Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#rfc 7158E11

{{atop|result=Option 2 has the most support, both from editors commenting and from evidence presented and policies cited. This is an advocacy organization on a controversial topic, and should be used with attribution. The organization does appear to gather and responsibly report claims and information gathered directly from primary sources, and is widely used with attribution by reliable news sources. It is most reliable when reporting information directly received. It also expresses opinions and analysis of the larger Israel-Palestine conflict, for which it can be cited as an opinion source; other sources are needed to provide larger context from multiple perspectives.

Taking one example

[https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B] that many editors pointed to, Euro-Med did not clearly say that an Israel Supreme Court decision had legalized organ theft; it said the court had allowed burial of bodies in the "Numbers Cemetery". It does not make clear how this decision relates to other laws passed by the Knesset and which exactly legally authorizes the taking of organs (if that's true). Other sources are available on the legal question and report it in more detail, and these should be consulted and non-advocacy sources preferentially used.

In the same article, Euro-Med has direct testimony from doctors in Gaza who found that some bodies had missing organs. It is careful to say this is not proof of organ theft, because these warzone doctors did not have time to do a full analysis, and some of the bodies had undergone surgical procedures prior to death. If appropriate for article scope, these sorts of facts can be reported with attribution to Euro-Med and - especially given the controversial nature of the topic - with mention of the sources Euro-Med is citing and enough detail for readers to get a fair sense of how conclusive or inconclusive these reports are.

The point of its article is for Euro-Med to express concern about possible organ theft in this instance and to call for an investigation. It also accuses Israel of violating related international laws. If appropriate to the scope of an article, those accusations can be reported in Wikipedia as opinions of Euro-Med, presumably with context and additional sources that give due weight to other points of view. -- Beland (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)}}

What is the reliabilty of Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

An RfCbefore can be found here. The source is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22euromedmonitor.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used 89 times]. FortunateSons (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 As Genabab points out (with reference to points by Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet) the reports by EuroMedMonitor have not been shown to be wrong. There are objections of extraordinary claims (Chess and others), but this is an extraordinary war, and Euromed has connections with people on the ground, unlike most other RS. Isoceles-sai (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC) — Isoceles-sai (talk · contribs) is currently under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/{{#if:Smallangryplanet. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Please note that this user has been banned by ArbCom for {{tq|Canvassing and off-wiki coordination}}. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Generally !votes are supposed to be in chronological order. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::@chess ah, thank you for the information. (@chess is currently accusing me of being a sockpuppet) Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::: I still think you are, but I've removed the tags (except for this one, because otherwise your reply wouldn't make sense) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1285267564] since someone else has told me to wait until the SPI thread is over. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::That's nice. We wouldn't want people to think that @Chess was stalking me. Isoceles-sai (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Since this discussion, Isoceles-sai and GeoColdWater have been banned by the Arbitration Committee.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1287421004] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Option 4, fully deprecating this source, looks increasingly more appropriate for this source. Iljhgtn (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per my previous votes on most other advocacy groups (though I did vote to deprecate the Heritage Foundation, iirc). Like others, most of their content is gonna be op-eds or similar, and those that have hard data are going to frame that data in a way that suits their cause(s). Usable with attribution, considering they seem to be fairly high-profile, but shouldn't be put in Wikivoice unless more "neutral" GRELs back up what they're saying (in which case it'd generally be better to just cite the GREL). The training program mentioned below is questionable, but I'd need to see harder evidence of potential or confirmed disruption to drop my vote any lower. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 (invited by the bot) This is the answer for every source...context-specific. For wp:ver uses, expertise and objectivity with regards to the item which cited it. For wp:weight uses, generally unreliable because it's an advocacy organization. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. Every single time I have seen them say something unique, which was not also available in RS, the claim was extremely unlikely. Euro-Med is a blog maintained entirely from Europe with limited-at-best access to real Middle East data or witnesses. When they make a radical claim they never provide a specific or reasonable explanation as to why they are uniquely able to report it. They never retract or correct. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :> a specific or reasonable explanation as to why they are uniquely able to report it
• :I suspect that it is because Israel is finding and killing the journalists in Gaza, and not allowing in outside journalists.
• :https://cpj.org/2025/04/israel-strikes-journalists-tent-in-gaza-1-killed-8-injured/ (this week)
• :https://cpj.org/2025/02/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-gaza-conflict/ (summary)
• :Sometimes the journalists are bombed at home, killing their families as well.
• :https://www.article19.org/resources/israel-killing-of-journalists-must-prompt-independent-investigation/
• :https://rsf.org/en/israel-suffocating-journalism-gaza Isoceles-sai (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::None of those sources mention Euro-Med, let alone address why they would have access to information behind their various extraordinary claims while news organisations don't. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for general content, Option 4 for ARBPIA if technically feasible The EMHRM is mostly cited by news sources who themselves have a strong bias or issues with reliability, such as [https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2025/02/28/743645/Euro-Med-Monitor-documents-shocking-torture-crimes-against-Palestinian-prisoners PressTV], [https://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2024/03/22/ozkx-m22.html WSWS], the [https://www.palestinechronicle.com/110-killed-since-gaza-ceasefire-began-euro-med-monitor-reports/ Palestine Chronicle], etc. Among the (significantly rarer) high-quality citations such as the [https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/gazastreifen-fotos-palaestinenser-1.6316864 Süddeutsche Zeitung] often use them with some sort of attribution, such as clarifying an unclear image origin. As such, the case for WP:USEBYOTHERS is mixed at best.

:The case for a strong bias, particularly against Israel, is clear. On personnel, with neither of those being conclusive but both being strongly indicative in my opinion, Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews and Ramy Abdu's indirect ties to Hamas.[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/clare-short-at-risk-of-arrest-in-israel-warns-defence-minister-moshe-ya-alon-a828401.html] While we don't depreciate sources for the views and actions of their high-level staff, I consider it to be strongly indicative, in line with the consideration of Greenblatt's statements for the ADL's reliability.

:On specifics, there are repeated cases of statements and insinuations not in alignment with reliable sources, for which use should be avoided; prototypically, the case of alleged organ harvesting is most obvious: [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982 claims regarding organ harvesting], considered by the ADL to be [https://www.adl.org/resources/article/unfounded-claims-organ-harvesting-reignite-embers-decades-old-hospital-scandal reminiscent of blood libel] (GUNREL; but rather detailed in this case, therefore useful), are not supported by evidence or reliable sources. In general, they regularly do not retract statements if no later evidence is found: for example, they still [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5953/International-investigation-must-be-opened-into-Israel’s-absurd-narrative-about-Al-Shifa-Medical-Complex claim] that there is no evidence of armed groups using hospitals, despite clear evidence to the contrary, as shown in our article Al-Shifa Hospital siege, which only shows a dispute about scope, not use. FortunateSons (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Israel has actually, in the past, taken Palestinian organs without their families' permission[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs]. In the current conflict, it is also a fact that certain Gaza officials have stated[https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-stealing-organs-dead-bodies-gaza-officials] that organs were missing in Palestinian corpses (whether these statements are true is unknown). EuroMed's organ claims have been mentioned in RS[https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group]. Likewise Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital shows there is disagreement in RS over whether Israeli claims regarding the hospital are true or false.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Vice regent Regarding the organs, yes, that is largely covered in the ADL-link I provided. Dubious information being picked up by one (or a small number of) RS doesn’t make it non-dubious, and most of the coverage of those claims has been in low-quality sources for good reason. Particularly, one cannot use an article referring to the same allegation as the claim being broadly made, the issue is that it’s them, a few officials and no-one else (the New Arab source).

