Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Al Jazeera - 2023

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1749304872}}

What is the reliability of the The Debrief [https://thedebrief.org/]?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3 (generally unreliable). The Debrief is the new(ish) blog of paranormal podcaster Micah Hanks (host of "The Graelian Report" - an apparent portmanteau of "grey alien" ... one of the alien species flying saucer believers think are battling the Galactic Federation of Light led by the "good" Pleiadians). With The Debrief, he appears to be trying to edge into the mainstream by branding it as "science and tech" and mixing summaries of mainstream science news with the usual cruft (there's an entire section on flying saucers [https://thedebrief.org/category/uap/]).
  Hanks has written and spoken in a variety of media about ghosts, ESP, "lost" civilization, flying saucers, Bigfoot, etc. (see: [https://open.spotify.com/episode/6fdSoJDbtvDxkWH0AIrGft], [https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-micah-hanks-program-1576/episodes/012515-esp-and-disappearances-44119], etc.) These reports appear largely uncritical and seem to originate at a starting point which presumes veracity of the paranormal. He also frequents the paranormal lecture circuit (here he is at "East Coast Paracon" on a "remote viewing" panel [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgJLTfEGwmQ]). He is also a guest talking about flying saucers on News Nation [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT6mHcv6OIg] which we previously determined was unreliable per WP:UFONATION. Insofar as WP:USEBYOTHERS it was widely cited around one event, the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, based apparently on the exclusivity of its access to Grusch or those who know him. I can find no other instances of USEBYOTHERS. Chetsford (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Addendum: I'm also fine with Option 4 if needed to attain a consensus, though, I share the concern of Chess that it might not be used with enough frequency to make it worthwhile adding it to the edit filter. Chetsford (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 5 (totally unreliable). Just forget about it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Difficult to forget about anything that contributes to dramah... and disruption. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, we can always hope that the domain name The Debrief will be abducted by some UFO people and will disappear from the internet. Would that be nice? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::With the requisite probing that comes with it perhaps{{bcc|Yesterday, all my dreams...}}...? ;) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation. It seems to be a mixture of FRINGE and reposts of articles available elsewhere. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Is this frequently used enough onwiki to be worth adding to the edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (additional considerations). It's used in 50+ articles, it requires care but it's of great utility and we wouldn't want to wholesale purge it. Obviously, it a pro-UFO outlet, so it's not reliable for extraordinary claims about alternate worldviews. But ASIDE from FRINGE claims, it meets RS in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correcting. When it makes uncontroversial claims about living people (Person X has joined Organization Y), it seems generally reliable. Feoffer (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. It's WP:FRINGE material from a WP:TABLOID, non-RS blog. No reason to entertain it, plenty of reason to remove. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2/3. Generally unreliable for claims about UFOs etc since it represents a fringe view on the subject. Claims of that nature sourced to The Debrief should be removed. But there is no need to exclude its use for uncontroversial claims and reporting about the activities and persons involved in the fringe UFO community. -- LWG ^talk 18:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 Micah Hanks is obviously unreliable and so is his blog. Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 Unreliable misinforming trash - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3, possibly Option 4. Micah Hanks is reason enough to define The Debrief as unreliable, but that it claims to have a "reputation as an unbiased source of news" and yet typically publishes material like [https://thedebrief.org/was-this-underreported-fighter-plane-crash-ufo-related/ this]...that's a hard NO. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why do you object to that article of all articles?! it debunks a legend, concluding "there is nothing in the official records to suggest that any sort of UFO or other anomalous activity was involved.... The tragic event seems to have been the result of poor decisions made by the pilot." Feoffer (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. Simply not a basis for decent encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. Not a WP:FRIND or reliable source for UFOs, conspiracy theories, paranormal, occult, etc. For citing uncontroversial information or general facts, there are likely much higher quality sources available, so why use The Debrief? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :My own involvement began as a side discussion on the "Sol Foundation" AFD. 21st century stuff is not my forte, but my thinking is that while their beliefs are no doubt fringe, it is not a fringe claim for us to report that various notable fringe promoters have allied under a common name, which is all the source in question was being used for. Seems like the project is better off if we can tell readers "who" the "Sol Foundation" actually is, so they can read our articles on the members, rather than just send them back to the wilds of the internet Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I hear you. I haven't followed that discussion. Could you give an example of data you'd want to extract from The Debrief? The Debrief articles I see about Sol [https://thedebrief.org/academics-investors-and-uap-seekers-unite-at-the-2024-sol-foundation-symposium/ read like propaganda written by a PR person]. I think it would be difficult for casual editors to discern how to apply an exception to an otherwise deprecated source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't actually know if we need to cite Debrief in the article, but it's coverage of the controversial group of notable people does count toward notability, at least according to my thinking. To complicate matters, the group is at least partially religious in nature, getting coverage in Catholic press as well as UFO press, both of which are fringe worldviews but still count towards notability (in my eyes). But admittedly, about 50 years outside my expertise, I can't keep straight who is who in the 2020s ufo world. Feoffer (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4. It has no real fact checking or editorial oversight. Their non-UFO reporting isn't any better. - MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Usable depending on context. Decide on a case-by-case basis. Visiting the [https://thedebrief.org/ site], which is clearly not a blog as is being exaggerated here, the articles look and read like straight reporting in the majority of instances. 5Q5|^✉ 12:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4. This is a science clickbait website. As others noted, anything that might be worth it can be found in better sources.-Bruebach (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Feoffer. Shouldn't be used to push that agenda but seems fine to support inter-UFO community stuff when that would be appropriate in context. There is not, in fact, "likely" better sourcing for a lot of this kind of thing. The debunking/skeptic sources cover it from that angle, which is fine, but will often leave out basic facts irrelevant to their point that are helpful for encyclopedic article writing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3. As 5Q5 has pointed out, this is not a blog, but a quasi-journalistic outfit with editorial guidelines [https://thedebrief.org/editorial-guidelines/]. Per Feoffer and PARAKANYAA, this source still seems usable for uncontroversial claims like group membership; banning it outright is a step too far. It is obviously not FRIND, but that doesn't make it unreliable for details unrelated to the fringe theories themselves. Toadspike [Talk] 15:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. I don't believe in deprecation. I looked at multiple articles and compared some of them against their scientific sources. There is nothing here that cannot be found in better sources. Zero^talk 09:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• The Debrief has not previously been discussed at RSN but is coming up with greater regularity by flying saucer enthusiasts who are using it as a source for related articles. A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS. Chetsford (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The last discussion appears to have been Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 425#Thedebrief.org, which appears to be have been impart a result of this discussion Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 98#UFOlogy promoter BLPs.
  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=100&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22thedebrief.org%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 This search] shows some limited current usage in Wikipedia's articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{re|Chetsford}} I don't see an {{tl|rfc}} tag on this discussion. Would you like to add one? — Newslinger talk 13:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Oops, thank you, Newslinger! Totally forgot - now fixed. Chetsford (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• I see an analogy with the publications associated with minority worldviews. Ensign (LDS magazine) isn't a RS in the same way NYTs is; we're not citing it to prove the Golden Plates existed. But Ensign is generally reliable, when properly used. Feoffer (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• I'm with Feoffer here: it's unreliable (or at least undue) when used as a source for subject areas where it's at odds with the preponderance of more reliable sources. But there's no reason we can't cite Ensign (LDS magazine) for a claim like "so-and-so is a LDS theologian whose writings focus on [topic]" and I think The Debrief is acceptable for similar purposes. This far I haven't seen any case made against The Debrief besides "it publishes the writings of people with factually-incorrect beliefs about UFOs" which is an argument that would seem to apply to any publication aligned with a minority worldview. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Media Bias/Fact Check [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-debrief-bias/ rates] The Debrief as "High Credibility" and "Mostly Factual" while still note the unsubstantiated UFO claims. I don't know how much weight we give MBFC ratings, but at minimum the rating demonstates Debrief is a media source, not 'just a blog'. Feoffer (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :MFBC and other such sites don't base there analysis on Wikipedie's policies and guidelines. They might be useful for further research of a source, but I wouldn't give their conclusions any weight. This isn't a comment on if Debrief is a blog, or whether it's reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::That's fair -- we shouldn't cede our editorial judgement to something like MFBC. But some arguments above really did suggest it's not a media site, so that narrow argument does seem refuted. Feoffer (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::MBFC have a report of Science-Based Medicine using the same kind of language[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/science-based-medicine/], however per WP:SBM it should at least be considered partially self-published. Again such decisions should be based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines rather than an external source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::By way of comparison, MBFC also rates PoliticusUSA as "highly credible" for factual reporting. Chetsford (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1751804725}} {{rfc|media|rfcid=6E014D6}}

What is the reliability of [https://www.pinkvilla.com Pinkvilla]?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

(2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC))

:Option 3/4: This source Pinkvilla, which mostly posts box office numbers and entertainment gossip, is considered reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. I'm posting this RfC here because if I post it at WP:ICTF, the result is only going to be in favour of this source. The editors there defend this source with passion. Here is a brief history of the source:

:First thing first, here is the disclaimer they give out at the end of each article, as pointed out by the editor {{u|Black Kite}} in a previous discussion here:

:The figures can be approximate, and Pinkvilla does not make any claims about the authenticity of the data

:That should say enough but here's more:

:Pinkvilla was previously considered unreliable at ICTF and was moved to the list of reliable sources in February 2022 without proper discussion, as seen [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_7#Reliability_of_Pinkvilla here].

:The Entertainment Editor at Pinkvilla, Himesh Mankad, welcomed the current admin of their box office section and his associate to Pinkvilla in December 2021, as seen [https://x.com/HimeshMankad/status/1469235093612875776?t=8b-mXlRNYb9FfH02fnK-5w&s=19 here].

:In [https://x.com/meJat32/status/1498699613980999681?t=l9JFI_GcsEiEP35b08UqvQ&s=19 this] tweet, the admin of Pinkvilla Box Office confirm that they started the blog Cinetrak and moved to Pinkvilla from Cinetrak. Now Cinetrak is considered unreliable. Although the admin say they have not been involved with it since moving to Pinkvilla, they continue to endorse Cinetrak and call it the "best box office tracking site in South India", even in [https://x.com/meJat32/status/1923531864125386764?t=ltXeGd5hBZrBDwYosPNcig&s=19 this] recent tweet. The box office figures given by Cinetrak and Pinkvilla are also exactly the same for every film.

