. Bob has explained why it is perverse, I can too. Your interpretation that opponents of an individual or organisation are not independent of them is not a reasonable parsing of our rules and is not employed with regards to any other source. I'd just drop it.Boynamedsue (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not that "opponents of an individual or organisation are not independent of them". It's that the self-published primary sources written by HnH are not independent of the active campaign group HnH, so should not be considered as reliable sources for information about individuals or organisations that they are funded to campaign against. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:43, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Hope not Hate's comments about itself are not independent. Its comments about say, well know far right activist and racist school bully, Nigel Farage are independent of the subject. Glad to have been able to clear this up for you.--Boynamedsue (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• DeFacto, you have commented some 28 times in this discussion, by my count; you are WP:BLUDGEONing it at this point, not helped by the WP:1AM nature of the discussion. You've made your position clear, and it's equally clear that your position (especially your attempt to use a low-quality source like Unherd as a source to establish the reliability of other sources, followed by doubling down by saying that its quality doesn't matter) is an extreme outlier. Repeateding it over and over isn't going to change things at this point; it's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and let the RFC play out. If your arguments really are as convincing as you think they are, people will eventually be convinced by them without all this repetition. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• The subject of Hope not Hate is primarily "far-right extremism" [31]. While there is likely some indirect influence through differing political ideologies etc., there is highly unlikely any direct influence.

  In this context, I believe direct influence to be defined as things such as the subject asking the reporter to provide feedback, comments, or make an editorial post (like a paid review of c companies products), or where the reporter has a personal connection with the subject (family member, business partner/associate, friend). I highly doubt groups such as the Reform Party UK has gone and asked Hope not Hate to give their honest take, make it widely publicised, and deal significant damage to their reputation or public image. Mitchsavl (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 with attribution, following WP:USEDBYOTHERS across the political spectrum, as others above have shown, from the Telegraph, to the Independent to the Guardian. As always, we take our cues from established reliable sources. Generalrelative (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  With attribution for what? If we are voting for attribution for everything, that is Option 2. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  The usual thing - "it depends". Not all of HnH's output is opinion pieces; there are properly researched reports as well. This is Option 1 (with some of Option 2 depending on the actual content). Black Kite (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify: my understanding of "Option 1 with attribution" is: a) the source is generally reliable; and b) if it's the only source for a potentiall controversial fact, we should typically use attribution, e.g. "According Scholar X writing for Hope not Hate..." This seems to be the common practice among established reliable sources when citing HnH, or any other source for that matter. I don't consider this to be "additional considerations apply" because the same applies to established reliable sources like the New York Times. Both HnH and the NYT publish a range of content from opinion to investigative reporting, and editor discretion is always going to be necessary to sort the one from the other. Unattributed statements of fact, regardless of the reputation of the publisher, typically require multiple sources. So yeah, "with attribution" means for me essentially "normal considerations apply". Note that I am not trying to equate the reputation for factual integrity of HnH with that of the NYT, only arguing that they fall under the same broad category of generally reliable. Generalrelative (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  My understanding of saying "with attribution" would be required by attribution for anything, no matter how non controversial. People have interpreted it this way in the past.

  I agree with attribution being required in the cases you mention. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Given the potential ambiguity, I'll go ahead and strike "with attribution" from my !vote. Generalrelative (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 Given the strong use by others. I would usually say that this should always be attributed, which would be Option 2, but many of the academic uses I've found don't always attribute. It depends what is being stated, so attribution may be required in matters of opinion (but that's suggestible for all sources per WP:RSOPINION). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Use by whom? Alaexis_¿question? 21:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Scroll up the thread. Most major news organisations in the UK, plenty of academics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

  Their use is very easy to find, many have been mentioned here by searching online with show you more. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 but I'm open to changing my !vote. They present themselves as an advocacy group and I wasn't able to find their editorial policy so I'd be wary of declaring them fully reliable. Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 as biased but generally reliable, attribution is necessary for opinions per WP:INTEXT (same as any other reliable source). USEBYOTHERS otherwise swings my !vote due to usage in the following peer-reviewed journals in 2025: International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Journal of Gender Studies, Critical Criminology, Crime, Media, Culture, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, Ethnic and Racial Studies, and Holocaust Studies.. CNC (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
• The relevant criteria are "reputation for fact checking" and not "reputation for lack of bias". Whether or not other RS consider them reliable. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1. They do have a solid reputation for fact-checking, and as CNC and others observe above it is very easy to find reliable, often peer-reviewed, sources that treat HOPE not hate as trustworthy. --bonadea contributions talk 16:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2 This isn't a media site, it's an advocacy organization. As such we should always be cautions with how it is used, views should be attributed and we need to question if claims are due if they aren't reported by others. Of course any material they publish in traditional academic sources/journals would be treated as reliable scholarship on the topic. Springee (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Springee just to say, I think that line has become irrecoverably blurred at this point. In a bid to remain relevant in a digital age almost every newspaper or news organisation of record seems to have become very selective in what and how it reports now to the point of clear political agenda. The Daily Telegraph in the last five to six years in particular has really demonstrated this issue as it's gone from a "broadsheet" reputable paper with a Conservative Party favouring line to just being little more than a mouthpiece of populist-right causes to try and flaunt itself to potential buyers. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Option 1 - They are not a news organisation in the strictest sense, but a campaigning organisation focused on right to far-right extremist groups of which it has done a great deal of accurate and trustworthy investigation over many years now (frankly I find it telling how criticism of them seems to come from editors with known bias towards support for the right of British politics). As a result I think it's "officially" Option 2 as while I regard them as reliable in what they do say I think it should be something that is clearly attributed to them, but then to be honest I think attribution is something that should be done with any generally reliable source anyhow for transparency reasons (i.e. saying in prose that a Guardian source is used as many will be aware that the Guardian's political line skews liberal). Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• None of the above - Reliability is the wrong question. HnH is an advocacy organization, and the views of ANY advocacy organization should be presented with in-text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, would you expect its views to be supported by a reliable secondary source to establish due weight, or do you think its own self-published primary source would be adequate? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:23, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  Neither… HnH, like SPLC is a significant advocacy group, and so their opinion (ie labels) can and should be mentioned. However, we should not use them in the opening sentence to say that “X is Y”… rather we should place their opinions later in the lead paragraph as: “The advocacy organization Hope not Hate describes X as being Y”. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, what type of source would you use to support their view in that case? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I don’t understand the question. Are you asking “what type of source can we use to say “X is Y”? Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, you indicated above that you would expect neither of my suggestions (a secondary source or a self-published primary source from HnH) to be used to source content attributed to HnH. If we added "The advocacy organization Hope not Hate describes X as being Y" somewhere, what would you cite to source that? -- DeFacto (talk). 22:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I would cite HnH as a primary source for their (noteworthy) opinion, but not as a source of unattributed “fact”. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, thanks for the clarification. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think that reliability still applies even when using in-text attribution; attribution alone is not a cure-all, because even an attributed statement introduces something to the reader. We shouldn't use a low-quality source to make exceptional claims or to eg. characterize living people as far-right even with attribution. I think that HnH is high-quality enough to be used for those statements with attribution, of course, per my statements above; other high-quality sources seem to uniformly treat them as reliable (per WP:RS, How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation.) But this high-quality reputation is actually necessary for the sort of attributed statements people want to use them for; we wouldn't use eg. Occupy Democrats the same way, even with attribution. Hence why bias and reliability are separate questions. --Aquillion (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Option 1 One of the activities of the organisation is acting as a news publication on activities of hate groups. In the interests of providing a useful service they are careful to fact-check and report developments accurately. It’s a generally reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 23:16, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing, can you share with us the source of your confidence in their reliability please. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No. Other editors have already explained this in more than adequate detail above. Read their statements, if you like. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 or Option 3. The traffic-light source designations are a reductionist insult to the intelligence of our readers and editors, but given that we are apparently obliged to choose one, there's no reason why we should give the imprimatur of "green" to the political claims of something which is very obviously a political advocacy organization. jp×g🗯️ 04:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  The traffic-light source designations are a reductionist insult to the intelligence of our readers and editors,

