close
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


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

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

    Additional notes:

    Shortcuts
    • 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.

    Firstpost

    [edit]

    Is Firstpost a reliable source?

    It's linked from a very large number of articles. However, some statements by Firstpost have been fact-checked and found to be false. Its managing editor Palki Sharma used to work for WION, which is only considered to be marginally reliable per WP:WION.

    WP:NEWSORGINDIA says some sections of Firstpost contain undisclosed paid content but says nothing about Firstpost as a whole. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems quite reliable. I see plenty of use by others. BBC cited it often: [1] [2] [3] [4] and dozens more. The same for New York Times: citing coverage, coverage in Newswallah and so on. The Guardian cited Firstpost's coverage and statements given to Firstpost, and quoted obituaries published in Firstpost and so on. This is just from a cursory search for a few minutes into a few prominent newspapers, I'm sure there's plenty more.
    The two factchecks both pertain to incorrect attribution of visuals—one instance of use of an old visual for a cyclone based on usage by an Indian district administration (later clarified), another of repeating viral social media claims about the location of a photograph. I suppose it would be appropriate to exercise caution if it's being used for source-attribution of some piece of media or social-media related/"viral" claims. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 20:22, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The missing piece of the puzzle is that all the use by others is from before 2016 and the fact-checks are from the 2020s. Fact checks include fake news in a religious tension related issue and promoting Modi with false reporting.
    The clue for it is that Network18 was overtaken by oil conglomerate Reliance Industries in 2014 and most of the authors (200 fell to 10-15) at Firstpost were slashed away in 2019. They have a paid news problem and there was a sting operation reported by WP:THEHINDU on how Hindutva ideology is peddled through paid news [5]. Omen2019 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just not true. There's plenty of use of by others post-2016 and post-2019.
    CNN in 2021:

    ISIS-K took credit for the attack and named the suicide bomber as Abdul Rehman Al-Loghri. Two US officials confirmed the identity of the attacker. FirstPost, an English-language news site based in India, was first to report that he had been released from the Bagram prison.

    Reuters in 2025:

    On Wednesday, Marcos told Indian media outlet Firstpost, "If there is an all-out war, then we will be drawn into it."

    These also just another two quick examples based on cursory searches, a lot more is available.
    The Hindu/Cobrapost article has no mention of Firstpost and it has nothing to do with Firstpost. I'm also sick of someone crying "Hindutva" in every thread, often randomly and nonsensically as here. It has no bearing on the reliability of the source and comes across as political axe-grinding and battleground editing. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 06:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What is not true? This is use of on-the-ground sources (eye witnesses), Guardian taking a quote from an interview is not an endorsement of the source or a statement that it has not repeatedly published misinformation which is directly related to the ruling government that has attacked press freedom and their ideology. Omen2019 (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine anything less impressive than being cited by the Guardian. Mevsherd (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is part of Network18. So it rises or falls along with it. Under R. Jagannathan, it came across as too opinionated. But now it has mellowed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is generally considered usable PinkBlossomRain (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]
    User4135 (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be too early for an RfC? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a thoroughly unreliable source. It was never useful. I would be fine with completely depreciating it. Koshuri (あ!) 08:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you give your reasoning Koshuri? BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is undoubtedly unreliable. I won't use it for anything. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 10:01, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you give your reasoning ZDRX? BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bobfrombrockley Firstpost is not reliable. They have a pretty major issue with undisclosed paid editing, worsened by the fact that much of their articles which have undisclosed paid editing are written to defend and justify the Hindutva ideology or the ruling BJP government. Furthermore, they've had a history of spreading misinformation.[6][7][8][9] — EarthDude (Talk) 08:16, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. That’s pretty good evidence of clickbait, failure to verify, sensationalism. Agree therefore it seems to be a bad source BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not going to respond to your unsubstantiated WP:OR claims, but as for the "history of spreading misinformation":
      [10]: "Both the outlets [News18 and Firstpost] later ran a clarification stating that the clip is old."
      [11]: "News agency PTI, media organisations India Today, Firstpost, NDTV and English Jagran claimed that Ahmed's vote "saved" the UPA government in 2008, citing a book Baahubalis of Indian Politics: From Bullet to Ballot as their source." [underlined by me], which means that the discrepancy lies at the book source, not at the news agencies that reproduced the book source's claim with attribution and not as their own claim. Lazy reporting, but not disinformation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:OR obviously does not apply to talk pages and noticeboard discussions. Anyhow, these cases are not rare for Firstpost. In April 2023, the outlet claimed that Pakistani parents have to resort to locking the graves of their daughters to prevent necrophilia, using an image posted on Twitter which had stirred a controversy and no additional research.[12] However, as it turned out, the image was from Hyderabad, not Pakistan.[13] In April 2025, the outlet used an image from 2021 and falsely called it the "first image from a suspected terrorist" in the 2025 Pahalgam attack.[14][15] In June 2025, the outlet claimed that Modi had "fact-checked" Trump by stating that India "has never accepted mediation, does not accept it, and will never accept it", and that consequently Trump had performed a "U-turn" on his claim to have been responsible for ending the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, now saying instead that the leaders of both countries were "very smart" and had "decided to stop the war".[16] Again, this wasn't the case. The statement by Trump was that Asim Munir and Modi were influential in his decision, but he reiterated four times that he was the one who stopped the war.[17] Again, these are just some of many such cases of the outlet spreading false information and engaging in sensationalism. This extremely low-quality source should not be used anywhere in Wikipedia. Deprecating it isn't a bad idea. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say it's marginally reliable. On one hand we have WP:USEBYOTHERS, on the other we have quite concerning examples of publishing falsehoods and then failing to issue corrections. Alaexis¿question? 11:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Reliable for what? I am yet to see where it can be useful. Zalaraz (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that it's used a lot for cultural topics. Also, see @TryKid's examples of use by other RS. Alaexis¿question? 12:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      He says there are post-2016 or post-2019 use by others of Firstpost. But has not proven it, all his links are pre-2016 with most from 2014. There was a large downsizing after a politically charged ownership change of Network18. Omen2019 (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That is a good question. As far as I can tell, Firstpost doesn't do any ground reports. It publishes commentaries and/or analyses by columnists that it considers worthy. So, it is good enough to check the notability and reliability of the authors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Firstpost

    [edit]
    The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Closing as Option 2: additional considerations apply. Several detailed lists of considerations can be found below, but for shorthand, we can quote Atlantic306: "reliable for non-controversial content, anything political may be biased, and social media stories should be avoided". --GRuban (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    How reliable is Firstpost, to be used as a source in Wikipedia?

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

    — EarthDude (Talk) 06:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey: Firstpost

    [edit]
    • Option 4: Firstpost has had a history of publishing false news stories. I will highlight some cases here. In April 2023, the outlet claimed that Pakistani parents have to resort to locking the graves of their daughters to prevent necrophilia, based upon a viral image from Twitter and no further research.[18] However, in reality, the image was from Hyderabad, not Pakistan, and it had nothing to do with necrophilia.[19] In August 2024, the outlet falsely attributed a statement about the US' alleged involvement in Bangladesh to Sheikh Hasina.[20][21] In April 2025, the outlet used an image from 2021 and falsely claimed that it was the "first image from a suspected terrorist" in the 2025 Pahalgam attack.[22][23]. This source is absolutely not reliable and should be deprecated. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      "based upon a viral image from Twitter and no further research" and yet the report [24] references cases of necrophilia from 2011, 2013, 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, all of which are real: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. So which lack of further research? I already said this above, their reporting may indeed be lazy, but I am not seeing a "history of misinformation" that is being claimed here. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Re: Sheikh Hasina: Firstpost reported : "According to the Economic Times report which cited the ousted Bangladeshi PM’s close associates" which means that they are citing The Economic Times and it's not an original claim by Firstpost. The Quint "factcheck", which is arguably even lazier than Firstpost's report, claims the statement to be "fasle" based only on Hasina's son's tweet. "We went through Hasina's son, Sajeeb Wazed's social media accounts, who put out a statement against the alleged quote made by his mother." And you are saying we should deprecate Firstpost based on THIS? Beyond absurd. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Attribution does not eliminate accountability. Repeating a false or unverified claim from another source without enough scrutiny still counts as unreliable. Editorial judgment is what reliable sources should do, not just pass on what others say. It's even more worrying that Firstpost used "close associates" cited by another source without checking them out and presented them as a news claim. How are they reliable?
      It is also not a valid counterargument to say that fact-checks are not valid because they are based on primary rebuttals. Fact-checking groups look at claims and see if they are true or false. If you can't show that their conclusions are wrong, calling them "lazy" doesn't make the correction wrong. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 09:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      It is lazy. They reached the conclusion that the statement was false instead of saying that Hasina's son has claimed it to be false. But what's more pertinent here is that Firstpost reported a claim which appeared in ET (with full attribution), which then Hasina's son claimed is false. That is not "false reporting" or "misinformation" by any metric, and using it for deprecating Firstpost is shockingly absurd. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Attribution alone does not make a report reliable. They should not just repeat claims from other sources, especially when those claims are serious and unverified. In this case, Firstpost did not simply report a disputed claim. It promoted an unverified statement based on anonymous or indirect sources (close associates) without showing clear skepticism or verification. That is churnalism, not thorough reporting. The fact that the claim was later denied by a directly involved party (Hasina’s son) further shows that the original report did not have enough verification. Whether one thinks the fact-check is "lazy" or not does not matter. The main issue is that Firstpost chose to publish and spread a claim with weak sources. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 10:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see anything in WP:RS or WP:DEPS that says we should be deprecating sources based on a few churnalistic reports, or that it affects the reliability of a source. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Per WP:RS, reliability depends on a source’s reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. When a source repeatedly publishes misleading or poorly verified content, that directly affects its reliability for factual reporting, regardless of whether it is officially discontinued. Similarly, WP:DS comes from community consensus when serious and ongoing reliability issues are found. The examples provided are not trivial because they involve misleading use of images, publishing claims without enough verification, relying on weak or indirect sourcing. These are core reliability concerns, not just minor churnalism. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 10:44, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Churnalism being the reason for deprecating a source would be historic first here. Also, are you using AI to generate your responses? The tone is very GPT-esque to my ears. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Churnalism matters when it shows a lack of careful checking. When a source often publishes unverified or poorly sourced claims, or gives misleading context, it hurts its reputation for reliability. This is the main standard under WP:RS. Just because there isn't a past example doesn't mean these concerns are not valid. Each RfC looks at the evidence on its own merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZDRX (talk • contribs)
    • Option 4: Per EarthDude. Firstpost isn't a reliable source. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 07:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - Like I said, it thoroughly unreliable source known for spreading disinformation. There is no use of it. Koshuri (あ!) 07:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 the evidence presented here wouldn't even qualify the source for 2 or 3, let alone for deprecating. And the continuous months-long edit warring on the outlet's main article first to add WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE OR to the article's lead and then also to repeatedly remove longstanding templates that highlight the concerns of SYNTH and DUE (raised by multiple editors) just before this RfC by the same editors who are voting here to deprecate the source also beggars belief. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all, I suggest you read WP:AGF and WP:FOC. Secondly, what goes on in the Firstpost article is unrelated to this discussion on the reliability of the Firstpost source. A news outlet with a history of publishing false and fabricated information cannot be deemed reliable. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:27, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      As I already pointed out above, not all instance you are personally claiming to be "spreading misinformation" are actually so. This is nothing but cherrypicked instances of a couple of lazy reports or misreports and making claims about widespread mis- or disinformation which doesn't seem to actually exist. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Cherry-picking would suggest that these were simply random, minor mistakes, yet it’s clear from the above examples that this source tends to publish false information about critical issues. Any number of these instances is relevant in terms of determining the credibility of a source, particularly in terms of its ability to provide accurate information.
      In this case, the question is not about proving widespread disinformation, but whether the source maintains high editorial standards in general. It is a reasonable point of concern based on these examples.
      If you feel these examples are inaccurate, please explain why specifically, rather than calling them “cherry-picked” without addressing them directly. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 08:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I already have: here, here and here. So indeed, it is cherrypicking. In fact, at this point, it is also a falsification of evidence against the outlet. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      BERJAYA Comment: And the claims of misinformation added to the article, which were also presented here as evidence of a "history of misinformation", are worryingly inconsistent with what the sources being cited for them actually say. I'm not going dig into who added them with conclusions that stretch the limits of interpretation and practically hinge on original research, but they certainly do not hold up as evidence for deprecation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You are only offering justification that how FirstPost ended up spreading fake news. That changes nothing. THEZDRX (User) | (Contact) 11:40, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said to another person trying to misrepresent me, we are only as blind as we want to be. Misrepresented or falsified "history of misinformation" cannot be grounds for deprecating. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      A history of publishing false information is the exact grounds needed for deprecation, not to mention the organisation has also engaged in Islamophobic conspiracy theories in its articles. Worst of all, for most of their articles where they published false news or misinformation, they haven't reported corrections. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      As I pointed out below, the assertions of disinformation and of engaging in "Islamophobic conspiracy theories" are completely unfounded, unevidenced, and unsubstantiated as already noted by multiple editors. There is overwhelming evidence against claims of Firstpost pushing such conspiracy theories. A lot of the claimed "false information", is actually just disputed (not "false") claims, newswire, errors or viral hoaxes originating elsewhere. Some of the claims of "false information" are also made-up! UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - For instances of misinformation, jingoistic coverage and churnalism. Zalaraz (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 11:53, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - Completely fails WP:RS and has no productive value for Wikipedia. Not to mention it is notorious for spreading fake news and disinformation. Wareon (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      This notoriety? UnpetitproleX (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - This was expected. It is well known for spreading fake news. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Option 1 This is a genrel at WP:ICTFSOURCES and I am not seeing any substative rationale (beyond what are simply "votes") for [nuclear] Option 4/3 which would require overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence for deliberate false reporting/fabrication. What are there are certain haphazard reports, exactly the same scoped by mainstream and other listed RS, without any appearance of deliberation by Firstpost or its singling out by fact checkers (many of which are borderline, if only we assessed reliability through politicians: differing Trumpian claims of ceasefire [cf. false or misleading statements by Donald Trump] and a controversial son denying his controversial mother and PM making a statement); it should be noted that most genrel at RSP have failed a similar rather a higher number of disparate fact checks (look no further than PolitiFact). Some comments in previous discussions on the article's Talk page have mentioned pro-government bias but as RSN knows (and WP:RSBIAS shows) that is impertinent for us, also cf. genrel but biased sources at WP:RSP like WSJ, National Post, Times of Israel, Sixth Tone [under the CCP], VOA [under US fedgov] etc. Now looking through scholarly reports assessing Firstpost here is what I find:

      Firstpost has several mechanisms in place to vet fake news. It has conducted workshops organised with the help of Google News Lab, where journalists were given tips and introduced to tools that could help them verify the credibility of a source or image. ... With legacy news brands and relatively well-established websites like Firstpost, it is only in the past three years that their newsrooms have begun to create and curate content geared towards social media performance. Source: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
      Firstpost is now entirely owned by Reliance, as a part of its acquisition of CNN-TV18 group, which was earlier owned by Raghav Bahl. In 2014, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) was compelled to raise a red fag over media ownership patterns resulting in an inextricable nexus of politics and media patronage, which elicited this response from Firstpost editor R. Jaganathan: "How do we know a media house not owned by a politician is telling the truth too? […] Does non-ownership of media houses prevent a corporate house from infuencing it? Is the advertising rupee, or indirect benefits to media editors, any less infuential in the media?" With the following five points, Jaganathan sought to reassert press freedom, which was seemingly facing familiar threats, but also quietly going through fundamental revision as digitality was being ushered into the very temper of news-making. Source: "Portfolios of Fear and Risk in Platform News" in Platform Capitalism in India

      So I see here a solid case for option 1 much in line with ICTF. Can look towards option 2 (caution) but the evidence so far of a slapdash of fact checks simply isn't convincing, which of course makes no case for gunrel or deprecation at all. I should note that the discussion above (and recent flurry at the article's Talk page) barely ran before the RfC was initiated, and would appear out of process. Gotitbro (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Was further looking into its coverage by academic sources and this Firstpost article being discussed is of note (at Anti-Gender and Anti-Feminist Politics in India: Notes on Fascism, Feminist Solidarity and Liberatory Politics):
      There are a host of others by the same Firstpost author severely critical of the current Indian government: [30]; among others by several different Firstpost writers. And the blanket labelling of bias isn't very firm either. Gotitbro (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Claims of misinfo have been greatly expanded within the article since the start of this RfC, [31]. But most of these (cf. Talk) are reports by the original wire agencies/ other news orgs (and attributed as such) like Reuters and PTI which should have no imputation of reliability for this source. I also see a conflation of misinformation (itself a vexed assertion) and disinformation (entirely unevidenced).
      And further third-party assessment of the source (by the Media Ownership Monitor tracking media concentration) [32]:

      Firstpost is a news website in English and Hindi owned and operated by Network18 Group. The website features news, analysis and opinion articles by reputed columnists. The owner Network18 – one the biggest media conglomerates – is Mukesh Ambani and family. Firstpost was initially launched as a news website but now it has also made its appearance in the print sector.