:Now, it's not as if there aren't other sources reporting on the box office of Indian films. Many sources including newspapers like The Hindu, The Indian Express etc. publish box office figures. And they do this without citing any of these other dubious sources. If a movie has indeed earned a specific amount of money, then other sources will publish about it, as Indian films are often widely covered in the media. 2405:6E00:2803:665A:C4CF:6FF:FECE:950B (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

::I've said this before and I'll say it again: people should stop putting box office figure on movie infoboxes in most circumstances. This isn't just a pinkvilla / cinetrack problem Hollywood Accounting is also a thing. We know budgets and box offices are both manipulated by film studios. This simply isn't valuable information - it's too prone to deliberate error. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Couldn't agree more Guy (help! - typo?) 17:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3/4 Wholly unreliable. Yes, Simonm223 is of my mind re. numbers, but this source is, more broadly, just a low-quality tabloid. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3/4, per nominating IP, Fortuna imperatrix mundi and Simonm223. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: In line with general principle on tabloid sources, Pinkvilla should not be used at all for any claims on BLPs, or for citing anything from its gossip columns. However, when it comes to box office figures, editors familiar with the Indian film industry have increasingly noted that in an environment where studios often pressure outlets to publish inflated numbers, Pinkvilla has, more often than not, demonstrated editorial independence by reporting figures that align more closely with reality. They are already a fairly established name in Indian entertainment reporting. While I sympathize with the broader sentiment here that box office or budget figures probably shouldn't be in infoboxes, enforcing that would require a sweeping policy change which I suspect will not muster consensus. As things stand right now, deprecating a source that is actively challenging studio inflation and publishing comparatively accurate figures would only obscure the issue further. As a consequence of Pinkvilla reporting more grounded figures, we've often seen their data contradict "official" numbers, which has sparked repeated fan-driven disputes on the talk pages of many Indian film articles. {{tq|I'm posting this RfC here because if I post it at WP:ICTF, the result is only going to be in favour of this source. The editors there defend this source with passion. }} The various discussions at WP:ICTF that IP has pointed out often stem from this friction: not from genuine RS concerns, but from attempts to discredit Pinkvilla in order to push promotional or inflated POV figures. Indian film regulars can attest to this pattern. DeluxeVegan (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Comment: While there is some truth in this, the neutrality of Pinkvilla has also been questioned during several discussions at WP:ICTF, with many users pointing out their favoritism towards films involving certain people. When you check some discussions on Reddit and Twitter, you see that they have also been accused of acting like a PR firm for people like Karan Johar and Deepika Padukone. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :: re: 'many users', I will leave {{u|Krimuk2.0}}'s observation from February here (with a link to the archive for that discussion, for editors who might want to see the true nature of the opposition to Pinkvilla): {{tq|We must note that threads against Pinkvilla are being bludgeoned by socks of blocked user {{u|Vax'ildan Vessar}} unhappy about Pinkvilla reporting that their favourite films aren't doing well at the box-office, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kanguva#Box_Office this discussion].}} DeluxeVegan (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::There are discussions dating back to 2022, that question the source's neutrality, as you can see here. You can find other numerous discussions here and here. Clearly, all of this is not one single user.
• :::In any case, Pinkvilla is only really useful for the box office of Tamil and Malayalam films, as they are not the first preference for Hindi and Pan Indian films (which are covered by Box Office India and Bollywood Hungama). Even for Telugu films, the first preference could be News18 Telugu, Deccan Herald etc. The Tamil and Malayalam industries, which form a very small percentage of the movie business in India, also still get reported by other sources. For instance, Malayalam newspapers like Mathrubhumi, Malayala Manorama etc. have been pretty good at reporting box office numbers of late. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 this discussion is all about box-office figures which are nearly always questioned in Indian sources so there is no need to single out this publication which has a lot more types of content which has been considered reliable up to know. What is needed is an unbiased discussion about how to use and reference Indian box-office figures from all reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Sorry. This discussion is about the reliability of the source in question. Could you elaborate on the other types of content it has, other than film-related content ? 2405:6E00:2821:8C28:3CFA:ADFF:FEA6:BE66 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::As per Pinkvilla it is India's NO.1 source for entertainment stories so it should not be deemed unreliable just because it's box office figures are contested in the same way that they are contested in most Indian sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Per numerous discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Can you please elucidate what those discussions were? Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 4 I figure I should formalize this. I don't think PinkVilla is a reliable source for box office figures. I also think pretty much no source is particularly reliable for box office figures per my knowledge of Hollywood Accounting and associated issues in most local cinema production venues. My opinion is that we should remove box office figures from infoboxes altogether. Barring that, excluding Pinkvilla as a source should at least reduce the frequency of box office figures being added to infoboxes, which would be a good thing. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Like I said, I can respect the take that these figures should not be in infoboxes. But excluding one source is not going to reduce how often they are added, it will just lead to them being sourced to other alternatives. We cannot control this as long as Template:Infobox film continues to have parameters for budget and box office. DeluxeVegan (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Then remove those parameters. Simonm223 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per others and discussions at ICTF. Pinkvilla.com, IMO, is only reliable for BO figures as per my assessments in the past few years. It's not an RS for any other stuff due to gossip. — Benison (Beni · talk) 16:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3/4 Some of the articles that are currently in use as references are tabloid gossip. The authors' byline underlines how unserious they are.(122.150.118.203 (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC))
• :Did you not !vote already? Or are you somehow another IP from Melbourne? DeluxeVegan (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::If you look at the previous comments, you will see that I did not choose any particular option before. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yeah no I wasn't talking about those comments, I was referring to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1296170389 this]. Unless you are saying that IP also from Melbourne is someone else. DeluxeVegan (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That IP range is partially blocked, and did somehow post this discussion in the first place.
• ::::122.150.118.203 (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 this RfC is about if this source is generally reliable or not and most of the folks voting Option 2 state their box office figures are reliable but not the rest of what they publish Looking at the homepage, most of the content is not about box office figures and is one of nine sections, which means most of what they publish is not reliable so a questionable source in most cases. S0091 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I believe we agree on principle. Its only that {{tq|Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate}} of WP:GUNREL just holds untrue here, since Pinkvilla arguably offers some of the most accurate and consistent reportage on the Indian box office right now. But under WP:MREL, we could include a clarifying statement that while Pinkvilla is generally unreliable for most information due to its tabloid nature, it is considered reliable for Indian box office figures. I think I'm justified in my concern about bad-faith actors/sockpuppets blindly pointing to any 'generally unreliable' label to disrupt Indian film articles, given that this very discussion has seen double !voting. DeluxeVegan (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::There hasn't been any "double voting". Calm down. This source being considered reliable or unreliable doesn't make any major difference to the world. Geez. 122.150.118.203 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 as concerns said by multiple editors. Unreliable source for box office figures too. Epicion (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Article Baronage of Scotland presents a long list of supposed holders of Scottish baronage titles. The list previously used WP:BURKES and WP:DEBRETTS to establish who holds a certain title, both of which are perennial RS. However, beginning in April, these sources were removed from the table almost entirely, and instead [https://baronage.com| baronage.com] and more specifically the [https://roll.baronage.com/| "Authoritative Roll of Barons"] (the Roll) are now used.

Since this falls under WP:BLP, I have concerns about the Roll as a source. This has been discussed extensively on the talk page without a clear resolution; I would appreciate community input. For the record, my concerns stem from:

• The owners of the page and the administrators of the Roll (i.e. those who are in charge of making or checking the entries) are unknown and not given on the website.
• No information about the entity who runs the site is known since they are neither a registered company nor a registered charity.
• The Roll includes both supposedly "verified" and "unverified" information. It is not clear how both are distinguished, who's doing the distinguishing, or why "unverified" information is included in the first place.
• Most significantly, the source has not been referenced or used by any independent sources outside of Wikipedia. Searching "Authoritative Roll of Barons" produces 4 results - the site itself is the first, and Baronage of Scotland is the second.

— Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 13:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:They're a private group who maintains a list, as per their about us page[https://baronage.com/#about] {{tq|"Since 2004, there has been no legal requirement to record baronies in Scotland"}}. It seems there main things is being against the sale of titles, but the have no jurisdiction or authority in the matter beyond saying that they do.
If other sources treat them as the official list then so should Wikipedia, but they have no standing to just say so themselves (or at least no more than any other private group). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::no, it doesn't seem that anyone outside certain editors on Wikipedia "treat them as an official list". A search finds the only links to this "roll" or mentions of it are on Wikipedia and the website itself. Nayyn (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe that wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that they should be treated as official. I left the other half unsaid, If there aren't sources treating them as the official list then Wikipedia shouldn't treat them as the official list either. My point was it would depend on how other sources treated them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Since 2004, Scottish baronies are no longer attached to real estate and transfers are therefore no longer publicly recorded. The Scottish Barony Register records transfers since 2004, but its information is private and it does not guarantee completeness.

:I would just use Debretts or Burkes and mention the information was correct at the date of last transfer. TFD (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:As I have mentioned on the talk page of the Baronage article, this publication seems to me to be an acceptable WP:RS. It has transparent inclusion criteria and there is no indication of self-promotion or bias. The critique seems to be based on (1) that it includes some entries marked as unverified, and (2) that we don't have independent proof that they follow their published verification process.

:As to the first point, the site obviously cannot be used as a source for any entries they themselves mark as having failed verification. This really goes without saying and is unproblematic to handle from a WP:RS perspective.

:As to the second point, this is very much the case for the majority of secondary sources on WP. As primary sources are generally not accepted, we must rely on secondary sources having processed these. For a secondary source with a published editorial standard, such as this site, the presumption should generally be that they adhere to these until there are any indications to the contrary.

:In the case of this site, no one has yet actually managed to point to any mistakes or erroneous listings. Given this, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and consider it a WP:RS until I see any proof that the data is not reliable.