:::For al-Shifa: there is a dispute about scope, but no serious dispute about use, and EMHRM says {{tq|In a new statement released today, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor called for an independent international investigation into Israel’s absurd claims that Palestinian groups were using Al-Shifa Medical Complex and other hospitals in the Gaza Strip for military purposes.}} Do you believe, based on RS, that the claim of military purposes (not: command centers) is “absurd”? FortunateSons (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Re: organ theft. First, can you kindly strike out the blood libel comment? Second, its not just EMRHM. It's also Euro News[https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group], Wafa[https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/143531], New Arab[https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-stealing-organs-dead-bodies-gaza-officials], Palestine Chronicle[https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israel-stole-organs-from-bodies-of-palestinians-gaza-authorities/], Middle East Eye[https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/israel-hands-back-stolen-palestinian-bodies-missing-organs-report] who have covered allegations of missing organs.

::::Re: Al-Shifa. You're taking that out of context. That particular EMHRM article says "publishing three-dimensional maps of massive headquarters inside and beneath Al-Shifa Medical Complex...the Israeli army has been unable to produce any solid evidence to support its claims, said Euro-Med Monitor". It does acknowledge that "a few rifles and other armaments" were found in the hospital. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Vice regent the ADL described it as {{tq|Longstanding accusations of Israeli organ harvesting have reemerged in the aftermath of the October 7 massacres. This conspiracy theory plays on the blood libel trope, which dates to the Middle Ages and alleges that Jews use the blood of Christian children to bake their Passover bread}}, and I attributed it to them as reminiscent of blood libel, which I think is an accurate summary. Can you elaborate on why you want me to strike that?

:::::For the sources, the only clearly high-quality source is Euronews, which adds no new content, as far as I can tell. The others rely on the same two source (officials & EMHRM), have significant bias, disputed reliability, or a mix of those.