  I see you have previously !voted on RfCs at RSN [32] [33] without calling the designations reductionist or an insult to our intelligence. Why the sudden change of heart regarding the RfC process and designations? I also see you had no problem voting option 1 for Pirate Wires, a conservative, "MAGA-adjacent" and "anti-woke" advocacy newsletter that published false information in the past. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:33, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate the bizarrely combative and vaguely threatening aspersions, but I have been pretty consistent critic of the "traffic light" RSP regime for many years. It's not really clear why you are going through my contribs to assemble a history of my comments on this board, but if you do not possess the ability to find all the times I have called the three-color thing dumb, which I have done many times, it is not really my problem. jp×g🗯️ 23:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here If its fact-checking holds up, then obviously Hope Not Hate is reliable for factual statements. That said, I am uncomfortable with it being used for branding various people or groups "fascist" and "far-right". This surely falls into the realm of opinion (which has to be justified by reasoned argument), rather than simple factual claims (which are either demonstrably true or false). If a party or organisation is properly far-right, then you'd expect even mainstream right-wing/conservative publications to categorise them as such. In the absence of such examples, Hope Not hate and other left-leaning sources should not be relied upon solely for such labeling per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Betty Logan (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the political leaning of HnH is centrist rather than left-wing. It has campaigned against left-wing groups as well. In practice, its use for defining political position are usually either attributed or part of a group of academic and other reliable sources and contrasted to the self-description of the group/individual concerned and its supporters. And your qualification would apply to any and all reliable sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

In an earlier comment I noted that Hope not Hate focuses primarily on "far-right" sources, as per their website. [34] The group also engages openly and highly in activism [35], which suggests that their members would likely have strong opinions on these issues, which can often lead to bias, and potentially impact source quality.

To clarify, I am not saying that this source is significantly reliable, nor am I saying it is or isn't reliable. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Is there any source, anywhere, that does not have a strong opinion on the "far-right"?

I've read dozens of books about this topic, both written by far-righters themselves and anti-fascist activists. I've written dozens of articles about this topic. I am yet to find a source that didn't have some strong opinion on the subject. People keep mentioning this as a criteria but I am left wondering then what sources should we use? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this discussion was brought to the wrong noticeboard, in fairness, but the concern is valid. I think HnH is reliable for factual statements, but calling an entity "far-right" is not a straightforward factual claim. I think it is an analytical judgment, and it needs to be supported by not just reliable sourcing but also neutral sourcing. Both The Telegraph and The Times (both conservative outlets) have referred to Tommy Robinson, Britain First and the BNP as far-right, but I have not come across them classifying Reform in the same way. I do not consider Hope Not Hate "centrist"; some of their members have connections to the Labour Party (see John Cruddas), so their is an inherent left-wing bias. I don't see that as a barrier to factual accuracy, but I do see it as a source of bias. By definition, far-right organisations are to the right of the mainstream right, so I would expect some recognition of that in conservative media if it were a neutrally held position that Reform were far-right. If there is some evidence of that in the mainstream conservative media then fair enough, but to label a political party—possibly one that is now odds on to form the British government at the next general election—as far-right is an exceptional claim, and that needs to be reflect in the sourcing. Betty Logan (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we use HNH to label Reform (or any other political party) as "far right". TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The only example you provided at the start of this discussion was "Comment. The issue came up at Talk:Reform UK#RfC - Should "far-right" be added as a descriptor for Reform UK? where editors are questioning the reliability of HOPE not hate", and linked to a relevant RFC. It certainly looks to me like you are questioning whether HnH is reliable for claims in this context. If this is indeed not the case, then it would be helpful if you could provide some further context for the kind of statements where the reliability of HnH is being questioned. Either way, I think my position is clear: I think HnH is reliable for factual statements, but not for exceptional claims where they may have a perceived bias. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to get too deep into it, but the question of reliability arose when editors disputed/questioned a quote from Cas Mudde, which was included in a HNH article, really did come from Cas Mudde. If you look at the RFC I linked you will see that there is a source review table that doesn't include HNH (except as a source for the aforementioned Cas Mudde quote). In the source review table the position of HNH on whether Reform is far right or not was not considered. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I would consider it generally reliable for quotes, unless there is evidence of it mis-quoting people to advance its political agenda. Nobody above has presented evidence counter to that. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 and can certain parties stop banging on about the First Iowa Stormer Bookclub, thanks. —Fortuna, imperatrix 10:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2 As an advocacy group it should be used with attribuation. Rolluik (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Churnalism at Playbill magazine

I've noticed Playbill is pretty widely used as a source in theater articles. While having some editorial oversight and often doing good work, they also launder a significant amount of press releases with signed articles. Usually these are easy to identify for what they are, sometimes they are thoroughly paraphrased or put into context. Often there are clear tells, like they've included a link to the group's website at the bottom, like a vestigial boilerplate. Playbill has a decent editor at the helm and seems to be significantly more reliable than the unreliable Broadway World, but I see a lot of this.

Compare these two pieces at that both cover a press release, both with signed bylines: Playbill and Broadway World - they contain near identical paragraphs, the main variation in the content is in what they have selected from the press release to include.

In another case, Playbill paraphrases a press release and adds a little context (from a previous press release), a significant improvement over Broadway World Playbill and Broadway World.

Sometimes press releases on the website of American Theatre (magazine), a trade magazine, gets cited in the same way, but American Theatre seems to have a pretty strict editorial policy of publishing press releases as from "editors" rather than under a byline (and they have a clear mandate as a trade pub to run the ones they do), making it easier to identify, as here[[36]. Playbill, however, ran the same release[[37]], with only very slight paraphrasing and with a byline. Do other editors see the same pattern in Playbill? —BrechtBro (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

As a user not very familiar with this content area, I can see your point that Playbill's use of bylines is confusing when an article is based mostly on a press release. On the other hand, they're still known for their editorial oversight and long-standing reputation. I would say, instead of a blanket exclusion of Playbill, it would be best to analyze them on a case-by-case basis. For example, using them for controversial claims should be avoided while citing basic, straightforward facts is reasonable. Chilicave (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Does Playbill having issues with press release disclosure prejudice the kind of claims they can make ever?

Would it be unacceptable to cite a controversial claim from them in an article where there is no press release ambiguity? EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

For me personally, I'm not sure, I think I agree that it's a case by case basis. The reported features I've seen look OK, but the quantity of obvious press releases and ambiguous pieces from reporters who are also writing some of those features might call their reliability or neutrality into question. I'd trust a piece from their editor-in-chief more than from one of the reporters and it's wise to lean on the side of caution. A lot of people see a bylined article and don't further evaluate them. —BrechtBro (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

allevents.in

allevents.in is a sales platform for event tickets. It is used in 354 articles at the moment, often clearly inappropriately (a typical example is this link, used as a source in 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries, which I have just removed). I think there is cause to add the domain to the spam blacklist, but wanted to check whether there might be a case for keeping allowing it; is this allevents page an acceptable source in S. Ballesh for the claim that Ballesh received the award Vishwa Kala Puraska? The award doesn't appear to be notable so the claim should probably not be included anyway, but that's a diffefent issue. How about this allevents page as a source in Barbie: Mermaid Power, verifying the claim that the film was released in Germany through Cineplex?