:That being said, just because it is a WP:RS does not make it an authoritative source. It should be weighed and checked against other sources, such as Burke's and Debrett's. If these sources do not concur, further investigation is probably required, and if facts can't be properly verified, the information should be left off WP. Charliez (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's a members club that reports on the details of it's members, so it's a primary source. It also has, as has been previously noted, no WP:USEBYOTHERS. If other reliable sources disagree with it, those other sources should be used. It has no authority to define baronages beyond details of it's membership. No entry in the article should be marked as {{tl|failed verification}} because of anything on this site, especially if it's involves living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don’t agree it’s a primary source. Any source compiling data from other sources would be a secondary (or tertiary) source. I think you’re misreading their website when you say it’s a members’ club. They have published a set of criteria for verification (just like the Roll of the Baronetage), but I cannot see that membership is required for inclusion on the Roll.

:::As to “failed verification”, no entry should ever be marked like that. It’s absurd, and I have repeatedly said so on the relevant talk page. I’d welcome your support there. This discussion is about the baronage.com website as a WP:RS, though, and I think it meets those requirements (but in no way at the exclusion of other sources). Charliez (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::By what measure is it a reliable source, what can you show that it has a {{tq|"reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"}}. Thier method of verification seems to disagree with what baronages may actually be legally because of limitations they believe in.
If you read their inclusion guidelines[https://roll.baronage.com/guidelines.pdf] it's very clear that inclusion in the list only happens if a claimant send them details and agrees to their principles, so not being on the list is meaningless as it's possible whoever claims a particular baronage just doesn't want to deal with their group. Also in their guidelines are a load of requirements about inheritance that have no relation to the laws about who owns a particular title. So they may say that a person isn't the a baron, but that person my legally be a baron. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I agree; perhaps I was unclear. Not being on the list (or being on the list as “unverified”) is not a meaningful indicator. But if we believe their published inclusion criteria, being on the list is. As such, it is a useful positive indicator. A source doesn’t have to be complete to be a WP:RS. Not every famous footballer has an article in The Times, but if a footballer does, it’s a “strong positive” and a useful source for WP editors. Charliez (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:After looking into it further, to me it seems like a decent source for basic facts about Scottish baronial titles, especially when more established sources like WP:BURKES or WP:DEBRETTS don’t cover something. As others have noted, it's a private initiative which has clear inclusion rules and a [https://baronage.com/#governing-council "Governing Council"], so there’s at least some editorial oversight going on. It probably fits under WP:BLPSELFPUB, and I think it can work for non-controversial and minor claims.

:Since there's been no central registry since 2004 and Scottish Barony Register isn't made public, the Roll helps fill that gap a bit as it seems pretty upfront about what’s verified and what isn’t, which is comparable to similar directories out there. It’s fine to use it as a source, just be cautious and back it up with other references when possible. It's main strength is covering stuff that doesn’t get much attention elsewhere. Daniel Plumber (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::My main concern remains their 'converting titles to true inheritance status' bit. It has no legal standing, so someone could get this status for a baronage but then sell the title anyway. That would lead to one person being having the title, but baronage.com claiming it was someone else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a very valid point. The way I read their inclusion criteria it is “and” not “or”, so an individual would not be recognised if he or she no longer own the dignity, but this would need to be confirmed before it is used as a source. Charliez (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Interestingly, I noticed that their page under the subsection [https://baronage.com/#page-4 "Hereditary title conversion"] does actually state that if a barony is sold, it will be removed, viz. "lose recognition" on the Roll, so I doubt this will be an issue. I still think that it seems a decent additional source for baronies that have actually been "verified". Daniel Plumber (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::You say that they have a governing council but there is no transparency whatsoever regarding who they are beyond "distinguished, voluntary members who

::are entrusted with the leadership and strategic

::direction of our noble institution. These individuals

::bring a wealth of experience, dedication, and a deep

::commitment to the values and traditions of the

::Scottish baronage. Together, they ensure that our

::mission of service, empowerment, and heritage

::preservation is upheld and advanced." According to whom? A site on the Internet. Anyone could make this page. We cannot believe everything just because it has a website that says nice things and take their word for it. Anyone could have made this site. Someone could make a mirror of it, without the AI generated images, would that be more authoritative?

::They are not a registered business and have no accountability. Unless you know something else about this source offline that you are not telling that gives you such confidence of what they say is true. Nayyn (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::To refute a recurring claim already discussed on the Talk page: non-profit associations in Scotland are not required to register with Companies House unless incorporated. The absence of a company number is not unusual for civic or voluntary bodies. The site itself notes that a Scottish registered charity is launching as a separate entity in September.

:::The page says it's member owned and the leadership was commented on earlier [https://baronage.com/#page-3 the page] says The elected Governing Council and Chancellor for biannual term will be voted in at September Edinburgh members meeting; interim leader is hereditary peer The Rt Hon The Lord Teynham. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you to all who have contributed. Just to clarify a few points raised:

:* I am not opposed to citing Burke’s, Debrett’s, or the Registry of Scots Nobility. I would support their sourcing with consensus.

:* I believe the Roll of the Baronage has been supported by editors and myself because, at present, it is the only baronage reference that:

:** Distinguishes clearly between “verified” and “unverified” entries

:** Publicly timestamps changes

:** Is non-profit free to access (not paywalled)

:** As @Daniel Plumber commented above, I see the [https://baronage.com/#governing-council governance structure] has recently been expanded to quote:

An honourable body owned by the members as a not for profit

The Baronage of Scotland Association (membership body), The Roll (non-membership title record) and the Scottish Charity in liaison with all baronage stakeholders (being set up) are THREE separate entities.

We, as custodians of The Roll, do not wish to own or control this entity, we plan to eventually transfer its oversight to government supervisors to ensure proper checks and balances into the future (once agreed with officials).

The elected Governing Council and Chancellor for biannual term will be voted in at September Edinburgh members meeting; interim leader is hereditary peer The Rt Hon The Lord Teynham.

:* The Roll does not, in my view, present itself as flawless or exclusive — quite the opposite. Its stated aim is to collect and organise all baronial title data transparently from all sources, including historical records and directories. The “unverified” entries are explicitly labelled as such.

:* A prior consenus was reached on the Baronage of Scotland talk page to retain the Roll with those labels, until a wider discussion could be had. This RfC was opened after one editor disagreed with that consensus, which is absolutely their right — but the context may help others understand how we arrived here.

:* Regarding WP:BLP the unverified entries were clearly marked with explanatory notes and a colour key, and explanatory notes linking to the unverified entry on the Roll (the colour coding has been there for at least 1 year), these unverified entries are not fakes as they can be sourced else where on commercial directories that were deemed through previous consensus not to be reliable. That aligns with WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLPSTYLE, even if editors may now feel a better approach is needed. This morning, another editor deleted half the barons from the page and has now filed at AfD against me (and I would welcome comments there), despite this RfC being open. I strongly believe no major content changes Baronage of Scotland page should occur before the RfC concludes.

:The concern that the Roll lacks official status is valid but not disqualifying under WP:RS. Like Burke’s or Debrett’s, it is a private body publishing baronage information. It does not claim legal authority, only transparent editorial method. This is consistent with how many secondary sources function on Wikipedia. It's homepage mentioned it's mission statement is to become the official Roll of Baronage, I guess like the (official) Roll of Baronetage or Roll of Peerage.

:On that point, I support what @Charliez wrote: "If we believe their published inclusion criteria, being on the list is a useful positive indicator. A source doesn't have to be complete to be reliable."

:Other useful distinctions is it does not label people as having "failed verification" — rather, entries are labelled as "unverified" when documentation hasn’t been received or confirmed. That is a transparent, neutral indicator, not a defamatory judgement.

:In summary, I support including a range of reputable sources, with transparent tagging and sourcing throughout. I also support retaining The Roll as a valuable source. Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::https://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Abaronage.com interesting link for referencing independent sources outside Wikipedia comment Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The "link:" operator has been deprecated since 2017: [https://searchengineland.com/google-officially-killed-off-link-command-267454] You're just finding other pages that include the word "baronage". — Arcaist ^{(contr—talk)} 15:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::That the baronage.com hasn't verified something is entirely meaningless, and has no place in the encyclopedia. They have no legal status, so that someone hasn't verified their baronage with baronage.com just means they don't want to use the organisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@ActivelyDisinterested You're correct there is no legal status to baronage.com, and they don't claim one. Their [https://baronage.com/#about About page] states that "Non-recognition of unverified titles is fundamental", and that cooperating organisations and barons on the Roll agree not to recognise unverified holders. They recommend that organisations do not recognise a title unless it’s been verified on the Roll. It's a voluntary verification model — not unlike the early days of the Official Roll of the Baronetage.

:::In the 19th century, confusion around baronet claims led to the creation of a Roll, which eventually received a Royal Warrant in 1910. Before that, there was no definitive list, and many claims were uncertain or conflicting. A similar principle applies to the Roll of the Peerage, which was introduced only in 2004. That Roll is now the government's formal list of who holds a legally recognised peerage.

:::However, inclusion on the Roll of the Peerage is not what confers the legal title. A hereditary peer still owns the dignity of their title under common law and remains "Lord X" regardless of Roll inclusion. In fact many hereditary peers are not on it, particularly in well established families.The UK passport office still allows use of peerage titles — being on the peerage Roll is not a requirement. That said, a peer not on the Roll may not be formally recognised by the UK government for official purposes, which doesn't mean much these days as most hereditary peers are now private individuals. This includes:

:::* Precedence at state and ceremonial events (e.g. coronations, official banquets)

:::* Appointments to ceremonial roles involving peers (e.g. Lords Lieutenant, certain House of Lords considerations)

:::* Formal correspondence with departments that require peerage authentication

:::* Recognition within the Order of Precedence

:::So the Roll matters for government and ceremonial recognition, but it doesn’t affect legal ownership of the title and passport legal name. The same applies, more strictly, to the Baronetage — where the Royal Warrant of 1910 requires registration on the Roll for official recognition.

:::In that context, baronage.com’s voluntary Roll may not be official, but its structure follows a recognisable historical precedent — creating a framework that could, in time, build credibility and institutional recognition, just as past Rolls have. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|"creating a framework that could, in time, build credibility and institutional recognition"}} but Wikipedia isn't here to help them. There a private group that's keeping a list of things that, as you say, don't have legal recognition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sure — but this is exactly why the Roll of Baronage is useful to Wikipedia. There’s currently no single comprehensive directory of Scottish baronial titles. Information is scattered across Burke’s, Debrett’s, the Armorial Register, the Scottish Register of Tartans, and other niche sources — many of them commercial or incomplete.