:::::Regarding Al-Shifa, allow me to ask the following question: do you believe their article (which is not retracted) to contain no significant statements that are either wrong or likely to be misunderstood by the average reader? FortunateSons (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Responded [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FortunateSons#c-Vice_regent-20250320223300-Unhelpful_comment here]. Keep in mind EMHRM's Al-Shifa article was published on Nov 17, 2023 and evidence Israel has presented has only been made public after that, not before. Even then, evidence presented by Israel about Al-Shifa has been doubted by [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/20/what-israels-video-of-hamas-tunnel-under-al-shifa-tells-us Al-Jazeera] and [https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/assessment-israeli-material-icj-jan-2024 Forensic Architecture]. I don't find EMHRM's article "significantly wrong" when read entirely given public knowledge on Nov 17.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I understand that view, but considering the statements (again, about military use, not command centers) were (at least almost) conclusively proven wrong within the next 3 days (not even including [https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/sites/default/files/pdf/White20140929-CTCSentinel.pdf historical alleged use]), and is phrased in an inflammatory manner, it seems like a reliable source should have issued a correction at the very least, particularly when considering the arguments (made by others, not you specifically, just to be clear) that led to the reduction of the reliability for the ADL, whose errors I found to be significantly less egregious (and some of which were [https://forward.com/opinion/626749/adl-wikipedia-ban-jonathan-greenblatt/ factually incorrect]). FortunateSons (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|Richard Falk's past public statements about Israel and Jews}}: Richard Falk himself is Jewish, so if you're trying to suggest that he's antisemitic, you're going to have to show some very strong evidence. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::In general, Jews can be antisemitic. I‘m not making a statement in my own voice, but our own article includes pretty significant accusations (not even including the dog incident). For Israel, the sections are extensive enough not to require further elaboration, right? FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It's an extraordinary claim to call a Jewish person antisemitic, and you should only make that claim if you have very strong evidence, which you don't. This just looks like character assassination to me. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, I‘m not saying he‘s antisemitic, and the claim I actually did make is factually accurate, but allow me to elaborate: a) Falk has made highly contentious statements about Israel and Jews/Jewish Orgs, b) and some of those claims have been referred to as antisemitic, covered by RS enough that they are in our article about him. Do you disagree with either of those points? FortunateSons (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is becoming off topic. Also please be wary of bludgeoning, @FortunateSons. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Respectfully, responding only to people who directly challenge different parts of my argument, as I have done here, is generally not considered bludgeoning, particularly when considering my relative share of comments (9/36 and 6/27 in the survey section), which are less than the indicative 1/3. However, I agree that we’re moving off-topic, and appreciate the reminder! FortunateSons (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per The_Kip above (and my own comments in this section).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 It is a biased blog Michael Boutboul (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 per finding raised by multiple editors
• False statements or WP:EXTRAORDINARY statements without strong support from high-quality, independent sources
• Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians [https://archive.is/OkJE8]
• Organ harvesting topic (debunked by BobFromBrockley see below)
• Link between the founder Ramy Abdu and a terrorist organization (see the photo in [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/]) Michael Boutboul (talk)
• :bias isn't enough to deem a source as unreliable — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 08:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::If argument given by FortunateSons are correct, IMO it is sufficient for Option 3 Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::In addition to @FortunateSons arguments, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees. [https://archive.is/OkJE8 Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians]. The more I am looking for this site, I found significant evidence that the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor acts as a pro-Palestinian advocacy group and has repeatedly published false and misleading statements as fact. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The dogs claim is not extraordinary, we know that trained dogs are used by Israel to torture detainees, and we know that Israelis soldiers frequently rape and sexually assault detainees, especially but not exclusively male ones. There is nothing particularly extraordinary about reporting detainee testimony that combines these two features.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 No one has as of yet pointed out a pattern of falsehoods from Euro-Med HRM as determined by RS, nor has a compelling argument been made to suggest that such falsehoods are inherently linked to the way Euro-Med HRM operates. The assertion that it is only cited by highly partisan sources, and therefore unreliable, is inaccurate. It has been cited by various high quality RS, such as [https://abcnews.go.com/International/kite-festival-gaza-offers-children-rare-break-ongoing/story?id=108629524 ABC], [https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf Amnesty International], [https://apnews.com/article/gaza-family-home-evacuation-israel-troops-f1d9838c60225a8c454e372df72ca245 AP News], [https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c4nn9x23zxzo BBC], [https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/07/middleeast/gaza-israeli-soldiers-detained-men-intl/index.html CNN], [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/12/31/gaza-search-and-rescue-teams-forced-to-leave-their-own-fami/ The Telegraph], [https://www.dw.com/en/gaza-migrants-embarking-on-a-dangerous-journey-to-europe/a-66940196 Deutsche Welle], [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war The Guardian], [https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-top-headlines/ap-mass-funeral-in-gaza-draws-tears-rare-criticism-of-hamas/ The Hill], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hamas-ap-turkey-istanbul-ismail-haniyeh-b2257090.html The Independent], [https://theintercept.com/2024/08/01/israel-military-drones-charity-donations-xtend/ The Intercept], [https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/israel-target-civilians-gaza-fetterman-rcna123890 MSNBC], [https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/mass-funeral-in-gaza-draws-tears-rare-criticism-of-hamas National Post], [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/abandoned-babies-found-decomposing-gaza-hospital-evacuated-rcna127533 NBC News], [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israel-separating-families-in-gaza-taking-men-to-undisclosed-locations-in-mass-arrest-campaign-activists-say PBS], [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/ Reuters], [https://www.scmp.com/news/world/middle-east/article/3256906/israel-gaza-war-us-vows-plough-gaza-airdrops-despite-deaths-hamas-plea-stop South China Morning Post], [https://www.smh.com.au/world/middle-east/gaza-s-children-are-calling-on-us-to-speak-up-20231105-p5eho2.html The Sydney Morning Herald], and [https://www.timesofisrael.com/everyone-is-hungry-desperate-gazans-fight-for-food-as-crisis-deepens/ Times of Israel], just to mention a few. Its reports are based on witness interviews, video and photo evidence, field investigations, and official data. They are also regularly cited by the [https://reliefweb.int/organization/euro-med-monitor UN]. WP:USEBYOTHERS is clear: {{tq|widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability}}.Lf8u2 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :For example : On June 27, 2024, EMHRM echoed a rumor (initially broadcast by Al Jazeera and repeated by LFI MEP Rima Hassan) claiming that Israel was training dogs to rape Palestinian detainees Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::You need to provide sources for such statements. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Here [https://archive.is/OkJE8 Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians]. This is just one example — FortunateSons has provided much more extensive reasoning as to why it falls short of being a reliable source by Wikipedia’s standards. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Do you have sources showing that this is a rumour? The use of dogs has been [https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/ covered] [https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250210-israel-using-torture-sexual-assault-with-dogs-in-prisons/ by] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/gazan-detainees-beaten-and-sexually-assaulted-at-israeli-detention-centres-un-report-claims other] [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67581915 outlets] - while not all carry the sexual assault line, the Euro Med article's core claim: that released prisoners are saying that this happens, and that they are in one way or another being brutalised by dogs, is covered in other RS. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You are mixing up several topics, you are using sources that use EMHRM as a source to prove it is EMHRM is right, it is a circular reporting. This is exactly how a rumor is launched. Michael Boutboul (talk) 12:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::I'm not sure what you mean. The Middle East Monitor piece mentions that there was prior reporting but includes new testimony. It builds on existing reporting that the EMHRM did. The other three sources don't mention it at all. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::None of the other media outlets (BBC, The Guardian, etc.) reported that the IDF used police dogs to rape Palestinian civilians. EMHRM has never retracted this accusation, which raises serious concerns about its reliability as a source. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::If the statement hasn't been debunked or refuted then how does it affect their reliability? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Is there any RS showing that the accusation is incorrect? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::The fact that a claim has not been refuted does not make it reliable. This is a classic argument from ignorance — assuming something is credible merely because no one has disproven it.
• :::::::::Extraordinary accusations — such as the IDF using dogs to commit sexual violence — require strong support from high-quality, independent sources (see WP:EXTRAORDINARY). If such a claim is not corroborated by major human rights organizations or reputable media, then its inclusion — and the reliability of the source making it — must be seriously questioned.
• :::::::::A source that publishes such extreme and unsupported allegations cannot meet the standards of WP:RS, particularly on contentious topics. Michael Boutboul (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::That a source's reporting has not been corroborated does not "raise serious concerns about its reliability as a source."
• ::::::::::And neither is it an extrordinary claim. It's well documented in RS that the Israeli military has sexually assaulted Palestinians and that they have used dogs to attack Palestinians as well. The idea that they used dogs to sexually assault Palestinians is therefore hardly extraordinary. Additionally, as SmallAngryPlanet showed above, the RS 972mag has reported that "a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed [...] cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Indeed, the central allegation in the one (1) piece @Boutboul is talking about is that the Israeli military uses dogs to "attack" prisoners, something that has been cited in RS going back at least a decade or more. One surprising claim in an article (sourced to named individuals, no less) does not make a source non-RS – if that were so I'm not sure which sources we'd be able to use. To use a famous example: the New York Times once ran the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that Iraq had or was developing WMDs, which turned out to be false on multiple fronts, but I still see them cited up and down wikipedia. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::::The comparison with The New York Times is flawed for one crucial reason: the NYT later retracted and critically reviewed its reporting on WMDs, acknowledging its failure — a key indicator of editorial accountability. By contrast, Euro-Med Monitor has never retracted, corrected, or clarified its extraordinary claim that the IDF used dogs to sexually assault Palestinian civilians.
• ::::::::::::This is not just a fringe detail — it is a serious allegation, unsupported by independent, high-quality sources, and remains uncorrected. That directly reflects on editorial standards, which are a core component of WP:RS. A source's reliability depends on editorial oversight, fact-checking, and a reputation for accuracy. Unlike the NYT, Euro-Med Monitor does not demonstrate these safeguards, and this example is symptomatic of a broader lack of editorial rigor. That’s why its use as a reliable source on contentious topics is problematic. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::::Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect. Smallangryplanet (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Just earlier in this discussion, you yourself asked for evidence that Euro-Med Monitor had made this claim — which clearly indicates that you found the assertion extraordinary enough to require verification. That alone supports the application of WP:EXTRAORDINARY.
• :::::::::::Now that the claim is confirmed, you're arguing that it is not extraordinary. That’s inconsistent. The fact remains: Claiming that a state military used dogs to sexually assault civilians is extraordinary by any reasonable editorial standard and demands strong, independent corroboration — not a single partisan source, not one anecdotal testimony. Euro-Med Monitor does not meet the reliability criteria outlined in WP:RS, and this kind of sensational, unverified allegation is exactly the type of content WP:FRINGE warns against promoting without robust sourcing. Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Right now, leaning toward Option 1 per the evidence of use by RS presented by @Lf8u2. I'm open to Option 2 if more evidence is presented that the source is being used detrimentally on-wiki. As with any advocacy org, it is best practice to triangulate Euro-Med's claims with what reliable news orgs are saying and treat claims outside of consensus with more skepticism. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 As I'd say for most reputable advocacy groups we should not assume general reliability, should be careful to attribute statements, etc. However we absolutely should not be treating a reputable advocacy group as generally unreliable solely on the basis of a perceived bias. As other editors have said, WP:USEBYOTHERS is well fulfilled. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Agree it is biased and we should be careful and attribute statements. It seems to work above board though so I'm happy with it. NadVolum (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per NadVolum ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2: EMHRM has an on-the-ground network of sources that provide information, which other news outlets rely on, as other editors have shown above. The only reason I'm not saying Option 1 is because all sources (even the saint New York Times) have to be considered in context. Disregarding EMHRM for the Israeli-Palestinian subject area would be absurd, given that that's precisely the area where EMHRM is strongest and where it provides novel information that other reliable sources quote. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 - There is no pattern of verifiable (using other RS) falsehoods from Euro-Med as has been alleged. Nor has it been shown that there is a systemic reason – for example through the lack of rigorous editorial and investigatory standards – for these falsehoods to be produced in the first place. EuroMed is a reputable human rights organisation that works with bodies like [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/comments/general-comment1-euro-med.docx the] [https://reliefweb.int/updates?list=Euro-Mediterranean%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor%20Updates&advanced-search=%28S49218%29 UN] and [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3273/Euro-Med-Monitor-Discusses-Gulf%E2%80%99s-Human-Rights-Situation-at-EU-Parliament European] [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3726/Euro-Med-Monitor-Report-Inspires-EU-Parliament-Question-about-Middle-East-Prisons-Conditions parliament], is cited by other reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty[https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf], as well as being cited in a diverse array of top-notch RS as noted by @Lf8u2, a list to which I can also add the New York Times ([https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-israeli-military-acknowledges-mistaking-a-bike-for-a-weapon-in-a-strike-but-stands-by-the-attack?searchResultPosition=1], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-hamas-evacuations-strikes.html], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostage-gaza-koslov-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=4], [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/15/world/israel-news-hamas-war-gaza?searchResultPosition=2#those-with-family-in-gaza-struggle-with-frantic-calls-and-constant-fear]).