My sense is that the site should not be used at all, but before requesting blacklisting I wanted more eyes on this. --bonadea contributions talk 12:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm, looking at it again, I guess the link used as a source in Barbie is actually very similar to that I removed from the 2020 Libertarian Party one as obviously inappropriate. I have just had one link removal reverted; this link was re-added to source the claim that the artist Yogin Sullaphen had performed in Rennes. Am I actually wrong about allevents being an inappropriate source? Confusedly, bonadea contributions talk 14:18, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It would appear that you can create events by creating an account[38], so it's WP:UGC. I wouldn't be surprised big the events are created by the organisers themselves, so their could be some valid WP:ABOUTSELF uses. Although a lot of the time that use would be "unduly self-serving". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Right, and I am also concerned about the fact that the main purpose is to sell tickets to events. The event information seems to remain after it has ended and at that point we might see it as informational – except that the site itself is basically commercial and I don't think it's helpful to drive traffic to it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Mobile Syrup

Mobile Syrup which is meant to be a tech outlet in Canada is used in conjunction with Fox News for the below sentence in Mark Kern: Kern railed against efforts to increase awareness of diversity and related progressive causes in March 2024, claiming a "coordinated effort to insert diversity politics into games"

The quote from Kern is only available from Fox News and NYP. Mobile Syrup states have been arguing that they simply want games to be "better." In their minds, these "woke" characters do the opposite, even though that's based on nothing valid. which seems to support the text, sans quote. So, just looking for input from others on whether Mobile Syrup seems reliable enough for the general statement. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears to be run by real people who have a relevant background, which makes a nice change. They've been around since 2007, were previously owned by Blue Ant Media and are now part of ZoomerMedia. I would consider them reliable if not the highest quality source, as they seem to be a quite small operation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, these sorts of articles are a headache to try and trim and prune, and with the niche-ness of the subjects many sources aren't easily covered by the perennial sources list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

AntWiki

As I was patrolling through several ant-related wiki pages I've seen AntWiki being used as a source in several articles. The one I can produce as example is the Lasius genus article. WikiProject Insects/Ant Task force lists AntWiki as "good for finding references". This isn't untrue, AntWiki lists all references for every article at the bottom of the page, without any inline citations. However, this phrasing implies that AntWik itself cannot be used as a source. I brought this query up at the Wikiproject's talk page and was told to tag the references with {{Better source needed}} and then when I enquired further as to whether or not AntWiki could be considered reliable, I was directed here.

Policies on Wikipedia dictate that a wiki cannot be used as a source as anyone can edit it and place misinformation. AntWiki does not suffer from this fault. All users are established researchers with published papers or a user with their sponsorship (presumably in place for students). AntWiki's policy on this would indicate it is a reliable reference, as it is created by experts exclusively with the general public not being able to edit it. (Link to AntWiki's account policy and their "AntWiki Code")

Though I cannot provide examples of this, I have seen research papers written by established and trusted entomologists use AntWiki to back up their claims, though I cannot remember if it's listed as a source.

The statement that AntWiki is effective for finding sources is not untrue, it is very useful in the matter. However, with it's policies and reputation, could it not be used as a source itself? In my eyes it fulfills the necessary requirements.

Apologies for the long read

FranticSpud (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Well if you cannot provide examples, how can we judge the veracity of your claims? Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The claims may potentially be shown to be true even without that sentence. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

While AntWiki has a policy that states editors have to be published researchers, we have no way to verify that, such as how the user contributions are hidden from people without approved editor accounts. So while it may fall under SPS Expert criteria, I would be cautious and treat it as standard user-generated content. The fact that AntWiki is referred to or referenced in academic papers, I would argue does not supersede the aforementioned understanding of it as user-generated, as EnWikipedia has also been referred to and referenced in academic papers, but this does not supersede the fact that EnWikipedia is user-generated and GUNREL for our uses.

On the note of without any inline citations, they don't format their citations as we do on EnWikipedia, but they are cited in a way where we can identify which references to use. As an example for Lasius we cite three AntWiki articles for species in the genus being social parasites, if we look at the first AntWiki article, we see in Association with Other Insects it lists the ant species that L. latipes is a parasite of, and after each species they list the articles that show this in [author, date] format, so we can then find the relevant article in the list of articles at the bottom of the page to cite instead of the AntWiki article.

So, while this may take time, and people may be limited in being able to access the journal articles, I would suggest working to replace all citations to AntWiki in the manner outlined above. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Understood, I will look into replacing any AntWiki citations I see FranticSpud (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

There is also a way to look at user accounts, it's just very convoluted. If you search in the search bar for certain words that would be present in user pages and not articles, or simply "user" then the google-powered pop up displays every page or thing on the site with that word in and is far wider reaching. Whilst this likely can't verify every single user, it does show that many of them are accomplished, credible and qualified entomologists who have experience in the subject matter. FranticSpud (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Insects/Ant Task force lists AntWiki as "good for finding references". This isn't untrue, AntWiki lists all references for every article at the bottom of the page, without any inline citations.

Why not just use the citations from AntWiki articles then? It may take longer to read the cited material and verify the information, but I think Wikipedia's articles will be better for it. Unless AntWiki articles are authored by a subject-matter expert, and therefore can be used per WP:SPS, citing AntWiki will most likely fail WP:V if the information is challenged. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

A problem is that AntWiki is somewhat unclear on who they consider an expert. Anyone can apply but only those approved by the administrators can edit content. The grounds for accepting an account are whether or not the person has published biological works. Whether or not these policies mean that it can be accepted under WP:SPS.

Additionally, editors are lazy. Using AntWiki as a single reference instead of looking through several PDF's of old and occasionally foreign books and journals that may not even be linked is a lot of effort. I personally believe AntWiki does qualify under WP:SPS considering all users are individually approved and a list of all editors is present. FranticSpud (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

SPS needs them to be an acknowledged expert, not just a published one. Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

"Antwiki management reserve the right to deny an account to anyone that offers qualifications that do not show clear support for ant-expert status."

Is this statement from the "MyWiki:User Accounts" page useful? Does this qualify for SPS (which specifies work be published by a reliable, independent publication and not acknowledged)? FranticSpud (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Many non RS makes claim about how good they are, them saying it is not proof. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Also ". Existing editors and other qualified biologists can also request Contributor accounts from Dave or Steve." so you do not have to be an expert, it just helps. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Qualified biologist would refer to someone who should be an expert, no? Which should full fill SPS? The page linked under SPS states a subject-matter expert would be someone with expertise as reflected by a qualification, of which AntWiki states is needed.

Also, AntWiki states "any people are interested in ants but such interest does not make them an expert nor necessarily qualify them as a Contributor. Ant hobbyists and enthusiasts can find numerous outlets for discussing ants and sharing their observations with other like-minded folks." So some proof of a person's expertise is required for account creation. Also when you search for users on the site, (a somewhat difficult task considering the dysfunctionality of the search function) all that I saw were retired entomologists or currently employed in organisations/universities that would be considered reliable references. Albeit I did not look through every account, but the point stands. FranticSpud (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Just on qualified biologist, they are not necessarily an expert, an expert would necessarily specialise in the topic at hand, which they do point to as (potentially) ant biologist that has published research, so to then distinguish qualified biologist it would mean (most likely) someone who has education or training in any of the disciplines in biology. As an example, I can be described as a "qualified biologist", but my education is in human biology, with study in broader biology, and nothing to do with ants, or even insects generally. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd imagine the added context of it being a policy regarding user creation on an ant-focused wiki would help lean the definition closer towards "academically qualified" and "experienced with ants". FranticSpud (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