:::::The Roll helps consolidate this information in one place. It’s non-commercial, narrowly focused, and cites its sources. It doesn’t claim legal authority — just documented attribution. That’s a valid secondary source in Wikipedia’s terms, and arguably helps strengthen coverage in an otherwise under-sourced area. Kellycrak88 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, can it please be made clear that when a living person's claim to a title is marked as "unverified" on the site, then this doesn't satisfy WP:BLP and this entry on the roll is not good enough to include such a claim? E.g. when you search for "balmachreuchie" on the roll, you get a name, but the information is "unverified HOLDER of barony. title not recognised" which is a reason to exclude such information, not include (absent better sources that do verify it of course). I personally have my doubts whether this source should be considered a WP:RS, it is very unclear who is behind it or whether it is independent or not. The "we indicate publicly whether you paid to our charity or not" (sorry, I mean "promised tithe") on the list gives bad vibes to me. Fram (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Do we think there has been enough discussion here to submit baronage.com, registryofscotsnobility.com/baronage, etc to a RfC? There is a precedent from two [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Peerage_websites 2020 RfCs that self reported peerage sites] are considered unreliable. I think there's an argument to make for the roll, etc. so this conversation doesn't keep coming up again. Nayyn (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I am not well-versed in RFC process, so will defer to others; there has certainly been plenty of discussion. I do wonder whether it's worth waiting until September to see if the teased "big reveal" from baronage.com helps us one way or the other. To avoid having an RFC now and potentially another one three months hence. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

From what I've read so far, I understand that the contention by its proponents is that the roll.baronage.com website is reliable for verifying both that (a) a specific baronage title exists, and (b) a living person holds that title. And that that reliability comes from the website's assertion that the {{tq|keepers of the Roll}} verify documents pertaining to those claims, for example communications from the Scottish Barony Register.{{pb}} Having inspected the site, there are things that make me dubious.

• No names are given for the governing council ({{tq|composed of distinguished, voluntary members who are entrusted with the leadership and strategic direction of our noble institution. ... Together, they ensure that our mission of service, empowerment, and heritage preservation is upheld and advanced.}} Honestly, that is just so much corporate blether.
• Likewise, no names are given for the {{tq|keepers of the Roll}}, just that they {{tq|include a small team of researchers, genealogists and scholars}}. Knowing the pedigree of that team would help give me confidence in the rigour of the checks that are carried out.
• Although much is made of the free service of getting verified and listed, I strongly suspect that membership (three levels of it) will be a paid for endeavour. Maybe I am just a cynical old git.
• I am exceptionally suspicious of this particular service for members: {{tq|White-Glove Online Notability: Enhance your digital presence, ensuring your title and achievements are accurately represented online.}} That could easily encompass COI editing of Wikipedia.
• As others have noted, the list of "unverified" barons is just weird: where does that all come from?

In short, there is much that makes me unconfident about this website, principally the lack of specific, corroborated detail about who undertakes the work of confirming baronage claims, and how that happens. The website alludes to some future announcements about the charity etc. to be made in September 2025, so maybe those will dispel some of the murk. Until that happens, I'd suggest that it should not be considered reliable, and certainly not used in lieu of perennial sources in this area like WP:DEBRETTS and WP:BURKES. Or indeed, normal WP:SIGCOV in decent sources.{{pb}} Finally - and I don't think anyone has claimed this, so it's just a cautionary note - even if the site were to be considered reliable, it is to barons as Soccerway is to football players - an indiscriminate database source - and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just chiming in with a quick take — the phrase {{tq|White-Glove Online Notability}} caught my attention too. A quick Google site operator search shows this rather interesting page [https://roll.baronage.com/lordpittenweem.html], which has a decent amount of genealogical work on it. That said, the phrase's wording is a bit vague in my opinion. It doesn’t explicitly reference Wikipedia and may instead refers to dedicated profile pages like that page aimed at boosting their own online visibility. The phrase's rather broad encompassment prompts my inclination to assume good faith, as it’s possible they haven’t been editing here directly, which means we probably can't assume a conflict of interest unless something more concrete emerges.

:Regarding transparency, I noticed the site has a section mentioning that the interim leader is Baron Teynham, which provides at least a hint of transparency. However, I’ll leave it to others to assess how meaningful that really is. I do lean towards retaining the Roll as a WP:RS source for "verified" entries — especially where neither WP:DEBRETTS nor WP:BURKES have coverage. The site might fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB since it appears that the “verified” entries are submitted for "verification" by the barons themselves. Daniel Plumber (talk) Choisir d'avancer 09:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:The current Baron Teynham is David Roper-Curzon. Transparency perhaps, but it doesn't really give much confidence[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22David+Roper-Curzon%22&sca_esv=b127d74134c48222&biw=1536&bih=730&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2022%2Ccd_max%3A2025&tbm=nws]. Fram (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Debrett’s and Burke’s also accept entries submitted by barons themselves — as does Wikipedia. If you check the Baronage of Scotland talk page, a baron submitted their title for inclusion just yesterday, and it was approved by another editor.

::Thanks for sharing those links, @Fram on reading them, they seem to focus on tabloid sensationalism relating to Lord Teynham, rather than The Roll as a source.

::According to the site, Lord Teynham is listed as interim chair pending elections at the next members’ meeting, and the project does state a commitment to governance transparency. These tabloids appear unrelated to the editorial content of the site itself — perhaps it’s more relevant to consider the site’s editorial standards when assessing WP:RS. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::You are being slightly disingenuous, @Kellycrak88. Yes, an anonymous IP made a request, but it was only added after another editor had found a reliable source to include it. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Apologies if that came across the wrong way — I assumed that providing a reliable source was obvious and went without saying. Same applies when a baron submits to Debrett’s, Burke’s, or The Roll: they need to show credible proof they hold the barony (e.g., court recognition, Lord Lyon letters patent, Scottish Barony Register certificate, etc.) for it to be accepted. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

There is baronage.com, but there is also [https://www.scotsbarons.org/ scotsbarons.org] and [https://baronage.scot/home/ baronage.scot]. (Not to mention "The Scottish Barony Register" and the "Registry of Scots Nobility") What reason would there be to consider any of these three as reliable and/or authoritative. Specifically for baronage.com as the topic of this section, we know nothing about who is behind it. The only reason people consider it "reliable" seems to be that it is useful to do so, and the website seems prefessionally made somewhat. Anything else? Is it referenced regularly by authorities, is there another reason to elevate it beyond the status of a random private website? Fram (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Those other sites are membership bodies. @Fram — I agree this is a difficult area for sourcing. The issue is that Burke’s, Debretts, and even other registers only cover a small portion of barons — probably who submit details directly, but it’s unclear without published inclusion guidelines.

:What makes The Roll potentially useful is that it attempts to list all known titles, distinguishing clearly between verified and unverified entries. Verified ones go through a formal submission and review process with The Roll, which gives some editorial structure.

:If we dismiss all sources in this space, we risk having no citations at all — which makes maintaining a verifiable list even harder. That’s why some editors, myself included, have found The Roll helpful in filling those gaps, especially when used with care and transparency. Kellycrak88 (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::The issue with baronage.com is that for all these claims, we only have their word. We have no indication of sources using the Roll as a reliable source, we have no idea who is behind the baroonage.com except for one name of an English baron with credibility issues, we have nothing to base the conclusion that they are a WP:RS on.

::From WP:RS: "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Baronage.com is hardly independent, but more importantly the only reason some people believe they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is that the site itself claims this. That is no sufficient at all. See WP:UBO, another section of the RS page. Do we have anything like this for baronage.com? Fram (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I have not found anything. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|If we dismiss all sources in this space, we risk having no citations at all — which makes maintaining a verifiable list even harder.}} This is going beyond this specific discussion, but if there are no reliable sources, then we should not have a list! For me, Debretts and Burkes are perennial sources for which there is well-established consensus that they're reliable. The same is not true for roll.baronage.com, in my opinion. I would be happy to revisit that opinion if anything useful comes of the September announcements. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq| if there are no reliable sources, then we should not have a list!}}

:::Hear, hear!

:::This is the policy on BLPs on this site. This shouldn't be up for debate. Nayyn (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|"If we dismiss all sources in this space, we risk having no citations at all — which makes maintaining a verifiable list even harder"}} You have the purpose of Wikipedia back to front, if there are no reliable sources to verify the content then the content doesn't belong in the list. If not using an unreliable sources means entries are removed, that is a good thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Those sites seem completely unrelated, so I'm not sure it's helpful to lump them together in one discussion. Scotsbarons.org is the Convention of the Baronage of Scotland, which is an old and pretty well-established organisation with (what seems to be) some international standing. Baronage.scot is the Forum for the Scottish Baronage, which seems very careful in how they present information and shows no real indication that they're trying to self-promote individuals. It is also a registered not-for-profit (SC703925). None of those sites really presents individual barons, and they seem pretty legitimate to me.

:baronage.com seems an altogether different creature. It appears to attempt to list all Scottish barons on a roll. That may be a very good initiative if done properly. Before 2004 details about Scottish barons were available through the Scottish Land Registry (Sasines) and personally I think information about nobility, regardless of how minor, is of public interest and should be publicly available.

:BUT my really big issue with the site is not the site itself, but how it has been used on Wikipedia by some editors. It claims to list all barons, but then marks a large number as unverified. I guess this is a consequence of trying to list all: there will be many they cannot verify, given the detailed verification criteria they list. Yet on Wikipedia, it has been used to support listing barons even when baronage.com marks them as "unverified", which is obviously absurd. If a source can't verify the data, then obviously it can't be cited as a source. (Then, on top of this pretty obvious breakdown in basic logic, some editors started marking entries on Wikipedia as "unverified" too, which is even more absurd—but that is a different discussion.)