      Gotitbro (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Generally reliable, with emphasis on generally. Firstpost has a solid record of use by other reliable sources for cultural critique, political commentary, interviews, and so on. Additional considerations apply to nearly all sources, and occasional lazy coverage of social media is not limited to the source under consideration. We have had cases of elaborate fabrications from ostensibly reliable sources (currently categorised as such on Wikipedia). Posts from "web desks", i.e. without any real bylines, can be presumed to be lazily recycling social media claims and cannot be relied upon for sources attribution of photos or other such "viral" phenomenon. Beyond this, there's no indication, nor has anyone claimed, that any current usage of this source on Wikipedia is problematic. No reasoning has been provided for why it would need "deprecation" in the votes above. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 23:47, 9 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 - to deprecate Firstpost is quite a strong claim. A simple Wikipedia search shows that Firstpost is widely cited in articles on Indian celebrities and films. Second, as mentioned by @TryKid, Firstpost has has been cited by other major news outlets such as BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian etc. so yes, it is still relied upon. Third, upon reading WP:DEPS - deprecated sources are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Firstpost meets that unreliability in nearly all circumstances. Instead of a blanket exclusion of Firstpost, its use in controversial topics should be carefully analyzed on a case-by-case basis. Overall, it is generally reliable. Chilicave (talk)
    • Option 4 - The instances of fake news are too many. Today, is either noted for spreading BJP propaganda or used for spreading fake news. Raymond3023 (talk)
    • Option 4 per ZDRX and Earthdude. It is just another agenda-driven outlet with no credibility. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2: At least for entertainment-related, non-political and non-contentious content. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - The excuse that the outlet is "lazy" and that's why it shouldnt be held accountable for the disinformation cannot work since it serves as a pro-BJP outlet, just like blacklisted OpIndia and Swarajya (magazine). CharlesWain (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Who said the outlet is "lazy"? A handful of reports, far too few, appear to be "lazy." These far too few lazy reports, are being falsly claimed to be disinformation for deprecation. Please try not to misrepresent what I said, even if inadvertently. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      OpIndia and Swarajya are blacklisted because their editors harassed Wikipedia editors, not due to their editorial bias or unreliability. KnowDeath (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2 - Prominent film journalists such as Anna M. M. Vetticad have written for Firstpost. Additional considerations may apply for political content, but to completely ignore all other spheres of life where the source can be used and to jump the gun with Option 4 is not appropriate. DeluxeVegan (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 due to various false claims. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2 It is an uncontroversially good source for entertainment related stuff and many other non-political spaces. Why just Firstpost? Deprecating any source just for a few instances is inappropriate. If this level of inaccuracies are being taken into consideration, many news agencies will be required to be blacklisted, because many of them, sometimes or the other, have published unverified information....and that makes no sense. There's always grey spaces, we can't expect everything to be completely white or completely black. BhikhariInformer (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - As detailed above, FirstPost is frequent at publishing disinformation and political agenda of the BJP. While I understand that it is not possible for news websites to remain perfect all the time, however, FirstPost happens to publish disinformation in the most insensitive manner. This is also totally over the line. Wisher08 (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: Per Gotitbro. I will note that the source they cite also mentions Whether it be NDTV or The Wire.in or Firstpost, the language is hyperventilated, every story shrill and scandalous, every reaction amplified and magnified, and every aversion or expression of outrage riddled with sentimentalism about the past and scepticism about the present. I see no reason for Option 4, as it does not fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances (emphasis mine). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 10:59, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: I find it generally reliable for most of the topic area I edit in. For contentious areas, option 2 may be a case according to some specific though can't say since I haven't come across any myself. Options 3 and 4 nope. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Firstpost is part of the Network18 group, which was acquired by an industrialist known to be close to the ruling party. All the members of the Network18 group, which include CNN-News18, suffer from certain amount of bias in favour of the ruling party. Other than that, I don't see any egregious misinformation being propagated by these organisations. WP:BIASED applies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just to opine real quick, I've had now two requests to fully protect the Firstpost page due to folks editing behavior in that article. I've left a message on the article talk page but if anyone notices anything that looks like it would break the rules please ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: What concerns me isn't so much the errors, but the fact that they seem to rarely issue corrections, even when they get something egregiously wrong. (The only correction I can find is this one, discussed above, which was for a video they posted on Twitter. I haven't seen corrections in any of the actual articles on their website.) On the other hand, they seem to have plenty of reasonable, fact-based articles, so Option 4 seems really extreme to me. There seems to be a decent amount of variation in Firstpost's reliability, so I think editors can use their judgement to decide when it's reliable:
      1. Generally, Firstpost shouldn't be used for statements that are likely to be disputed, especially in the area of politics. Editors should be aware that Firstpost may be biased towards the BJP.
      2. WP:NEWSORGINDIA, of course.
      3. Firstpost articles that use a sensational, tabloid-like tone should probably be avoided.
      4. Editors should be aware that Firstpost's reporting often relies to an unusual degree on social media posts by random people. Firstpost articles that do so generally shouldn't be used.
      Cadddr (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cadddr: They have issued corrections on other occasions as well, see here for example. I do completely agree with you about point 4 though. Most of these reports seem to stem from social media posts (though not always by random people: Tommaso Debenedetti and Harris Sultan for instance). The rest of the discrepancies arise from using newswire (of PTI [33], on one odd occasion Reuters), or from republishing attributed claims from other news agencies/sources (such as The Economic Times, this book, The Indian Ministry of Culture etc.). I doubt we should hold it accountable for problems that arise elsewhere (PTI, Reuters, Economic Times etc.) UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT: Hmm. FirstPost. Where have I heard that name before? (Searches) Ah. Here it is: --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - In 2020, when Modi government passed 2020 Indian agriculture acts which were universally condemned as net-negative for the farmers and were eventually withdrawn after 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest, FirstPost was propagating Ambani-funded organization's article in favor of the law.[34] This is when the protestors targeted Ambani.[35][36] There is no doubt that FirstPost disseminates disinformation and propaganda for Modi administration. Segaton (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm no fan of Modi, but it sounds to me like your argument is just that FirstPost published something you disagree with. FirstPost being WP:BIASED doesn't imply that it's unreliable in all circumstances. Cadddr (talk) 04:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      the thing is its biased with false claims. Its ok for a source to be biased, its problem when it deliberately spreads fake news trying to influence political arguments for the government Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Deliberation I would note though is entirely unevidenced beyond a grab bag of failed fact checks mostly stemming from wire agencies. Gotitbro (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 or 2: The examples provided and a little wider research doesn't lead me to depricate this scource. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4; the examples posted by EarthDude are convincing. Either they're publishing misinformation deliberately or they have absolutely no editorial controls or fact-checking at all to the point of showing a reckless disregard for the truth; and in either case they're not usable as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Of the 3, this example is the opposite of convincing. This one as well, though marginally. It would be a stretch to ponder upon deliberate misinformation, i.e. disinformation, based on these alone. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 reliable for non-controversial content, anything political may be biased, and social media stories should be avoided Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 it is part of Network18, which is owned by Reliance and Mukesh Ambani, so is naturally biased and is basically PR piece for the news. Yes, Almost every single indian news outlet even the Hindu and others have spread fake news, so I always proceed with caution when I see indian news.... however first post is different. In AfDs I have seen editors misusing it a lot. depricating it makes the most sense because its reliability is too uneven for contentious factual claims. it is not something I would treat as a dependable source for contentious factual claims, especially politics and social-media-driven reports... Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 05:02, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Quoting another user (ActivelyDisinterested) here: "Arguments based on who owns a publication don't really matter anyway. The Daily Mail (deprecated) and the Independent (generally reliable) are owned by the same group, and the owner of The Sun (generally unreliable) also owns The Times (generally reliable). The owner of a new organisation usually doesn't mean anything." UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is not that, I just pointed it out for sake of context. even ndtv is owned by the same group but I will consider it more reliable as there is editorial oversight. anything under the sky without any fact check gets published in first post Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Saying that Firstpost has no fact checking is false. Per the Reuters Institute report, The Quint and Firstpost have already made pointed efforts to deal with the problem of fake news. Firstpost has several mechanisms in place to vet fake news. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 13:53, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Having stuff and mechanism makes no difference, if it still peddles fake news because it serves as positive PR Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Positive PR for who? You said it is "too uneven for contentious factual claims". What about the non-contentious claims? Surely not everything they publish is politics or social-media. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 15:45, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Positive PR for the ruling establishment. The problem is them openly promoting and publishing fake news with no editorial insight. This discredit their other reporting. If I know one source is frequently and knowingly publishing fake news, I will not trust them for other non political things as well Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      [citation needed]
      If anything, we have evidence to the contrary. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      https://caravanmagazine.in/media/praveen-swami-india-pakistan-balakot-firstpost-journalism
      see this, just because there were some content against Modi doesn't make firstpost reliable. The issue here is not is its biased, but is it publishing fake news. There are many more sources that actually point to them publishing fake news Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, The Caravan itself is accused for anti-India narratives.
      https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/prasar-bharati-chief-accuses-the-caravan-editor-of-blatant-anti-india-presentation-at-global-meet/article28420116.ece MarSteGeo (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said its not about the ideology of these sources. It doesn't matter if they are pro government or anti... what matters is the factual content. The article I shared by the caravan is evidence based if you read it Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Even BBC and NYTimes have published non-factual content and
      it has created controversies, those occasional things doesn't make them unreliable. MarSteGeo (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is them doing it knowingly, and not owing up or correcting the mistakes Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      owning ̈ Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      of course prasar bharati will accuse an anti establishment media of anti nationalism this is same as zee news Stanjik (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The Caravan article is certainly troubling, and I think it's good you shared it here, but I'm not seeing evidence of "them doing it knowingly". I agree that at least one of the examples here is further evidence that they usually don't issue corrections, and I think that implies that Firstpost shouldn't be used for contentious claims. But pro-government and anti-Muslim bias – although I think it's morally wrong – is not the same as fake news. Cadddr (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Praveen Swami is perhaps the foremost Indian security journalist whose work has been published by John Hopkins University Press, Routledge, Contemporary South Asia, LeftWord Books, and Pearson, among others. A single article in The Caravan that claims his journalism is "murky" at worst, is not even enough for us to doubt the reliability of Praveen Swami, let alone to implicate Firstpost by association. UnpetitproleX (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      dont know whats wrong with the article the staff obviously posted false info related to balakot (notoriously known to be propagandic when the Op obviously failed as pointed out by caravan) him naming "unknown sources" just because he has authored articles in reliable institutions doesnt mean he cant echo propagandic content here Stanjik (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: On Wikipedia, not all content is politically sensitive or falls under AC/CT. Using this source as citations for general content, primary claims, and entertainment-related topics is completely acceptable. Those users who are supporting Option 4 seem to lack AGF. who are completely blocking this source. They simply overlook the fact that Firstpost is one of the most cited sources in the Indian film industry and entertainment-related articles. And also, if there is a need to include a primary claim made by a government, politically motivated organization, or individual, this source can be used as a citation with proper attribution. But it is also true that using it as an independent source for exceptional claims is not appropriate, especially reports that begin with phrases like "as per sources". For contentious topics, such claims require further verification from more credible sources. King of Kings III (Dear Sir ...) 07:52, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - there is evidence of reckless writing without due diligence, thus it cannot be considered RS for our purposes. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 due to a lack of evidence of editorial oversight. This should especially be the case for politics, but I think any content produced by a media publisher that does not have editorial oversight should not be on Wikipedia, regardless on how quaint or ordinary the subject is. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 13:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 as per earth kid and part of Ambanis (billionare with close ties to current gov) hence a part of godi media Stanjik (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    changing opinion from 4 to 2 seems like they are mostly following guidelines but theres a lot of editorial lapses but not enough to fully depreciate it like the hellhole that is zee news Stanjik (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • BERJAYA Comment: A lot of the 'option 4' votes are along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT based on assertions of bias and disinformation that are unfounded, unevidenced and unsubstantiated, and are in fact directly contradicted by WP:RS (such as here, here, here and here). Thus, I strongly oppose option 4 based on such unsubstantiated claims that are contrary to what secondary RS say. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Good sources have been given that are founded, evidenced and substantiated we should depreciate it,this is just like zee news all over again Stanjik (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      ^Exhibit A. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      What would be more accurate is to say that a lot of votes arguing for deeming the outlet generally reliable are based on WP:ILIKEIT and not on any actual evidence. The evidence for the outlet publishing false information and engaging in conspiracy theories is not "unfounded, unevidenced and unsubstantiated", not to mention the fact that for most of them, no corrections were reported. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:58, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      "are based on WP:ILIKEIT and not on any actual evidence" if you ignore the evidence linked right in the comment you are responding to, then maybe.
      The assertions of disinformation and now of "engaging in conspiracy theories" are indeed unfounded, unevidenced, and unsubstantiated as already noted by others here and especially here—a mountain of evidence against claims of pushing conspiracy theories. A lot of the "false information", is actually just disputed claims, newswire, errors or viral hoaxes originating elsewhere, in other cases we do have corrections. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I find Firstpost as reliable as many Indian print media such as The Wire, The Print etc. Some reports gets wrong with every big ones such as BBC and NYTimes but they are still considered to be reliable. MarSteGeo (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Yet, unlike Firstpost, when the BBC or NYT publish misinformation on rare occasions, they report correction, often quite rapidly. Furthermore, they don't engage in Islamophobic conspiracy theories, such as love jihad or gaming jihad as Firstpost has.[37][38] — EarthDude (Talk) 09:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Well good thing Firstpost is also not doing any of that (as noted here and here). UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      And perhaps most definitively, as noted by Cadddr here. The claims of Firstpost pushing such conspiracy theories are completely contrary to evidence. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:00, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be Reliable. Ogambo obmagom (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have been following this thread somewhat, and feel like the evidence of its blanket unreliability is a little thin. In some cases, the editors were taken in by hoaxes (which happens regularly with all kinds of media, unfortunately). In others, there is evidence that the editorial standards are unevenly applied (true of all media, especially Indian media). I see a few examples of questionable reporting here (again, Indian mass media being Indian mass media, sadly). But it would be nice if there were some kind of study showing a systemic and widespread disregard of editorial norms, fake stories, etc. A few examples, while concerning in themselves, don't really move the needle for me all that much. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I mostly agree: a few examples of bias and bad reporting don't move the needle for me much either. (Well, they do move the needle for my personal view of Firstpost, but not for my opinion of how Wikipedia should handle them.) What does move the needle for me is that they didn't issue corrections in most of these cases. Cadddr (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 While Firstpost is part of the Network18 group and reflects a known bias due to its ownership, this does not equate to egregious misinformation. Per WP:Biased, a source can still be reliable despite its political leanings. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: I think it's generally reliable for most topics. Their editorial team could use an extra fact checker though. — Longewal (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 no news source is perfect and Firstpost is no exception, but occasional errors alone don't justify deprecation. WP:RSDEPRECATED reserves deprecation for sources with substantial history of fabrication or serious factual accuracy issues. The examples given don't seem to show a consistent pattern of repeated unreliability. Some of the issues arent unique to Firstpost, some reporting lapses have occured in other outlets including Reuters. Even outlets like The Wire has had issues without it being deprecated. As WP:NEWSORG mentions, even reputable outlets occasionally publish errors, which means there needs to be case by case editorial judgement, not blanket deprecation. EM (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - It is impossible to expect any honesty from them. It is now trying to blame Pakistan for a local protest over lower wages in India.[39] Excelse (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      no i mean they are just reporting what our (inappropriate adjective removed) minister said lmao i dont think this outlet is reliable but its just reporting him Stanjik (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Any decent outlet would have called out that nonsensical claim, but since FirstPost is just a mouthpiece of BJP government they cannot. They can only populate BJP's propaganda no matter how absurd it is and thats why they are entirely unreliable. Orientls (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be an allegation of bias not unreliability, unless they fabricated the quote. "It is now trying to blame Pakistan" is categorically false as they quite clearly did not do that. Gotitbro (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    i mean now that i think about it,it should have like atleast said something silence on this matter makes it seem like yogi is right Stanjik (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "It is now trying to blame Pakistan" is just plain and simple false because they most certainly are not doing that in either this article or the video that accompanies it. Exactly what I mean by unfounded, unevidenced and unsubstantiated—just egregiously false claims. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 I cannot see how the arguments made for option 3 and especially 4 for gets anywhere near the threshold that WP:DEPS sets. WP:DEPS bar is set and needs to meet the "substantial history of fabrication" e.g. like the daily mail. Also, although there are some shortcomings to some First Post's past report, it seems like a lot of the arguments made for option 3 and 4 fall under the WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, WP:USEBYOTHERS also cuts in Firstpost's favour - as evidenced by Gotitbro and UnpetitproleX. On balance, for entertainment, business, sports, and culture it’s effectively reliable; on politics we already apply extra scrutiny anyway, as with any new outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chirpingsparrow (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - Apart from the examples mentioned above, it is also supporting Love Jihad conspiracy theory.[40] It is entirely unreliable and misleading as a source. Orientls (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      If they reported that love jihad stuff in an actual news article, it would probably be the most egregious example here. But given that it says "Views expressed are personal" at the end, I think this is just a poorly-marked opinion piece. So regardless of the outlet, this piece would already be considered unreliable for statements of fact per WP:NEWSOPED.
      While I personally think it's irresponsible not to fact-check opinion pieces, lots of well-regarded newspapers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal don't do good fact-checking on their opinion sections. Of course, the Firstpost example is far worse than anything I've seen from either of those newspapers, and publishing it shows remarkably poor judgement, so maybe it should influence our reliability assessment a little bit. But overall, I'm not sure we can judge a publication much based on its opinion pieces. Cadddr (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      This Firstpost article is engaging in the Gaming jihad conspiracy theory. This article by the outlet is also engaging in the Love jihad conspiracy theory. Neither of these appear to be op-eds. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow, that's quite bad, thank you for the links. After looking at those, I'm definitely seeing the case for option 3 for topics related to politics. Belief in the love jihad conspiracy theory is disturbingly widespread in India, but that’s no excuse for a news source to basically report it as fact with zero skepticism.
      Since people apparently find Firstpost useful for entertainment-related topics, I’m still not seeing a great case to deem it unreliable for everything. And I still think option 4 might be a little too far. But I might change my !vote to option 3 for politics. (I’ll have to think it over a little more, though.) Cadddr (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The latter of these is a bog standard crime report (covered by other RS) where nowhere is the vast conspiracy of love jihad asserted. It would do editors a whole lot of good to actually read what they cite here as fabrications or false news. The former is also another police case (also covered by other RS), nor is there any recognized "gaming jihad conspiracy theory" in academic sources neither is it alleged by the article. Unless we want sources to entirely do away with crime reporting, this is standard reporting and properly attributed to the police and alleged victims/accusers. Gotitbro (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you report any secondary reliable source reporting these specific "incidents"? If you do manage to find sources for them, which are not from Godi media, then I will acknowledge it. Regardless, the language used in these specific articles is neither professional nor something seen in "standard reporting". — EarthDude (Talk) 09:34, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The reason why I ask for non-Godi sources is because Godi media sources have a very well-known tendence to report fabricates cases related to Islamophobic conspiracy theories. A source is allowed to be biased, but we simply can't accept sources which have a well known history of publishing false news and engaging in conspiracy theories. — EarthDude (Talk) 09:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Gaming case: [41], [42]
      Marriage case: [43], [44]
      This is from a cursory search of local sources, quite clearly much like Firstpost they pin the allegations on the accusers/parties to the case.
      Neither is this fake news nor purveying of conspiracy theories in its own voice. Unless you want to deprecate every source that does breaking crime reports on the beat. That these alleged victims (not the sources) are promoting "conspiracy theories" is also an unestablished assertion that may very well taken to be offensive. Gotitbro (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Outlook is the only acceptable source here. Even then, that article reports more on the specific police report. The Firstpost article on the other hand is far more conspiratorial, and it accepts that gaming jihad is true, with paras like the following:

      Once a miscreant has created a profile on a popular gaming app, they identify their targets based on their behaviour - people who tend to spend a lot of time on gaming apps, and are very open to sending random messages to strangers are also open to receiving them. This is how targets are chosen. The perpetrators usually chose very impressionable young adults. Once a target is chosen, the miscreants will start a casual conversation, mainly about something very common and mundane, usually about things that are happening in the game. The miscreant will cajole younger boys to become close friends, by sharing tips and tricks to win. Certain games allow cheat codes, which the perpetrators will use to their advantage. They will tell their targets that they have guaranteed “recipes” to win the game. And because most games allow you to form teams of squads, and give users the ability to add people as their friends, groups get formed within the game. This is where the most crucial step comes in.

      Followed by this:

      Tightening the noose Often at this stage, numbers are exchanged and people start conversing using WhatsApp. Groups are formed on IM apps, to decide a common time to play. Later, these groups become like any other boy’s WhatsApp or Telegram groups, where people share memes, some vulgar jokes and videos, links to pirated games or movies, and a bunch of other stuff. Once numbers get exchanged, the perpetrator’s work becomes much easy. This leads to one on one conversations as well, where the perpetrator will try to find out what their target’s parents are like. If they feel that the parents aren’t too involved with the kid, or are too protective of them, to the point of coming across as overbearing, and therefore irritating, they will continue to lay their trap. Slowly, they will steer the conversation to subjects like violence and glory, and the need to be pious, in the context of a certain religion. This is usually accompanied by a sob story, about how a close friend or a family member of the miscreant was killed or kidnapped by the police, the armed forces, or other religious fanatics. Then, the conversation will be steered towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, and supposed atrocities by the armed forces and the police. They also share videos that speak highly of a certain religion, as if it is the one and only true way to get to heaven. Slowly more and more content is presented that brainwashes the targeted kids into developing a warped sense of reality.

      The article, which is importantly not an op-ed, is clearly far more than simply "another police case". It is a deeply Islamophobic article which openly engages in the Gaming jihad conspiracy theory. This is not the only Firstpost article which engages in such Islamophobic conspiracy. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:17, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry but the assertion that this particular case(s) is a conspiracy theory is your own opinion and does nothing to establish allegations of pernicious fake news (nor that one-off articles even if veritably in that category would do that). Unless you have any source explicitly saying so this need be treated no different from usual crime/police beat reportage (all of these assertions are from the police/alleged victims). I could very well assert that this case is/could indeed be true. None of this in the end would do anything to show support for conspiracy theories or the contrary. The academic sources we have for Firstpost do nothing to establish this.
      I will now be explicitly labelling my support for this source as option 1. As I have yet to see anything that lends credence for deprecation or anything close to it. Gotitbro (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, come on now. Simply reading this makes it clear enough that the article is more than just a police report. The specific conspiratorial paragraph I quoted from the article doesn't even mention the police report. Muslims exploiting vulnerable Hindu youth to brainwash them and convert them to Islam is textbook Gaming jihad conspiracy theory. It doesn't take a genius to understand this. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:53, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Never heard about the "gaming jihad conspiracy theory" (a redirect created just now by you) in all of the academic literature about Islamophobia (and media) I have read in the last decade or so. Likely beyond fringe to be even of note or relevant to this case, unless you have sources which say this which is highly unlikely as this is a neologism tied to one journo (from the redirect target I am reading) not an extant conspiracy theory like "love jihad". You are synthesizing bits and pieces to make a case for this source to be a conspiratorial one when there is really no evidence for it. Neither would hyperfocusing on this one particular article help establish anything for deprecation. Gotitbro (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      even if this is in a few articles its really damaging unrelated how many jihads are we gonna hear spiting ,love,land,gaming what next AI jihad atleast do butlerian jihad lmao Stanjik (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      We can all create "conspiracy theory redirects" like the one you just created—which is essentially WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and then retrospectively accuse news outlets of "promoting" these conspiracy theories that no WP:RS is accusing them of, but would that be evidence for unreliability? I think not. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

      That these alleged victims (not the sources) are promoting "conspiracy theories" is also an unestablished assertion that may very well taken to be offensive.