PR Newswire cleanup

There's long been a consensus that WP:PRNEWSWIRE is trivially an unreliable source (it has no editorial controls or oversight, it just publishes press releases.) However, it is currently cited on almost 15000 pages. Some of these are valid WP:ABOUTSELF usages, but just at a glance, the vast majority of them are clearly unduly self-serving - awards won, hype for new business ventures, and more. Should we start a drive to go over these and start cleaning it up? And should we consider deprecation to warn against its use in the future? --Aquillion (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with deprecation. Even a WP:DEPREC can still be used for strictly WP:ABOUTSELF. - Amigao (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I would be strongly opposed to deprecation. Press releases are a useful ABOUTSELF source for verifying fiddly details and bridging gaps between secondary sources, especially in biographies. And stable URLs for press releases are surprisingly hard to find, so it serves our readers to link to PR Newswire when we cite a press release. Deprecating a publisher because they host a convenient, stable collection of primary sources is counter-intuitive to me; the relevant policies around primary source usage already exist and apply to any use of press releases. (I have no objection to a drive centered on replacing primary sources with reliable secondary sources.) Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

A drive could be run through WP:WikiProject Reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose deprecation, there are plenty of valid uses for aboutself and press releases. Deprecation is a "do not cite this ever" warning. It is never a secondary source, for sure, so it should not be used in a lot of circumstances, but primary sources aren't forbidden at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I've used PR Newswire for sales figures for video games, release dates + other basic info. (from the 1990's and if the info matches)

Not sure about stuff from 2000 and onward though. Timur9008 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it can only be used with very clear attribution in ABOUTSELF cases. That would be all. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I have a neutral stance to this. Since PRNEWSWIRE is already considered a generally unreliable source, I'm not too sure how deprecating it would make much of a difference, given that a deprecated source can still be be used in WP:ABOUTSELF cases. If the core of the problem is misuse rather than a policy issue, a clean up drive should generate an effective response. Chilicave (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to deprecation, since PR Newswire is one of the best possible sources for ABOUTSELF claims. As for a cleanup drive, I’m not opposed to it but am not sure if it would be the best use of resources. It would mean a lot of judgment calls, plus articles that have PR Newswire hype likely will also have other inappropriate hype, so it isn’t clear why the cleanup should focus just on PR Newswire. John M Baker (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Pathogenic Escherichia coli

Are these citations[39][40] reliable for adding this content? [41][42][43]

Please note that this is a contentious subject with a significant potential for POV pushing by Vegans, Carnivores, and meat producers. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

First source is a thesis, so no in terms of WP:SCIRS/WP:MEDRS depending on use. The second is from the National Hog Farmer, so it's not bad for a basic level overview of how hog farming may be done, but I'd always use caution with trade publications (better than a more direct corporate source at least).

That second source is more in line with an ag. news source, so I'd be looking more for university extension sources instead. When I went looking for extension articles though, that National Hog Farmer article at least highlighted here: https://www.asi.k-state.edu/extension/other/antibiotics/Management_practices.html Instead of searching for "feedback" (very broad), using "Controlled antigen oral exposure" might help in searching. Besides that K-State page though, I didn't find any sources doing a deeper dive on the subject at least at a glance. KoA (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The first is a thesis for a masters degree, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that masters are only generally considered reliable if "they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Original author of the edit here

I'm also fine to replace the thesis citation with some of the research that it itself cities about feedback and E. coli like Svednse and Wilson (1971) or Kohler (1974), though some of the context is lost by looking just at those

If these are not considered reliable enough source, I'm fine to revert the edit as well, since it's ultimately not super important to have it listed in the see also section. It's generally quite tricky to find sources about feedback in general because most sources use "feedback" instead of "controlled oral exposure" or similar. Searching for feedback ends up accidentally including tons of sources just asking for feedback on their website TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have links to those Wilson (1971) and Kohler (1974) refs, or can you quote the exact wording where they mention Escherichia Coli? The practice in relation to Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea virus (PEDv) is well documented and covered at Porcine epidemic diarrhoea#Building immunity but I am not seeing a good source for it being used in relation to E. Coli. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It isn't perhaps the best examples of feedback since the procedure looks a little different than typical (they repeatedly isolated and grew cultures from the infected pigs rather than the material fed directly), but Kohler (1974) is at https://avmajournals.avma.org/view/journals/ajvr/35/3/ajvr.1974.35.03.331.xml which should be open access. Note that this was done in addition to vaccination like the more recent National Hog Farmer source mentions as being a suggested method of use

Looking closer, I'm not 100% sure if I am finding the correct version of the Wilson source (there are several papers published by both authors in 1971) the way the thesis talks about those or perhaps I misunderstood how the thesis was intending to talk about it. All the related versions I could appear to be about effects from vaccination TB5ivVaO1y55FkAogw1X (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I am thinking that [A] we don't have enough good sources, and [B] it really isn't important. Clearly the big story with feedback is PEDV. In my opinion we should not mention E. coli in Feedback (pork industry) and we should not mention feedback in Pathogenic Escherichia coli. I just don't see the connection meeting the criteria in WP:SCIRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Times Now

I wanted to bring this source up for discussion. The source is Times Now, an Indian news channel operated by The Times Group.

There hasn't been any actual discussion of the source in specific. It's been mentioned here and there along with other sources, where it was more or less considered to be only usable for backing up basic details - although there was at least one occasion where someone called it a reliable source. (see this and this)

The source itself came to my attention via an AfD for a book, where one of the sources was an article that was very, extremely obviously a vanity puff piece the book's author paid to have written about them. To sum it up, the article talked about 12 authors who took extreme methods to write a book. You had 11 extremely well known writers... and the book's author, who is not at all well known or covered. The book itself has barely received any coverage at all. It's very likely that he paid to have it written about him, as the advertising page says that they will do branded content.

I ran the article through an AI detector and it was flagged as almost 100% generated by AI. I looked at several of their other articles and ran those through an AI detector as well. All of the ones I ran had some degree of content that appeared AI generated (25%, 39%, 92%). The 39% one was a premium source about a serious topic, which was kind of concerning. If even their premium content contains likely AI prose, that's not a great sign.

Aside from that, the site has been criticized in the past for spreading misinformation and biased reporting. They've even been reprimanded within their own country for violating the Code of Ethics and Broadcasting Standards. The site was also criticized in a case study for spreading misinformation. (Link goes to a RS/N discussion that lays out several of the criticisms - the discussion wasn't about Times Now, but rather another site that was also covered in the case study.) So if we add in the inherent issues with AI prose and vanity reporting, there's a higher chance for misinformation to be spread even with basic information.

I honestly don't think that we should be using it for anything at this point. Between the AI reporting, evidence of what is very likely undisclosed paid advertising, and the aforementioned misinformation and biased reporting, I don't think we can trust this site for anything.

If people are in agreement, I'd like to add this to WP:FILM's list of sourcing for Indian cinema and mark it as unreliable. The list is film specific, but myself and others have brought the list up in relation to other topics because if something isn't even reliable for film, it's almost certainly not going to be reliable for other things as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Please note: I have absolutely no knowledge of this source.

You mention some content is likely paid, there is a section on this at perennial sources: WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

If the content appears to be AI generated, it would fall under WP:RSPLLM. I would advise caution when using AI language detectors, as they are often inaccurate. There was recently a discussion on these tools here a few days ago. Mitchsavl (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed that Times Now has a perennial sources entry where it is regarded as marginally reliable with additional considerations to Indian politics and Hindu nationalism.

Previous discussions:

October 2025

January 2024

January 2021

August 2018 Mitchsavl (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, AI detectors are faulty in my experience. Their film reviews seem mainly negative so unlikely to be paid for, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

@Atlantic306 and Mitchsavl: What is your opinion on the site other than the AI detectors? The site has received massive amounts of criticism for putting out propaganda and misinformation. I mean, the Wikipedia article mentions how they've repeatedly violated broadcasting standards. The bulk of the article is about how the site is unreliable and how poorly they're received by other news outlets.