:While it should NEVER be used reversely (to justify that someone is not a title holder), I don't really see why baronage.com shouldn't be used as a source for those they claim to have verified. I'm not saying it is a strong source, and it probably should be used in conjunction with other sources, such as Debrett's and Burke's. But I have seen no reason to presume it is biased or opinionated, no one has pointed to any mistakes in their data, and it does not seem to be self-promoting. I think it would be wrong to dismiss it out of hand. Charliez (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|I don't really see why baronage.com shouldn't be used as a source for those they claim to have verified|q=yes}}

::Are the concerns raised by other editors here re baronage.com's unclear editorial standard not enough of a reason? It doesn't matter how this page claims to verify people. It is not transparent. The BLP standards are pretty clear as to why this source is dubious. Nayyn (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The debate here about the relevance of The Roll is really laughable. Do you really believe that if a goat writes that it doesn't have horns, that it really doesn't have horns? I wouldn't bet a penny on it.

:::The Roll is claiming a right that no one has given him (yet). Proclaiming ‘unverified’ status is a coercive means of getting the barons to join in. And the outcome of verification is dependent on payment of a membership fee and a promise of some sort of charity (as far as I know Roll is not a charity in the sense of the law, but there's some talk of September, so maybe it will be by then). The oath ensuring heredity is probably even illegal.

:::By simply preferring Roll, you are jumping on the marketing bandwagon of a new organisation. Which may turn out to be interesting, but for now it certainly has no authority to claim anyone as an "unproven" baron. Maybe she could say she's a "Roll organization failed to verify baronetcy", but such information is sort of useless... 2A02:8308:315:600:B95A:2EA2:2D3C:B27 (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable. It's clear that this site has no extrinsic authority. The editors are unknown and unaccountable, as is the editorial process. Using it on Wikipedia lends our authority and general reliability to them, not the other way around. I would discourage editors from citing it at all for any purpose. To a large degree, I can't even believe that there is a question of using this site at all. Jahaza (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Jahaza’s concerns appear to be based on some incorrect assumptions and do not reflect the facts we know about the organization. Inclusion guidelines are [https://roll.baronage.com/guidelines.pdf published on their site], that verification is free for life, and the non-profit governance structure — including The Rt Hon Lord Teynham as interim chair pending elections — is publicly listed.
• :As to editorial authority: the site’s Mission Statement mentions “signing memorandums of understanding with the Convention, Forum, Registry of Scots Nobility, Standing Council of Scottish Chiefs, as well as other noble associations on the continent,” lobbying Prince William to become patron and aspires to become “the official Roll of Baronage” through royal warrant.
• :Whatever one’s opinion of its status, these are not the hallmarks of a random or opaque source. It is not self-published personal project (like thepeerage.com) and it's more of a specialized secondary directory, like Burke's, it's not promoting a single author’s genealogical research or views. The editorial structure has demonstrably contributed useful sourcing to Wikipedia in areas where no equivalent source exists, it would be a loss to WP blacklisting this useful source.
• :Given this, and that accepted sources like Burke’s and Debrett's operate similarly, I view the Roll as a usable source for “verified” baronage entries, especially where other sources offer no coverage. 185.63.220.39 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::The reliability of Burke's and Debrett's comes from how other secondary sources view them, but the only source backing up baronage.com is baronage.com themselves. If they become "the official Roll of Baronage" then they would absolutely be reliable, but no reason other than they own say so has been given to why they should be considered so before hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sorry if I missed this, but has anyone found any actual, verifiable errors affecting any living person? Or are we just worrying that there might be BLP errors even though nobody has found any? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's a pretty long threads, and requires reading the talk page as well, but yes that's the whole point. It was being used to say certain claims were unverified because they haven't been verified by baronage.com even though other reliable sources backed the claims, and some of those claims were about living people. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, can someone please guide me if these sites can be considered reliable in context of a TV show, all three are Indian originated sites covering a Pakistani television serial. Can these be considered Wikipedia:Reliable sources to establish notability?

1. [https://www.pinkvilla.com/tv/news/tark-e-wafa-promo-maryam-and-sibtain-to-get-married-anila-has-different-plan-for-latter-1334556]
2. [https://www.iwmbuzz.com/television/news/top-new-pakistani-dramas-airing-on-youtube-know-the-complete-details-from-date-to-time/2024/09/07]
3. [https://www.pinkvilla.com/tv/news/tark-e-wafa-maryam-sibtains-flirtaitous-bts-moments-from-their-mehendi-are-all-things-love-watch-1334960]

Reshmaaaa (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:No, not remotely useful for establishing notability. Almost certainly paid-for promotional content: see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's being discussed right now. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::@AndyTheGrump@TurboSuperA+much appreciated for the support, will follow up on the discussion taking place. Thanks. Reshmaaaa (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Pinkvilla is currently listed as a reliable source at WP:ICTFSOURCES. Updating the table would be helpful for new editors. Epicion (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I noticed today that a user ({{ping|ZackCarns}}) is citing OurCampaigns.com in multiple articles. The site is, at least in part, user generated.[https://www.ourcampaigns.com/about.html] An RfC here 4 years ago (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#RfC - ourcampaigns.com) found ourcampaigns.com to be generally unreliable. Before I start dealing with those citations, does the community still consider the site generally unreliable, and if so, what would the appropriate response to its use in a large number of articles. Donald Albury 22:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's pretty clear that it's user generated, even if it's slightly restrictive other who can edit. The best response is explanation of why a source should be used, and invitations to discuss the matter. Unfortunately the re-addition of unreliable sources is a perennial issue with no easy solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I did invite ZackCarns to participate here. His initial response to my request to stop using the site as a source was that it does cite its sources. Donald Albury 17:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with the 2021 consensus. This may be a useful website for those with a deep interest in elections, but the content is user generated and therefore does not meet our strict reliability standards for use as a reference on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::It is user generated, but as far as I can remember, each election, at least US-related, has a link to the original source that was used. ZackCarns (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If those sources are reliable, then you should be using them. Just because a site cites reliable sources does not mean that it is itself reliable. Donald Albury 17:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia cites reliable sources, but it's still user generated and so inappropriate as a source for referencing. If they link reliable sources then use those sources instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I've recently come across material that relies solely or mostly on partisan sources, advocacy groups, and similar outlets. In some cases, even fairly major claims are presented without attribution, and we just seem to take the source's word for it. These sources are not listed in the reliable sources table. I have searched for past discussions, and while a few are mentioned, there isn't any clear or consistent guidance on how they're viewed.

I'd really like to get a better understanding of how they are regarded. Of course, it's entirely possible I am wrong and some or all of them are considered perfectly acceptable. In that case, I'd appreciate the clarification. To make things easier, I've tried to compile a table showing their details and where they're used. I am sure there are more sources like this going around, but I only checked a couple of articles that I happened to stumble upon, so this is by no means a comprehensive list.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting these sources shouldn't be used at all. But context matters, and taking their claims entirely at face value, without attribution or scrutiny, doesn't seem ideal. Since I'm not entirely sure what the best approach is when encountering material like this, I thought it would be helpful to begin by getting some feedback on the sources themselves. I wasn't sure whether to post this here or at the NPOV noticeboard, but I decided to go with this one. If this isn't the right place to raise the issue, please feel free to point me in the right direction. Thank you.

class="wikitable sortable" |+ Sources !rowspan="2" scope="col" | Source !rowspan="2" scope="col" class="unsortable" | Discussions !rowspan="2" scope="col" | Notes !rowspan="2" scope="col" class="unsortable" | Use

hezbollah.org | | Clearly not affiliated with Hezbollah. It's part of the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, whose leadership includes a number of former government officials from countries that designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Among them are former members of Mossad, the CIA, Germany's Bundesnachrichtendienst, UK Special Forces, the US Homeland Security Council, US Defense Intelligence Agency, and others. | {{WP:RSPUSES|hezbollah.org}}{{WP:RSPUSES|unitedagainstnucleariran.com}}

Stimson Center | | Think tank based in Washington. Its board includes former officials from both the US and UK governments, with backgrounds in the US Departments of Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, and State, as well as veterans from the US military and individuals with ties to the CIA. There is also someone affiliated with Israel Bonds. | {{WP:RSPUSES|stimson.org}}

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy | {{rsnl|48|Washington Institute for Near East Policy|2009}} {{rsnl|334|The Washington Institute for Near East Policy|2021}} | Pro-Israel American think tank based in Washington, established in 1985 with support from AIPAC. Its board includes several former US government and military officials, as well as individuals with backgrounds in the CIA. | {{WP:RSPUSES|washingtoninstitute.org}}

Alma Research and Education Center | | Israeli think-tank focusing on "IDF's security challenges along Israel's volatile northern border." Its board has former and current IDF personnel and government officials. | {{WP:RSPUSES|israel-alma.org}}

Rewards for Justice Program | | United States Department of State's national security interagency program that offers reward for information leading to the location or an arrest of leaders of what they consider terrorist groups. | {{WP:RSPUSES|rewardsforjustice.net}}

FDD's Long War Journal Foundation for Defense of Democracies | {{rsnl|96|The Long War Journal|2011}} 2021 | Project of American think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel, anti-Iran lobby group that "provides accurate reporting and analysis of ongoing efforts to address jihadism" with the aim of "strengthening U.S. national security and reducing or eliminating threats posed by adversaries and enemies of the United States." | {{WP:RSPUSES|longwarjournal.org}}{{WP:RSPUSES|fdd.org}}

Middle East Institute | | American think tank, funded primarily by the UAE, but also by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United States. Its board includes former government officials from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the US, with backgrounds in the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the FBI, and the military. There are also individuals with ties to Lockheed Martin. | {{WP:RSPUSES|mei.edu}}

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | | American think tank based in Washington. Its board includes a number of former government officials from the US, the UK, and Israel, among them individuals with backgrounds in the US Departments of State, Defense, and Homeland Security, as well as the Israeli Ministry of Defense, the US and Israeli militaries, and the CIA. | {{WP:RSPUSES|carnegieendowment.org}}

Counter Extremism Project | | An organisation founded by former US. government officials "working to combat the growing threat posed by extremist ideologies". The group is modeled on United Against Nuclear Iran. It has been alleged that they also receive money from the UAE and SA. | {{WP:RSPUSES|counterextremism.com}}

Institute for the Study of War | {{rsnl|452|Institute for the Study of War|2024}} | American neoconservative think tank, often described as quite hawkish in its outlook. Its board includes former US government officials as well as members of the US military. | {{WP:RSPUSES|understandingwar.org}}

Global Fight Against Terrorism Funding | | It's not very clear who is behind them. Their website is quite rudimentary and hardly functions properly. They don't mention any of their methods or sources, and since they offer custom reports for sale, there does seem to be a profit element involved. | {{WP:RSPUSES|gfatf.org}}

The Center for Monitoring Security Threats | | Per their description: the Center for Monitoring Security Threats (CMST) is a civilian initiative that provides free public access to open-source intelligence on terrorist organizations and the security environment surrounding Israel. When looking into the details of specific individuals, the sources tend to be Wikipedia, unnamed news outlets in different languages, advocacy groups, or sometimes the IDF itself. | {{WP:RSPUSES|thecmst.com}}

Paprikaiser (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Almost nothing from any of these organisations should be presented without attribution, and balancing sources should be actively sought where they are used, given their strong bias.--Boynamedsue (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:The blue links are largely biased but reliable (with some exceptions), and I would strongly recommend attributing anything particularly contentious. But yes, think tanks can be - and often are - reliable sources, particularly those regularly used by others. FortunateSons (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:The only one I've had experience using as a source is Counter Extremism Project, which I thought was fairly good. I think these are too different to judge together. As with anything in this topic area especially controversial allegations should be attributed. But these are very different organizations with very different policies. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Seconding all above, they all seem biased but well-researched - in general, usable with attribution. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Boynamedsue@FortunateSons@PARAKANYAA@The Kip Thank you all for your insights. I have a couple of follow-up questions, if that's alright.