      The victim in the "love jihad" case is the woman, not the family, and we don't even know what she thought. As you probably know, in nearly all alleged cases of "love jihad", what actually happened is that a non-Muslim woman falls in love with a Muslim man and consensually gets married, having full knowledge of the man's religion. The woman's family objects to the interfaith marriage and can't believe their daughter would willingly marry a Muslim, so they tell the police it's a case of deceptive and forced "love jihad". Firstpost evidently didn't even rule out this possibility, such as by asking the woman whether her family's claims of love jihad were really true. If that basic level of fact-checking hasn't yet been done, then the article should at least make that clear from the very beginning. Instead, the first half of the article treats the accusation as simply true. (Ideally, it would also give some context about how usually these accusations just serve to punish men and women who enter interfaith marriages, but that's probably too much to ask.)
      With that said, I think I'll stick with my initial !vote for option 2 rather than bumping it up to option 3. Because at the end of the day, this is just bad and misleading reporting. They're not making something up out of whole cloth, they're just treating a police report too credulously. Cadddr (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The girl’s father claimed ... the claims made by the girl’s family are being looked into."
      The report’s title reads "… Lucknow man allegedly …"
      Reporting the claims of the complaint as recorded in the police report, explicitly as claims, is far from Firstpost "engaging in Love Jihad." UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      And as noted by Cadddr, a hoard of articles in Firspost are actually rather extremely critical of 'Love Jihad'. The claim of them promoting it flies right in the face of reality. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      "The writer is a US-based activist who has played a critical role in the introduction of a paper trail for India’s Electronic Voting Machines called VVPAT. Views expressed are personal."
      Quite explicit, unless we deprecate RS for particular opeds (we don't, WSJ and NYT and most RS for that matter would've been booted for what would be pretty facile) this asserts and proves nothing. Gotitbro (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an article published by FirstPost to promote BJP's Love Jihad conspiracy theory and here is an opinion piece published by FirstPost in support of Love Jihad conspiracy theory. At this stage, it is clear that FirstPost is hosting such absurd Islamophobic conspiracy theory articles because it is meant to be a Hindu nationalist unreliable source. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @D4iNa4, EarthDude, and Orientls: On the other hand, a quick Google search finds lots of FirstPost articles that are extremely critical of love jihad as a Hindu nationalist conspiracy theory: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49][fixed] [50]. That really makes me think nothing stronger than option 2 would be warranted: we should exercise some caution when using Firstpost, due to its articles being of variable quality and reliability, but deprecating it altogether seems really extreme. I think we should trust editors to use their judgement based on context. Cadddr (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This link cited by you is unrelated to the topic. The fact that they post articles endorsing the conspiracy theory justifies that it deserves blacklisting. The FirstPost has also falsely claimed that India was offered UNSC seat in 1950 and 1955 but India "gifted" it to China, and today China is successfully single-handedly opposing India's entry into UNSC.[51][52] They also falsely claimed that "China and the United States have launched a propaganda campaign against India after the Indian forces put heavy costs on the Pakistani forces."[53] FirstPost only gets more unbearable. Orientls (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops sorry, thanks for catching that. I must have pasted that one instead of this one. Fixed. Cadddr (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry. What is your basis for asserting that these claims are "false"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It would do a whole lot of good for editors citing articles to actually read them. The first one of these is clearly covering the electoral politics of the BJP and its voters surrouding it not a promotion of it. Exactly what one'd expect a news source to file reports about.
    The latter is an oped and explicitly marked as such. Gotitbro (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume good faith you really think wikipedians do this thing man Stanjik (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They are "covering the electoral politics of the BJP" without providing any rebuttal. That's what unreliable mouthpieces do. Orientls (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    News outlets don’t become unreliable just because they didn’t provide "any rebuttal" to a political party you may dislike in one article of theirs, especially given that they have indeed carried critique of that political party otherwise. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you actually read these or did you just keyword search them to post here? The first is a report titled "Kerala assembly elections: Is 'love jihad' a poll issue in Trivandrum?" which talks about what "Love Jihad" means to voters in Kerala. The second is a film review, which is essentially WP:NEWSOPED, an opinion piece and would already be unreliable for statements of fact. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, scratch that, if someone were to keyword search then it would have been impossible to ignore the multiple Firstpost articles critical of 'Love Jihad', unless of course one (not you necessarily) were to purposely ignore them. The takeaway for all of us perhaps is to be more thorough and to read the sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of editors have called into question the veracity of the supposed evidence of unreliability provided so it would be unwise to accept it at face value. Also rival publications have an obvious incentive to denigrate their competitors, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - Proven source of misinformation & propaganda. Ashwin Baindur (User:AshLin) (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - Has a notorious track record of posting biased and outright fabricated information and stories for quite a while. RealKnockout (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Being WP:BIASED is not even a valid reason for declaring a source unreliable, let alone to deprecate a source. The "outright fabricated" information you link is not quite "fabricated", since it’s a report with only proven real cases though the image is unrelated. UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      What do you mean by "a report with only proven real cases"? The fact that necrophilia has occurred in Pakistan is not evidence for the main claim of the article, which is that more and more people are keeping the graves of women members of family under lock and key as necrophilia cases are on the rise. There's nothing to suggest Firstpost has done anything to verify that claim. If they had, they would probably provide more details. Instead, they go on to uncritically quote incendiary social media posts that suggest there's something uniquely bad about Pakistan or Islam that leads to necrophilia. They neglect to mention the fact that necrophilia seems to be a big issue in India too. I wouldn't say that they fabricated anything themselves, but I think it's fairly likely that they were publishing fabricated narratives from social media along with the extremely misleading image. Cadddr (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That still doesn’t make it "outright fabricated information" by Firstpost since they mention the sources of the claim: Haris Sultan and Sajid Yusuf Shah, the former a Pakistani-Australian formerly-Muslim author and the latter a Kashmiri Muslim advocate. Calling the views of these people incendiary or Islamophobic is a reading that I do not agree with. And why would they mention Indian cases of necrophilia, when the subject is necrophilia in Pakistan? Would a story about school shootings in America have to have a stray mention about those in Canada? I agree with you about the other thing though, I also wouldn’t say Firstpost fabricated anything here themselves. UnpetitproleX (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I think a better analogy would be the US and China, since they're geopolitical rivals. Suppose an American newspaper published an article about necrophilia in China, and it quoted two social media posts. One quote blamed China's atheism, and the other blamed China's sexually repressed society. The article also failed to mention that this was a pretty rare occurrence in China, and that it wasn't even much more common than in America. Even if I respected the two people being quoted, I would consider the article a pretty blatant attempt to incite American racism and xenophobia against Chinese people. I wouldn't be surprised to see an article like that from the New York Post, but I wouldn't expect to see it from a reliable source like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal.
      To be clear, though, I agree that it's not "outright fabricated information", and I don't think articles like that are enough to deem it an unreliable source. Cadddr (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know if this is really related to the discussion without a secondary source, but going through Harris Sultan's tweets on X, it feels impossible to believe the man can be described as not Islamophobic. RealKnockout (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Cadddr, it looks like you haven't read the Alt News article that EarthDude has referenced right in the beginning. It makes it clear that the original information as well as social media post came from Asian News International (WP:RSPANI), which is well-known for circulating fake images/videos and for mislabelling them. Very likely, ANI read the Daily Times article and cooked up an image to go with it. (ANI is also known to pick up social media images/videos and publish them as if they are its own creation. ANI is also currently suing Wikipedia for defamation.) The statement you flagged "more and moreo people are keeping the graves of women members of family under lock and key as necrophilia cases are on the rise" is a fair conclusion from the Daily Times article. A responsible newspaper woud have published the ANI article or credited them for it, as The Times of india had done. Firstpost tried to pass it off as its own research. But nothing in the article is fake news, except for the image. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, thank you for pointing that out. I had glanced at the Alt Post article a while ago, but I forgot about it. I agree then that it's not fake news, though as you note, it does seem quite irresponsible. It certainly doesn't give me much confidence in them, but I guess it's just churnalism. Cadddr (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The headline is also fake news, mention of some real cases of necrophilia doesn't change that the article by Firstpost is essentially a fabrication.

      (Sidenote: Perhaps a renewed case for fully deprecating the original source of a lot of misinfo, ANI, might be warranted, rather than only targeting republishers like Firstpost?) RealKnockout (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not fake news though, according to the ultimate source, which is this Daily Times report: "But the heart-wrenching sight of padlocks on the graves of females is enough for the entire society to hang its head in shame and never dare to look at the so-called vessels of honour. This is being done as a desperate bid to ensure the sanctity of dead bodies in case some randy monsters cherry-pick them to satiate their lust. Considering the rampant rise in necrophilia, one can’t help but understand the urge to protect loved ones." Daily Times is a leading Pakistani newspaper.
      Firstpost has not fabricated anything in that report. They have used an unrelated image, but both the padlocks claim (including the headline) and necrophilia incidents are real. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That is not a regular news piece by the Daily Times, it is an op-ed (and one without so much as a named author at that), it should be treated as an unverified assertion by an anonymous individual rather than something backed by reliable sources. RealKnockout (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Op-eds always appear with names of authors, and possibly a disclaimer at the bottom. This is one more likely to be the paper's editorial, for which the editor of the newspaper takes responsibility. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NEWSOPED (AKA WP:RSEDITORIAL) doesn't distinguish between op-eds and editorials:

      Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact (see also § Statements of opinion, below).

      This is true in my experience. Even in reliable sources, editorials often aren't fact-checked well. Maybe they're a little more reliable than op-eds, but they're still not reliable for statements of fact.
      (I still don't think it's a "essentially a fabrication", though. Just bad and irresponsible reporting.) Cadddr (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Also; @Kautilya3, I noticed you tagged me as a suspected canvassed user, I'd like to clarify that I'm not, nobody asked me to join this discussion on my talk page or anywhere. If you're wondering how I came across it, I randomly saw it as an old talk page post on WikiProject Pakistan while checking it. RealKnockout (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That is indeed canvassing, unless Zalaraz gave an equivalent notification at WT:INDIA as well, and I see no evidence of that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That isn't canvassing, that's simply an appropriate notification, and the likely reason he didn't post an equivalent notification at WT:INDIA is because someone else already notified them there about this RfC. RealKnockout (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I notified WP:INDIA about this and the ZeeNews RFC, as that seemed the most obvious place. Any other editor can notify a different project or noticeboard, and as long as that notice is a neutral statement that doesn't count as canvassing. Also WikiProjects are meant for editors who are interested in editing articles on that subject, not as groupings of editors based on common characteristics. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I wasn't referring to the necrophilia aspect, I was referring to the "padlocking graves" part. Additionally, I mentioned their bias simply to further illustrate the point of Firstpost's questionability, I'm aware that bias alone does not make a source unreliable. RealKnockout (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The padlocking graves part is also as real as the necrophilia cases, as evident from the Daily Times report which the Firstpost report is based on. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The whole story was a fake news from the beginning and Firstpost like other unreliable sources in India just regurgitated those claims without any fact-check and never issued correction. [54] This certainly qualifies as Option 4 level unreliability where a news site has no accountability and just acts as a propaganda outlet. Muneebll (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - Extremely unreliable as described above. Other options are insufficient and may not address the issues with the outlet. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per Cadddr. They have problems with not retracting/updating some articles with false information and have inconsistent editorial oversight. I don't think the problem is any worse than WP:TIMESOFINDIA, though. KnowDeath (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1 As noted by others, the evidence presented for WP:DEPS (option 4) is severely lacking. A handful of inaccuracies and personal disagreements with their reports don’t demonstrate that this source fails reliable sources guidelines in "nearly all circumstances" as mentioned at WP:DEPS. There is no evidence of deliberate misinformation and WP:BIAS also applies, thus option 1. SenseiShifu (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4: Per other users' reasoning above. It appears unreliable, similar to other blacklisted sources such as OpIndia and Swarajya. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 - This outlet has a established history of spreading misinformation and chauvinistic propaganda for the Bharatiya Janta Party and Indian state. Blacklisting is a sensible option. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Wp:Biased: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: Based on the above discussion, and review of several arguments and articles mentioned by various editors, FirstPost can be considered generally reliable for most topics, with bias on some topics. No news source is perfect today, but few biased opinion pieces don't justify deprecation. WP:RSDEPRECATED reserves deprecation for sources with substantial history of fabrication or serious factual accuracy issues. The arguments and examples given for Option 4 don't show a consistent pattern of repeated unreliability. As WP:NEWSORG mentions, even reputable outlets occasionally publish errors, which means there needs to be case by case editorial judgement, not blanket deprecation. I broadly agree with arguments for Option 1 given by experienced editors such as Gotitbro and Kautilya3, that the allegations are of bias but not of unreliability. The arguments for option 3 and especially 4 are very weak given that WP:DEPS bar needs to meet the "substantial history of fabrication". Many well-regarded newspapers like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal don't do good fact-checking on their opinion sections. I my informed view, the arguments for Option 4 by EarthDude and Cadddr are quite weak. Also, several flawed and incorrect arguments are being provided for Option 4, such as by User:Segaton falsely claiming that 2020 Indian agriculture acts were universally condemned as net-negative for the farmers, while FirstPost supported them. In fact a simple search of the Wiki page for the Farm laws, shows that many reliable sources including FirstPost, "The Hindu" and "Wall Street Journal" supported the farm laws in multiple articles, and the farm laws were not universally condemned. Such flawed arguments cannot be used. For example the Hindu article : Farm Bills have potential to represent significant step forward for agriculture reforms in India: IMF https://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/farm-bills-have-potential-to-represent-significant-step-forward-for-agriculture-reforms-in-india-imf/article33577480.ece Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify, the fact that I argued against some of the less convincing option 1 arguments doesn't mean that I support option 4. I only support option 2, based mostly on them having inconsistent fact-checking and rarely issuing corrections. The quality of their reporting seems to very widely, but I don't support marking it as generally unreliable, and I definitely wouldn't support deprecating it.
      I agree with you about opinion sections, and I don't think I considered opinion pieces in my !vote. I also fully agree with you regarding the farm laws. (I think reasonable people can disagree about the farm laws. Even if I didn't think so, that wouldn't be a reason to deem a source unreliable.) Cadddr (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the clarification. RogerYg (talk) 08:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 per my comment and discussion above. The arguments offered in favor of FirstPost fail to address its nature of frequently posting misinformation and propaganda. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1: As per WP:RSCONTEXT, I think I have a different perspective on the arguments Option 3 and 4. Most of the articles which are cited as examples of "misinformation" spread by Firstpost have almost always been attributed to some other 3rd party source. This seems to be a failure of desk journalism (churnalism) and not really the failure of the original journalist work done by Firstpost. I would like to draw a distinction between misinformation and disinformation, misinformation refers to spreading false information without malicious intent, the goal of these desk articles is usually to boost the site's SEO metrics, which being honest almost every second Indian new source does including Times of India and Hindustan Times. Imo this is a good place to refer to WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, reliablity would depend on the specific piece of work and Firstpost does not suffer from the aggregation issue in long-form journalism and lengthy reports, I would go even as far to say that some of the journalism works from Firstpost mirror those The Caravan which is a good yardstick to test for journalistic research. Also as others have pointed out WP:USEBYOTHERS has worked for Firspost with multiple reliable sources including Reuters and BBC referring their reports which adds to their credibility. Also, regarding the accusations of pushing conspiracy theories, most of these articles are often direct rewording of police reports or political campaign (politician's remarks etc.). I would not equate to the journalism team cooking these stories in the editing room but rather a leaning bias towards reporting more issues that pertain the ruling alliance in India, which is the majoritism view in the country. Of course this could either be bias due to ownership or bias with the need to boost their numbers. Firstpost is generally reliable for its core reporting. For the cheap social-media aggregation that is pushed, editors should exercise a little editorial judgement and seek secondary verification as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL which is standard practice on the wiki. Xoocit (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2: an outright ban is excessive i believe we can do with some additional consideration. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. A lot of the !votes here seem to be a standard case of [{WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. Plus, Gotitbro's argument in favour of Option 1 has me convinced. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 4 The issue is not "I don't like it", the issue is that this website is full of misleading stories, weak sourcing, and churnalism. Pair that with almost no corrections for mistakes. 🄻🄰 15:33, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion: Firstpost

    [edit]

    I've made at request for a close at WP:CR[55]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Time for Democracy Now! to be re-evaluated?