Also problematic is that again, if we ignore the AI content part, the site does clearly appear to do some form of undisclosed sponsored posts. This source, the one that kind of sparked this, looks to be something that Rithwik Aryan paid to have written. The article lists 12 authors the outlet says went through extreme situations to put out iconic works. Aryan is listed alongside George Orwell, Cheryl Strayed, Elisabeth Gilbert, Laura Hillenbrand, Jon Krakauer, Anthony Doerr, Maya Angelou, Victor Hugo, Yann Martel, and Zora Neale Hurston. All of them are all pretty darn noteworthy. Meanwhile Aryan is included for a book that was released about two months prior and received a fairly small amount of coverage. I mean, I'm really uncomfortable considering the site reliable for reviews based on the presence of negative ones, not when the site is clearly doing undisclosed sponsored puff pieces.

I don't want the site to be considered reliable purely because AI detectors may be faulty. Again, aside from AI concerns the site is known for being biased, spreading misinformation, is clearly engaging in undisclosed paid praise pieces, and is seen as a joke by other news outlets. I don't think that we should be using them for anything, not even reviews. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the site, so I do not have an opinion on its reliability or accuracy. When I saw the question, I remembered that there were existing entries at perennial sources regarding LLM content and undisclosed advertising in Indian media, which would be relevant to the question. Looking at the Wikipedia page for the source (assuming the page is accurate), I would at least describe it a generally unreliable. Mitchsavl (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to see more evidence. Other news outlets have a vested interest in denigrating their competitors, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Masters thesis as citation

On Cyclone Hudhud, would this master's thesis from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte be reliable? Main concern comes from this comment: I mean, if his assertions about weather were wrong, who would stop him? Provided it was adequately peer reviewed, as it is for a reputable university, would it be reliable to support information about a) impacts and building damage and b) meteorological stuff? HurricaneZeta^C 21:47, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

To clarify further for a), this is in cases for which I wouldn't be able to find a better citation from, for example, an official report or news article, as there is information like this that I could use in there. HurricaneZeta^C 21:52, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

So… in general, Masters dissertations are not considered reliable enough. Are they better than non-peer reviewed media reports, yes… but are they good enough, no. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah...so should I remove it from the article entirely? HurricaneZeta^C 22:31, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably so. If you have no other reliable sources, that in itself adds doubt to the item. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Does non-peer reviewed media reports denote low-quality news sources or all news sources? We've been using high quality news (The New Indian Express, The Hindu) for impact extensively. These aren't academic expert sources but they expected to be factual in their reports of damage. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Those should be reliable per WP:NEWSORG, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't really apply here because what would be paid for? Even if they're not explicitly listed on WP:RSP there's an expectation that they're reliable and do fact-checking, while there's no expectation that they're peer reviewed in the academic sense. HurricaneZeta^C 15:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought so. I'm wondering exactly what "Are they better than non-peer reviewed media reports, yes…" meant. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink Looks like it's a no for Masters' theses in general. You mentioned using sources like this in the past? This may mean revisiting.

The way I got into using Ibraheem Alhaider's thesis (2018) was as a substitute for this multi-author journal article (2020) which he's part of that I didn't have access to. Both articles are about the wind patterns as evidenced by destruction to buildings; I thought if this author was competent to participate in a strongly usable journal article, he would be reliable enough in his own work. It seems obvious in hindsight that Expert SPS comes after your really real publication and isn't retroactive.

I brought up at Talk:Cyclone Hudhud that the thesis was in a Civil Engineering program and isn't necessarily subject to meteorological rigor; this is why I said I mean, if his assertions about weather were wrong, who would stop him? I thought his claims (with photographic evidence) of the damage to Andhra University were on a different level than his assertions about the storm. The journal publication is also devoted to buildings so it may not be applicable for the storm's behavior, but there may be authors that come from the proper background and suitable support/review if we look closer.

By the way @HurricaneZeta: here's The Hindu on damage to Andhra University EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

We have explicit guidance about master's theses in the reliable source guidelines: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from ProQuest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature, supervised by recognized specialists in the field, or reviewed by independent parties. Unfinished dissertations are generally not reliable sources. Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Some theses are later published in the form of scholarly monographs or peer reviewed articles, and, if available, these are usually preferable to the original thesis as sources." (emphasis added)

So has this particular thesis had "significant scholarly influence?" ElKevbo (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The thesis was produced by Ibraheem Alhaider according to the guidance of a committee of three faculty (Chen Shen-En, Thesis Advisor; Janardhanam, Rajaram Committee Member; Kane, Martin Committee Member) who seem to be able to demand corrections (link) but what proportion of the factual details they must vet is not laid out. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

+It does seem like the thesis' premise gave rise to the peer reviewed study Alhaider helped author published 2 years later. I wanted to use that in the first place but the person in the Wikiproject who said they have access decided against sending it. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth Have you tried WP:RX? That's a better solution than citing the thesis. (t · c) buIdhe 06:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

We have finally obtained passages from the study (Structural Assessment of Cyclone Hudhud in Vizag, Andhra Pradesh) from the person with access after enough badgering. This is a direct upgrade from the thesis, so we no longer need it. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It remains that there may be other articles in the weather science area which cite theses warranting examination; the standard for when a Master's thesis is over the margin of good enough seems to be currently inscrutable because we couldn't solidly categorize this one EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I would say no unless the author is independently established to be a subject matter expert on the topic. High Professor (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't a properly written master's thesis contain citations to the sources used to support its points (outside the points specifically synthesized by the thesis author)? BD2412 T 20:26, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. The references on Alhaider's thesis begin on actual page 35/PDF page 43. I can assume you're recommending using the sources used by the thesis EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

For the purposes of the article most of the sources listed there won't be of much use, as we can't go into depth on the civil engineering aspects of other tropical cyclones and the main information I want to get from these is the impact - the number of buildings destroyed, structural damages caused by it, etc. HurricaneZeta^C 20:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

What is the thesis author's source for that information, though? I presume they didn't go out and count destroyed buildings themselves. BD2412 T 20:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

This isn't really about the thesis anymore, as the thesis is trumped by the study. In both works, photographs of destroyed buildings credited to various people including the faculty members on his thesis committee who are authors in the study are marked by location and assessed for damage based on a checklist of damage features. So yes, the study's authors did go out and observe damaged buildings, though that may not be all of it. EnjoyLightEnjoyTruth (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The one page of the full study which is solely images was omitted in the copy we got, but the one image that is in viewable in our copy is credited to an author. HurricaneZeta^C 21:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

European Journal of Nutrition

What do you think of the European Journal of Nutrition as a reliable source for nutrition topics? Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Is this source being disputed in a talk page somewhere? What claim and article is this being used on? Context matters since reliability depends on a few things. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It is disputed as a RS regarding Kiwi fruit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1308595237). Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

For reference the edits that were reverted where:
"The proteolytic enzyme actinidin present in green kiwifruit may facilitate upper-tract protein digestion; in older adults, co-ingestion of Hayward kiwifruit with beef accelerated the appearance of essential amino acids in plasma compared with a low-actinidin gold variety."
supported by:
"The impact of Hayward green kiwifruit on dietary protein digestion and protein metabolism". European Journal of Nutrition. 60 (2): 1141–1148. 2021. doi:10.1007/s00394-020-02363-5.

And:

"Kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa, particularly the green Hayward variety) is nutrient-dense, providing vitamin C, dietary fibre, vitamin E, vitamin K, potassium, folate, copper, and diverse antioxidants (carotenoids, polyphenols)." Only the bolded part was reverted, and replaced with "under preliminary research for its potential to affect gastrointestinal diseases".

supported by:

"The nutritional and health attributes of kiwifruit: a review". European Journal of Nutrition. 57 (8): 2659–2676. 2018. doi:10.1007/s00394-018-1627-z.