:If material is based solely on one or more of these organisations, and there's no other reporting to provide balance or additional context, would it still be acceptable to include it with attribution? Or in such cases, would it be better to remove it?

:Also, for organisations that don't have their own Wikipedia article, does that affect whether they're considered notable enough to be usable as sources? Or is it still fine to cite them, as long as there's proper attribution? I'm wondering where exactly the line is drawn. Anyone can set up a website, so I suppose my real question is: what is the threshold for a source to be considered significant enough to be used? Especially when dealing with serious claims. If it is referenced by other reliable, or semi-reliable sources?

:A more specific question for FortunateSons: could you tell me which of these sources are unreliable? I'm not sure how to tell. I do understand that all sources carry some degree of bias, but of course bias alone doesn't necessarily make something unreliable. Still, if there's general agreement that a source clearly doesn't meet the standard, I imagine it shouldn't be used at all. In that case, am I right in thinking that any material supported only by that source should either be attributed to something more suitable, if available, or otherwise removed or marked with a [citation needed] tag?

:Apologies for all the questions. I would have taken this to the Teahouse, but I felt it might be a bit too specific, and I hoped to hear from editors who are more familiar with sensitive topics. I've raised concerns about some of these sources before, and was rather quickly accused of pushing an agenda, so I'm trying to be careful to avoid misunderstandings. Thank you again. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Paprikaiser It, again, depends wholly on what group you are citing and what for. This is an extremely divergent group of sources of varying reliability. With very controversial material on which there are not a lot of other sources it may be undue weight and so not be included, but that goes for any source... it will vary, unless you tell us what you want to cite these for, and for what group. For specific statements it is a case by case basis. This is too broad to discuss together. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think there's a one size fits all answer to the question of whether to include a claim that can only be sourced to one of those institutions and which cannot be contrasted with diverse opinions. If it is a somewhat uncontroversial fact like, say, "The Israeli cabinet has never formally discussed granting Israeli citizenship to the population of Gaza", then it should be fine. If it is something more controversial like "76% of Gazans have at some point been involved in terrorist linked organisations", then I would not add it. (by the way, I have made both these "facts" up, I have no idea if they are true). But we always need to bear in mind whether a fact only contained in this one source would be WP:DUE. When it comes to an opinion, then it would already almost certainly have to be part of a range of opinions.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Boynamedsue@PARAKANYAA To give a concrete example, what prompted me to start this discussion was this particular article, which I think illustrates my point quite clearly. There are a few other "Unit x" articles circulating with similar sources, but I decided to focus on this one for now. All of its sources, apart from two that are considered reliable, are included in the table. Of the reliable ones, one simply quotes the Israeli military, while the other also relies on the Israeli military along with some unnamed sources, which I suppose is somewhat more acceptable. In any case, neither really addresses the main subject of the article directly.

:::I haven't edited that page yet, since I wanted to be sure that relying solely on sources like these isn't considered appropriate. I suppose the next step would be to look for some more independent reporting. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well whether they are or aren't reliable there are better sources [https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=X7YfEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=%22Unit+3800%22+hezbollah&ots=P7xHVf0VQt&sig=RN2fenzIkWE76LxM15J41c6XG0s#v=onepage&q=%22Unit%203800%22%20&f=false] [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2016.1121039] that can be used to provide a lot of this information. Probably more. The book there has about five pages on them, and I found that in like 30 seconds. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thank you! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would agree that these sources should be used with caution if at all. Particularly striking from my experience is the ISW often taking a completely different stance on various law of war issues than any other source I'm familiar with. Needless to say that it is heavily biased towards US position to the point it may be FRINGE in terms of international law scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 14:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I will keep that in mind. Thank you! Paprikaiser (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that ISW leans pro-US/pro-West, but I haven't found any incidents that go beyond the range of normal scholarly differences. FortunateSons (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There are some legal questions on which Israel and the US position differ from literally every other country in the world. (t · c) buidhe 00:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Which? FortunateSons (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::So called anticipatory self defense (t · c) buidhe 15:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::They are definitely in the minority - and, IMO, wrong - but there are mainstream scholars who consider at least some kinds of anticipatory self defense morally and legally legitimate. Obviously, we should attribute that view as a minority position FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, the previous thread dealing with this was archived at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_482#When exactly is something political?. Two other editors chipped in briefly but it did not seem like it entirely solved the issue, especially since this page itself says {{tq|The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports}}. The claim it supports has since been expanded upon as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Passport_bro&diff=1296744358&oldid=1296028829 here] by {{u|Samboy}}. This article doesn't have a lot of page watchers and I don't have much experience on the particulars on when/how much you can cite generally unreliable sources like Fox News. I really just want more eyes to make sure that this is within acceptable norms of how this usually works. There is also the related matter of the unreliability of Fox News being compared to Refinery29, but I don't really see these situations as being equal. I don't think [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_269#Refinery29 this discussion] sets in stone a "marginally reliable" status (that was one editor's conclusion), simply that it made a factual error once. Lots of generally reliable sources have done that too. So I'd like some thoughts on that part as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I can't see how that's not political. Have you tried notifying WP:WikiProject Feminism, given the content it would seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::I haven't but I have no objections if you choose to do so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I don’t see how a discussion about travel is a political discussion? This is expanding the definition of “political” to mean something it doesn’t mean. As per The American Heritage dictionary “political” means “Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.”, Relating to, involving, or characteristic of political parties or politicians”, or “Interested or active in politics”. It’s not about voting, it’s not about who the leader of a given country is, it’s about traveling, and why some men choose to travel. Not political at all. Samboy (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::"political" also has another meaning: "relating to the things people do to gain or keep power or an advantage within a group, organization, etc." (Britannica). That's why you encounter phrases like "office politics." If, for example, a man thinks that men should have more power than women, and seeks out women in countries where women have less power, the travel has a political element to it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Is that what we consider “political” in the previous discussions where there is no consensus on whether Fox News is reliable (or unreliable) with non-political topics? I would consider Passport bro a cultural phenomenon much more than a political one. Samboy (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I've done so[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Feminism&diff=prev&oldid=1297137447]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree that saying Fox News said something is okay, but looking at what's cited I don't see where it says there was an interview of a "professor". Presumably this refers to Dr. James Braham, but Google tells me there's more than one James Braham and I can't tell which one is a university/college professor. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I mentioned this on the talk page yesterday. I think the person they're trying to attribute the statement to is the one referred to as a "researcher" in the source. That term is pretty vague though and does not nessecarily mean professor. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I did see the previous attempt but didn't comment in time, so good to see this here again. I would say "political" should be broadly construed the same way our CTOPs and bans are, which means that culture wars-y statements like {{tq|many individuals prefer the values}} are well within what we should consider political, notwithstanding the euphemistic way that it is phrased (presumably the same way the source does, I'm not saying editors inserted that). I'm not saying it can't be used, for attributed opinion we can consider even GUNREL sources given due weight but anything that borders on politics should receive additional scrutiny.

:As for MREL vs MREL, yes, occasionally participating in disinformation campaigns (maybe for other topics) is certainly a different level of MREL to being gossipy junk without much substance most of the time. We shouldn't automatically assign two MREL sources the same weight without considering why they got those destinations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

[https://thetab.com/2025/04/24/here-is-the-full-list-from-the-bizzare-italian-brainrot-trend-thats-everywhere Here is the full list from the ‘bizzare’ Italian brainrot trend that’s everywhere]

This is for the Italian brainrot page TheGoofWasHere (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:They have an [https://thetab.com/editorial-policy editorial policy], claim to be run by experienced journalists and to be committed to fact checking. I'd say they are reliable until proven otherwise. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:They are a student paper[https://advertise.thetab.com/] using student journalists. Probably reliable, but I would avoid using them for anything controversial or BLP related. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Moot issue. I removed the discussed ref because is was not supporting the statement it was footnoting. It is also useless, because it is a childish text that adds nothing new to our wp article. --Altenmann >talk 21:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

On Iblis, [https://doi.org/10.33976/IUGJIS.29.1/2021/17 this source], a paper in the IUG Journal of Islamic Studies, is used to support the claim that the majority opinion among Arab scholars is that Iblis's personal name was ʿAzāzīl. This is troublesome to me, because Iblis does not actually exist, so it's unclear to me how we can talk about Iblis's personal name. I checked out the source and it is very religious in tone—the paper begins {{tq|All praise be to Allah, whom we seek for help. He whom Allah guides aright, there is none to mislead him, and he whom Allah leads astray, there is none to guide him. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, who has no partners, and that Muhammad, peace be upon him, is His slave and Messenger.}}