:I'm legitimately astounded by how Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor is being described by some editors here. Blood libel, Hamas front, a blog, worthless, random opinions, constant falsehoods… what are we doing here? I did a search to see where all this might be coming from and found a "[https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/ fact sheet]" about it on the first page of Google results from a group called "NGO Monitor" that contains all of these things, including the stuff about [https://ngo-monitor.org/topics/richard-falk/ Richard Falk] who is chairman of the board of trustees of EuroMed. He also happens to be an esteemed Jewish scholar, Professor Emeritus in International Law at Princeton, UPenn Bsc, Yale LLb, Harvard SJD. But he had the misfortune of being [https://www.webcitation.org/5dViuhEdA?url=http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/2ee9468747556b2d85256cf60060d2a6/0da4ba56ade85249852574190058d462!OpenDocument appointed in 2008] by the UN Human Rights Council to be the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Palestine, and as has been the case with everyone who has held that position – including the current person, Francesca Albanese – he was subject to a vicious smear campaign by pro-Israeli groups.

:This includes "NGO Monitor", which RS describe as a right-wing Israeli propaganda front [https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13600826.2019.1640189][https://books.google.com/books?id=LTTVDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6][https://books.google.com/books?id=xt7YAZOioLQC&pg=PA206][https://books.google.com/books?id=LHYPnxwPnlwC&pg=RA1-PT127] whose job it is to make these kinds of "fact sheets" that unfortunately end up being used as fodder to dismiss reputable human rights NGOs like Euro-Med. They have also been accused of [https://euobserver.com/foreign/142973 spreading misinformation] and having a [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/3/ politically motivated agenda]. The Al-Shifa hospital and organ harvesting points are also on their "fact sheet"; in fact the first two listed in their "activities" [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/#activities section], and I can't see how this could possibly be relevant. What Euro-Med said about Al-Shifa is entirely in line with RS as we ourselves show in the article on the topic. NGO monitor's piece is an article from November 2023 when the Israeli government and military claimed it had uncovered a vast Hamas underground network under Al-Shifa Hospital. Euro-Med said that the Israeli govt had failed to provide solid evidence for this claim and called on independent bodies to investigate it. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5962/Israel-conducts-executions-in-Shifa-Hospital,-uses-its-staff-as-human-shields (link)]. The govt's claim turned out to be inaccurate as established by RS. Again, citing our article on it to suggest otherwise is strange as we currently refer to Hamas military use of the hospital as "allegations" and cite RS that say no solid proof has been provided for the claim. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67453105], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/gaza-hamas-biden-hospital-israel-b2449165.html], [https://aje.io/yu4f6n?update=2492059], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/21/al-shifa-hospital-gaza-hamas-israel/], [https://observers.france24.com/en/middle-east/20231122-al-shifa-hospital-what-do-we-know-about-idf-videos-of-a-tunnel-under-the-hospital], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/01/03/hamas-gaza-israel-alshifa-tunnels/], [https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/03/politics/us-al-shifa-intelligence-assessment/index.html].

:The [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B organ harvesting article] cites testimonies from doctors in Gaza who examined corpses and relayed it to the Euro-Med investigators. It then uses those allegations as the basis for calling for an investigation to verify them, as any human rights group routinely does. It also refers to reports and laws such as the Supreme Court ruling of 2019 allowing the holding of bodies – all of this is verifiable by RS. In fact, here are some sources for that from RS: [https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group][https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-178236/][https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/a/Rx1n5A/our-sons-are-plundered-of-their-organs][https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs][https://www.haaretz.com/2005-09-26/ty-article/abu-kabir-head-only-reprimanded-for-illegal-organ-removal/0000017f-f41d-d5bd-a17f-f63f85690000][https://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.organs/index.html][https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna34503294][https://www.972mag.com/i-witnessed-a-whole-system-of-deception-regarding-the-death-of-a-palestinian/][https://www-aljazeera-net.translate.goog/news/2016/2/28/%d8%a7%d8%aa%d9%87%d8%a7%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%aa-%d9%84%d8%a5%d8%b3%d8%b1%d8%a7%d8%a6%d9%8a%d9%84-%d8%a8%d8%b3%d8%b1%d9%82%d8%a9-%d8%a3%d8%b9%d8%b6%d8%a7%d8%a1-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b4%d9%87%d8%af%d8%a7%d8%a1?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp][https://www.btselem.org/routine_founded_on_violence/20191022_hcj_greenlights_holding_palestinian_bodies_as_bargaining_chips][https://www.timesofisrael.com/high-court-state-entitled-to-hold-bodies-of-israeli-terror-suspects-for-negotiations/][https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-822542] Smallangryplanet (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::I found some of this very persuasive until we got to the organ harvesting topic, which I have read a lot about over the years. Specifically, none of the reliable sources listed at the end of the comment actually support the extraordinary claims made by Euromed, but rather mostly relate to much older scandals in which individual medical researchers used organs (of Israelis and Palestinians) for illegitimate purposes, and have no bearing on the 2020s.

::Euromed says “According to the human rights group [i.e itself], Israel has recently made it lawful to hold dead Palestinians’ bodies and steal their organs. One such decision is the 2019 Israeli Supreme Court ruling that permits the military ruler to temporarily bury the bodies in what is known as the “Numbers Cemetery”.” Compare this to the report by [https://www.btselem.org/routine_founded_on_violence/20191022_hcj_greenlights_holding_palestinian_bodies_as_bargaining_chips B’Tselem] (a partisan but very reliable human rights organisation) or [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/supreme-court-allows-israel-withhold-bodies-palestinians Middle East Eye] (an anti-Israel weakly reliable source), which report the Supreme Court judgement accurately, with no mention of “organs”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Simonm223's explanation of WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is reliable for Statements of fact (e.g. "Juan purchased a coal-powered car yesterday"); statements of analysis (e.g. "Juan's purchase of a coal-powered car contributed to climate change") and statements of opinion (e.g. "Juan should never have purchased a coal-powered car") may be problematic and should either not be sourced from it or should be used with attribution. Chetsford (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Attribution should always be considered, extreme caution should be taken in verifying information, and use of the source must not be undue. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 for everything related to the I/P conflict. See the discussion for an example of content unsupported by reliable sources. They exhibit heavy bias, their founder and chairman used to lobby for Hamas [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/clare-short-at-risk-of-arrest-in-israel-warns-defence-minister-moshe-ya-alon-a828401.html] and was elated after October 7 attacks). Option 2 for everything else. If their reports are sometimes used by reliable sources, we can quote those. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis_¿question? 08:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :As far as I can see, this link does not lead to anything linking EuroMed to Hamas. Did you intend to post a different link? BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::See here [https://ngo-monitor.org/ngos/euro-med-human-rights-monitor/]for example Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::NGO Monitor is not a reliable source and nor on this topic is Israel. What is the evidence of any connection to Hamas, apart from appearing on a 2013 Israeli list? BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::The picture where you can see the founder of EMHRM with Ismael Hanyeh, former Hamas leader. This is not sufficient? Otherwise do you accept the site Conspiracy Watch as a reliable source? Michael Boutboul (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::How does this picture link EMHRM with Hamas? If you click through to the source of the image it says it's from a [https://www.facebook.com/DrArafatShoukri/photos/t.100053795191625/356066831115475/?type=3 delegation] visiting Gaza. At the time Haniyeh was arguably the Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority, so there's plenty of legitimate reasons for international figures to meet with him. It seems like WP:SYNTH to suggest that this picture alone is evidence of a COI between the EMHRM and Hamas. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::It is clear that working in Gaza requires some level of interaction with Hamas, but not to this extent. Other leaders of respected NGOs such as Médecins Sans Frontières, Save the Children, Oxfam, and CARE have never had any public contact with Ismail Haniyeh.
• ::::::Unlike major humanitarian NGOs, Euro-Med Monitor does not have the same level of international recognition, transparency, or external oversight. Such public proximity to a political leader of Hamas—an organization designated as terrorist by the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Egypt, and Paraguay—can be perceived as political alignment or, at the very least, a serious breach of the fundamental principles of neutrality and reliability to be used on Wikipedia. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::The terrorist designation is a non-sequitur. How is appearing in a photo with a leader of Gaza's civil government somehow worse than the fact that the vast majority of Israeli journalists served in the IDF? Barak Ravid quit his military position only months before beginning work at Axios. Journalists are in pictures with political leaders all the time, it does not remotely suggest a conflict of interest. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I did some digging and found [https://web.archive.org/web/20110918111933/http://thecepr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=164:delegation-to-gaza-july-2011&catid=15:delegations&Itemid=40 this summary] of the delegation's activity. They also met with Save the Children (!) and the United Nations (and several other UN agencies). It sounds like Haniyeh gave a speech and held a discussion about the situation in the Gaza at the time. These are perfectly ordinary things for a group of NGO leaders to do, and does not suggest anything untoward. At any rate, we're here to discuss if this source should be considered reliable, and I can't think of any other source we deprecate solely because the person who founded it met with a person one time. (If that alone is disqualifying, it is time to disqualify the vast majority of reliable sources!) Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Bobfrombrockley, the link I've posted establishes the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas. He was a senior leader in an organisation described by The Independent as {{tquote|a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government}}. I don't know whether EMHRM are in any way connected to Hamas and I didn't claim it. For me it's just one more indication of their extreme bias. Alaexis_¿question? 22:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Alaexis that article does not {{tq|establish[es] the connection between the founder and chairman of EMHRM and Hamas}}. Shin Bet makes a claim that there is a connection between the two, but the organisation says it plans to take legal action to show that it is an independent organisation. The Independent only provides Israeli intelligence agency sourcing for this claim, which as you might imagine is hardly WP:DUE for allegations of this nature. (Hamas is a proscribed organisation in the UK, so if Shin Bet's claims were true, Clare Short could in theory be at risk of legal consequences in the UK, let alone Israel.) Not only that but Ramy himself is not mentioned in the article. Did you mean to send a different link? (We can also talk about how NGOs work with agencies and governments on the ground – even the UK government's proscribed organisation laws include [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/operating-within-counter-terrorism-legislation/for-information-note-operating-within-counter-terrorism-legislation#proscription legal comments] suggesting that 'genuinely benign' meetings may be allowed.) Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't think you're interpreting the text of the article correctly. It says "Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations." The part between dashes is not attributed to Moshe Yaalon, it's the author of the article explaining what CEPR is. Alaexis_¿question? 18:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::In that case I'm not sure how we can possibly come to any conclusions - let alone deprecate a source - because of an unsourced and unverified comment! Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 There is no way to restore NPOV with this steady push to deprecate center-right/right sources and keep far-left, hyper-politicized sources like Euro-Med HRM. Also: these discussions should seek to draw in editors who have not dominated the I/P space. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 per Thucydides411, Lf8u2, Simonm223 and Smallangryplanet. It's cited by the following (among others):
  