    [edit]
    CLOSED
    A RFC has been started, further discussion should continue there. See WP:RSN#RfC: update Democracy Now! from WP:MREL to WP:GENREL?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The last discussion regarding WP:DEMOCRACYNOW, which resulted in a consensus regarding it as a partisan source, was 13 years ago. The media environment has transformed dramatically since then, and I wonder if others think it would be appropriate to reassess the general reliability of the source. إيان (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it less partisan? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Than what? There is no similar badge of shame at perennial sources for corporate media outlets like The New York Times or The Washington Post, which, especially in recent years, have come under more intense scrutiny, with empirical and quantitative proof of how their biases shape and contour their coverage of various topics as well as what they cover. إيان (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to see that empirical and quantitative proof. CVDX (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, a lot of Wiki articles talk about this phenomenon:
    The New York Times is a much worse offender than WaPo, but WaPo still engages in a lot of the problematic journalistic coverage patterns that dominate the media landscape. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think its reliability needs to be reassessed, you should say what new evidence is prompting you to say this. In and of itself, that a source is partisan does not make it unreliable; see WP:BIASED. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your argument for it being considered reliable/unreliable? If your contesting not, what are the reasons for you to do so?
    Bias on its own is irrelevant, see WP:RSBIAS. If that bias results in factually incorrect reports, then the issue the issue is being factually incorrect not bias. Editors are meant to write article based on what is found in reliable sources, without inserting their own bias, sources are allowed to be as biased as they like. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm kind of in the same boat as the rest of the respondents here - what specifically do you think has changed about this source. If it stayed put and the media landscape shifted around it no change would be needed. If this source has changed either becoming more or less reliable can you demonstrate how? Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just picked an article at random: "Colossus Failure": Elon Musk’s Data Centers Face Lawsuit for Polluting Black Neighborhoods in Memphis. It appears to get most of the facts right, but sometimes get things wrong, such as saying "operates over two dozen methane gas-burning turbines without legal permits" when the facts are that 15 turbines were approved, but it looks like they are running 24[56][57] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is that prior consensus disfavored an outlet of independent journalism because the extent of bias in legacy media was less clear to people then. There is still some of this attitude with regard to other independent media outlets such as Drop Site News, which some here have disparaged as a negligible Substack blog because it doesn’t have the same trappings as the major media conglomerates. There are a number of reports now about how independent media and alternative media are the sites of some of the best investigative journalism being done right now. I think we should take into account what media acholars are saying about the state of the media these days and avoid placing a 'badge of shame' on independent outlets that are highly reputable among experts. إيان (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide details of some of that discourse that directly relates to Democracy Now? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're asking for details from the last discussion regarding Democracy Now! in 2013, there were claims such as:
    If you are addressing Democracy Now, it's acceptable only if it is attributed to them. Democracy Now is no more an objective and reliable source than any other hyperpartisan source (such as WND or CNS)
    There was no evidence provided in support of the above claim. إيان (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was asking about the reports that independent / alternative are some of the best journalism being done now. If you had an independent source praising the investigative journalism of Democracy Now it would certainly help show it's reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:09, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The task at hand, as I see it, is not to prove a negative, but to show the flaws in the previous discussions and conclusions, resulting in a stigmatizing label for this independent journalism source.
    PEN America notes that Amy Goodman, host and executive producer of the program, has been recognized by Harvard University's Nieman Foundation for Journalism with an I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence Lifetime Achievement Award in 2014 and has received the Right Livelihood Award "widely known as the 'Alternative Nobel Prize' for "developing an innovative model of truly independent grassroots political journalism that brings to millions of people the alternative voices that are often excluded by the mainstream media."
    Doing some research in RS right now. There is this from a dissertation by Elia Volpe at Malmo University:
    The organizational structure of DN! reflects its commitment to editorial independence. It maintains a relatively small but collaborative production team and operates without hierarchical ties to larger media conglomerates. This model allows for significant flexibility in content selection, depth of reporting, and a consistent editorial focus on systemic injustice, war, inequality, and environmental degradation (Toft, 2006 & 2019). Notably, DN! often features long-form interviews, investigative reports, and extensive coverage of social movements, diverging from the soundbite-driven logic that characterizes much of mainstream broadcast journalism.
    While formally barred from engaging in partisan activity, DN! nonetheless operates within a broader tradition of oppositional and advocacy journalism. By presenting perspectives from marginalized communities, independent researchers, and activist groups, it performs a critical function in the media ecosystem. It challenges dominant discourses not through overt partisanship but through a sustained focus on voices and stories excluded from mainstream narratives. As such, it exemplifies what could be described as "counter-hegemonic" media—a term drawn from Gramscian theory that refers to media practices which contest the prevailing ideological framework of capitalist democracies.
    More research to do. إيان (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was to prove a positive. If there are strong independent secondary sources that praise DN reporting that would go a very long way to showing they are reliable. It's much better way of discussing sources, rather than relying on editors own opinions about a source. The dissertation you found is the exact type of thing editors should be looking for, whether being labelled "advocacy journalism" is a concern or not is where editors seem to be in disagreement.
    Forget the last discussion, they're all far to old to be dissecting now. The most recent was in 2013. Instead focus on what has changed, and how sources discuss DN now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we should take into account what media acholars are saying about the state of the media these days and avoid placing a 'badge of shame' on independent outlets that are highly reputable among experts. This is the important part. You need to provide sources to support this statement. The rest doesn't matter at all; we can't declare a source that lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be reliable just because the mainstream media is biased. If you have reason to believe this source is considered reliable by experts, though, then present it. --Aquillion (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense, but this mostly reads as based in your personal feelings on the current media environment rather than in concrete, conclusive source-based analysis of said media environment. The Kip (contribs) 17:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see authors or journalists listed for most of their articles. Guz13 (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure that you're not confusing written articles with the TV News show transcripts, where the journalists are identified in the transcript rather than with a byline? Perhaps you could link to a few examples of the articles you're referring to? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the most recent headline I saw, who wroet this?
    https://www.democracynow.org/2026/4/28/headlines/trump_appears_unlikely_to_accept_irans_proposed_deal_to_reopen_strait_of_hormuz
    Guz13 (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me like that's a transcript of Amy Goodman's summary of today's news; click on "Watch headlines" here, or view the relevant excerpt from today's broadcast, starting ~2:20. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This article doesn't have an author listed; it just says: "HEADLINE APR 28, 2026": https://www.democracynow.org/2026/4/28/headlines/german_chancellor_says_iran_has_humiliated_us_in_its_war_with_iran Some1 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an article. As I just pointed out: that's a transcript of the top-of-the-news summary of major news from the day, part of Amy Goodman's news show today. That particular part starts ~3:54 into the show. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a new RfC on this source because I don't think that WP:DEMOCRACYNOW accurately reflects the discussions it is supposed to be summarizing. If the timing were different, I would be opening a close discussion or equivalent process to challenge that summary but clearly way too much time has passed for that to be a reasonable approach. Like the previous discussions, most convincing discussion in this thread has noted that source is biased but that has no bearing on reliability. ElKevbo (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexandraaaacs1989, in light of your work on Protest paradigm, might you be aware of some useful sources for this discussion? إيان (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes to WP:DEMOCRACYNOW, I generally agree with the sentiment that it is a highly-reliable source with high left-wing bias, and another editor explained a highly-biased source can still be generally reliable which I will join the choir in agreeing with. And being the author of protest paradigm, I agree that the reason why DN is considered low-reliability by many is because its political bias is left-wing populist, i.e., threatening to affluent individuals (Protest paradigm#Driving forces explains), compared with unthreatening outlets like the New York Times which are arguably equally biased in favor of a modern liberal narrative (rather than a left-wing narrative).
    But I think the best way to make an argument in favor of upgrading DN's status to Generally reliable is not by making inductions based on political media landscape patterns, but instead by looking at fact checkers' analyses that separate the "bias" and "factual reporting" dimensions (to account for tendencies of some outlets to report centrist outlets as inherently "more factual", which is obviously a flawed assumption). So I did exactly this:
    • https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/democracy-now/
      • BIAS: Extreme Left Left-Center Least Biased Right-Center Right Extreme
      • RELIABILITY: Very Low Low Mixed Mostly Factual High Very High
    • https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink
      • BIAS: Strong left
      • RELIABILITY: 32 score - between Opinion or wide variation in reliability and Analysis or wide variation in reliability
      • Comparison:
        • WP:THEECONOMIST is 42 in reliability
        • 60 Minutes is 34 in reliability
        • ABC World News Tonight with David Muir is 46 in reliability
        • The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is 32 in reliability
        • Washington Post is 39 in reliability
        • WP:NYT is 41 in reliability
        • So a bit less reliable than the biggest perennial sources out there, but there are practically no outsiders in this graph (low bias always means high reliability, high bias always means low reliability) which makes me question how predetermined its results are in enforcing a correlation between "reliability" and "bias" via its statistical assumptions. 60 Minutes should not be this low on the graph and the NYT should not be as high as it is considering its myriads of controversies over biased reporting (protest paradigm on OWS, sanewashing Trump, prohibiting editors from using the word "genocide" in describing Gaza in internal memos, etc). As someone in a quantitative field, this data looks fishy after examination (is ABC World News with David Muir really the pinnacle of reliable reporting in journalism when the outlet rarely exceeds 2-minute segments on each topic and leans into sensationalism and patterns like the protest paradigm?)
    • https://ground.news/interest/democracy-now
      • Media bias: Left
      • Factuality: This was paywalled, so I wrote a webscraping script to fetch factuality data. And it says High factuality.
    So to summarize: two sources rate DN as "high" in reliability. And the third source, which doesn't seem to sufficiently separate reliability from bias, rates it as being analysis/opinion with variable reliability. I think this sourcing is sufficient for upgrading DN to Generally reliable based on consensus among news coverage outlets on its reliability. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither Ad Fontes or MBFC use Wikipedia'y policies or guidelines when looking at reliability, and their bias is just based on US public opinion. Personally I don't see why DN shouldn't be considered generally reliable, but these types of sites are only good for searching for issues while investigating a sources not their actual rankings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That so, what type of sourcing would you recommend we look for instead to establish DN as a generally reliable source? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Other independent reliable sources regularly using DM as a citation (WP:USEBYOTHERS), or that state that DN is a reliable in its fact checking an accuracy. إيان mentioned scholarly sources doing this, such a source would go a long way to show it's reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    More sources:
    إيان (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you paste what the second and third sources say about DN as they are closed access. Thanks! BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Democracy Now! is discussed throughout the book Digital Media and Democracy, with some highlights:
    Introduction:
    The strategies of practice that are studied or exemplified here include: (a) reform-changing media policy and legislation around ownership and concentration, in order to limit the monopolization of media and exclusion of diversity within public agenda setting; (b) establishment of grassroots, independent news channels and networks such as Pacifica, Democracy Now!, and Al Jazeera English; (c) temporal interventions, tactical strategies such as those of The Yes Men' who managed to get onto the BBC as imposters of Dow Chemical to raise public awareness about media silencing of environmental disasters; and (d) the odd case of public expressions of progressive views through such "floodcasts" as cable or broadcast news shows as Keith Obermann of MSNBC and Jon Stewart and Colbert of Comedy Central, a cable network, which are then available online to even more vast audiences through Quicktime, Windows Media Player (WMP), or other Web-streaming files or torrents.
    Chapter 3: Communicative Capitalism
    Although mainstream U.S. media outlets provided the Bush administration with sup-portive, noncritical, and even encouraging platforms for making his case for invading Iraq, critical perspectives were nonetheless well represented in the communications flow of mediated global capitalist technoculture. Alternative media, independent media, and non-U.S. media provided thoughtful reports, insightful commentary, and critical evaluations of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Amy Goodman's syndicated radio program, "Democracy Now," regularly broadcast shows intensely opposed to the militarism and unilateralism of the Bush administration's national security politicy.
    Chapter 7: Democracy on the Airwaves: An Interview with Amy Goodman is introduced with:
    Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 500 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the United States, Democracy Now! is broadcast on community, Pacifica, and National Public Radio stations, public access cable television stations, satellite television (on Free Speech TV, channel 9415 of the DISH Network), shortwave radio, and the Internet. This interview was conducted in a coffee shop in New York City on March 3, 2007.
    إيان (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentions in "Journalistic Field Wars":
    Here, we employ a deep reading of journalistic coverage and incorporation of the November 2010 WikiLeaks-released cables by the established broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), irreverent media programming owned by media conglomerates (The Daily Show), and media that are independent of corporate ownership (Salon and Democracy Now!) as a vehicle to examine the influence of field position upon newswork from diverse sources and the narratives and counter-narratives they produce.
    ...
    Yet the journalistic field has changed, and we want to know how different layers of the U.S. news media system framed Assange and WikiLeaks, and how they incorporated the cables that WikiLeaks released into their news coverage. From our deep reading of journalistic framing and incorporation, we infer how the national narrative has solidified in the establishment networks but receded in the expanded (even commercial) journalistic field. To examine this issue, we analyzed the established broadcast networks, alternative media that operate independently of established news practices (Democracy Now! and Glenn Greenwald), and ‘fake’ journalism that has political economic ties to the establishment press (The Daily Show). We analyze news coverage and meta-coverage starting 29 November 2010, when WikiLeaks released the first batch of diplomatic cables and ending 7 December 2010, when Assange turned himself in to British authorities on charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden.
    ...
    Democracy Now!
    In contrast to the established networks, alternative media focused their criticisms on U.S. foreign policy and establishment journalism’s reporting of WikiLeaks. The New York-based Democracy Now!, far from framing WikiLeaks as a threat to national security, employed the term ‘whistleblower’ to describe the organization in nearly every story. Amy Goodman, the program’s host, associated the WikiLeaks-released cables with the Pentagon Papers and Assange with Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Papers. The name of the program – Democracy Now! – suggests a radical belief in citizen access to information that facilitates self-governance as well as a demand for positive rights. Democracy Now!, consistent with its radically democratic principles, did not merely praise or condemn WikiLeaks but hosted a debate between Steven Afterwood of the Federation of American Scientists, who condemned WikiLeaks as irresponsible, and Glenn Greenwald of Salon, who framed WikiLeaks as a whistleblower.
    ...
    Whereas the networks had constructed WikiLeaks-as-criminal-and-threat, Democracy Now! reporters read through the cables to construct news that focused on U.S. crimes and imperial actions abroad: U.S. pressure on Germany to suppress arrest warrants for CIA officers who abducted an innocent man and held him in captivity for several months; Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice ordering embassies to collect foreign dignitaries’ ‘frequent flier numbers, credit card details, and even DNA material, like fingerprints, [and] iris scans’; pressure to halt Spanish investigations of U.S. torture at Guantanamo Bay, CIA rendition flights, U.S. troops killing of a Spanish journalist in Iraq; transfer of prisoners to countries where, in the words of U.N. Special Rapporteur Juan Mendez, U.S. officials ‘knew that these people were going to be tortured’; the storage of banned cluster bombs in Britain; ‘massive civilian casualties’, in Goodman’s words, following a U.S. attack on Yemen; American opposition to Afghani reconciliation talks with Taliban leaders; and neutralization, co-optation, and marginalization of states opposed to inadequate American plans to curb global warming. إيان (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This coverage seems to imply a general sentiment among RS that Democracy Now! is a reliable and respectable journalistic source, which is further corroborated by the other reliability analysis sourcing I provided right above. This seems to me like abundant evidence for upgrading it to "generally reliable". @ActivelyDisinterested and @Bobfrombrockley, do you two view this sourcing as sufficient? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean to link to the comment about MBFC etc? I've already give my opinion on there relevance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the quotes. That's very kind and helpful. I'm still not convinced. These sources are positive, but praising it for being critical and left-wing, for "focus[ing] on U.S. crimes and imperial actions abroad", for being positive about Assange, for believing in "citizen access to information" and for spurring citizens to activism. None of those seem to me to be reliability criteria. In fact, it confirms that it's highly partisan, just in the directoin these authors like.
    The Transformations Journal article, which I can see, is also positive, but praising it for "participatory journalism", innovative uses of technology, promoting participatory democracy, "amplifying voices of dissent", and "legitimating an oppositional stance toward American neo-imperialism", so once again it's the partisan lean it likes, while not commenting much on reliability.
    I'd add that these sources are from 2008, 2010 and 2012, so don't quite fit with a case that recent development should make us more well-disposed to them than we were in 2013: they're talking about how it covered Iraq and Wikileaks, which seems a bit unhelpful for more recent content.
    I'm not saying it's unreliable, but I'm not seeing a case for upgrade. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The case isn’t necessarily one for an "upgrade"; it’s one for the rectifying of a flawed downgrade. What reason is there to endorse the flawed earlier assessment, which itself was made with a paucity of evidence? إيان (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve just read the 2009-13 RSN discussions linked from RSP and I think you have a point about the RSP listing being more critical than the RSN conclusions. The 2009 conclusion was for generally reliable, although the later ones were less clear cut, with many editors arguing that where it aggregates news it’s better to use the wires it cites and that a lot of its content is opinion that should be fully attributed. The discussions are a bit outdated (eg one pro-generally reliable comment was “we should use it just like we use Fox News or the NYT” — but in fact we’ve declared Fox unreliable now. So I agree we should make a fresh evaluation now. I’m certainly not making an argument against reliability but I just haven’t seen persuasive evidence for it yet. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like you're conflating bias with unreliable reporting. All sources are ideologically biased, meaning ideological bias should not generally be a factor when considering a source's reliability. The question is do they report facts accurately? If so, then we can report the facts of what they say happened as the truth, require attribution for controversial claims, and require attribution for opinions. Biased sources are compatible with Wikipedia if editors are mindful of opinion/fact distinctions as they read a source's reporting. Bias only becomes a problem if it seeps out of their interpretations of events (for which attribution is required, bias or none) and into their concrete reporting about the basic facts of what happened. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not conflating bias with unreliable reporting but the opposite. I’m not saying that DN being partisan makes it unreliable. I’m just saying that these sources are commentary on its bias and not on its reliability. They praise it for bias not for rigour in reporting or tight editorial standards. So I still see the case unproven. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. thoughtful reports, insightful commentary, and critical evaluations of the "evidence" of weapons This reads like a testament to their reliability in my eyes. And I think in the "Journalistic Field Wars" source it was framed as Democracy Now! being the independent news source with accurate reporting on the topic compared with other sources that played into the narrative, which is a compliment to their reliability.. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While bias doesn't necessarily preclude a finding of "generally reliable", it has been used in the past to recommend attribution when citing its work.
    If a consensus is reached that DN is "generally reliable", we should recommend attribution and use amongst other sources, especially in the realm of politics. Bravelake (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So what is next? Do we need to do an RfC to rectify the flawed assessment from over a decade ago? إيان (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the discussion has stalled out without reaching consensus, so this seems like a natural next step unless new voices add to the discussion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we do that? I haven’t done an RfC here before. إيان (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We should probably just start a new discussion using the {{RfC|pol}} template asking a simple question. Then we can summarize points made throughout this discussion in the first comment of the RfC. That's my view of how best to go about it! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have experience with it? Could I ask you to do it? Should the question be like "How should Democracy Now! be addressed at perennial sources?" We should also ping the editors involved in this discussion. إيان (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The standard options would be the best way to go if anyone wants to start a RFC, as an example see Firstpost RFC. The question should also be similar to the one there, simple and short. Your opinions and arguments should be kept to your response to the question, not be in the question itself. See example source code in my sandbox. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I can do it. I'll ping everyone here in the new discussion. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Omniglot

    [edit]

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

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

    The source has come up thrice before on this noticeboard:

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

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

    RfC: Omniglot

    [edit]

    There are two questions regarding Omniglot.

    Question 1: Is Omniglot a reliable source?

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

    Question 2: Should it be listed on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources?

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

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

    Survey: Omniglot

    [edit]
    • Q1.4 & Q2.1: As nom, I believe it is unreliable to the point of needing deprecation, and should be listed in the table. It fails multiple aspects of what makes a reliable source. ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.3. or Q1.4. I have no comment on deprecation, as it is not a process I am familiar with. I have read the page for two languages I am familiar with (Irish, Sicilian). There are inaccuracies, which seem to stem from common misconceptions about the two languages rather than established academic consensus. It claims Sicilian has loanwords from pre-Roman languages we know next to nothinig about,[1] and that the Irish standard (An Caighdeán Oifigiúil) has a pronunciatioin "based on the Connacht dialect".[2] It is exclusively a written standard, so there is no standard pronunciation, but it is a commonly held belief that in its written form, the Caighdeán favours Co. Galway varieties (in Connacht). Teangacha 07:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      No comment on the second statement, but is the first statement not true? There is increasing academic consensus on substratum in the Western Indo-European languages, with much work being done on problematic Proto-Italic words for which no Indo-European etymology can be given. Pladica (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.3. Particularly concerning is the apparent lack of transparency of sources. I think this should be treated with care as an effectively self-published source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.3 and Q2.3 This looks like WP:UGC to me. However I don't want to bloat the RSP list with every single webpage we should not be using. Policy is pretty clear about use of UGC. Let's just assert that people follow extant policy and then, if that doesn't work, we can revisit an RSP list. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The site's appearance and high location in Google search results are extremely conducive to its use by unsuspecting editors. The site makes no immediate affirmation of UGC, and editors will probably not assume it is such until they get digging in the site. I think this warrants a blacklist and a listing on RS/P. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I think a reminder that blacklisting has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia might be in order, because I don't think you're saying this should go on the blacklist, right? ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I misspoke. I meant deprecating the source, not blacklisting it. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought so. Just had to make sure. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.4. I fully support deprecation for this source. I am currently researching the site and information about it, but far too many unsuspecting editors (including, admittedly myself) have used it to add orthography sections to language articles without knowing its unreliability. I will respond later when I have a clearer assessment of the site. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      • I distinctly remember the site also hosts some WP:ONEDAY type content, such as Cyrillic-script writing for Latin-script languages. I think there was an entry on Cyrillicized Slovak, which made it into a Wikipedia article on one of the Cyrillic letters before it was removed. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
        A basic assessment of the site reveals a glaring WP:SELFPUB. Ager does not appear to be a subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. I agree with Q2.1 as it is near the top of Google search results and therefore easy for an unknowing editor to use on Wikipedia. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.4 I support deprecation. Self-published with issues as described by others. Much too easily used by well-meaning editors. PersusjCP (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.4 and Q2.1 I was going to go with Q1.3 because at the end of the day this website appears to be pretty much equivalent to just being some guys blog from a WP:RS standpoint. What's the big deal, right? Generally that's what I'd say about most of these kinds of sources, but I read what others said, freshened up my memory on what WP:DEPRECATE actually says deprecation is for and I've ended up thinking that this seems to be a valid deprecation. Deprecation doesn't mean it's impossible to use a source, it just means anyone trying to use one is warned about it. That is mainly to warn unsuspecting editors, and clearly there is some need for it considering searching for articles using it as a source gives you 938 results, including a lot of WP:VITAL articles, including ones going as far up the pyramid as level 3 (top 1,110 most vital articles). That's not good. If there actually ends up being some situation where the site happens to be reliable due to having adequate sourcing then you can just power through the deprecation. Obviously I'm going Q2.1 considering I'm going Q1.4. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 18:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.3., not sure about the perennial sources list since I don’t know whether the site is notable enough (so Q2.3?). With regard to the writing system I know most about, J.R.R. Tolkien’s tengwar, Omniglot is a terribly unreliable source. I like the site as a curious collection, but it is useless as a reliable source. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:58, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The site is quite visible in Google search results. I believe this warrants a list on RS/P due to its promiscuity and attractiveness to possible editors. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 18:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.4 & Q2.1: I don't know the site well, but after skimming it for the RfC I have realized that it is maintained by a single person, and it uses Wikipedia and blog-style sites as sources and is not particularly transparent with sources overall. So definitely not a reliable primary or secondary source. I don't see any value in using this as a source. We can just use scholarly publications. Moreover I think inclusion in perennial sources is warranted as the site has been used as a source a lot on Wikipedia already. CVDX (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.2 or Q1.3 and Q2.1 While one should certainly keep in mind it is a self maintained and self published site, I would say it should at least be given some lenience in its articles on writing systems. One needs to keep in mind that writing systems are still being created each and every year, and omniglot contains some of the first info online on new scripts, especially in areas where little exists in the way of traditional media such as Africa and the 'Zomia' Region. Many of these scripts have gone on to become notable and get their own articles on the Wiki; Oduduwa for example first appearing on omniglot should one look back at the site's news posts. The site is commonly cited within Unicode documents, including by its advisory councils, perhaps the most important authority worldwide on writing systems. In addition, the author of the site, Simon Ager, holds a position on the advisory council on the endangered alphabets network, further giving him credence (at least in my eyes). At the very least I think deprecation is too extreme, given what I've said, but certainly a notice on the reliable sources would be well advised. Pladica (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Most of your arguments are correct, but the sentence One needs to keep in mind that writing systems are still being created each and every year, and omniglot contains some of the first info online on new scripts, especially in areas where little exists in the way of traditional media such as Africa and the 'Zomia' Region is further evidence that Omniglot would be unreliable, as the information would not be verifiable. That would be a circular reasoning argument a la "Omniglot is a reliable source because the information contained in it comes from a reliable source (Omniglot)." I like octopusestalk to me, talk to me 00:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Are any earlier, locally produced documents for those scripts and local media covering them available and far more reliable than Omniglot? Were the Unicode documents rejected proposals for including certain new characters? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      For the first question it depends, "those scripts" consist of dozens of scattered scripts each with their own histories, generally if there is documents and news coverage it would be offline only. Proposals including omniglot sources have generally been accepted (Old Uyghur, Sora Sempang, Kirk Miller's various proposals) and those that haven't were rejected for reasons outside of using Omniglot Pladica (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because these sources use it doesn't make it reliable. Have you addressed the concerns brought up about its factual acuracy and apparent WP:CIRCULAR, WP:ONEDAY, etc. content and lack of citing sources? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:34, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CIRCULAR doesn't really apply to minority scripts since they either do not have articles already or postdate their omniglot counterparts as I have mentioned, and yes, I would consider it to be factually reliable in this area. WP:ONEDAY is just an essay and not something I'd really consider even applying for something like minority writing systems. Pladica (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I meant generally, not just restricted to minority scripts. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps you misunderstand my point, I'm not arguing about omniglot as a general source, I think generally for languages there is more than enough resources available in academia to cover them without ever needing to use omniglot as a source. Writing systems however are a different story, there is much less work available to editors, especially as many of these scripts are young and in areas beyond the reach of traditional media. On top of that, Simon Ager clearly is seen as respected and reliable within the larger community of writing system research as one can see from his work in Unicode and the Endangered Alphabets network, and so I think as a clause omniglot is fine to use in this subfield in lieu of better sources. Pladica (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pladica Very late reply, but I think it should be used only to establish the existence of these scripts. Even this is tenuous, however, as it hosts obvious WP:ONEDAY content, where some random person can make up a writing system for any language and get it hosted, like this Cyrillicization of Slovak, which, if I rember correctly, was actually cited in Izhitsa. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:59, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but stuff like the modern creation of new orthographies for Western, well established languages occur in a very separate context than that of new advent writing systems for minority tongues; stuff like the Slovak Cyrillicization you linked is very explicitly the work of a few amateur language enthusiasts for nothing but simple fun, the page is very blatant about this its description. Minority writing systems however occur in a much more "natural" sense, largely being created in religious and/or communal contexts. These differences are clearly laid out enough in Glottolog's descriptions on each page, but yes, clearly you have occasional naive editors seemingly not reading thoroughly enough and making uninformed edits. This is why I think the reliable sources listing should make the distinction between these types clear, with articles on novel minority writing systems being Glottolog-okay while the other parts of the site are highly discouraged. Pladica (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm asuming you're confusing Glottolog with Omniglot, but I suppose the latter could be used solely to prove the existence of a minority script when there is no other evidence, although the degree of reliablity in Omniglot prohibits the inclusion of more than a stub. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, my mistake, very similarly named sites serving somewhat similar purposes. And correct, that is what I have been arguing; it is a suitable source for these topics. Pladica (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      How then, do you distinguish these scripts from something someone made up one day and had it posted on the website? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 13:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Scoring big scoops isn't a priority of ours. We can afford to await until more reliably published info comes along. Largoplazo (talk) 00:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, but I think it's important to recognize the gap in literature on minority groups, scripts and languages compared to those of the mainstream and that we as an encyclopedia should recognize that and give some leniency to these communities as a result, many of these still have next to no work on them even when they widely catch on. Pladica (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I said "I think WP:RSN should be about disputed use in a Wikipedia article", you don't claim that my randomly-chosen examples are disputed or a significant problem. Even if you gave examples from your side showing that a cite was wrong, I'd wonder what the argument on the article's talk page was. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your examples are problematic, as many articles do use Omniglot as an actual citation to use to add content onto the page. The link above provides enough examples of this, 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:36, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In your initial comment you said they were the first five results from a Google search; if that is the case, then they are not randomly selected. This was brought to the board for the precise reasoning you are claiming it should be used for: usage of the source within articles (as a citation). Turning a blind eye to those numerous examples to maintain your original point does not make a good case, in my opinion.
    As an aside, I find the argument that deprecation will destroy the site's integrity rather overblown, and should also not be a criteria for maintaining it. Should the RfC pass in favor of listing it on perennial sources, it will almost certainly be stated that it is a self-published site which has opaque sourcing for its claims, and is therefore not reliable for our uses. None of that would be inaccurate, nor necessarily damaging in my opinion, only informative and cautionary. If recognition of those qualities "destroys" the site, that should be glaring evidence that it is problematic and corroboration that it should not be used as a source here. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:12, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The increased reliability of Wikipedia brought about by controlling the use of poor quality sources has been praised by external reporting, and the community seems quite happy with the process. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1.3 or 1.4: Omniglot is neat but is basically a self-published blog. The author is a linguist but the website is done to hobby project standards and isn't trying to be rigorous. Most uses appear to just be external links at the bottom of obscure articles anyway. Deprecation seems unnecessary. No opinion on question 2. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 20:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      See above comment for why this source should absolutely be deprecated. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:33, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @LWG see the search results I just linked in my above comment, as the characterization Most uses appear to just be external links at the bottom of obscure articles anyway is certainly not the case. It has frequent uses as a direct citation (not an external link), and many are definitely not obscure articles. Even then, if they were only 'obscure' articles, usage as a citation within them should not be ignored because of their low visibility. ~ oklopfer (💬) 20:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I see, yes the citations on the first two articles there Romani people and Benjamin Franklin both look problematic. Thanks for the link. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 20:58, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Q1.2, Q2.2: Clearly the work of an individual or small group, and we should seek specialized sources for individual languages. Many pages are heavily based on wiki itself. As a longtime editor of Semitic wiki pages, I can tell (for example) that the Aramaic page took its Imperial transcription from an old version of our Aramaic, which was unfortunately pure invention by an editor. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    Discussion: Omniglot