The paper itself actually doesn't make the claim it's supposed to support, about majority opinion among Arab scholars, at all—it just plainly declares the view attributed in the Wikipedia article to most Arab scholars. I tagged it as failing verification, but I have broader concerns about this source. I know that religious scholarship is sometimes written in religious tones that should be avoided on Wikipedia while still being legitimate scholarly sources, but in my experience editing about Hinduism, Judaism, and early Christianity, I haven't come across a source like this being used. It seems to be a prescriptive religious text, warning about the dangers of hypocrisy and starting rumors. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:There's a different "[https://academic.oup.com/jis/pages/About Journal of Islamic Studies]" separate from "[https://journals.iugaza.edu.ps/index.php/IUGJIS IUG Journal of Islamic Studies]", which makes investigation somewhat difficult. The use in Iblis appears to be the only time the journal is used in any article[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22IUGJIS%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1].
I've notified WP:WikiProject Islam[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam&action=history] to see if anyone has heard of the journal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you! ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Why is such a reference tolerated on Wikipedia and why has it not been removed?{{quote|The Qur'an makes many references to al-Munafiqin, or "the Hypocrites," including the title of a surah (number sixty-three). The term has become prominent in Islamist extremist discourses...The designation of "hypocrites" is commonly used by extremists to refer to any professing Muslims who do not advocate Islamist extremism, even other Islamists who might support political pacifism or compromise with existing state regimes...the Hypocrites master narrative and the imposter archetype have proven to have wide applicability and deep resonance among Islamist extremists, particularly when they speak out against "apostate regimes," as well as when they wish to persuade listeners to their mode of thought.|source={{cite book|last1=Halverson|first1=J.R.|last2= Goodall|first2=H.L.|authorlink2=Bud Goodall|last3=Corman|first3=S.R.|year=2011|chapter=The Hypocrites|title=Master Narratives of Islamist Extremism|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan}}}}

:::From the paper:{{quote|Hypocrites today may not conceal disbelief, but they share interests with the occupier and other enemies of our nation; the nation of Islam. These are now called the fifth column.}}

:::...and take a look courses the author [https://lectures-iugaza-edu-ps.translate.goog/instructor/3811/%D8%B2%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%B5%D8%A8%D8%AD%D9%8A-%D9%85%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF-%D8%B2%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en teaches]. {{u|VenusFeuerFalle}}, why did you cite this source? fiveby(zero) 17:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone asked me a question about a source used at Advanced Media Broadcasting System. In this case, it are references to Google Drive, as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Advanced_Media_Broadcasting_System&diff=1296962273&oldid=1296961717 here]. I really have no idea if this constitutes reliable sources but gives me enough itches to ask here. The Banner talk 11:25, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Google Drive isn't a source at all, in the sense that WP:RS uses the term. It is a file-hosting service. About the only time it would ever be legitimate to cite anything there would be if it could be proven to have been placed there by someone meeting WP:RS criteria for the subject in question. Even then it would be self-published and should only be used with caution, see WP:SPS. Copyright violation can be a concern too - if something looks copyrightable, and the uploader is unknown, it probably shouldn't even be linked.

:With regard to the particular document you link, we'd need evidence that it was actually placed there by the Philippines National Telecommunications Commission. Was it linked from their website say? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::I checked whether the organization listed at the top of documents might be using Google Drive to host things they are providing links to on their web server -- not unthinkable, since it's really just easily accessible storage space, and if they were linked to by the issuing organization, that would indicate proper sourcing. They're not...but [https://ntc.gov.ph/list-of-authorized-broadcast-stations/ their version of the documents] are all from July 2024, so older than the Google Drive copies. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I have requested input from the editor who added these documents as sources. The Banner talk 12:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Since an officially-published version exists, we should just cite that one, even if it slightly less up-to-date than this Google Drive version. The bigger issue is that as far as I can tell neither the official document nor the Google Drive document contain any information supporting the claim they being cited for. -- LWG ^talk 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Article in question: [https://www.mic.com/articles/127296/demi-lovato-twin-sister-theory-mystery-poot-lovato-has-sparked-hilarious-memes-online Demi Lovato Twin Sister Theory: Mystery "Poot Lovato" Has Sparked Hilarious Memes Online]

Page in question: Poot Lovato. TheGoofWasHere (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I like that you asked "how reliable" instead of phrasing it yes/no. That is definitely the issue with this gray-area source. My biggest concern is that the Mic.com article is partially about the Wikipedia article on the subject. I'd want to beware WP:CITOGENESIS. Given that Mic.com [https://www.mic.com/masthead does have editorial oversight], I'd say it's reliable enough to be quoted in its own voice and for noncontroversial facts. Upon viewing the article, I notice that the Mic.com source is only being used for material for which we also have other sources, such as The Guardian. I don't think we have a problem with using Mic.com in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have some info that comes from the magazine [https://www.icelandreview.com/ Iceland review] (The article [https://www.icelandreview.com/news/christopher-nolan-returns-to-iceland-to-film-the-odyssey/?srsltid=AfmBOorAr8o-SS0M9don4LsM0bx6HJrwhdwFiDpbPiabJzvutBSOdXMg/ in question]) it would be used on the page for Christopher Nolans upcoming film The Odyssey to cite that production has moved to the region. As far as I can tell the publication is a long running general interest magazine but i'm unsure of its reliability, thus i'm eager to hear the thoughts of some more experienced users. Travelling Nomad (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:The kicker is whether IR has editorial review. The website clearly lists the editorial team on the [https://www.icelandreview.com/about-us/ "About Us" page], so I'm leaning yes even though I don't see anyone listed as "Editor." I see that the editorial team is listed separately from the sales and finance teams. I see that Iceland Review has multiple components, a news area, a magazine area, and so on, so as long as this source is from the news section of the organization and not from the commercial or travel areas, it should be good to go.

:While Iceland Review does not look like the New York Times to me, the single-word piece of information in question, including "Iceland" on the list of countries in which the film is being made, does not seem unduly self-serving or implausible. It also seems like the sort of thing that will eventually be corroborated by other sources that talk about the movie's production history. So even if IR doesn't feel great to any party working on the Wikipedia article, said feelings are very likely to be temporary. IR is good enough, and we can reasonably expect better in due time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Have you tried searching in Icelandic via translation? You will probably have coverage for stuff like that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that we have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=500&offset=0&target=https%3A%2F%2Fnysun.com quite a few citations] to the New York Sun. The New York Sun is a very clearly conservative paper, as evidenced by [https://www.nysun.com/ its own website]. This is not necessarily evidence of unreliability: after all, there are two other major conservative papers in New York, and one (the Wall Street Journal) is clearly reliable, while the other (the New York Post) is clearly not. But it does give me some pause that we're significantly relying on a biased source, enough that I figure we should at least consider the question of how reliable it is.

We don't have any other RSN discussions on the topic, or even really significant mentions, and there's no NY Sun entry at RSP. (There is for the UK Sun but as far as I can tell they have nothing to do with each other.) Again, I feel like a source with 500+ cites should have at least some discussion about whether it's reliable. But I don't live in New York, while most of the time it's cited it's about local issues, so I'm not the most qualified to figure out if it's reliable.

The most concerning cites I've found so far are that we use it to cite Harald Malmgren's claims about UFOs and that we use it to cite what appears to be a pretty weak study about the effect of TikTok on antisemitism. Loki (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing in our article New York Sun looks especially concerning. The Harald Malmgren use looks fine: it's used to support the fact that Malmgren {{em|claimed}} to have been briefed on alien tech, and the Sun is careful to be clear that these are indeed Malmgren's claims. As far as I can tell the Sun aims to be more focused on local issues than the NYT or WSJ, so it's probably most reliable for those, but I'm not seeing any major reason to think it's particularly less reliable than other newspapers Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, sources of this category are not used and cannot be used, however if this is allowed it will allow for huge improvement of chinese military related articles, as there are quite a lot of Chinese former military personnel posting information on their unit or on military equipment.

I think there are several options for this(additionally, for option 1 and 2, would this also cover military equipment used by that nation/branch?):

Option 1: Self published sources from military veterans only count as WP:ABOUTSELF for military topics of the country they served in regardless of branch

Option 2: Self published sources from military veterans only count as WP:ABOUTSELF in regards to the branch(es) they served in (e.g. a SPS by a navy veteran can't be used on an air force article)

Option 3: Self published sources from military veterans only count as WP:ABOUTSELF for the exact unit(s) they served in(E.g. a green berets veteran's self published source cannot be used for the delta force article)

Option 4: Self published sources from military veterans are not WP:ABOUTSELF Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Option 1, No , after all they will presumably be about situations where they served against a nation, thus wp:primary comes into effect.

:Option 2, no Per option 1.

:Option 3, no, Per option 1.

:'''Option 4, no, per option 1.

:This is about their service; thus whatever they discuss is from their (limited) perspective. So it is about their opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm saying in terms of stuff like military organization or equipment etc. For stuff like geopolitics definitely not. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::But unless they are high-ranking officers, what would they really know? Again, we are talking about their experiences. Also th4ere are so many other issues wp:npov wp:undue, wp:v, wp:sps and god knows what else that I doubt they would be useable anyway. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That's why I am asking if they would classify under WP:ABOUTSELF. WP:ABOUTSELF sources cannot be used for controversial contexts. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It's only WP:ABOUTSELF if it's ... about themselves. You could use an ABOUTSELF source for e.g. a claim that such and such a person served in such and such a unit (unless it's a particularly elite unit in which case it might fall foul of the requirement that {{tq|the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim}}) but a military veteran's claims about the unit they served in are not {{em|in general}} ABOUTSELF claims. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I am confused, we cannot use self-published sources about third parties. "It does not involve claims about third parties;". Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::As to "unduly self-serving" Military impostor, no we need an RS to confirm someone is a veteran, not a self-claim. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think the existence of military impostors makes any claim to have served in the military "unduly self-serving" any more than e.g. the existence of people who lie about their age makes any claim of being a particular age unduly self-serving. Certainly {{em|some}} claims of military experience are self-serving (we should look with great suspicion on, e.g., any claim to have served with particular distinction or have participated in specific notable operations) but I wouldn't consider "I was in the army" to be {{tq|unduly self-serving}}.

:::::My understanding is that we do generally accept ABOUTSELF claims to have worked in a particular role notwithstanding that this arguably implies some sort of claim about a third party (i.e. "John Smith worked for Widgets Inc." strictly makes a claim about Widgets Inc.) but I'm struggling to find a discussion of this in either the archives for WT:V or WP:BLPN. I certainly wouldn't object to people asking for more stringent sourcing for this kind of ABOUTSELF claim.