  https://abcnews.go.com/International/kite-festival-gaza-offers-children-rare-break-ongoing/story?id=108629524
  
  https://apnews.com/article/gaza-family-home-evacuation-israel-troops-f1d9838c60225a8c454e372df72ca245
  
  https://www.bbc.com/mundo/articles/c4nn9x23zxzo
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/27/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-hamas-evacuations-strikes.html
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/world/middleeast/israel-hostage-gaza-koslov-hamas.html?searchResultPosition=4
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/10/15/world/israel-news-hamas-war-gaza?searchResultPosition=2#those-with-family-in-gaza-struggle-with-frantic-calls-and-constant-fear
  
  https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/03/12/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news/the-israeli-military-acknowledges-mistaking-a-bike-for-a-weapon-in-a-strike-but-stands-by-the-attack?searchResultPosition=1
  
  https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/07/middleeast/gaza-israeli-soldiers-detained-men-intl/index.html
  
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war
  
  https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trapped-jobless-gaza-youths-look-way-out-2023-03-22/
  
  Furthermore, they also work with the UN and the EU parliament and are cited by Amnesty International:
  
  https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MDE1551412022ENGLISH.pdf
  
  https://reliefweb.int/organization/euro-med-monitor
  
  https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/ced/comments/general-comment1-euro-med.docx
  
  https://reliefweb.int/updates?list=Euro-Mediterranean%20Human%20Rights%20Monitor%20Updates&advanced-search=%28S49218%29
  
  https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3273/Euro-Med-Monitor-Discusses-Gulf%E2%80%99s-Human-Rights-Situation-at-EU-Parliament
  
  https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/3726/Euro-Med-Monitor-Report-Inspires-EU-Parliament-Question-about-Middle-East-Prisons-Conditions
  
  Their extensive use and citations means they are a RS and no one has shown or linked any point where they were wrong about something or anything that would indicate that they are unreliable. Just because they are critcial of Israel where there is evidence Israel has committed abuses, doesn't mean they should be listed as unreliable. Genabab (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::ADL is cited more frequently than EMHRM, but it is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, citation frequency does not equate to reliability. Michael Boutboul (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'm curious how you can square Option 1 for an advocacy group, when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable%20sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1248262682 you've previously said] option 3 for a WP:NEWSORG solely because of bias. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Samuelshraga Aplogies for the late reply, I typically forget to check replies unless pinged, but the reason is mainly because:

:::1. Its unclear what makes Euro-Med unreliable

:::2. Its unclear when they reported something that was false

:::3. Very reputable orgs cite them like AI, and they work together with the UN and the EU which suggests legitimacy. The same cannot be said for the JC Genabab (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Genabab, I think the organ theft claim is pretty clearly false, and the total lack of any hint of {{tq|editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering}} (just the things we're supposed to look for when evaluating a Wikipedia:PARTISAN source) are a case for unreliability - but that aside, I was just curious how you squared a GUNREL !vote where the only argument you cited was bias, with a GREL vote for a self-evidently biased source.

::::I also don't think that working with the UN or MEPs confers a lot of legitimacy on the best of days, but given that the MEP in question is Marc Tarabella (one of the Qatargate ones), I think it might do the opposite. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Euro-Med reports on Israeli human rights abuses, just as they do for other countries too. So I don't think bias applies here. As others have said, human rights group's like reporting on violations they gather from their teams, and then call for investigations on that basis. I don't think anyone's demonstrated that Euro-Med is biased or unreliable or actively lies or anything like that. You mention reports on organ harvesting but other sources have also reported this (As noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Vice_regent-20250320214400-FortunateSons-20250320173400), so I don't agree that it is "very clearly false" at all.

:::::JC on the other hand is a different story. There we saw that they deliberately falsified reporting to push a narrative that was in favor of Israel, as seen in the linked sources below. Hence why I voted against JC. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/14/crisis-at-jewish-chronicle-as-stories-are-withdrawn https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/world/europe/jewish-chronicle-uk-fabricated-stories-owner.html Genabab (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If you don't think that Euro-Med has bias, I don't think we are capable of conducting a conversation. The fact that it does not confine its reportage solely to Israel/Palestine is a non sequitur of an explanation for this view. And by the way, there are GREL-listed outlets on RSP who have notes that there is a consensus that they are a biased source. I strongly believe bias is not a problem for reliability, I only noted it here because of the inconsistency in your arguments.

::::::Secondly, on organ theft. Re: your reference to VR's "evidence" on this, I will note that I don't think that contains any reference to RS making a claim of organ theft, and are mostly unreliable sources attributing that claim to variously the Gazan authorities (a certain Hamas if I recall) and Euro-Med, so the argument is pretty circular. More importantly, the organ theft claim I'm referring to is not the bog standard "Israelis steal organs" blood libel, it's the claim by Euro-Med that [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B the Israeli supreme court legalised organ theft]. That's the demonstrably false and extraordinary claim that I find most concerning.