    [edit]

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

    • Note that Simon Ager is has a Masters in Linguistics from Bangor University [60][61], so it is not true that he does not have credentials in the field. --Slp1 (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @Slp1 ResearchGate only says September 2008 - September 2009; are you sure Ager completed the program?
      (I've struck the nor do they have such credentials line from my intro either way; even if Ager does have a linguistics degree, they are still certainly not well-established, and it is still a self-published site, which is the crux of that point; it also seems like Ager's studies did not focus on writing systems, per the dissertation on RG) ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Why would you think he hadn’t completed it? Masters in the UK are often a year in length. Ager says he has an MA [62] The dissertation would be the final step and for what it is worth has been cited 21 times according to Google scholar [63] Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I am just more used to 2 year programs, so I wasn't sure based on the RG profile. Not questioning Ager's honesty in any way, if their personal profile on Omniglot says so I trust it (somewhat ironically, one of the cases where a self-published source is reliable!). Still, the dissertation has nothing to do with writing systems, it is about Manx language revival. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You should strike that Ager isn't a recognised linguist. While he has only ever published his dissertation, he has been cited, which is what recognition ultimately is. Cortador (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      No, not really… almost no one knows Ager's name or work outside of Omniglot. Recognition as a scholar is a prestige which Ager has far from achieved within linguistic circles, and likewise not gained from a singular dissertation with 21 cites. The primary source of recognition that Ager has is through Omniglot.
      Please use this RfC discussion section to talk about the actual questions being raised. Even if Ager had 500 cites on the dissertation, it once again had nothing to do with writing systems. It does not establish a reliable backing for a self published site to be considered usable. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That doesn't mean anything. You could ask people who won the Nobel Prize ten years ago and most people couldn’t give you can answer, even though those would obviously be recognised scientists.
      If you don't wish Ager's supposed lack of credentials to be talked about, you shouldn't have brought it up as an argument. Cortador (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I briefly mentioned it in my lead summary. I'm going to collapse this as an obviously irrelevant pedantic tangent to the RfC questions. What "recognition" means does not amount to anything if it is not on the topic being claimed as expertise. ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:15, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You considered it relevant enough to use it as a argument. Feel free to remove or strike it if it's so "irrelevant". Cortador (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      My choice of the word "recognized" was not an argument, it was simply a statement that Ager is not a well known linguistic scholar outside of Omniglot. There is nothing to strike. Edit warring on a noticeboard is incredibly poor WP etiquette. ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:37, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      And I challenged that, and you are not entitled to chose what part of your argument gets challenged and what doesn't. Cortador (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You didn't challenge whether Ager is well known, you challenged that "recognized" is the wrong word for me to include in my introduction for bringing forward an RfC.
      My explanation for bringing it forward is not an argument being made as part of the RfC, which is why it is above the request. If that is what you are here to debate, you are in the wrong place. There is a reply button below that initial comment if that is what you are looking for.
      This is derailing discussion without engaging in the actual request. Such derailment is harmful to further productive discussion. ~ oklopfer (💬) 08:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      If you did not meant to bring that as an argument, you wouldn't have brought it. You are still free to strike it. Cortador (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      His work has been cited multiple times by other scholars, so yes, he is a recognized linguist. Maybe not on this topic but that is not what you have written. This is a BLP issue, actually, as Ager is alive and hopefully well. I also suggest you strike it or rephrase. I am also super concerned that you want to hat this and curtail the discussion of this topic. You brought this very serious decision to the community, making claims about a BLP's education/reputation that turn out to be unfounded, and very easily debunked from a simple google search. What other aspects need checking out before people decided? Slp1 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      A simple google search reinforces my claim of being virtually unrecognized (as in, not well known) outside of Omniglot, contrary to your claim. 21 citations on a single dissertation does not establish recognition. Either way, I expect every aspect to be checked and decision be made independently. I'll add "on this topic" to avoid further confusion. ~ oklopfer (💬) 12:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to say that it seems like many pages just take info from wikipedia itself (even when wikipedia is wrong lolololol) 2007GabrielT (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have examples? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Might be referring to the fact some pages link to Wikipedia at the bottom, in the area that is as close to a source list as the website gets. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 13:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note. Please do not trust Researchgate. It has a lot of incorrect info and they could not be bothered to fix it. I saw that it claimed that yours truly was associated with a place I had not even heard of. I emailed them 2 or 3 times but received no response. I do not trust them. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      While I agree that Researchgate isn't a generally reliable source, I think it's unlikely that Ager got so far as finishing his dissertation (which later got cited a few times) but then also failed to complete his degree. Cortador (talk) 07:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, he probably got the degree. It would be hard not to get a degree from Bangor if you breath. But l have not looked at his site, so I cannot comment further. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any projects that it would be worth notifying about this discussion? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Two: Wikipedia:WikiProject Languages and Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:18, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      oklopfer was well ahead of me on this thought, both have already been notified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Spreadsheet purportedly created by Democratic Socialists of America

    [edit]

    Is this a reliable source? @SocDoneLeft claims that it is created by a body of the Democratic Socialists of America.--User:Namiba 16:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    No, as how do we know it was made by them? Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Being honest I'd be reticent to click a blind Google Docs link. It's certainly not a reliable source. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No. We need a third party to verify it. Guz13 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I am baffled that anyone would think that an unpublished Google spreadsheet attributed to a political party is a reliable source. As others note, we have no way to verify if it's authentic, and even if it was authentic, it would be naive to take a party at its word for something like this. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard no--I'm curious though where do the claims it comes from the DSA come from? Was it linked to a page associated with the DSA? Either way this isn't a source. Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @SocDoneLeft claims that it comes from DSA itself. They can explain why if they wish. I came across it at New York City Democratic Socialists of America and other DSA chapter articles.--User:Namiba 19:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've occasionally been trying (probably unsuccessfully) to keep Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom reasonably clean of non-independent sources for party membership numbers. It seems that the Americans have similar problems. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You should see the disputes about the member numbers for Communist Party of the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a WP:SELFSOURCE. I did not add it. If we accept WP:SELFSOURCE for claims about organization membership count, then it should be kept.
    That seems fine here. Newspapers virtually always repeat whatever membership number DSA gives. Have for decades. We should add "(claimed)", IMO.
    The sheet is updated monthly by DSA's Growth and Development Committee (as the FAQ mentions). Previously by the National Political Committee. It's trivially easy for anyone in DSA to verify this: Go to the 1st tab "Readme", click the Discussion Forum link. SocDoneLeft (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that readers need to be able to verify this, not just anyone in DSA. Is this linked openly from the DSA website or some other way that it's obvious to that this is a DSA file? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is good, but how do we know it is authentic? Guz13 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guz13 and ActivelyDisinterested: To my knowledge, it is not linked publicly. Is there anything the sheet itself could display to indicate authenticity, beyond the FAQ and Readme stating as such & linking to DSA internals & aligning with DSA's national & chapter public announcements? SocDoneLeft (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything in the spreadsheet could be changed by anyone editing it, so can't show who the authors are. If it's not from the DSA then whoever it is from could just say it is in the file. If it was hosted on their website this wouldn't be an issue, but there's nothing about the google docs link that shows it's authored from the DSA. That's why I was asking if it was linked anywhere official. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They should host in on their own website. Guz13 (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification

    [edit]

    Hi, I would like some clarification about a RFC with additional considerations. I recently used Sky News Australia in an article which has additional considerations applied to it and had the edit removed. The editor telling me that the source not a reliable source and we shouldn't be relying on it for contentious claims, telling me i should raise here. Having checked the considerations again I don’t believe I misinterpreted them. Per a 2022 RfC, there is a consensus that additional considerations apply to Sky News Australia, and that it should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims. The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable. The majority of articles labeled as "news" contain short blurbs and video segments, which should similarly be considered unreliable. For articles with significant written content, caution is advised.

    I referenced a section of this news article for the page March for Australia about where counter protesters gathered in Melbourne. The section I want to reference is from the body of the article; "congregating at the State Library” and  "after marching from Camp Sovereignty.” Its not being used to substantiate any exceptional claims, just the location of the counter protest, its not from any of the talk shows, its not from the short blurb or video segments above the article and the article does not have significant written content. What am I missing here, it should be perfectly fine to cite a small section of the article body, is it not? Nightmares26 (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this in relation to this edit[64]? That seems to be about whether to include details of the counter protest not just the location of them. The content protests themselves seem contentious. In general if a unreliable sources is the only source for contentious details they may not be due for inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more about the removal of this edit without the Herald Sun cite. It contains another source by the ABC with is reliable and details the rest of details of the counter protest from the size to the clash and is used throughout the article. The only thing being cited by Sky News Australia that is not in the other source is the locations and it is not being used to substantiate any exceptional claims. All other sections on protests in other cities on the page also contain and present details of the counter protesters in the same manner, and there is also an entire subsection below this dedicated to the actions of the counter protesters.
    Per the 2022 RfC for Sky News Australia, "no examples of news articles with incorrect information were provided during the discussion, although some reflected a grossly partisan bias. Without any clear examples of problematic news coverage, and one editor screening a couple dozen uses on Wikipedia and not finding any problems, it would be premature to declare that Sky News AU news coverage is as unreliable as its opinion content and begin purging all citations from Wikipedia." The information being cited body of the article therefore should be no problem and follows the additional considerations applied per WP:RSP. Nightmares26 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    no examples of news articles with incorrect information were provided during the discussion and yet we are supposed to believe its news coverage is unreliable? Unless I'm missing something that seems a tad tendentious. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's tendentious to want to avoid usage of sources which aren't WP:GREL for contentious claims? TarnishedPathtalk 10:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is not reliable for facts despite no one finding any fact-based reporting that was unreliable. You have to love how this website works sometimes. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (Summoned by bot) Talk shows are opinion pieces and obviously shouldn't be cited to substantiate fact regardless of who produces them. But merely including video clips in an article seems like a very unusual criteria for reliability, these are usually clips from the Sky News broadcast, and I do not think anyone has seriously questioned its news segments' reliability. I think that would be quite an exceptional claim and I'd want to see some strong substantiation for that. Specifically in the above case I'm not sure why this content is being treated as contentious and the sourcing looks completely fine to me. 5225C (talk • contributions) 03:19, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The prior RFC closed with a finding that consensus was that the source was WP:MREL. TarnishedPathtalk 04:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ANd I'd overturn that, it's generally reliable. Opinion content is already covered by policy. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your only argument here, as far as I can tell, is that you disagree with community consensus. Am I missing anything? TarnishedPathtalk 07:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you're glossing over the main point, which is that using broadcast clips doesn't call into question a source's reliability unless you mean to argue the news broadcast is itself unreliable, which no one has. So there's no way that discussion should have been closed with a conclusion of marginal reliability. What's your argument? 5225C (talk • contributions) 12:58, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The main point is that there is community consensus that Sky News is not considered WP:GREL. We shouldn't be using it to assert contentious claims that the victims of neo-nazi violence were somehow at fault for that violence. TarnishedPathtalk 22:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I was templated that a request for comment was open and I'm here to provide my comment. My position is that Sky News is generally reliable, and it can easily substantiate the claim in question. 5225C (talk • contributions) 08:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it was this discussion you received a notification about. AFAIK, there's been no RFC tag on this discussion at any point. TarnishedPathtalk 09:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, the link I followed was for a malformed RfC template on this noticeboard. 5225C (talk • contributions) 10:35, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It happens. TarnishedPathtalk 10:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    TarnishedPath has been on some strange personal mission to have the herald sun painted as unreliable for years fyi. In the last few months alone there’s been multiple times where they’ve removed citations to the herald sun from random pages and left edit descriptions or talk page notes exclaiming, in no uncertain terms, that the herald sun is considered unreliable.
    The evidence they give of this? a link to their own comment, that they copy/paste most times the herald sun comes up on rsn, that gives half truths in order to paint a picture of community consensus on its reliability.
    heres excerpt of the comment they copy/paste to demonstrate-
    “There's been a number of discussions here in the past where the Herald Sun may not have been the primary topic but it has been brought up and its reliability has been commented on:
    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#Herald Sun and Andrew Bolt
    - it was noted by a one edited, with a couple of others agreeing, that the Herald Sun is "“not known for fact-checking, and with a right-wing bias”"
    Except in that example they link, 1 person agrees it’s unreliable, and 3 disagree and state that it actually IS reliable. Not a great start.
    They then take a page from the herald suns book and selectively choose discussions to paint their picture, and often refer to “an editor” each time, implying many share this opinion, and not just the 1 specific editor on more than half the examples who also dislikes the herald sun.
    It seems as though TarnishedPath is trying to manufacture a community consensus that doesn’t exist tbh. Most aussies would agree that The herald sun are embarrassingly biased partisan hacks, but they do not publish falsehoods. If they do, they are retracted or corrected.
    And I don’t think being biased a partisan hack qualifies for unreliability, there would be very few green RSP entries if it did.
    Anyway, just something to note if youre engaging in this discussion. ~2026-29136-22 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard isn't for issues with editors behaviour. If you have any concerns in that matter you should be posting to WP:ANI, otherwise please keep comments to sources not other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:34, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    TarnishedPath earlier said here and here that Sky News is not reliable and by my count 10 or 11 of the 27 RfC !votes were unreliable or deprecate (my !vote was Bad RfC). I don't agree that a Wikipedia "community" (which I regard as the 275,000 active English-language Wikipedia editors) reached "consensus" that it's "generally reliable" but with "additional considerations" (my interpretation of the words in the RfC, which didn't link to the essay-class WP:MREL stuff). There's no apparent reason to doubt counts or locations (as far as I can tell only Herald Sun's details are contentious and they can be left out), and Nightmares26 + Wh1pla5h99 + 5225c seem to think citing Sky News could/should be okay. Me too. However, Nightmares26's 5 May reverted addition has errors: "there" should be "their", and Sky News says that the clash near Spring Street was with a "smaller group of anti-mass migration demonstrators", not with the counter protesters or with the March for Australia rally. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Skeptoid / skeptoid.com / skeptoid.org

    [edit]

    Used as a source on Betz mystery sphere, Cottingley Fairies, Fresno nightcrawler, and many other fringe articles.

    Questions:

    • [A] Is Skeptoid an acceptable source for WP:PARITY use?
    • [B] Is Brian Dunning an an established subject-matter expert (WP:EXPERTSPS) on urban legends, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and other WP:FRINGE topics?

    --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • [C] No source is acceptable but to areas they are demonstrated experts in according to secondary sources about the first source. If uninvolved outside-of-skeptical enthusiast circles say Dunning is an expert in something, then sure. If Skeptical Weekly World News or Skeptical Enquirer says Dunning is an expert--invalid. WP:INVOLVED and FRIND type ideas come into play (yes, I know it's an internal policy for the first--same principle). This stuff is bidirectional. If you can't use a source for anything ever on say, UFOs, because the fellow said he saw one in college... well, handcuffs fit all hands the same or should. If neutral sources say it outside the cliche or fellow travelers, go for it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to be confused. Guy Macon asked two questions above, labeled [A] and [B]. Your [C] is not a question but apparently your opinion. MrOllie (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      People are allowed to add other options here to these, even if some minority of users dislike them. I have added C as an option and chosen it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      They're not 'options', they are questions. One could not 'choose A' because it is a question. Please re-read the above more carefully. MrOllie (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)We are indeed allowed to add questions. I politely request that VPP edit the above editorializing into the form of a neutral question and to please avoid further attempts to hijack this discussion. Also, could you please slow down your furious typing? I am trying to post well-thought-out responses and keep getting edit conflicts because of your rapidfire responses.
    Or do I have to abandon this, create a third discussion, and watch as you try to hijack that one as well? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I write quickly, sorry. The first sentence is my neutral position. The follow up sentences are my logic of why I support my own position and why I think it should be the site default. The supporting positions and justifications do not need to sound neutral. They have to be thorough, rigorous and convincing. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I think I will add establishing precedent that people need to be qualified to what they speak to on this site in-article beyond "pop culture on-wiki or in some circles says so".
      I encourage readers to really think about what C means as an option. If you're not qualified to speak to x beyond being a critic of it, that doesn't give the speaker a drop of merit or authority. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you still not realized that A and B are not "options", but questions? So your "C" is malformed?
      C sounds like an almost answer to B, while it ignores A. VdSV9•♫ 12:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    To actually answer the questions asked, in my opinion:
    Re: [A], the point of WP:PARITY is that we don't hold debunkers to higher sourcing standards than the fringe content they are commenting on. It is necessarily a sliding scale, but for the typical fringe topic I'd say yes.
    Re: [B], Dunning has a decent WP:USEBYOTHERS argument since he is cited in academic press occasionally (See [65]) as well being cited, quoted or reviewed in various other news outlets (Inverse, Salon, Psychology Today, etc.) I'd say we can treat him as an expert in the suggested fields. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: [A], the point of WP:PARITY is that we don't hold debunkers to higher sourcing standards than the fringe content they are commenting on.
    Where is this approved in policy? What section...? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying we should not hold them to a higher sourcing standard? That would be nonsensical. So the answer to your question is "common sense doesn't need to be a policy". Black Kite (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims (e.g. "It was space aliens!") need exceptional sourcing. Mundane claims (e.g. "Actually, it wasn't space aliens") can be sourced to pretty much a cereal packet – and for WP:FRINGESUBJECTS might sometimes need to be. Bon courage (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Using podcasts as sources is almost always suboptimal/undue. I would avoid it in almost all cases; if you need it for parity the topic probably is not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And, for my personal experience of the podcast, I don't have a great opinion of it. In the one episode of it I listened to on a topic I know a decent amount about he basically just poorly summarized a much better scholarly book. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, regarding A, yes for parity. Regarding B he is marginal, no expert as such. He needs to be used for parity to deal with the lunatic fringe people. But as expert in his own right he is in the 20% or 25% score range at best. Have a good day. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Separate from the discussion above, [A] yes for partity, [B] I would agree with Y,amd it's marginal. He's been published by reliable sources and has some use by others, but podcasts are poor sources in general. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:33, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusion

    It looks like I have my answer.

    [A] Skeptoid is an an acceptable source for WP:PARITY use and addressing WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims.

    [B] While Brian Dunning does have some level of expertise on urban legends, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and other WP:FRINGE topics, the consensus is that he is not an established subject-matter expert as described in WP:EXPERTSPS.

    --Guy Macon (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is God a Reliable Source?

    [edit]

    There is a dispute over this claim about what the Tanakh (Old Testament) says in the article Israelites:

    "These tribes consolidated into a nation and were enslaved in Egypt before being liberated by Moses"

    I took out the part about consolidating into a nation, because it is unsourced (also confusing, to use "nation" in both its common sense and in the sense of an ethnic group, in the same article), and was reverted by Mikewem.