:::::Either way, none of this detracts from my overall point that ABOUTSELF does not have a special expanded meaning when it comes to military veterans. Self-published sources by military veterans can only be used for ABOUTSELF claims in the same way that any other self-published source can be used for ABOUTSELF claims: that is, when they are claims about {{em|the author themselves}}. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think it would depend on the context of the claim, "I was in the army" shouldn't be controversial but "I was part of a secret operation" probably would be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:This seems to be confused on the nature of ABOUTSELF. A veteran talking about the units they were part of is not ABOUTSELF beyond their own deployment, and because of stolen valour secondary sources would proby be appropriate in that case. So options 1-3 wouldn't be ABOUTSELF.
Are you confusing ABOUTSELF with trying to use their self published posts as an WP:EXPERTSPS? In that case there background would make them a subject expert, but they would still need to have been {{tq|"previously been published by reliable, independent publications"}}. That would depend on the veteran, but if they have had books published about military matters then their self-published work might be reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think that the criteria WP:ABOUTSELF are clear enough.

:{{cquote|Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities}}

:Articles about a conflict they participated in, the branch they served in and their unit are not articles about themselves or their activities. Therefore such sources should not be used there.

:On the other hand, such sources may be used in the articles about the person himself, if he's notable enough to have an article. If they are an expert then WP:EXPERTSPS is the applicable policy. Alaexis_¿question? 12:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Came here to say this. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

• As a veteran myself, I would not put too much stock into what equipment and operations other vets claimed to have used without additional reasons to trust their claims. People brag and boast and exaggerate, and there's often little way to verify their claims. I could post my DD214, social security card and state-issued ID to my userpage, and then talk at length about participating in Land Warrior tests, and even the most diligent and well-connected editor would not be able to ascertain whether or not I was telling the truth. I think this is a prime example of why we should not rely on primary sources except for the most simple, uncontroversial statements of fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:Guys:

:What I mean is in cases such as military equipment or organization, nothing too controversial(in that case it wouldn't be allowed anyways); Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::TO&E's are official, so no such claim that contradicts that by a non-expert would be about self. Rather, it is covered by "not claims about third parties," I would argue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::As I mentioned in my comment that wouldn't be ABOUTSELF, but self published content. Per WP:EXPERTSPS they might be reliable if they have {{tq|"previously been published by reliable, independent publications"}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I believe we should interpret WP:SPS strictly in these cases. It sounds like the OP is really asking "Does being a veteran automatically make someone an expert on a) the country in which they served or on b) the branch of the militaryin which they served?" My answer to that is a) no and b) probably not. Many veterans will be experts on one or both of these, but not all of them Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::I know a few people who have served in the British armed services. They are certainly not experts either in the UK or in the branch in which they served. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think the OP should stop trying to shoehorn things that don't fit into WP:ABOUTSELF and spell out more exactly what they are trying to achieve. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think we have reached a consensus regarding the fact that this does not fall under WP:ABOUTSELF? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

• No per last time. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• No no all. "About self" is about self is about self. --Altenmann >talk 21:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Obviously never. ABOUTSELF is for very narrow and specific things about the individual in question as a person, not for claims about entire organizations that they were a member of; it cannot cover {{tq|claims about third parties}} or {{tq|events not directly related to the source}}, and of course sweeping claims about entire militaries cover both these things. At most it could perhaps be used to state things like "person X served in location Y" but even that requires a degree of caution, since it could sometimes be unduly self-serving; basically, if there's any question or controversy at all, it wouldn't be enough. Since the idea that ABOUTSELF could apply beyond that narrow usage is plainly absurd, is likely that what OP is looking for is WP:EXPERTSPS instead and got confused. In some cases they might be an EXPERTSPS, but the requirements for that are quite steep and most people won't meet it; simply having served in the military is obviously woefully insufficient. And even if they pass the bar of being experts who have been previously published (not simply quoted by) high-quality sources, they still cannot be used for claims about third parties. --Aquillion (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Is Google Trends a reliable source to determine nomenclature (either MAGA or Trumpism) in the article Donald Trump? As I see it, Google Trends [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=maga,trumpism&hl=en-US comparing use of MAGA and Trumpism] is acceptable under WP:CALC. If I'm reading correctly, the only thread in your archive called Google Trends unreliable because its interpretation is original research; one editor suggested Wikipedia's citations be switched from Google Trends to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_293 Google Year in Search]. (They seem to me to be the same thing.) In this case, I don't wish to cite Google Trends, I only would like to choose the correct name per WP:COMMONNAME. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&oldid=1297503929#Google_Trends_for_Trumpism_and_MAGA discussion].) Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:It might be reliable for which was trending during a particular period (e.g. "Google trends shows that MAGA is more regularly used than Trumpism"), but I think you looking to use it for the purpose of which term should be used rather than to support a particular statement. That should be determined by a talk page discussion and Google translate could be used as part of an argument to which should be used, but other arguments could be made. I can also see the argument that the terms don't equate, there is no Trumpism movement but equally there is no MAGAist political doctrine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

::Great response. Thank you, {{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}. Very helpful. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There are currently numerous public and private agencies and individuals who make and publish photos concerning the Israel-Iran war. Higher scrutiny should be placed on the sources which publish these photos, and some may need to be subject to external verification by a reliable source. We all know how fake and manipulated images can proliferate quickly.

The following is a list of frequent publishers of photographs under free licenses who, in my opinion, should be scrutinized:

• Avash Media (Commons)
• Mehr News Agency (Commons; deprecated source)
• Mizan News Agency (Commons)
• Israel Defense Forces (Commons)
• Tasnim News Agency (Commons)
• US Military (Commons)
• Self-publishing private individuals (such as users who publish on Commons and Flickr)

If I have missed any, please inform me.

My question is: which of the above sources should have their photos verified by a reliable source before placing it on a Wikipedia article related to the Israel-Iran war? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is there a reason photos are inherently untrustworthy from government sources? Can you provide sourcing for why they are wrong?

:They could of course be biased, but unless they are doctored, AI-generated, or framed, I don't think we can exclude them. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::Unsure about the US military, but the IDF twitter account has received a [https://newschecker.in/fact-check/israel-shows-old-video-to-claim-iranian-attack-on-civilians fact-check] for a misleading video during the war, mentioned in passing by the [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k78715enxo BBC]. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Is that all? ONE video? Then we'll just ignore that one video, and go on with our lives. To deprecate a whole source we need evidence of an ongoing pattern of misdeeds, not just a single case. Cambalachero (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I can't find any other videos by the IDF which have been subjected to such a fact-check before. If no other fact-checks exist, then should their photos and videos be considered authentic until specifically fact-checked? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think you should quote the whole passage

:::::{{cquote|Official sources in Iran and Israel have shared some of the fake images. State media in Tehran has shared fake footage of strikes and an AI-generated image of a downed F-35 jet, while a post shared by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) received a community note on X for using old, unrelated footage of missile barrages.}}

:::::Considering that the unrelated footage (first 6 seconds of the shared video) is of earlier Iranian strikes in 2024 it's unfortunate that they've made this mistake but it can't be compared with publishing fake footage and AI-generated images. Alaexis_¿question? 10:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think during a war non-neutral sources must be dismissed even it is official govt. There are such things as atrocity propaganda and psychological warfare, and all sides in Middle East do not shy from using these. --Altenmann >talk 21:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I was looking over edits for the Sneako article when I noticed a link by Afropami, with [https://www.afropami.com/people/sneako-age-biography-career-and-net-worth a brief autobiography of the streamer.] This looks generally unreliable, but since Afropami's never been discussed before, I thought I should post here for confirmation. Carlinal (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:That's not an autobiography. It's a bio. The author is listed as Rebecca Aande. The first two sources in our Sneako article are The New York Times and Mother Jones, so we don't have a case of an article that needs to be deleted because it only uses questionable sources.

:Here is Afropami's [https://www.afropami.com/about-us/ about us page]. I can't seem to find an editor listed, but they seem legit as any other news source on the surface. What we can say is that Afropami does not claim to be about anything but entertainment news. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

::The about us page also says {{tq|"Afropami.com also serves as a promotional platform for both industry experts and younglings, ..."}}. They are reliable for African music, news and such, but the bios they also publish of US streamers and influencers are promo. It's very common in the market, see WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA as an example. That's not to say that the details won't be reliable, just not independent. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Excellent point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::I should note I've been editing the article for about a day now, and I know it just got published with enough good sources then. But thanks for the terminology, and I'll consider Afropami again for use. Carlinal (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Came here as a result of Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress). Right now, the entry for the Village Voice at WP:RSP says "There is consensus among editors that The Village Voice is generally reliable. It is an alternative newsweekly that has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes." This needs updating as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 472#Sophie Rain identified it as producing AI slop about OnlyFans creators.--Launchballer 07:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Are you looking for a new consensus or to update the RSP? If it's the latter the RSP is just a page like any other and can be edited in the normal way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::This probably warrants more evaluation, this is a widespread, long-running source in the music world. Sergecross73 msg me 12:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:This appears to be a situation where an explicit date cutoff can be applied, similar to WP:CNET or WP:NEWSWEEK. Mackensen (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Context: This is for a new source assessment I created: Wikipedia:Source assessment/ENA (series). I've only found 3 sources, one of which (Medium) is unreliable due to it being a self-published source. What are the reliability of the other two sources (The State Hornet and Compass News) in this context?

I have linked the sources here for convenience, but they can also be found in the assessment linked above.

• {{Cite web|last=Pierce|first=Robbie|title=REVIEW: “ENA” captures the feeling of a dream like nothing you’ve ever seen|date=2021-02-18|access-date=2025-06-27|url=https://statehornet.com/2021/02/joel-guerra-ena-series-review-state-hornet/|website=The State Hornet}}
• {{Cite web|last=Macedonio|first=Cara|date=2023-03-22|access-date=2025-06-27|title=ENA Review: Collaborative Retro-Future Abstraction |url=https://sccompassnews.com/2559/arts-and-entertainment/ena-review-collaborative-retro-future-abstraction/|website=Compass News}}

1isall (talk/contribs) 14:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:If both of these sources are reliable, then maybe the topic can qualify for a (most likely) permanent stub. If only one or neither of them are, then no. 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)