The additions were reverted by Zefr on WP:MEDRS concerns.

Just a general note, but if the issue is MEDRS then even if the European Journal of Nutrition is reliable it could be that these specific articles are not reliable for the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not about whether EJN is a RS. We don't choose a source based only on its journal name, but rather on what the source says in support of a statement used in the encyclopedia.

Concerning the statements in the kiwifruit article, the authors of the EJN source made exaggerated false claims of broad nutritional value and anti-disease effects, evoking MEDRS scrutiny. The EJN source fails MEDRS criteria - if applicable and rigorous, actual anti-disease benefits would not likely appear in a nutrition journal. Further, the EJN report appears to have a COI problem raised on the kiwifruit talk page. Zefr (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I respectfuly disagree. If information comes from a reliable source - regardless of the topic - it deserves to be considered seriously on Wikipedia. If it seems disputable, it should be attributed; if it is challenged, we should reflect that challenge in the article. However, in this specific case, this information is widely supported across multiple reviews:

• Consumption of 2 Green Kiwifruits Daily Improves Constipation and Abdominal Comfort-Results of an International Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36537785/) - American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2023.
• Exploratory Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Green Kiwifruit, Psyllium, or Prunes in US Patients With Chronic Constipation (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34074830/) - American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2021.
• Mechanisms underlying effects of kiwifruit on intestinal function shown by MRI in healthy volunteers (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30706488/) - Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2019.
• Kiwifruit and Kiwifruit Extracts for Treatment of Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36247043/) - Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2022.

But once again, if this claim is challenged by others we should mention it. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

In regard to "regardless of the topic", any medical claims are covered by additional requirements per WP:MEDRS, so topic does effect what is considered reliable. So as to be able to have a better idea of the material could you give a small relevant quote from each source? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:19, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Mechanisms underlying effects of kiwifruit on intestinal function shown by MRI in healthy volunteers(2019): "Consumption of kiwifruit in healthy volunteers increases water retention in the small bowel and ascending colon and increases total colonic volume. The data may explain the observed increase in stool frequency and looser stool consistencies, suggesting that kiwifruit could be used as a dietary alternative to laxatives in mild constipation."
• Kiwifruit and Kiwifruit Extracts for Treatment of Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2022): "Among individuals with constipation, there is an overall low certainty of evidence indicating that kiwifruit may increase SBM when compared to placebo or psyllium. Although overall results are promising, establishing the role of kiwifruit in constipation requires large, methodologically rigorous trials."
• Exploratory Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Green Kiwifruit, Psyllium, or Prunes in US Patients With Chronic Constipation(2021): "Kiwifruit, prunes, and psyllium improve constipation symptoms in patients with CC. Kiwifruit was associated with the lowest rate of AEs and dissatisfaction with therapy."
• Consumption of 2 Green Kiwifruits Daily Improves Constipation and Abdominal Comfort-Results of an International Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial(2023): This study provides original evidence that the consumption of a fresh whole [Kiwi]fruit has demonstrated clinically relevant increases in CSBM [complete spontaneous bowel movements] and improved measures of gastrointestinal comfort in constipated populations. Green kiwifruits are a suitable dietary treatment for relief of constipation and associated gastrointestinal comfort.
• The nutritional and health attributes of kiwifruit: a review(2018): "Of particular interest are the digestive benefits for healthy individuals as well as for those with constipation and other gastrointestinal disorders, including symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome."(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29470689/)

Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Claims such as these the best sources are reviews rather than research, per WP:MEDRS. Of the two reviews 2018 and 2022, the 2022 review article's conclusion is that the results are promising but need further work. The 2018 review is more positive, but it's four years older. Are there any meta reviews or analysis post 2022? If not than these two could be used to make some statement of their findings, but maybe not as directly as your original addition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

You are right, besides I found a more recent source (June 2024) A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Kiwifruit’s Impact on Functional Constipation]: "The results indicated that defecation frequency improved considerably, with a p-value of 0.0008 and a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.07. However, the GRADE analysis showed low-quality evidence. Kiwifruit may be a secure and efficient treatment for people

with functional constipation. However, further high-quality clinical investigations are needed

to confirm these results." @Zefr and @ActivelyDisinterested thanks for your input. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

There seem to be some COI concerns as well. This report seems rather premature - Zefr posted at Talk:Kiwifruit a couple of days ago but doesn't seem to have had any reply. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide details on who runs it, and perhaps a link to the editorial practices? High Professor (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Publisher: Springer (Springer Nature) / Editor-in-Chief: Kieran Tuohy.
• Editorial practices and policies : https://link.springer.com/journal/394/ethics-and-disclosures

Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Filmhorizon.com for the claim that Melania (film) is a "pseudo-documentary"

@JanneA se: (A user who has only made 20 edits since the creation of their account in 2020, most of which have been reverted) has been edit warring at the Melania (film) article to insist that the film be described as a "Pseudo-documentary" in the opening sentence. The pseudo-documentary Wikipedia articles states that they are a film or video production that takes the form or style of a documentary film but does not portray real events. The only source that JanneA se has provided in support of this claim is this article from filmhorizon.com [44]. As far as I can tell from looking at its homepage [45] Filmhorizon.com does not produce any original reporting, but instead are purveyors of clickbait content about celebrities. I do not believe that this is a reliable source, particularly for the strong claim that Melania is a "pseudo-documentary". Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This looks like a "just because it can be sourced doesn't mean it should be included" situation. Even if Filmhorizon.com was reliable, articles are meant to be written is proportion to the POV found in sources (WP:NPOV). If this is only found in one source it's not how it should be described in the lead of the article.

As to Filmhorizon it does have an editorial policy[46] and has been around for a few years[47]. They appear to be a typical low quality celeb/movie site, probably reliable for basic details but not for controversial details especially if they are the only source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: No need for the passive-aggressive comment. The Melania ”documentary” is very much staged and scripted. As Melania herself talks about it: ”Some have called this a documentary, it is not,” ... "My film is a very deliberate act of authorship." and ”It is a created experience”. https://news.sky.com/story/melanias-non-documentary-might-end-up-a-box-office-flop-but-she-wont-mind-13501084 JanneA se (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Documentaries can be scripted. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say they can't be, the question is about Melania (the film) being a pseudo-documentary rather than a ”real documentary”. JanneA se (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The film has only just come out. Shouldn't we wait for more reliable sources to appear before ascribing it to a genre, especially as it's disputed. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I've heard it called "a barely concealed bribe", but the point isn't what we think it is but how the consensus of sources describe it. This is one source and the description will be disputed, waiting for additional and stronger sources is a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Here are a couple of better sources calling it a pseduo-documentary: New York Magazine quoting Decider, and The Globe and Mail. There are additional sources, like The Daily Beast, that are marginal. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Meh… The first sentence of the New York Magazine review uses the label “documentary”… before segueing to quoting Decider. I would suggest that we do the same… using “documentary” in the lead of our article, but noting how some reviewers label it “pseudo” in the section on its reception. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

That source is Fiction Horizon, not Filmhorizon. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Potential deceptive news websites

Seemingly reliable sources have accused the following websites of being blackmail websites, or otherwise having ulterior motives:

• ruscrime.com: Spamcheck + Linksearch - cited in 9 mainspace articles
• warsawpoint.com: Spamcheck + Linksearch - cited in 6 mainspace articles
• talk-finance.co.uk: Spamcheck + Linksearch - cited in 2 mainspace articles

• trinitybugle.com: Spamcheck + Linksearch - cited in 0 articles because I already cleaned these up
• chicagomorningstar.com: Spamcheck + Linksearch - cited in 0 articles because I already cleaned these up

Does this justify nominating them as deprecated sources, to discourage people from adding them as citations in the future? Or should we just clean up the current citations?