    Mikewem proposed two sources, both scripture. The first was Genesis 46:3, where God promises Jacob: Fear not to go down to Egypt, for I will make you there into a great nation. (that's God speaking). I disagree that a promise by God is a reliable source on what actually happened in the story. However, editors argued that God's promises are, by definition, what happened. That seems like original research.

    Mikewem's second source was Deuteronomy 4:34, in which Moses boasts of his achievements as a prophet: "Or has any deity ventured to go and take one nation from the midst of another by prodigious acts, by signs and portents, by war, by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and awesome power, as the ETERNAL your God did for you in Egypt before your very eyes?"

    Mikewem added the disputed sentence with Deut 4:34 as a source to an additional part of the article. I reverted that, since there was an ongoing discussion in Talk about sourcing (he then accused me of "edit warring").

    Based on my understanding of the policy on reliable sources, we cannot use quotes of God and Moses as references for the events of the story (other than the event of their saying those things). Mevsherd (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Remember that the Old Testament was not originally written in English, which means that, in the original, it did not use the word “Nation” at all. “Nation” is simply a translation of a Hebrew (or perhaps Aramaic) word into English. And, I would be willing to bet that different versions of the Bible use other words when translating those passages. Perhaps the solution is to quote from a different translation… one that doesn’t use the word “nation”. Also look at the language used by scholars when analyzing these passages. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Both passages mentioned are in Hebrew, but it’s good to see that someone considered the possibility of Aramaic vocabulary. --~2026-29296-67 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Answering the question in the header, no, God is not a reliable source. Because reliable sources must exist. Simonm223 (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, avoid the King James Bible, it's a bad an inaccurate translation, and go with a better translation. But generally, as others have already said, avoid citing the Bible directly. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends on the passage. I’ve seen much worse Bible translations, but I’d rather trust Jewish ones since they are less unlikely to mistranslate their own holy scripture. --~2026-29296-67 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In short, no. There might be some situations where it would be fine to cite the Bible as a primary source. But, otherwise, the Bible is not a reliable source for anything. Outside coverage of the Bible by academics is what should be used. SilverserenC 21:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Simonm223 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the Bible is not an historical document. Simonm223 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a historical document in the sense that it's not a contemporary one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's technically more of a bunch of completely different little pieces of paper by god knows how many authors over how long collected into arbitrary anthologies. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Paper? Modern prints, sure, but do you consider papyrus or parchment to be paper? Or leather (Isaiah Scroll) and metal (see Copper Scroll), for that matter? --~2026-28288-88 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. But my meaning was that we should not depend on the Bible as an account of history. Simonm223 (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't the view that it is an interpreted history of sorts? Reliable mainly in PRIMARY sense re WP:RNPOV? DN (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be contemporaneous evidence if WP:RS who are experts on the relevant domains say so. Relevant is the mandatory keyword. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 06:51, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Attribute to God, at best. Perhaps attribute to the version of god’s word? (king james bible, idek) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:44, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Is God a Reliable Source" is not the question you should be asking. First of all - because the source that is attempted to be used is not God, it's scripture. One of the two scripture passages quoted purports to be quoting God, but even still, God is not the source the reliability of which for Wikipedia's purposes you are questioning.
    Moreover, the quotes provided do not support the idea that the tribes "consolidated into a nation" - whatever that phrase is meant to mean. I also see that the "consolidated into a nation" sentence is in the lead section, but the concept does not appear to be elaborated upon in the article body.
    Scripture can be a reliable primary source for itself - for what it says. Even then, you need to ensure that it is very clear which translation is being used, and it needs to be backed up with reliable secondary sources to confirm what it means. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the fun section title, you definitely got my attention :). Of course God is a reliable source, but not of the kind that can be cited on Wikipedia unless that oral history citation RFC ever gets off the ground.
    Humor aside, in this actual dispute, people aren't trying to cite God, they are citing the Hebrew Bible, in a paragraph that begins "according to the Hebrew Bible..." So it's fine. Of course, it would be better to cite a scholarly source that describes the Hebrew Bible instead of the Hebrew Bible directly, but in this case the outcome will be the same either way. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 22:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read the Talk page, where it is argued that quoting God is valid because God's promises are, by definition, what happens. Also, please stop following me around, and please stop reverting reverts and misrepresenting article history. The article should not quote Moses or God from the Bible for any summary except what Moses or God said. Mevsherd (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I cited the Hebrew Bible directly because Mevsherd requested a passage from the Tanakh. Since this is about what the Tanakh says, can you provide the passage? Mikewem (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a great example of why we should prefer secondary sources over primary ones when possible. Secondary sources not only interpret the primary sources for us, but tell us what information is due instead of having us pick and choose primary-sourced facts and try to stitch them together. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed via WP:RNPOV, very salient. DN (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    When Jesus discusses events that occurred in the old Testament, is that a WP:Secondary source? Theoretically, I'm legitimately curious on that one. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of, but not necessarily in a way that would be useful in the sorts of disputes that arise over sourcing in the topic area. The key point is that a secondary source can be used for interpretation and analysis. We could, in theory, present Jesus' interpretation or analysis of a story in the Hebrew Bible. The problem is that as the leading figure of a major religion, it is hard to present Jesus' own views without accidentally introducing our own interpretation or analysis on what he believed. That is to say, "Jesus implied that story X in the Hebrew Bible means Y" is technically secondary coverage of that story... but it's a primary source for "what Jesus thought", and the risk of introducing an editor's own interpretation or analysis of Jesus' own views (and, as a result, of Christianity as a whole) is so high that it's rarely going to actually be viable to do that. The bit about WP:DUE people have mentioned also applies, in that everything Jesus said in the Bible has been interpreted and read and reread so many times that it is difficult to defend using anything but the most trivial statements without more coverage - and sometimes even statements that appear trivial may have major theological implications (eg. summarizing a Biblical text in a way that implies that Jesus was created by God might seem trivial to most editors but would actually be a major heresy under Catholicism.) For reasons like these it's best to rely on sources that are a step further removed, where the precise wording of our summary of the proximate source won't be so perilous. --Aquillion (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    On WP, it's a WP:RSPSCRIPTURE source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Religious texts are WP:PRIMARY, and religion is a context where it is extremely difficult to say anything without some degree of interpretation or analysis, even inadvertently, especially since most texts have gone through at least one layer of translation to arrive in English. Additionally, given the massive amount of secondary coverage the Hebrew Bible has received, I think it's fair to say that anything for which no secondary coverage exists is almost certainly WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:OR; every single line of the Bible has been analyzed somewhere by someone. Also, the paragraph notes that some parts of this are considered national myth but that there is a historical core, but is vague about which parts are which beyond noting the skepticism around the united monarchy; my understanding is that everything about Egypt is considered flatly ahistorical by all mainstream scholars (the Egyptians kept excellent records for the era, comparatively, and nothing in it aligns with anything there.) This isn't necessarily a problem if it's all attributed, but it's another reason to be particularly cautious and rely on secondary sources - this article is not a religious one. Devoting an entire paragraph purely to the Biblical position as read and interpreted by editors with no secondary sources cited at all would be bad even in religious articles, but it is particularly bad when trying to portray bible as a historical authority (or as part of the Israelites' national myth but with a "historical core" to some of the events in it.) Inclusion here, with this wording, carries the clear implication that there is a historical core to the idea that these tribes consolidated into a nation and were enslaved in Egypt and at least as far as I'm aware of the state of scholarship that is simply not true. To get back to the main point, this is the sort of thing that high-quality secondary sources would clarify, allowing the paragraph to be rewritten to make it more clear which aspects of this story are considered potentially historical, which are clearly considered ahistorical, and which are disputed. --Aquillion (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is anyone here commenting before they study the topic? There is enough scholarly literature on the historicity of the Bible to fill up a library.
      The Bible is in part as good a valid ancient source as any cuneiform temple cylinder, hieroglyphic temple inscription, and even as most ancient history books, Josephus' works included. Which parts? Read up. Mainly those corraborated by extra-biblical sources, which mainly cover the kingdoms (Israel and Judah, not the United Monarchy, following current mainstream opinion) and the following periods in regard to the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. The New Testament and Qumran texts are also valuable ancient sources on faith, mores and historical background for the shorter time span they cover. Various cultural information can be gained, with caution, from the other material as well. Historiography as a scientific genre in the modern sense hasn't developed anywhere until much later, and we nevertheless do use ancient "history" texts, which were seen in their time as literature and expected to entertain the reader, and medieval chronicles, as sources of historical knowledge. The Bible is, in its parts focusing less on the supernatural and matters of faith, no less such an ancient source. There are RS authors analysing this far better than I can: so please do read up before offering off-the-cuff opinions on the discussion page of an encyclopedia, really. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is anyone here commenting before they study the topic? Are you familiar with the internet?[FBDB] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean the huge digital collection of pornography? --~2026-29296-67 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Aquillion. I very much appreciate what you have written about the usefulness of the HB as a source, but beg to disagree on the need to summarise its narrative at some point, or in your opinion: the lack thereof. As an encyclopedia, Wiki must also cater to the needs of users less familiar with the biblical narrative, of which there are plenty, even inside the cultural spaces once dominated by either Judaism or Christianity. How cautiously it must be presented, that's another matter: not even the careless user should be allowed to understand from that section that it's anything but an attempted summary of the original text. Using secondary sources is much preferable in order to avoid both a subjective, OR choice of words (see "nation"), and placing too much or too little focus on this or that element; but that's anyway inevitable to a degree. Arminden (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assume that the title of this discussion was a joke. In that sense I would say, as a joke in response, that it would be only so if you have a verified email address for God that confirms the relevant statement. The rest of the discussion above can only be described as "super confused". It does not separate the Old Testament from the New Testament or the issue of the specific statement in question. The issue is likely to be highly emotional among various people as well. My advice, take it easy and move on. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The whole internet is God’s e-mail address, isn’t it? --~2026-29296-67 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • This Post is not a good summary of the dispute, and seems to be attracting the usual silliness whenever the bible comes up here. The statement cited is a statement of what the Bible says; the Bible is not being used to assert factuality. I had thought that the original problem was the word “nation”, but evidently it’s some larger issue with Wikipedia summarising the bible itself.—-Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, come now, come now. Religious related discussions are almost always about "larger issues" regardless of between people of the same religion, or totally different belief systems. And the ratio of emotion to logic in these discussions is often astronomical. These discussions often run for ever and ever, so this will be my last comment on this topic. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      If unclear, I was trying to reply to the OP, not you. It’s hard on the phone!—Ermenrich (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m sure that any moment now, someone will solve this by producing a link to a secular, dispassionate, faultless, universally respected, academic summary of the plot points of the Bible. Mikewem (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      God forbid! --~2026-29296-67 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • A book is a valid source for what the book says. But I don’t see how we would consider a religious text as RS for history in general and what a god says in particular. In this case, there is no archeologic evidence that Israelites were enslaved, much less liberated. Problem with this article is that it is part history and part religious dogma; and the two don’t mix well. In any case, we should not use WP:Synthesis to determine meaning. Find a secondary source for that. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    God would be a reliable source for their own statements and opinions. For anything else WP:RSSCRIPTURE documents previously discussion about religious texts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:41, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Religious texts shouldn't be used for statements of facts, but can be used for attributed statements ("The KJB says ..."). Realistically there should be many fine secondary sources on everything single thing in the bible, they should make it unnecessary to cite the bible directly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't think of any reason to ever cite to the "Bible" because there are hundreds or thousands of Bibles and the verse intent can vary between them, if not the plain reading. If you wanted to cite for some to something like "this specific edition xyz said blah on page #", that's different. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:20, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a page in comparatives between version of the bible? If not I would be surprised. Primary citations for quotes, as helpful links alongside secondary sources is a common practice. I couldn't say what every possible use of a primary text could be, the point is that primary texts should only be used as described by policy and guidance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a few pretty good ones, but I can't remember which I used last time. It had kind of a tan soft IKEA vibe and let you pick whichever version vs verse. If it looks like that, its the one. It was really well done. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:ActivelyDisinterested there are probably dozens of tools with that capability, some targeted at theologians/scholars and some targeted at the general public. The two I would recommend for Wiki purposes are bible.com (has the largest selection of versions) and biblehub.com (has the most full-featured comparision/analysis tools and is more ideologically friendly to the free content world). -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 15:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know, thanks! --~2026-29296-67 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    {(edit conflict) To address the question in the title, if you believe in God then He is the most reliable source there can be. But Wikipedia does not take a position on God's existence. By the way, which and whose God are we talking about? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary Quoting Moses or God does not provide an adequate source for this encyclopedia entry: "These tribes consolidated into a nation and were enslaved in Egypt before being liberated by Moses" Agreed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. This requires a secondary source, per my comments religious texts shouldn't be used for statements of fact. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In context that sentence is not presented as a statement of fact, but as a description of what the Hebrew Biblical narrative asserts. A secondary source would still be preferable IMO but I think that's a detail that has been missed in this discussion. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 20:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The idea that we can't use a biblical narrative for what the biblical narrative says is frankly ludicrous. The fact that its a translation does not stop us from citing any number of other sources for what they themselves say about themselves.
    The OP continues to misrepresent what the dispute is actually about - perhaps they themselves don't understand it.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So enlighten us. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are quotes of Moses and God. They should not be a source for anything but what Moses and God say, yet are being used as sources for an editor's summary of other events within the narrative. Mevsherd (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that we can't use a biblical narrative for what the biblical narrative says is frankly ludicrous.
    Whose biblical narrative from which biblical narrative is authoritative according to Wikipedia policy, mandate and doctrine? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In statement of what the Bible says the origin of Israel is. It is not a “quote of God”. As for the question about authority: What on earth are you even talking about? The bible is a book like any other. Can we not summarize the Odyssey? The fact that the Odyssey is a translation means we can’t cite what happened in book 10?—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It literally depends on what translation. There is factually no such thing as any single "authoritative" bible that Wikipedia can recognize as such. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The KJV, ERV, DNKJB, NKJV, KJ21, TMB, or MEV? And these are only ones developed from the KJV. There's then all others we have listed at List of English Bible translations, and that is not a complete list. These aren't just different translations with the issues inherent to all translations either, as they additionally have the issue of them having theological influences, where translations have been chosen at various points with the theological views of the translators deciding what translations were employed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There seems to be disagreement on what the content is saying. If it's a statement of fact then religious texts shouldn't be used to verification, if it's an attributed statement then religious texts should be fine. If editors can't agree wherever it's a statement of fact or not, then that's not a reliability issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:39, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Solution No one has offered a more preferred academic summary, and this discussion appears to be veering into an extended, off-topic forum, so I’m going to go ahead with The Jewish Study Bible. Its summary of Exodus on page 102 says Exodus begins where the Hebrews grow from a family into a nation. ONUnicorn expressed that the meaning of “consolidated into a nation” was unclear, so we can change our text to “grew from a family into a nation”. Which, as LWG predicted, gets us to essentially the same outcome, but hopefully the new verb phrase will be less confusing to readers than “consolidated”. Mikewem (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is the word "nation" not "consolidated" which has been explained about a dozen times. This seems to be the actual text, and it does not suggest "nation" in any sense that the average Wikipedia reader will understand:
    "But the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them."
    If you want to say something like "According to the Jewish Study Bible...." I suppose that's a possible compromise. But it strikes me as a source designed to promote a particular interpretation. Why not just provide the verse itself, if you feel it's important to the article? Mevsherd (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A second translation, also not consistent with "nation" in a sense that the average reader will understand:
    "And the children of Israel were fruitful and increased abundantly, and multiplied and grew exceedingly mighty; and the land was filled with them..."
    The Jewish Study Bible is promoting a certain orthodox and doctrinal interpretation. Mevsherd (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    He did provide the verse itself - and you accused him of using God as a source!—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he proposed to use as a source a verse of God making a promise, and then someone else argued that God's promises are, by definition, what happens. Therefore, God's promises are reliable sources of what happens in the narrative, according to this logic. Then he added a quote of Moses--as a source. Personally, I'm fine with snippets of scripture in the article itself. In this case, the narrative being summarized is no longer than the summary, so we should just quote it in the article. But, obviously, not use it as a source.
    I dispute that the Jewish Study Bible is a reliable source, so this is going to be needlessly protracted, if they keep insisting on saying there was an Israelite nation in Egypt, when the text says no such thing. Mevsherd (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ONUnicorn do you have any advice on how OP should proceed? Mikewem (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Mevsherd, does this edit by Mikewem address your concerns? Personally, I think the change from "consolidated into a nation" to "grew from a family into a nation" is much more clear and supportable wording. The source cited is a study Bible from Oxford. A study Bible typically is annotated with interpretation and thus can serve as a secondary source. Again, the source being cited is not God, it's a particular edition of an annotated Bible intended for scholars. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No definitely not, for reasons explained here and on the Talk page. The main problem is that what the article says appears to be false, or at least, an interpretation. Where is the passage that says they became a nation in Egypt in any sense? The simple way to address the concern is to provide editors with the passage. There's no way to tell whether "nation" is an interpretation or more objective without seeing what it is summarizing. I suggested Exod. 1:7 is the text in question. The Jewish Study Bible strikes me obviously biased, (Personal attack removed). Mevsherd (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is the 1st edition of "The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation", published by Oxford University Press, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler, with Michael Fishbane as a consulting editor. The translation of the Torah that they are working with is explicitly the New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh, which was developed by an "interdenominational" team of scholars and rabbis, with the goal of it to adhere in translation as close as possible to the Masoretic Hebrew texts. So, based on the publisher, and the credentials of the editors, and the origin of the text that is the source, it is about as RS as an RS can be. Will it be biased? Of course, there is nothing that is not biased. The concern is if the bias affects the reliability of a source, and in this case it doesn't.
    Mikewem cites page 107, which indicates the following are the relevant quotes:
    • (Translated Torah text) 1 These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each coming with his household: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. 5 The total number of persons that were of Jacob's issue came to seventy, Joseph being already in Egypt. 6 Joseph died, and all his brothers, and all that generation. 7 But the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them.
    • (Editors' commentary) 1.1-7: Transition from Genesis. A recapitulation of Gen. 46.8-27 (cf. Gen. 35.23-26) leads to the account of how Jacob's family grew in Egypt from seventy individuals (a number signifying perfect completion) to a huge population-indeed, from a family to a nation. 7: Many terms in this v. (and in vv. 12 and 20) are also used in God's blessings and promises in Genesis, especially to the patriarchs (Gen. 1.20, 28; 9.1, T 17.2; 18.18; 28.14; 48.4), implying that these ancestral promises were now being fulfilled by God, who was causing the Israelites' proliferation and thwarting Pharaoh's attempts to check it.
    -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to understand how Wikipedia has existed for 25 years without developing a streamlined procedure for these basic sourcing questions. Cdjp1, I don't understand what you're saying, or how to respond other by repeating what I say above and on the article Talk page: "they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them" is not neutrally summarized by "they grew from a family into a nation." The article is interpreting, to say the least. Nor is there any need to summarize primary text that is one sentence long. Mevsherd (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    1.1-7: Transition from Genesis. A recapitulation of Gen. 46.8-27 (cf. Gen. 35.23-26) leads to the account of how Jacob's family grew in Egypt from seventy individuals (a number signifying perfect completion) to a huge population-indeed, from a family to a nation. 7: Many terms in this v. (and in vv. 12 and 20) are also used in God's blessings and promises in Genesis, especially to the patriarchs (Gen. 1.20, 28; 9.1, T 17.2; 18.18; 28.14; 48.4), implying that these ancestral promises were now being fulfilled by God, who was causing the Israelites' proliferation and thwarting Pharaoh's attempts to check it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, at the time of writing the citation was to page 107, but the page has since been changed to what look to be more appropriate pages, as they cover the use of the word 'nation' as it appears in the primary translation. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion: a number of us have asked repeatedly what is the authoritative "book" we should be referencing, which determines which text we use.
    Can you just tell us what you think the official canon source should be? Otherwise everyone will keep asking you the same things in ever wider orbits.
    You really need to clarify and be particular. I realize you may not want to be as this seems to be getting into particular religious territory for you (perhaps?) but we also as editors owe zero duty or faith to *any* religion, and cannot/will not allow *any* to either be canonized in any way. That's not and will never be the purpose of this site.
    So can you narrow it down? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that directed at me? I'm not sure what you're asking. Mevsherd (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. You keep saying things (such as your most recent comment below) that we should be minimal in summarizing religious text. But there how many versions of the Bible again?
    You seem to keep implying we should only quote scripture, and repeated editors have flat out asked you:
    WHICH scripture? Which version is the one we're supposed to use? Whose interpretation? Who is right? Who is fringe?
    You need to not duck that critical question and answer it finally or this conversation needs to be closed... honestly. There is no and never ever never will exist any scenario where we will ever favor any one (1) version, so you may as well throw your cards down and cut to the chase. Respectfully, your careful vagueness is wasting our time. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're mixing up editors. I most certainly did not say we should "only quote scripture." (Personal attack removed). Mevsherd (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I misunderstanding points like this you keep making, like below?
    I think you mean, it's appropriate to cite the book/chapter/verse of what is quoted in the article. No argument there! I meant, to support any degree of synthesis, interpretation, opinion, or summary. There's always some summarizing of sources, but using Wikipedia's voice to summarize a religious text should be really minimal, basically non-existent
    Because we all seem to be misunderstanding it. WHICH, which edition, James? Pentecostal? Catholic? Which Catholic? Mormon? Which do we use? People keep asking that. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    People asked Mikewem that. You're conflating editors, perhaps because both our names being with "M" and are similar in length. Mevsherd (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Which particular God are we talking about? Thoth, Ahura Mazda, and Ganesha all come to mind as possible sources of ancient wisdom ;-) NadVolum (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving Forward 1. Is there an agreement that scripture cannot be used as a citation? 2. Is there an agreement that Moses and God are not the same as the narrator? 3. Is there an agreement that the primary source does not use a term like "nation" (except in quotes of Moses and God) 4. Is there an agreement that it is interpretation, an opinion, to describe "the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly" as becoming a "nation?"