::::::As for the JC, I'm not here to relitigate that RfC, but if you had written there that your reasoning was that they had published false stories, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You exclusively cited bias. Still, I don't think we're getting anywhere here so I don't mind leaving it at that. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC) edited Samuelshraga (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Everyone has bias in the general sense. Be that bias like labelling sourced reporting as "blood libel". What matters more is the question of whether the natural bias turns the source from reliable to unreliable. My primary concern is if they publish false stories as determined to be so by RS. No one has brought up an instance of that for Euro-Med. The only example that came close was on the legalisation claim. Which was attributed in the link to "Israeli doctor Meira Weiss [in] her book Over Their Dead Bodies" and "Yehuda Hess, the former director of Israel’s Abu Kabir Institute of Forensic Medicine" which demonstrates that it is not "demonstrably false".

:::::::Furthermore, I question your scepticism towards VR's sources. If a bunch of paramedics in Gaza are saying "Its possible that Israel did organ theft" then that does indeed bolster Euro-Meds claim. Alternatively if a source works for the government in Gaza that does not mean everything they say can immediately be assumed to be false. After all WHO (or at least I think it was WHO) judges the Hamas government's estimates of casualties to be reliable, so there's precedence here.

:::::::And since we're talking about double standards, I did a check for your votes and saw you voted option 1 for The Jerusalem Post (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_459#c-Samuelshraga-20241120070200-Slatersteven-20241028135900). JP has repeatedly published false stories like about beheaded babies, still published now (https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-767951). This does show a "total lack of any hint of editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering". If a source that claimed to have verified photos of beheaded babies can get a "Reliable" vote from you, I'm not sure what standard you're using to justify "Generally Unreliable" here or anywhere else. Genabab (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::First of all, the claim that the Israeli supreme court recently legalised organ theft is not attributed to Euro-Med in the source I linked to, to either Meira Weiss or Yehuda Hess. A claim about the historic unlawful use of organs is attributed to them, not the claim to which I clearly referred.

::::::::Secondly, VR's sources:

::::::::* [https://www.euronews.com/2023/11/27/israel-stealing-organs-from-bodies-in-gaza-alleges-human-right-group the first] attributes the claim to Euro-Med, meaning that your use of it in this case is circular.

::::::::* [https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/143531 The second] doesn't actually make the claim (it talks about medical teams having suspicions).

::::::::* [https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-stealing-organs-dead-bodies-gaza-officials The third] attributes the claim to variously: "local authorities in Gaza" (read: Hamas), the Quds News Network (read: Hamas) and - Euro-Med.

::::::::* [https://www.palestinechronicle.com/israel-stole-organs-from-bodies-of-palestinians-gaza-authorities/ The fourth] cited "the government media office in Gaza" (pretty sure I know who that is).

::::::::* [https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/israel-hands-back-stolen-palestinian-bodies-missing-organs-report The fifth] is a live news update feed and attributes the claim to the second source anyway.

::::::::I don't know that any of the linked outlets are reliable. Some, like Palestine Chronicle, I would suspect are definitely not. I see no completed RfCs or listings for any of them. But even if they were all green - these outlets don't make the claim that you're saying they do, which itself is not the one that I referenced in the first place. A source not being reliable does not mean everything they say is false, that's ludicrous. A source being unreliable means we can't rely on it to be true.