References

Dreamyshade (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Blacklisting rather than deprecation would be more appropriate for such sources. However the Reason.com link is just repeating a claim made in a court case rather than being any sort of investigative journalism, so something stronger would be needed against warsawpoint.com. The other reports are more convincing, especially the case against chicagomorningstar.com. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 to AD's comment above. If they're obvious spam they should be blacklisted, but the lack of citations in articlespace makes me think they're not enough of a problem site-wise to go through the process of deprecating. The Kip ^(contribs) 23:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with ActivelyDisinterested and The Kip and would also recommend that Dreamyshade propose adding those domains over at WT:BLIST. - Amigao (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

@Amigao Thanks, posted here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Blackmail/manipulation_websites. I haven't posted on that board before, so please feel free to correct any procedural mistakes if you notice any. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Iranian state-affiliated media (Tasnim, Fars, ISNA, IRIB)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 05:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Reliability of Iranian state-affiliated media (Tasnim, Fars, ISNA, IRIB)

Question: Should Iranian state-affiliated outlets such as Tasnim News Agency, Fars News Agency, ISNA, and IRIB be considered reliable sources on English Wikipedia beyond attributing official positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

Background: Several Iranian media outlets frequently cited on English Wikipedia operate under direct or indirect control of the Iranian state and lack meaningful editorial independence.

Tasnim News Agency is directly affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Fars News Agency has documented ties to Iranian security and intelligence institutions and has repeatedly published false or misleading reports later contradicted by independent sources. IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting) is Iran’s state broadcaster and is constitutionally controlled by the Supreme Leader. ISNA operates under extensive state censorship and political pressure, which significantly limits independent reporting.

The IRGC was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in 2019 and by the European Union in January 2026. Media outlets affiliated with such entities function primarily as tools of state messaging rather than independent journalism.

Reflecting these concerns, Tasnim News Agency was deprecated on English Wikipedia in 2024 due to repeated promotion of state narratives and disinformation. The structural and editorial conditions that led to Tasnim’s deprecation appear to apply similarly to Fars, ISNA, and IRIB.

Existing precedents:

On Persian Wikipedia, these outlets are generally prohibited except when clearly citing official Iranian government positions. English Wikipedia has adopted comparable restrictions for other state-controlled or propaganda outlets, including RT, Sputnik, and Press TV.

Problem: Despite these issues, these Iranian state-affiliated outlets continue to be used extensively on English Wikipedia, sometimes as primary or supporting sources for controversial topics such as:

human rights violations political repression and protests domestic and foreign policy regional and international conflicts

Their use can result in undue weight, biased framing, and the insertion of state propaganda into articles intended to be neutral and encyclopedic. There are also observable patterns of coordinated editing that disproportionately promote these outlets, raising additional neutrality concerns.

Request: I am requesting community input on whether:

These outlets should be deprecated or otherwise restricted on English Wikipedia, similar to Tasnim News Agency. Their use should be limited strictly to clearly attributed statements of official Iranian government positions, rather than treated as independent reliable sources. Clearer guidance should be established to prevent undue reliance on Iranian state-controlled media.

A transparent community discussion on this matter would help align English Wikipedia with existing precedents and protect the project’s credibility, neutrality, and reliability.

Itsfeather (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Can’t necessarily speak to the others, but Press TV and Tasnim News Agency are already deprecated. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Itsfeather, the English Wikipedia generally does not accept discussion comments generated by a large language model (i.e. an AI chatbot), so I have collapsed your comment per the corresponding guideline. You are welcome to rewrite your inquiry in your own words, and you may use a machine translation tool (see comparison) for assistance if needed.

As The Kip mentioned,  Tasnim News Agency (RSP entry) and  Press TV (RSP entry), the latter of which is owned by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), are currently deprecated. The IRIB-operated news channel  HispanTV (RSP entry) is also deprecated. There have been a couple of previous discussions about the Fars News Agency on this noticeboard, such as this one from 2014 and this one from 2023.

Some of the Fars stories are ludicrous, including "Snowden Documents Proving 'US-Alien-Hitler' Link Stun Russia", an article republished from a fake news website called WhatDoesItMean.com. It is accompanied by a "Note" written in an aggrieved tone that cites  RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry): "To help our readers with more relevant sources of information we included the video of Hellyer's interview with RT, where he said extraterrestrial beings are amongst us and if we down at least one UFO, we'll be facing an interstellar war, and that Apollo astronaut, Edgar Mitchell, told him there were something around two and twelve spices [sic] of aliens visiting the Earth, and that the aliens have provided people in the American government with military technology", while simultaneously claiming that Fars is not responsible for the "veracity, authenticity and reliability" of the story and does not "support or reject" the views within. Fars then published a follow-up article "PRISM Mining UFO Data, Targets False Flag ET Invasion as Pretext to Space Wars", citing an article (https://web.archive.org/web/20140714034652/http://www.examiner.com/article/prism-mining-ufo-data-targets-false-flag-et-invasion-as-pretext-to-space-wars) from the ill-reputed citizen journalism website   Examiner.com (RSP entry). Any source that finds these kinds of conspiracy theories acceptable to present without skepticism is questionable. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I understand the concern and will make sure any further comments are written personally. ~2026-69812-6 (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks — agreed regarding Press TV and Tasnim. My question was mainly about how the remaining outlets should be handled under RS guidance. ~2026-69812-6 (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Systemic bias from Iranian state media sources

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. Cdjp1 (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would like to request community input on the reliability and appropriate use of several Iranian state-affiliated news agencies, including Fars News Agency, ISNA, and IRIB.

These outlets operate under close control of the Iranian government, with limited editorial independence. Tasnim News Agency, which is directly affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was deprecated on English Wikipedia in 2024 due to concerns about state propaganda and disinformation. Similar structural concerns appear to apply to Fars, ISNA, and IRIB.

On Persian Wikipedia, these sources are generally restricted to citing official Iranian government positions only. I am interested in whether comparable restrictions should apply on English Wikipedia, consistent with precedents for other state-controlled media such as RT, Sputnik, and Press TV.

A recent independent analysis also raises concerns about increased reliance on Iranian state-linked sources and possible coordinated promotion: https://www.neutralpov.com/p/a-flood-of-iranian-propaganda-on

Given Wikipedia’s sourcing standards (WP:RS, WP:PROPAGANDA), I would appreciate input on whether these outlets should be considered unreliable for factual claims, or limited to attribution-only use. Schrodinger12 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Support restricting these sources. I'd like to add several points to this discussion:

Documented manipulation of Wikipedia: The article Reactions to the 2025–2026 Iranian protests itself states that "Iranian regime-aligned Wikipedia editors have also attempted at revising Wikipedia pages to delete text around the regime massacres conducted by it." This is not speculation—it's documented on Wikipedia.

Times of London investigation (January 2024): The Times reported that "Wikipedia entries have been changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities and other abuses, raising concerns that agents or supporters are using the site to manipulate publicly available information about the hostile regime. Information has also been changed to discredit Iranian dissident groups, while government publications have been presented as impartial news sources."

Tasnim sanctions context: When Tasnim was sanctioned by the EU and US Treasury in September 2023, the stated reason was not merely bias but active participation in repression: "publishing false confessions by protesters on its website and social media accounts as well as for posting pictures of protestors on social media and asking readers to help identify them." Fars News Agency shares the same IRGC affiliation and operational model.

IRGC terrorist designation: The EU designated the IRGC as a terrorist organization on January 29, 2026, joining the US (2019), Canada, and Australia. This places IRGC-affiliated media (Tasnim, Fars) in the same category as outlets from other designated terrorist organizations.