    Assuming they re not going to keep trying to add quotes of Moses and God as citations, I think the issue has shifted from reliable sourcing to neutral point of view. Hopefully, I won't have to start a new thread at a different noticeboard.

    I also want to note that using this board has been intimidating. One editor here made a beeline for the article, and reverted the last thing I did, with no interaction in Talk (he misrepresented my reversion as change I made without consensus). I had reverted an edit adding biblical verse as a citation. The main editor in this brouhaha, Mikewem, posted on my homepage that I was "edit warring" because I reverted his new addition citing Moses (and has misrepresented me and my concerns many times). Cdjp1 has now showed up on the Talk pages pushing the same agenda as above; they have copy/pasted the same quote from the above three times.

    • On your question 1 - It’s not so simple. Scripture can be cited as a primary source to verify quotes from that scripture. That said, when the original version of the scripture was not in English, you need to note (in text) which version/translation of scripture you are quoting from, and may need to also quote alternative translations.
    Then there is the question of whether it is appropriate to quote scripture in the first place… that depends on context. WHY is scripture being cited? Blueboar (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean, it's appropriate to cite the book/chapter/verse of what is quoted in the article. No argument there! I meant, to support any degree of synthesis, interpretation, opinion, or summary. There's always some summarizing of sources, but using Wikipedia's voice to summarize a religious text should be really minimal, basically non-existent. Mevsherd (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    they have copy/pasted the same quote from the above three times, no I have not. So, you are choosing not to read what is being written. As can be seen by my comment on the Israelite talk page, I explicitly quote from the The Jewish Study Bible for Genesis 46:3, while here I quoted from Exodus 1:7.
    Mevsherd, are Genesis 46:3 and Exodus 1:7 the same thing? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the behaviour here, it may be of note at the RfC at Jesus started by Mevsherd, similar demands are made where only one very specific type of source is considered acceptable for article text, ignoring the RS written by leading experts in the field who are cited for what is written in the article text. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaaaand it’s at ani Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mikewem, and editor behavior, enforcing rules on sources and neutrality Mikewem (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    EWeek

    [edit]

    EWeek used to be PCWeek but changed its name and went digital only in 2012 and has since been owned by marketing companies. It looks to me like another site that reprints press releases and fluff about companies (see for instance [66] about a company of questionable notability), but its website claims that it's objective and makes money from ads, not content. Any opinions? https://www.eweek.com/editorial-policy/ Lijil (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    There editors seem to have a background in tech reporting[67], and the editorial policy you linked says the right things. They do offer native advertising (advertorials)[solutions(dot)technologyadvice(dot)com/advertise-on-eweek/]‡, but I don't know what to make of their disclosure. I can find one article where it's in the title[68], but no others. Then there's this page [69], which appears to lists all the article sponsored by a particular company but none of the articles mention that they're sponsored on the articles page. It does have use by others as a citation in printed works, although the quality of the publishers is quite variable.
    The specific article you mention[70] is by a journalist, but reads like a company presentation. At least on a case by case basis I don't believe that article is independent of the company it's reporting on.
    ‡Their parent companies URL has been blacklisted, I haven't looked into why. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:27, 11 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that’s useful. The list of articles sponsored by a company but where none of the articles disclose that sponsorship sounds like not an independent source. Lijil (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the Atlantic a reliable source for BLP articles?

    [edit]

    In 2022, RSN discussed the reliability of the Atlantic, and seemed to come the concussion that the Ideas section of the magazine should be bound to WP:RSOPINION rules. The exact wording used on WP:RSPS states:

    The Atlantic is considered generally reliable. Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content; opinion pieces, including all articles in the "Ideas" column (theatlantic.com/ideas/), are governed by WP:RSOPINION.

    Other users have read that summary and come to the concussion that the Atlantic is now wholly inappropriate for BLP articles, and have begun removing Atlantic articles from BLP articles such as Tucker Carlson.

    Can editors well-versed in WP:RSN clarify RSN's posistion on the Atlantic? In particular, it would be good to hear from @Compassionate727, who is the editor who updated the WP:RSPS entry on the Atlantic and who is still active on Wikipedia.

    My reading of WP:RSPS entry is that the Atlantic remains a generally reliable source, albeit one to handle with care, not a banned source for BLP articles. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The principal dispute here is Hasan Piker. At that page I expressed that the Atlantic should not be used for BLPs because of it blurring reporting and fact and the higher sourcing standard we have for BLPs. CeltBrowne countered it was used for Tucker Carlson. @Sibshops pointed out these were added prior to a discussion in 2022 that led to concerns about use of The Atlantic in BLPs. I said I didn't think that it met an appropriate standard for BLPs and expressed no concern with removing it from Turker Carlson. CeltBrowne said that it was unfair of me to ask them to edit a different page rather than agreeing with their proposed edits at the Piker page and I agreed that was somewhat unfair and put my money where my mouth was, removing The Atlantic as a source from Carlson. Little material of biographical relevance was lost doing this as almost everything was either sourced to better sources or was just political sniping. I'm no fan of Carlson but an encyclopedia about a living person need not contain obvious political sniping. Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think wholly unusable is a little strong. The Atlantic articles which appear to be opinion articles, for example, ones which call to action, make claims about what an someone should do, or make first person evaluations, probably need additional scrutiny.
    For example:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/hasan-piker-einstein-democrats/686855/
    Those types of articles should probably be governed under:
    • WP:BLPPRIMARY - Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources.
    And then either:
    • For statements of opinion, WP:RSOPINION - as a primary source for an author's opinion.
    • For statements of fact, WP:RSEDITORIAL - rarely reliable for statements of fact.
    ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I will admit to having particularly strict standards surrounding BLP sourcing where I lean rather deletionist. However I think, if we examine my removals from Tucker Carlson, [71] it presents a strong case study that removing the Atlantic from a contentious BLP resulted in no real loss of useful biographical information. In other words - if the only source for a biographical detail is an Atlantic article this raises the question, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, of whether that tidbit is of any use at all. I don't really see this as being solely a reliability issue and instead see it as being a WP:BLP issue. I would not object to the use of The Atlantic for non-BLP articles. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking into it further, it seems that Atlantic's fact-checking process appears to describe the magazine specifically, not necessarily online articles. The article says, "Before any article makes it into The Atlantic magazine..." and later says that checkers verify facts published "in our magazine."
    https://www.theatlantic.com/membership/archive/2018/01/how-to-fact-check-the-atlantic/550355/
    So I don't think Atlantic claims that online Politics articles receive the same level of fact-checking or editorial review as magazine articles.
    There seems to be other articles published outside of the ideas section with unclear fact-checking such as this one:
    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/trump-language-policing/686977/ ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The first link/example itself links/uses an example of an online article that they’ve fact checked (“WHAT ISIS REALLY WANTS” by G. Wood)
    When they use the term “the magazine”, they mean the Atlantic as an entity/organisation, not the literal psychical copy of the magazine. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an opinion piece (which it looks like this is), it's not suitable for facts in BLPs under current policy. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 23:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Being clear my diff demonstrated the end result after I'd removed three or four discrete Atlantic articles. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I heard of that before, I tried searching for BLPOPINION, and searching for the word opinion on the WP:BLP page, is there a place you could point to?
    trying my best to look for how, I did see there is a prohibition on the misuse of primary works in BLP, and I think Op-eds technically fall under that category per footnote C in WP:NOR, but attributing the op-ed usually covers that, I think? The only blanket ban for BLP is WP:BLPSPSUser:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. It's fine for attributed opinion. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think non-contentious attributed opinion from The Atlantic is fine, as opposed to using it for statements of fact.
    • The Atlantic gives Tucker Carlson's show 4/5 stars - Statement of opinion - okay if attributed and due
    • The Atlantic says Tucker Carlson supported X - Statement of fact - Needs a source not covered under by WP:RSOPINION
    ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the page history at Hasan Piker, this dispute is over attributed opinion, presented as attributed opinion; as such, the only question is notability of the source, not reliability. Wrong forum. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said to Sibshops previously, my concern about using The Atlantic for BLPs is not reliability per-se but rather that it's basically just being used as a quote-mine and usually just to embarrass a BLP in some minor way. This is the case whether it's an Atlantic columnist describing Carlson's rhetoric as a "fuck-you" to his opponents or another one dwelling upon Piker not being an historian. This is a publication that seems to exist to create more heat than light regarding its living subjects. I don't think we should follow suit for WP:BLP and WP:DUE reasons rather than out of a suspicion the quotes are wrong. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an example where they said something about a subject in an opinion piece, and it was factually wrong? Guz13 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the issue is just with opinion articles, exactly. The concern is that The Atlantic can publish contentious BLP characterizations in articles that are not clearly labeled as opinion, without supporting the characterizations in the article.
    For example: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/04/trump-language-policing/686977/

    The prominence of Hasan Piker, an apologist for terrorism and a proponent of authoritarian regimes, has revealed a much broader comfort on the left with illiberal ideas and violent methods.

    ◦ Sibshops (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. And my concern isn't about quote accuracy but rather about BLP appropriateness. What I found is that the standard use case for the Atlantic is for gotcha quotes that reinforce more factual statements. They're not wrong exactly just... not good practice for building a biography. Like this is why I keep saying my objection is BLP specific. I don't think the Atlantic is a great source, but I wouldn't unilaterally remove it from a non-BLP article. Simonm223 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Effectively the only appropriate BLP use case for this I can really think of is establishing the multi-source requirement of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And, in that case, there's no reason to quote The Atlantic directly because multiple sources exist. So, considering its tendency toward salaciousness, we would just use it as a supporting citation. Simonm223 (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You would just need to attribute the opinion according to WP:RSOPINION. Guz13 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't appear to be an Op-Ed but I do see issues with it's use. My concern here is the material added to the BLP seems to be a bit like a series of soundbites that may or may not have good context. When articles look like we might be trying to attack the subject by finding all the dirt rather than keeping things high level editors should be concerned. This is the sort of content that should have a bland, 1-2 sentence summary vs be a long paragraph in the BLP. I think Simon's "quote mine" is probably the correct way to look at this. It's a failing in many articles and often gives the impression we are trying to denigrate the article subject while still being "factual". It's a problem across many Wiki articles. I can see the concerns that people raise about a source that is generally reliable making claims that are rather subjective in nature. We really should avoid using such claims just as we should avoid using vague "associated with [bad group]" type claims. I don't see an issue with using the source in that article in general but it needs to be done more carefully. Springee (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, this makes more sense.
    are there multiple op-eds/reliable sourcing repeating this set of Hasan Piker soundbites? that would probably at least hit WP:PUBLICFIGURES User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    All I found other than the Atlantic was a podcast that focuses on pro-Israel apologetics and a bunch of links to YouTube and social media. I think most WP:RS don't care that a twitch streamer said something a bit dumb. Because that's kind of normal for Twitch streamers. Simonm223 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the quotes/stances referenced in the Atlantic articles are also discussed in this article by New Lines Magazine CeltBrowne (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if you're speaking broadly, or speaking specifically about my contribution to the Hasan Piker Wiki article, but to be clear if its the latter: I am not attempting to denigrate Piker or "quote-mine" him, I was attempting, through the use of generally reliable good sources, outline his ideology. American political commentators and activists such as Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Mehdi Hasan, Michael Moore, etc have extensive political views section that give the reader an understanding where the subject of the article stands on political issues. Piker's section, comparatively, is threadbare, and was attempting to rectify that. For example, I believe it's factual, and something Piker himself would say, that he favours China and its economic model despite its stance on "civil liberties" (As Piker himself phrases it).
    That said, I appreciate your viewpoint and your advice, and I'd be open to re-wording my contribution to be more condensed, as you've outlined. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote mining was actually me describing how it was being used in the Tucker Carlson article as an example of what I see as a general case. I do, however, think that your uses of The Atlantic were undue. Simonm223 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's an opinion, at least it's from the Atlantic, could do far worse.
    Is this the offending piece [72]? as long as its attributed, its reliable, isn't it?
    It does meet WP:PUBLICFIGURES if there are multiple op-eds, and the edit is this right? [73] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the edit in question, correct. CeltBrowne (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Started writing something longer, but let's just cut to it: Yes, The Atlantic a reliable source for BLPs. Claims based on articles labeled as opinion (or a synonym) should be attributed, but it doesn't get much more "opinion typically worth including" than The Atlantic. Articles there typically have a "voice" that can bleed into opinion-like content, as basically any of the top tier current events magazines do, but they also have an elaborate editorial process to check the article's claims. That's a big part of what we look for in an RS: not the words of one particular article but the assurances provided by a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. It is very easy to write "according to The Atlantic..." Guz13 (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    How much of a source can be copy-and-pasted from an unsourced Wikipedia article without citing it and infringing on our copyright before we conclude that it is unreliable?

    [edit]
    • R.Saravanan; R.Ramesh (2023). M. Lakshmanan (ed.). "An Ancient Chola brick temple in Vedal" (PDF). Proceedings of the 29th Annual Session. Tamil Nadu History Congress: 388–390. ISSN 2319-3808.

    I am currently in a dispute with @Parsecboy over whether a source added to the article Vedal by @Utcursch is reliable. It is my opinion that large versions of the source are directly copy-and-pasted from an unsourced prior version of the Vedal article, and the article fails to cite or attribute to Wikipedia, that it cannot be used. The dispute is at Talk:Vedal#Citogenesis. Context for the dispute can be found at Talk:Vedal#Requested move 2 May 2026 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vedal.

    Here is one of the most obvious examples of it:

    The source (forgive it's awful English; it was written in Tamil and the publisher begins the journal by apologizing for how bad they were at translations):

    The temple has two separate shrines. The main shrine dedicated to Lord Shivavadavamuga Agueeshwarar) and other one dedicated. Goddess Vasantha Nayagi. The main temple is built in the Gajaprshtha architectural style. (Aka thoongani style which resembles the backside of the elephant).The ghost image Ganesha Dakshinamurthy, Vishnu, Brahma and Durga are found on the wall surrounding the main shrine. Chandikeshwarar is also found as usual. Thevimana along with the images of the Gods is strikingly beautiful.

    Our article on Nov. 19, 2021:

    The temple which is almost in ruin has two separate shrines - the main shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva (Vadavamuga Agneeswarar) and the other one dedicated to Goddess Vasanta Nayaki. The main temple is built in the Gajabrashta architectural style (aka Thoonganai style which resembles the back side of the elephant). The goshta images Ganesha, Dakshinamurthy, Vishnu, Brahma, Durga and Chandikeshwar are found on the wall surrounding the main shrine. The vimana along with the images of the Gods is still impressive, though in ruins.

    More input would be appreciated. 1brianm7 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:CIRCULAR says "Do not use websites mirroring Wikipedia content or publications relying on material from Wikipedia as sources." (emphasis mine). I think given that they've copied from use word for word that they're using Wikipedia as a spurce. So we shouldn't be using them at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with ActivelyDisinterested, it's a pretty textbook case of WP:CIRCULAR. I can see the other editor is saying it could be AI instead, but that would also be unreliable, so I digress. Kotthu (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    1brianm7 is significantly misrepresenting the source by claiming that "large versions of the source" that are "copy-and-pasted"; I don't see any text that is directly copied and pasted, though there are sections where wording and structure are similar, as I noted on the article talk page thread.
    As for Kotthu's last statement, I didn't say the text was AI-generated, but likely AI-translated; the two are not the same.
    Given that the article was written in Tamil and then translated into English, I fail to see how we have literally any evidence that the material was plagiarized from Wikipedia. We're supposed to WP:AGF with our fellow editors; how about we extend that treatment to a pair of PhDs. Parsecboy (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    On the paragraph they used and the paragraph used in that version of the article that I brought up here, the only difference is they do not say the temple is in ruins. Can you imagine somebody independently determining that the proper order was to say their are two shrines, say who they are to. Than say what architectural style they are built in, aka the backside of an elephant, and then say who the goshta iamges are of in the same exact order, and then say that the shrine's look good. The example you used in the talk page discussion of the differences is them using Lord Shivavadavamuga Agueeshwarar) while we use Lord Shiva (Vadavamuga Agneeswarar). I don't know about you, but Lord Shivavadavamuga Agueeshwarar) just looks like Lord Shiva(vadavamuga Agueeshwarar) with a forgotten parenthetical. The academic articles uses the same exact phrasing in other places that I cannot imagine an academic stumbling upon (e.g., "pronounced as vaedal"). 1brianm7 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, like when you called me a liar because I was using a number derived from the last 150 days while you were using a number derived from the last 90 days, WP:AGF in that I have explicitly said it was a translation, and so I am not misrepresenting it by saying copy-and-pasted; I am calling it explicit plagiarism, which it is. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you ever learned a foreign language? Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yes, that's blindingly obvious. The only explanation that I can think of for anyone saying, "I fail to see how we have literally any evidence that the material was plagiarized from Wikipedia" is that they have failed to even spend a fraction of a second looking. Have you completely taken leave of your senses, Parsecboy? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain to me how somebody copied our content, translated it into Tamil, then translated it back into English and it came back in a form that even remotely looks like our content. Do me a favor: try it. Slap our content into Google and post what it spits out. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the paragraph copy-and-pasted from our page, into Tamil Google translate, and then into English via Google translate.

    This temple, now in a state of near-ruin, houses two distinct shrines: a main shrine dedicated to Lord Shiva (Vadavamukha Agneeswarar) and another dedicated to Goddess Vasantha Nayaki. The main temple is constructed in the *Gajaprishta* architectural style—also known as the *Thoonganai* style—which resembles the curvature of an elephant's hindquarters. Adorning the walls surrounding the main shrine are *Koshta* images of various deities, including Ganesha, Dakshinamurthy, Vishnu, Brahma, Durga, and Chandikeswarar. Despite its dilapidated condition, the *Vimana* (temple tower)—adorned with images of the deities—remains a breathtaking sight to this day.

    I knew that Google translate had started incorporating LLM's but uh... that is blindingly obvious. I think that is better content than what the article had, actually. LLM-translated, but better. This paper is from October 2022, however, and so they used just plain-old translation software, which explains why it is so broken. 1brianm7 (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused, aren't there other sources on the topic? Why use this one? genuine question, because it just seems to be reworded Wikipedia in the excerpts provided. Here are some better sources:
    For stuff on the power plant:
    Kendra, Manthan Adhyayan. "Impacts of coastal coal based thermal power plants on water report of visit to some operational and in pipeline plants in Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu." (2014).
    Preetha, K. V., and Ajit Menon. "Neo-liberalising energy production: The making and unmaking of an ultra mega power project in South India." Review of Development and Change 24.2 (2019): 242-258.
    For the temple, you can just look at INTACH, which the paper cites, as well as news:
    INTACH's Heritage at Risk Register: http://architecturalheritage.intach.org/?page_id=990
    https://thefederal.com/states/south/tamil-nadu/cried-for-notre-dame-but-no-tears-for-the-temples-lost-in-tn
    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/survey-report-puts-cheyyur-project-in-trouble/article6691343.ece
    As a site note, here is an interesting document on the temple: https://webstor.srmist.edu.in/web_assets/downloads/2026/sivan-temple-vedal-heritage-documentation.pdf Kotthu (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    TimesOfIsrael on Nicholas Kristof's piece

    [edit]

    Yesterday, Nicholas Kristof published "The Silence That Meets the Rape of Palestinians" in the New York Times. I find this article by the Times of Israel to be stating claims by HonestReporting (HR) in apparently its own voice, using language such as "noted" and "pointed out", which imply TOI considers HR's report as factual. This goes beyond simply "X said Y", which is what most news organizations do.