::::::::Re: my !vote on the Jerusalem Post, the point that you made was in fact made by the proposer of that RfC I was !voting in. I stated in my !vote my agreement with what Chess had written, which included a response to that point. In fact the discussion was explicitly closed as an endorsement of Chess' position. In any case, The Jerusalem Post clearly shows editorial practices like issuing retractions and corrections, has named writers and editors, and separating commentary from news. These are important to my evaluation of what is a reliable source, so I'm not sure what double standard you're pointing to, other than you disagree with me on that RfC and you disagree with me here. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 per the sources mentioned by Lf8u2 and Smallangryplanet, but acknowledging it as an advocacy group (so not option 1), Huldra (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2 as my usual response that as policy is WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it depends on the specific edit proposed and the specific cite, there is no 'this source is always right' or 'this source is always wrong'. I add the obvious limit of this source does not have much WP:WEIGHT of coverage, so other sources are more likely useful. And this source is an advocacy group and like all such may be usable as RS of the WP:BIASED kind as a POV but not as objective fact -- use in-text attribution on anything from here, not WP:WIKIVOICE. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2, which Mark outlined the reasoning for above nicely. Regardless of how they describe themselves, they're essentially an advocacy organization and should not be cited without in-text attribution. I do not think other editors have outlined an actual pattern of falsehoods or deception, however, and other editors have noted their use among other RS. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 3. Euro-Med is an extremely partisan advocacy group in the I/P space. This would put it in the same categroy as CAMERA, NGO Monitor and others. Both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli NGOs of this type easily fulfil WP:USEBYOTHERS in that they are frequently cited in RS, typically by RS with a bias towards "their" side. However Wikipedia should never take the claims made by such groups and put them into its own voice, and should wait for those claims to be filtered through RS before repeating them with attribution. Given that this source makes extraordinary claims for which it seems to be the only source (e.g. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B claiming that Israel recently legalised organ theft from Palestinians]), and that no one seems to have pointed to any clear editorial processes or history of retraction, I am shocked that anyone is advocating Option 1. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 4, or Option 3, first choice would be Option 4, but Option 3 would be a decent minimum place to start if Option 4 does not have clear consensus. I agree with the reasoning for why provided by FortunateSons. This source has no proximity to reliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'd just point out that this !vote has no argument and lacks any basis in out policies.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Iljhgtn said that they agree with the reasoning provided by FortunateSons above. It seems quite aggressive to go sniping at !votes for the crime of directing people to the argument that swayed them, rather than restating it. Not to mention that it's a recipe for bloat and bludgeoning if people have to repeat the same argument every time. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Agreed. @Boynamedsue should strikethrough their disrespectful comment. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1, as Lf8u2, Genabab, and Smallangryplanet stated, Euro Med is used by many reputable sources and works with many international bodies & human rights group like Amnesty International and the United Nations. No evidence has actually been presented to prove they spew false information, they're simply gathering testimonies of abuse and advocate for investigations (in many countries such as Syria, Algeria, Tunisia, Bahrain, etc., not just Israel). I would believe anything other than Option 1 sets a bad precedent. Geo (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Please note that this user has been banned by ArbCom for {{tq|Canvassing and off-wiki coordination}} FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3. Israel training police dogs to rape Palestinians is a bizarre and obvious conspiracy theory. I am surprised that editors here are defending it as truth. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 07:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Just because you personally don't believe a source, that doesn't make it unreliable. (Argument from incredulity)
• :This is also hardly an extraordinary claim. Confer this [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kPE6vbKix6A&pp=0gcJCR0AztywvtLA Oct 2024 Al Jazeera documentary] at time 1:04:20 where the allegation is made by a Fadi Bakr of Gaza, who [https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7276854 per the CBC] was "a law graduate from the University of Palestine, was searching for food for his wife and kids in Khan Younis on Jan. 5 when he was caught in the crossfires of fighting between Hamas militants and the IDF. He was shot and took refuge in a nearby building, [...] Then, he was arrested."
• :This allegation/testimony was also reported by +972 Magazine: "Multiple media outlets, including CNN and the New York Times, have reported on instances of rape and sexual assault at Sde Teiman. In a video circulating on social media earlier this week, a Palestinian prisoner recently released from the detention camp said that he had personally witnessed multiple rapes, and cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."[https://www.972mag.com/sde-teiman-prisoners-lawyer-mahajneh/?utm_source=972+Magazine+Newsletter] IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim. He's the same person cited by Euro-Med Monitor and all of the other sources.
• ::Going from a single prisoner saying he {{xt|witnessed individual Israeli soldiers using dogs to sexually assault Palestinians}} to {{!xt|Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians}} is the problem with that source. Most sources do not take a single individual's testimony and use their own voice to say the Zionists are training rape dogs to abuse Palestinians. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::You apparently haven't read the source, which says "Euro-Med Monitor received horrific testimonies from recently released detainees confirming the brutal and inhumane use of Israeli police dogs to rape prisoners and detainees". Fadi Saif al-Din Bakr is the only named witness. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{re|IOHANNVSVERVS}} I did read that. No other news outlet has been able to interview someone other than Fadi Bakr, and Euro-Med Monitor doesn't provide any other testimony from other detainees. The closest is this:
• ::::{{tqb|Thirty-six-year-old Hassan Abu Raida, another released detainee, stated: “They moved me and the other detainees to a prison. They threw us to the ground and made the dogs urinate on us [as we lay there]. In addition, one of the soldiers struck my right knee with an iron pipe, and I am still recovering from that injury.”}}
• ::::That's not rape. It's wrong and is prisoner abuse, but I think Euro-Med Monitor is stretching the definition of "rape" (which usually requires penetration) here to fit their POV instead of presenting the facts accurately, because implying penetration by dogs is much more scandalous than urination by dogs. Similar to how Israeli civilians being mutilated was exaggerated into beheaded babies by ZAKA, which also isn't reliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::@Chess you are misrepresenting the source. This is now the second time I have seen you do this in a short period of time, as you did with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre#c-Smallangryplanet-20250323220500-Chess-20250321232800 the Bloomberg article here]. This assertion was initially made by Boutboul, who also claimed that Euro-Med Monitor reported Israel was "systematically" training dogs to rape Palestinians. Euro-Med Monitor has not stated anywhere that Israel is systematically training or using police dogs to rape Palestinians. The [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape actual report] explicitly states that Israel is systematically using dogs to attack Palestinian civilians—not to rape—and bases this on cited testimonies, with the specification of "at least one reported rape". Not systematic rape by dogs, not training dogs to rape, but at least one reported case of rape, and then they cite the testimony for that which other RS have also cited as @IOHANNVSVERVS and myself have noted.
• :::::{{tq|Fadi Bakr of Gaza is literally the only source for that claim}} - no he is not. [https://www.newarab.com/analysis/new-palestinian-testimonies-reveal-horrors-israels-prisons Here is another testimony] saying he witnessed the use of dogs to rape prisoners. Not only that, but EMHRM does not treat this claim as verified but calls for an investigation.
• :::::Criticising a human rights organisation for documenting and reporting victim testimony of alleged abuses—and for urging further investigation—is certainly an interesting position to hold. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::“Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack, rape Palestinian civilians”: I didn’t make it up — that’s the actual title of the article. And I completely agree with you that it’s absurd, which is precisely why this source isn’t reliable. Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::That's not what the article says, though. WP:HEADLINES makes it clear we should look at what the body of the source text says. {{tq|Palestinian Territory – The Israeli military is using police dogs to systematically attack Palestinian civilians during military operations in the Gaza Strip. The dogs are also used to intimidate, beat, and sexually assault prisoners and detainees in Israeli detention facilities.}} (Emphasis mine.) I do not think we should deprecate or downgrade a source because of a poorly deployed comma splice in a headline on a single article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::That's a big move of the goalposts. You said "not stated anywhere", now it's "stated in the headline, but that doesn't count". Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Goalposts remain firmly in place, because the headline has [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape been updated], to a version which reads {{tq|Gaza: Israeli army systematically uses police dogs to brutally attack Palestinian civilians, with at least one reported rape}}. The [https://archive.is/OkJE8 archival version] of the piece that @Boutboul is citing was taken on 28 Jun 2024 05:38:44 UTC. The updated version was itself first archived [https://web.archive.org/web/20240628143044/https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape roughly 9 hours later], at 28 Jun 2024 14:30:44 UTC. So not only did they have accurate content in the body from the get-go, but they very quickly moved to update to a more precise headline that same day. The updated version [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6383/Gaza:-Israeli-army-systematically-uses-police-dogs-to-brutally-attack-Palestinian-civilians,-with-at-least-one-reported-rape is still live to this day]. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Pick one argument. At the start of this discussion, you said {{tq|Why should EMHRM correct it when it has not been repudiated? That's why I was hoping you had found evidence to show it was incorrect.}} Now you're saying that it has been repudiated, but EMHRM corrected it.
• ::::::::::So, what factual position are you currently endorsing?
• ::::::::::# Israel systemically uses dogs to rape Palestinians
• ::::::::::# Israel has raped one person with a dog
• ::::::::::# One detainee said they saw another detainee be raped by a dog, but it's unconfirmed whether that is true