Given the Tasnim precedent, the documented manipulation attempts, and the consistent pattern of these outlets functioning as instruments of state repression rather than journalism, I support extending deprecation to Fars and establishing clear restrictions on ISNA and IRIB consistent with how we treat RT, Sputnik, and Press TV. ~2026-71031-3 (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

While I’d support blacklisting/deprecating these sites as needed, I’m concerned these two comments are LLM-generated similar to the original section. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:34, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

It also appears to be deaf to the comments that have already been made in the prior section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ditto. While we're at it, "systemic bias" doesn't really seem to be the correct term for Iranian state media's attitude here, which is to simply print pro-IR reporting. "Systemic bias" implies that there is a "system" that applies some sort of process that generates skewed results despite having some pretense to impartiality (or at least to a predefined process). So while say the SAT score has systemic bias; PressTV (and sources of similar quality) are just unreliable for statements of fact. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:09, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Ditto ditto...and the LLM doesn't seem to know that the newpaper is called The Times, not Times of London. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The ironically named POV-pushing blog cited by Schrodinger12 is confusing Wikipedia with Wikimedia Commons. The author Ashley Rindsberg doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia's RS policies have nothing to do with Wikimedia Commons which simply archives freely available data. NotBartEhrman (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I feel like I should know that name and not in a good way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:04, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Rindsberg has come up in multiple RS discussions as the majority of his work covers Wikipedia. He primarily published in the PirateWires newsletter, and then in NPOV Media (which he is the sole editor of), and when he has been invited to write for other outlets, it's all repeating points he's already made in his PirateWires or NPOV Media attacking Wikipedia on grounds of being controlled by a cabal of pro-Islamic terrorist editors (see the Gang of 40).

For disclosure, while he as not mentioned me in such pieces, when he has tweeted about my contributions in such areas on Wikipedia, the responses included calling me a member of ISIS. Though my opinion of the quality of his work was cemented long before this. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It will be PirateWires that I remember the name from, and why my feelings were justified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Ashley rindsberg of piratewires infamy and who regularly trolls and slanders Wikipedia for perceived left wing and anti Israeli bias is not to ever be taken seriously User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

No, she isn't. The article discusses how Iranian state media is being mass uploaded to Commons, and then filtering onto Wikipedia, by some users that appear to have connections/hyper-interest in the Iranian government. To quote her, "sanctioned and state-affiliated media has been systematically introduced into Wikipedia’s media pipeline at scale, shaping how the 2026 unrest appears to the outside world."

She makes no mentions of RS policies. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Have any of the uploaded images been used on Wikipedia? If they have simply been uploaded to Commons, my question is who really cares? Katzrockso (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, some of the images are used on WP. But I personally don't see an issue with it unless there is some evidence that the images are doctored. Anyone can upload and make claims about images on Commons that often make their way into WP articles, even though other forms of UGC are completely rejected. (t · c) buIdhe 05:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with the images unless their usage somehow violates Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV or WP:DUE. I am curious how many are used on Wikipedia and what articles. Katzrockso (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

He not she. Ashley is a guy User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make. Ashley is one of those androgynous names. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This is a real problem though. If someone adds information from RT or PressTV it will trigger an edit filter and will most likely be reverted in minutes. On the other hand, if someone uploads an image from the same source to Commons and then adds it to the article (most of our images are not attributed in the caption) it's likely that it will fly under the radar. I think that at the very least we should be consistent when applying our existing policies. Alaexis_¿question? 18:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

So, I came across this image issue independently as I was searching for Commons images of the protests for a project unrelated to Wikipedia. There basically are no available photos on Commons of the real anti-government protests; there are, however, hundreds of photos of the government-led demonstrations mourning dead security members (amid other official motivations, the image captions also heavily suggested that the government-led protests were also including some popular, critical slogans about the economy in order to lend them greater legitimacy). But really, the issue here isn't that there's a glut of photos from the regime-authorized rallies (after all, that is likely due for illustration too, and now we have our pick of the lot for finding an image), the problem is that there was an Internet blackout in Iran that prevented the publication of images of the actual protests. I don't know that there's anything Commons would be able to do about this (other than implementing a better-than-state-of-the-art search function that could know to prioritize images of the anti-govt protests when someone searches "Iran protest"), and I would be rather surprised if it impacts English Wikipedia coverage in any significant way. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You have the same bias issue with pretty much any source of images. For example, differences in copyright laws can make a big difference in what side of a conflict can be shown. National archives have a huge influence on what images are available to us via digitization and release policies. Then there is the bias in which images get taken to begin with, oppressing journalists, forbidding photography, and destroying evidence being favorite tactics of authoritarian regimes. (t · c) buIdhe 18:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'd support at a minimum deprecating them for the specific topic area of Iranian military capabilities and weapons systems, for which they regularly abandon any semblance of editorial independence to act as a mouthpiece for the Iranian government, typically to uncritically repeat dubious (or in some cases disproven) IRGC claims. I don't have enough experience with them in other contexts, but with regard to their military coverage these are garbage sources and it's long since past time we stopped using them.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

How do we feel about the Hindustan Times?

They're not my first choice of source, but our tried and true favorites are being completely silent on large swaths of names in the Epstein Files while the Hindustan Times is actually giving secondary coverage. So, thoughts? Snokalok (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

My only thought is to ask why the world is so obsessed with one sleazebag. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

With living people I would be very careful about any reporting on the Epstein files. There's going to be a lot of people who had connections with Epstein that weren't involved in anything illegal. If only one source is reports on something I would wait for others. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I second this. With the Epstein files being such a politically charged item, and receiving huge attention, if something about it is only mentioned on a single source, I would be sceptical. According to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, The Brand Post section of the paper includes paid advertising.

Previous discussions on Hindustan Times include:

January 2020 - Addressing WP:CIRCULAR,

August 2020 (LiveMint) - Not the topic of discussion but mentioned several times

February 2016 (Are these sources reliable) - One of the sources copied Hindustan Times, with all four replies mentioning it

and several other references to it in the archives for this page. Mitchsavl (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Relevant links:

(Hindustan is first party)

Their code of ethics [48]. From it, Point 8 states: “Special care to be taken while reporting on sexual harassment in workplace, child abuse, rape, where accused or victims are minors, matrimonial, riots and communal disputes / clashes, divorce and custody cases, adoption matters, etc.”

Hindustan tech brand stories: [49] - note that Hindustan Tech has a degree of separation from regular coverage.

Astrology: [50] - while a reasonable reader would know it is a pseudoscience, seeing a news site with an astrology section makes it feel less credible to me.

Opinion pieces: [51]

Advertising: [52], Indian PR Distribution (third party)

Entry on Media Bias/Fact Check (non reliable as per WP:MBFC): (third party)

Wikipedia page on Paid news in India Mitchsavl (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times are pretty biased to India and the Indian Congress Party from the articles I've read on them. I'd say be wary of potential biases that may seep in, but it is a decent secondary. You'd be in tough luck for any citations however, and I'd keep an eye on the qualifications of the author you end up reading. DerpyXplodio (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

In line with the results of past conversation on the source, be skeptical of its coverage, especially if it is only source reporting on a story.

As others have said, there are a number of individuals in the files that have no connection to illegal or nefarious activities. There are also unsubstantiated and quite crazy claims made to the FBI in the files that are known to be baseless. Not everything released is credible. Jcgaylor (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

If only the Hindustan Times are reporting on a person in the files, I don't think it's worth reporting on. There are plenty of people in the files whose names are mentioned but who aren’t accused of any wrongdoing, or who are only mentioned by others without their emails/letters/whatever being included. Cortador (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea about their history with the Epstein files, but their military coverage is subpar, extremely biased towards Indian nationalism, and becoming problematic in that they are appearing as a source increasingly frequently in our MILHIST coverage, to substantiate dubious claims that no other traditionally reliable, international media sources, would cover. It sounds like that seems to be a running trend across multiple topic areas. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)