    • TOI says "The watchdog noted that Sami al-Sai had taken to social media on October 8, 2023, to praise the Hamas onslaught one day after it occurred". I was unable to verify this claim. HR posts screenshots from an account titled "Carmel al-Sa'i", not Sami al-Sai. There were no relevant google results for either "Carmel al-Sa'i"[74] nor "Carmel al-Sai"[75]
    • TOI says "It also pointed out that Issa Amro, who’d told Kristof in 2024 that he’d been assaulted on the day of the Hamas attack, had earlier told The Washington Post he’d been “threatened with sexual assault” on that day, not that he’d been assaulted." Its true that WaPo quoted Issa Amro as being threatened with sexual assault, but I can't verify that Amro did not say that he'd been sexually assaulted. Where did TOI get that from? TOI should surely know that newspapers choose which claims of witnesses to publish and WaPo not publishing something doesn't necessarily mean that Amro hadn't told WaPo of that thing.VR 23:23, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not great that they're regurgitating tweets from a questionable advocacy org without a byline.
    While we're on the subject, ToI has prevously published op-eds from non-exsistent authors and then seemingly removed them without a public retraction.[76][77]  81567518  W  12:05, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Billiongraves.com is user-edited

    [edit]

    ...so why is it still allowed to exist within, not as just an External link, but actually as a citation within Wikipedia articles? I have only found one discussion about it in this Noticeboard's archives, at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_513#Billiongraves, dated April 2026. I think it should be added to The List. I was unfamiliar with this website but came across it when it was added as a ref for Martha Jefferson's gravesite here. Looks like it is apparently being used in 227 articles.
    I think it needs to deprecated and not used as a reference/citation. I put it in the same general category as FindAGrave. - Shearonink (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion on RSN do not mean that a source won't be added back, even deprecation won't stop that from happening. Only editors putting in time, effort, and vigilance has any actual effect on the quality of sources used in articles. I'm guessing you mean the RSP when you say The List, that is only for sources that have been discussed over and over and editors have disagreed about their reliability. It not mean to be a list of all sources, see WP:RSPNOT and WP:RSPCRITERIA. In the majority of cases sources are handled by policy, if a source is user generated there's no need to list it as it's already covered by WP:UGC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my wikilinkage above for "The List' was in error, I meant the Perennial sources list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Ok, so billiongraves.com is user-edited and therefore UNreliable. Since it looks like there are 200+ usages in articles for this source, is it possible for a script to basically hunt the usage down and delete or template/tag? Or do I have to search them out manually and delete etc. Thanks - Shearonink (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe AWB could do this, which may require bot approval, but I don't use automated editing so I wouldn't know for sure. 200+ really isn't that many, such a solution wasn't even used after the Daily Mail was deprecated (which had order of magnitude more uses). Just removing the references doesn't do the far more important part, either replacing the reference or modifying/removing the content it was meant to support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:24, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I do do some Wiki-gnoming from time to time, so I guess I can start in on this issue... And yes, the Perennial sources list is for sources that get discussed a lot I guess, *but*, in my opinion having a website or source listed does help bolster any reverting or deletion of the URL & its information, especially for when it is being used as an inline citation. Can a Category of articles that use billiongraves as a source be put together? Would that make ferreting out its probable use/misuse any easier? - Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I'd have no idea how to create a category or whether it would be appropriate, it's not something I've every been involved in. The RSP is an information page, UGC is part of WP:Verifiability, a core policy. Policy has far more weight than an information page when it's come to removing a source, or making any argument about why content should be changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be a new use case for a category, and one I doubt would meet with consensus. Why do you want a category? You can easily enough find all articles citing it via the search engine. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:30, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Turkish undisclosed advertorials

    [edit]

    A number of Turkish-language sources are used at Verum Messenger, including:

    These sources appear to be presenting the articles as their own work, but they read like adverts or press releases. However, I am reading them through Google translate, so I might have missed something; can an editor with more experience in Turkish media comment? BilledMammal (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not speak Turkish and have not looked at those sites. But I do remember reading a few NY Times articles about the games played in the Turkish press by large companies who owned the papers. It was extreme manipulation. They tried some of that in NY and backfired. If you do some searches you may get a better idea. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Travel and Tour World for Airport Articles

    [edit]

    As someone who mostly edits airport (and other aviation) articles, I've seen Travel and Tour World used to source content, mostly start or end dates for specific airline routes. For a recent example, a user included a new route at Los Angeles International Airport citing this article: [78] On all of their route articles, I've seen content that has made me question its reliability:

    • Almost all articles on the site use AI generated images. While this wouldn't make it unreliable, it does feed into the next point:
    • Most articles on the site read like they were written by AI. Just read something like this article: [79], one of many that read like it was generated by AI, violating WP:RSML.
    • Articles on the site never list an author at all or who wrote it.
    • For airline route news, other sites will typically also list the news and usually include some kind of source, such as an industry insider or the airline announcing the news, but Travel and Tour World never mentions where the information is coming from.
    • For airline route news, typically several sites will publish articles, leaving other websites that don't use AI as options for sources.

    While I am not sure about other articles relating to different topics on the site, most look to follow these trends of reading like they were written by AI. Here's another airline article for example which reads like AI: [80]. Their About Us section does not mention anything about who writes their articles either. Just interested in seeing what other people think. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC))[reply]

    Indonesian websites are Reliable sources

    [edit]

    Does Indonesian news websites are Reliable sources for Wikipedia including: Nahdlatul Ulama, Antara, Liputan6.com, BeritaSatu, detik.com, Merdeka.com, Kompasiana, Fimela, Suara.com, RRI.co.id, SINDONews, IDNtimes, CNN Indonesia, Viva.co.id, iNews, Okezone, and Portal JTV. Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a hopelessly vague question, and not one you are going to get a useful answer to. Whether news websites anywhere are reliable sources depends on what they are being cited for, for a start. Read WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And I very much doubt whether there is any specifically Indonesian element to any possible answer. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Reliable on what? This question is poorly worded and not like a native speaker of English like you claim. GarethBaloney (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Indonesian news websites have never been discussed whether they are reliable or not, broadly. I only found one discussion, Tapol Bulletin. Specific examples of these sites being used on Wikipedia will help come to a better understanding on whether a specific article (or publisher) is reliable. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Washington Post

    [edit]
    BERJAYA Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Washington Post
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

    should the WaPo be moved to "unreliable" given its new editor and changes in news policies? Bcwbcwbcw (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Context please? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember that a change in political bias does not mean a source is unreliable. We would need evidence to show that the changes in ownership/policy have resulted in intentionally false or inaccurate reporting. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Political bias should not be the basis for unreliability. — Longewal (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Türkiye Today

    [edit]

    How reliable is Türkiye Today as a source?

    In particular, this article on Türkiye Today says six people were killed in an Iranian missile strike in Arad, Israel on March 21. However, no other major sources corroborate this, and Netanyahu explicitly stated no one was killed. [81]

    Is this just a fluke, or is Türkiye Today not reliable? Ixfd64 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

    [edit]

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

    Comment: Pinging editors from previous discussion:
    Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (Democracy Now!)

    [edit]
    Support based on sources and arguments presented in the previous discussion which I will summarize here.
    Bias and reliability are two separate things. A source can be biased but highly factual. Sources should always have opinions attributed, which accounts for bias. And I believe WP:DEMOCRACYNOW is a biased but highly-factual source, and therefore meets the threshold for being considered WP:GENREL. The previous analysis of this source deeming it WP:MREL was over a decade ago and a re-evaluation is WP:DUE.
    Reliability checkers
    Additional sources
    • https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0163443712449500
    • Journalistic field wars: defending and attacking the national narrative in a diversifying journalistic field
      • While this source does not explicitly say it is "generally reliable", it seems to praise its reporting.
      • Democracy Now! - In contrast to the established networks, alternative media focused their criticisms on U.S. foreign policy and establishment journalism’s reporting of WikiLeaks. The New York-based Democracy Now!, far from framing WikiLeaks as a threat to national security, employed the term ‘whistleblower’ to describe the organization in nearly every story. Amy Goodman, the program’s host, associated the WikiLeaks-released cables with the Pentagon Papers and Assange with Daniel Ellsberg, the man who released the Papers. The name of the program – Democracy Now! – suggests a radical belief in citizen access to information that facilitates self-governance as well as a demand for positive rights. Democracy Now!, consistent with its radically democratic principles, did not merely praise or condemn WikiLeaks but hosted a debate between Steven Afterwood of the Federation of American Scientists, who condemned WikiLeaks as irresponsible, and Glenn Greenwald of Salon, who framed WikiLeaks as a whistleblower.
    • https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262514897/digital-media-and-democracy/
    • Digital Media and Democracy
      • Again generally positive sentiment.
      • The strategies of practice that are studied or exemplified here include: (a) reform-changing media policy and legislation around ownership and concentration, in order to limit the monopolization of media and exclusion of diversity within public agenda setting; (b) establishment of grassroots, independent news channels and networks such as Pacifica, Democracy Now!, and Al Jazeera English...
      • Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 500 stations in North America. Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the United States, Democracy Now! is broadcast on community, Pacifica, and National Public Radio stations, public access cable television stations, satellite television (on Free Speech TV, channel 9415 of the DISH Network), shortwave radio, and the Internet.
    • https://transformationsjournal.org/index.php/transformations/article/view/4239/2715
    • Transformation (journal)
      • Caveat that this reads like an opinion piece and was written in 2008, but it argues Democracy Now! is free from corporate interests and is a better alternative to mainstream media outlets.
      • It is my contention that Democracy Now! is at the vanguard of an emerging independent media sector that is revitalising US news media at a decisive moment in American (journalism) history.
    The reliability checkers are the strongest sources, but other sourcing seems to praise Democracy Now! for its status as a independent news organization that is free from harmful media practices (propaganda model, protest paradigm) that pervade most US mainstream news outlets.
    Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 14:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Alexandraaaacs1989 I’ll hold off on voting for now pending further analysis, but WP:RSP already establishes that for our purposes, Ad Fontes/MBFC are not reliable sources, and I’m also not encouraged by the newest of the academic/journalistic sources you’ve provided being from 2012. The Kip (contribs) 15:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's useful to know, thank you. I'll strike those parts of my comment, and if I don't get around to adding better sourcing soon, hopefully someone else does in the meantime. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The same is true of ground news. The discussion is about whether the site is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. These sites don't base their ratings on those policies and guidelines, so the ratings are worthless. Their left/right bias is even worse as bias has not part in discussions about reliability. They're useful for researching a source, as they report things that can be used here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically whenever "reliability" is used the context is always "reliable per Wikipedia's policy and guidelines for Wikipedia's purposes" not a general idea of reliability that other websites might be using. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They also have a long list of awards[82], some seem to be minor but others point to a reputation for reliable journalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not against us re-evaluating the source, as the RSP entry is old and may not perfectly represent our discussions, but I don't think the upgrade case has been made yet. As I noted in the preceeding discussion, the evidence presented above simply tells us that its bias is held in high regard by some left-wing media scholars, or was over a decade ago, not that it has a reputation for reliability today. My strong impression is that:
    • its "Stories", as it calls them, showcase the opinions of various guests and are reliable primary sources for those opinions and beyond that we should at best see these as RSOPINION or possibly on a case by case basis depending on whether the guests are subject matter experts on the topic the WP article is about.
    • its "Headlines" are generally accurate but often with a partisan spin but that they are effectively sourced from other sources such as wires and we'd be better to use the originals. I'd be curious to see what we would gain by using these instead of the legacy networks and wire services they depend on.
    • When it does original reporting (e.g. the Tom Morello example report mentioned by Visviva below), these should generally be regarded as reliable.
    My conclusion then is we should keep it as "additional considerations apply" to make these distinctions clear and treat it as weakly reliable. But I'm open to persuasion if there is better evidence coming. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2026 (UTC) [edited 16.05 to add 3rd bullet point and fix indenting][reply]
    • Comment (summoned by bot): As noted above it's difficult to imagine a situation in which the DN headline news items are a good source to cite. They are generally just a transcript of the host's summary of the news, and reliable or not, there should almost always be something better. But I would think that what we're really talking about here from an RS standpoint is the show's original reporting, such as its award-winning coverage of the Standing Rock protests, or more routine pieces like this one from today on the May 12 ICE protest in New York. For what it's worth, I have never heard anyone challenge the factuality of DN's reports such as these (or for that matter, the faithfulness with which its interviews are presented). Nor am I seeing any such challenges thus far in this discussion or the one immediately preceding. If we're going to say that there is no consensus that this is a reliable source, I think it would be helpful to see some arguments (or examples) for why it might not be reliable. -- Visviva (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I consider Democracy Now! Reliable and oppose a downgrade of its reliability on Wikipedia—I have watched their news. It has its own point of view, but I have never seen a news report that was unreliable. I don’t consider the score given by Media Bias/Fact Check or Ground News. My vote is based on my personal experience and views. 🐈Cinaroot   04:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      To note there is no proposal to downgrade DM, it's currently considered a reliable source with additional considerations. The question is whether it shouldn't have those additional considerations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I slightly edited my vote to make it less confusing. 🐈Cinaroot   16:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally reliable Their award page[83] is a laundry list but with that list are notable awards. They also have WP:USEBYOTHERS, mostly university presses but also works from Bloomsbury Academic and Springer. I can't find any reports of factually incorrect output. They are biased, but editors should deal with that by separating opinion from fact and if necessary using other sources to balance them. Bias isn't a reliability issue unless that bias effect factual accuracy WP:RSBIAS. There was mention of headlines in the discussion before this RFC, but headlines are always unreliable WP:HEADLINES. A lot of the criticism I see online is about what a guest has said about a situation or event. They do publish a lot of opinion and interviews, these shouldn't be used for statements of fact, per WP:RSOPINION, but should be fine for attributed statements. I don't see why they should just be handled like any other WP:NEWSORG, they are biased, they publish opinion that shouldn't be used to support statements of fact, that's just like any other news organisation. Unless someone can show they have issue with accuracy bornfact checking I think they should be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Awards list stops at 2017. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks to be because it hasn't been updated fully. Amy Goodman won the Frederick Douglass 200 in 2018 and the William Sloane Coffin Jr. Peacemaker Award in 2023. Those are just the two that I could find within a few minutes, there could be more. Edittttor (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status Quo The source is very biased and we should be careful about both what facts they cite as well as what they may have left out. For this reason we should always be careful about such sources. As a yellow source it's can be citied for statements of fact and to establish weight. It simply means people should be cautious with the source given they are typically writing not just to convey the facts but to support a POV. To be honest, we should always be careful with sources/articles that write to persuade vs simply provide the facts. Also, a note about the use of Adfontes and MBFC. Both sources are cited by scholars as expert sources. I previously found a source that actually compared the various rating cites and said despite different methods they were generally consistent. RSN/RSP discussions have generally said these sources shouldn't be cited in Wiki articles. They do not say they are unreliable or not useful for discussions such as this one. With that said, consider that Democracy Now's Adfontes bias rating of -16.15 makes them more biased than Breitbart (13.59) and near The Heratage Foundation (16.30). Their reliability score of 31.5 is almost the same as the Post Millennial.
    Springee (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is news bias fueled by journalists supplying slanted views or readers’ demanding them? An economist weighs in
    There are supply-driven and demand-driven biases. I think many reliable sources in the U.S. and around the world are biased. It all depends on one’s personal point of view. Bias is not a factor to consider when determining reliability. 🐈Cinaroot   17:29, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If you would like to change the reliability assessment of Adfontes or MBFC you are welcome to submit a new request, but for now we should not be using them as evidence due to their rating as generally unreliable. See WP:ADFONTES and WP:MBFC. Edittttor (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the discussions. The concern in those discussions was because editors were using the ratings in article space (The .... Times is rated as "left/right" by MBFC. The discussions did not say editors aren't allowed to make reliability arguments based on those sources. This is a bit like saying we can't use a SPS to point out issues with another source. As editors on a talk page yes we can. We are allowed to engage in OR and use sources that aren't acceptable for the article space. To be clear, I agree, we should not use those sources for material in article space. We should consider them when discussing topics like this. Springee (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Democracy Now!)

    [edit]

    "Guns In American Society" and Glock.com

    [edit]

    Are these reliable sources for this sentence?

    Guns In American Society: An Ecyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law defines standard capacity for semi-automatic pistol magazines as 15 to 18 rounds,[1] while manufacturers like Glock give a standard capacity of 6 rounds for its subcompact G42 pistol.[2] Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Strah, Beck M. (2022). Schildkraut, Jaclyn; Carter, Greg Lee (eds.). Guns In American Society: An Ecyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture, and the Law. pp. 426–29. Retrieved May 5, 2026.
    2. ^ "Glock 42". Glock Inc. Retrieved May 13, 2026.
    That looks like synthesis, using two different sources in order to make some statement of contrast. And since the Glock page does call it an "auto" but does not define it as a "semi-automatic", it's not even a clear contrast. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also that source literally says anything more than 10 is considered high capacity, and then contradicts itself in the next paragraph. Looking through a couple pages of that book, I don't think it would be a reliable source as it contradicts itself all over the place. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It says, "Generally, magazines with a capacity of ten or more rounds of ammunition are considered large-capacity magazines," but that is in a paragraph about what high-capacity means in a legal sense in jurisdictions that have HCM bans. The following paragraph defines standard capacities outside of any legal sense. Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Amnesty International and ADL

    [edit]
    Discussion started by a TA, ARBPIA ECR closure (per request by Bluethricecreamman). The Kip (contribs) 18:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    BERJAYA Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Amnesty International and ADL
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

    I'm reviewing sources and already finding some huge red flags. These two should not be considered trustworthy for anything these days. Amnesty helped manufacture consent for the Gulf War among other issues (look up that infamous incident with the diplomat's daughter), and the so-called Anti-Defamation League straight up defended a Hitler salute by Musk (no other Jewish group did so), against all evidence; ADL's leader Greenblatt is a staunch Zionist and attack dog for Western military interests before anything else. Not a peep of support from ADL when non-Zionist Jews are violently repressed by American troopers storming colleges to stop civil disobedience and protest against industrial scale slaughter lately. For ADL and co, really any Jews at all besides middle class Ashkenazi Jews who support Likud don't matter and are treated that way; in the average American mind, the complex history of the Levant and the diaspora is reduced to a handful of slogans and factoids about post-WW2 Middle East and little else thanks to years of PR efforts by the likes of these NGOs and their backers. As for citations, they provide nothing worth calling "scholarly" or reputable. ADL is a terrible organization with no coherent values and nothing to offer someone sincerely concerned about the welfare of all Jewish people (vs just pro-Israel politicians and settlers). How the ADL can carry water for a blatant white supremacist and be taken seriously is beyond me, but that's how low our political discourse and historical literacy have dropped I suppose. I'm mildly puzzled why really any NGOs like this are taken seriously as sources by Wikipedia, especially given the mountains of evidence of bias and rampant coordinated manipulation of hot articles on here carried out by the apartheid Israeli state's cyber disinfo agencies like within Unit 8200 with the full support of their stateside advocates. I'm only in the A's of this list and frankly fairly disillusioned with Wikipedia as a whole these days, but this effort will continue with more rigor. ~2026-29324-90 (talk) 08:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, Amnesty issued a correction to their story allegedly corroborating the false testimony given to congress. That is actually a data point in favor of reliability: even the most reliable sources issue corrections. The ADL is already not regarded as reliable for facts about Zionism, the state of Israel, or the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You also appears to be mixing bias and reliability. Wikipedia doesn't require that it's sources be neutral on a subject, see WP:RSBIAS, as long as that bias doesn't effect the sources accuracy or fact checking. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the list you're looking at is specifically for sources that have already been discussed to death. The list exists so we know what the final agreement was. You're welcome to suggest reconsideration of a source, but you'd probably need to read the linked discussions and present an argument that hadn't been previously raised that may change things. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody uninvolved should close. Initial comment is an obvious arbecr violation, and is a bit forumy as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ESCplus

    [edit]

    Is www.esc-plus.com (and its related sites) reliable, and if so, in what contexts?

    ESCplus is not officially associated with the Eurovision Song Contest, but provides extensive coverage of it. They also publish an annual handbook for the event. The English and Spanish versions of the site have been cited on Wikipedia.

    I came to this question because I noticed the ESCplus lists Monroe (singer)'s date of birth, which currently does not have a reliable source on Wikipedia. However, I have concerns that the ESCplus article could be mirroring information that was already listed on Wikipedia without a reliable source. See the Monroe article here. Wracking talk! 20:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Song Contests Wracking talk! 22:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    MarketLine Company Profiles

    [edit]

    Curious about editors' thoughts on the reliability of MarketLine Company Profiles (https://www.marketline.com/) as sources of company history, current financials, and general information. (e.g. Their profile would be useful in The York Water Company as a source for facts like number of employees as well as the general description of what the company is.) A previous discussion did not generate any consensus, but I agree with the user's analysis. As they noted, it's available via the Wikipedia Library. An article from EBSCO lists the criteria MarketLine uses to select companies to profile. It seems to support the case that this is a better source than WP:BLOOMBERGPROFILES for establishing/supporting notability. Ayji (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Chimeo a reliable source?

    [edit]

    Hello. I am planning to create an article on Christopher Brown (Browzan) who is a poet, movie director and writer. I have found a great article from Chimeo, here but I don't know if Chimeo is considered a reliable source. The context of this source is simply that I will use it to describe some opinions on his poems. Thanks in advance, Ilov3gam3z (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    On editorial standards, the website of P.ublished (which publishes Chimeo) states "These publications are all tied together by a shared set of principles; they are community based, non commercial, don't carry advertising, don't drop cookies and don't track their readers. From an editorial standpoint, we try as hard as possible to be fair, honest and decent." [85] Their 2022 media pack additionally says "There are no paid-for articles and neither do we accept sponsored links... However, you CAN sponsor any number of our pages. You get to be part of our amazing online newspapers but you can’t influence editorial policy." [86]
    The Browzan article was also published by another site of P.ublished, Yorkshire Times. [87]
    The source might be fine for stating attributed opinions about the subject's work; however, due to the lack of information about the site, I might not consider it as significantly contributing to the subject's notability. Wracking talk! 23:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree on notability, but I have some sources I found I will use. Thank you for your help. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Serbian sources

    [edit]

    There is an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Serbia about a list of reliable, situational, and unreliable sources in Serbian language. All participants, whether familiar or unfamiliar, are welcomed to take part in the discussion and give constructive feedback. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1354838474"