• ::::::::::I think 3. is a correct assessment of the situation. EMHRM said 1. initially, then silently changed it to 2 without a public correction. The vast majority of sources that do cover the alleged canine molestations go with option 3: quoting Fadi Bakr but without endorsing his claims as true. However, EMHRM says they "confirmed" this based on one person's uncorroborated testimony. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Repudiation is "the act of refusing to accept something or someone as true, good, or reasonable". There has been no repudiation here, just a routine editorial improvement of a headline to better align it with the content of the article. The original headline could have been read in 2 different ways and now it is clearer. Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Agree with @Isoceles-sai on repudiation. I am not endorsing any factual position, other than that I am correctly interpreting an old initial headline. None of the three options you listed, @Chess, are correct interpretations of the headline. The original title does not make the claim that dogs are being trained to systematically rape Palestinians. They put {{tq|attack, rape}}. If they had been making the claim that position (1) is correct, then they would have said "attack and rape." In any case, it was quickly clarified and, again, WP:HEADLINES. The content of the article reports what EMHRM has been told ({{tq|testimonies...confirming...}} is a standard formulation used by plenty of RS for all manner of things) and then they call for an investigation, which is perfectly reasonable. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::https://archive.is/OkJE8 Michael Boutboul (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Advocacy. Can be used with in text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - should be attributed, but its well cited and their reports are cited by reliable sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't see what the fuss is about with PIA topic area? If the only reason we are knitpicking supposed errors {{small|(that some of their reports weren't reposted by other groups)}} is because a human rights org is saying there are human rights violations in Gaza, some of these votes should be considered in that context. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 or if necessary Option 2 - In practice, labeling a source as 'advocacy' is too often misused to selectively cast doubt on that source. The line between advocacy and journalism is much, much too blurry to be a convenient pass/fail test for Wikipedia editors. As for the "police dog" issue, the [https://archive.is/OkJE8 article itself] is somewhat ambiguous about what exactly happened, because the testimony it discusses is somewhat ambiguous. Per the source Israeli attack dogs were used against Palestinian civilians. This doesn't qualify as an extraordinary claim. Grayfell (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :What about [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B the claim that the Israeli supreme court legalised organ theft from Palestinians]? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2. Highly partisan advocacy group that we should not use without attribution. Use by RSs with attribution suggests it is a source we can cite, but at least one egregious example of highly inaccurate reporting on an inflammatory topic (organ traffic, where they eg made a false claim about an Israeli court decision, documented above) indicates we should not cite it without extreme care and caveats. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 or at least Option 2, since they regularly published unverified reports (i.e. [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%E2%80%99l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%E2%80%99s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%E2%80%8B 1]) as news reports. See 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy. At the very least, we need a strong distinction between news and opinion, as most articles on the site fall squarely into the latter. --FeldBum (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 The source is largely reliable but relies heavily on the testimony of detainees and residents of Gaza which cannot, at this minute, be verified for obvious reasons. This means that we should often be careful to attribute both to EuroMed and to the source of the testimony. (i.e. {{tq|EuroMedMonitor has reported that released detainees describe...}}). It is also occasionally careless with wording, it did actually state in a single sentence that the Israeli supreme court had made organ-harvesting legal, even though it was clear from the text of the report in which this claim appears that this was not correct. But this one error/false claim is not enough to allow us to discard the wealth of information the source brings given its access to Gaza. Far worse errors have been made by mainstream sources we accept as reliable, for example uncorrected parroting of the 40 beheaded babies claim.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2, all these interested parties have an axe to grind and should be looked at critically but I've not seen anything particularly bad compared to all the Israeli ones, and I get the feeling it is more reliable and does more fact checking than the Telegraph which just spews out misinformation, how that gets to be generally reliable I don't know. NadVolum (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC) I'd already !voted a while ago and completely forgot! -this RfC has been around so long. At least it looks like I've been consistent onoption 2. NadVolum (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 per WP:USEBYOTHERS. ~ El D. (talk to me) 20:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"{{tq|If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims.}}"
• :WP:USEBYOTHERS does not support an Option 1 !vote, but could well support an Option 2 or Option 3. Iljhgtn (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 due to extreme bias (its founder's closeness with Hamas leadership and its outright refusal to report on Palestinian war crimes against Israelis despite styling itself as a human rights monitor. Its refusal to self-correct, its promotion of the systemic canine rape conspiracy theory based on one unverified testimony where one incident was alleged and its canvassing operation on Wikipedia are also hallmarks of an GUNREL source. I would say Option 2 outside of Israel-Palestine, because the problems, besides their canvassing operation, are confined to Israel-Palestine affairs and not other theatres of its work. However, they are an advocacy group and considering their sloppy coverage of Israel-Palestine and their canvassing operation, more reputable human rights groups (like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) are preferable. Closetside (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :A further problem is that it [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6708/Infographic:-577-days-of-genocide-in-Gaza| claims] that only 6,204 non-civilians (i.e. militants) were killed during the war. However, a Hamas official [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/in-first-acknowledgement-of-significant-losses-hamas-official-says-some-6000-operatives-killed-in-gaza-fighting/| acknowledged] 6,000 operatives in February 2024, 4 months into the war. The notion that only 204 other operatives were killed, whether Hamas operatives after February 2024 or operatives of other militant groups since the war's beginning is ludicrous. As late as December 2024, it [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6645/Infographic:-444-days-of-genocide-in-Gaza---23-December-2024 | claimed] that less than 6,000 militants were killed despite the official's admission. While Hamas denied the official's claim, there is no reason to doubt the official's credibility and every reason to suspect Hamas officially denied the claim to avoid a morale loss among its forces, similar to its denial of Mohammed Deif's killing. Closetside (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 3 They appear to hold a clear bias and have repeatedly published unverified information, potentially even misinformation, about Gaza, despite being based in Europe. --Bruebach (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 Usable with attribution. It would be have been better if there were any journalists from reliable sources operating in Gaza but due to the circumstances an advocacy group is one of the few voices that remain. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 I came across this discussion while looking into the reliability of the source before using it. From what I've seen so far, and also based on what other editors have pointed out, it seems to be cited fairly often by reliable sources. Personally, I don't find the accusations of "extreme bias" very convincing. It is a human rights organization, and by nature such groups can be seen as controversial, depending on whom they are criticising or perhaps whom they are not. If it is used with proper attribution that should be sufficient. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's important to note that Euro-Med runs [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/projects/5/WIKI-Rights Wiki-Rights], which "trains" Wikipedians with what appears to be a desire to change the coverage of certain topics to allign with their values. I believe that any participant is at minimum obligated to disclose their COI if they choose to participate in this discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :@FortunateSons while I see your reasoning, I think WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SOAP might be better targets than WP:BATTLEGROUND there. ADVOCACY covers trying to shape Wiki articles to fit certain beliefs or narratives in violation of WP:NPOV, while BATTLEGROUND moreso constitutes general aggressiveness and incivility (sometimes in pursuit of advocacy, but not always). The Kip ^(contribs) 18:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ah, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Jesus fucking christ... — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 22:11, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Wow, they've been running this program since 2015! Considering that I've never seen anyone disclosing this, there are definitely WP:COI/WP:CANVASSING issues here, however they should probably be discussed elsewhere. It's definitely a biased source, with their founder and chairman being [https://x.com/RamAbdu/status/1710979802717372844 really] [https://x.com/RamAbdu/status/1711014615885185265 happy] about the October 7 attack. Alaexis_¿question? 14:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The political views of Jeff Bezos have zero impact on the reliability of Washington Post, so long as he doesn't interfere in the newspaper in a way that would undermine its accuracy. Same applies here.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Vice regent If I recall correctly, though, statements made by Jonathan Greenblatt outside of his role as head of the ADL were partly used as rationale to rate the ADL as GUNREL; there's also been other instances where the views/statements of a publication's main or sole owner/editor/etc were similarly used as points of unreliability, such as The Grayzone and Max Blumenthal's other outlets. That's not to say Abdu's had direct effects on EMHRM's reliability/lack thereof, but from a hypotheticals standpoint I don't think the argument that his views have impacted their publications is that out there.
• ::WaPo's a bit of a poor comparison as well, considering it's a large newspaper with an editorial process and (at least formerly?) fairly robust fact-checking; EMHRM, like the ADL, is an advocacy group, which aren't usually run to those same standards. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::Don't forget the Jewish Chronicle, unreliable due to right-wing ideologues taking it over.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_455#RFC_Jewish_Chronicle] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Of course, newspaper owners have influence over their publications! That’s true for Jeff Bezos and many others. Michael Boutboul (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::The views of a proprietor have no bearing on the reliability of the publication they own, correct. But the false statements of an editor do, I think, have bearing on the reliability of the publication they own. It’s not comparable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
• Did the proposer of this just think there wasn't enough happening in the world? They should not be wasting people's time dragging up again without some good reason. None was provided. NadVolum (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• :The original discussion wasn’t an RfC, this is. The source comes up in discussions regularly, and is cited within many contentious articles, so a clear consensus on reliability is beneficial. FortunateSons (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
• Regarding the lack of reliability, here is a good example [https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5962/Israel-conducts-executions-in-Shifa-Hospital,-uses-its-staff-as-human-shields]

{{cquote|After failing to find any evidence of a military presence in the medical facility, the Israeli soldiers went crazy and deliberately carried out a series of executions, eliminating and directly shooting a number of the wounded in cold blood.}}

: They published it in November 2023. It's hard to prove that this didn't take place but we can check whether anyone else has reported on this ever since. Amnesty International said nothing about summary executions of the wounded in their [https://www.amnesty.org.au/israel-opt-israels-raid-of-al-shifa-hospital-is-a-devastating-attack-on-human-rights-in-gaza-crisis/ piece] about the Al-Shifa raid, which is otherwise quite critical of Israel's actions. I searched for other reports and found none.

: It's possible that their reliability varies and sometimes their bias doesn't prevent them from publishing valuable information that is then re-published by reliable sources, as demonstrated by some editors. In that case we should use those reliable sources. I don't think we should ever use information that appears only in Euromed reports. Alaexis_¿question? 08:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::"It's hard to prove that this didn't take place" - then this is in no way "a good example of their lack of reliability". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::A source making an exceptional claim that no other reliable source corroborates does have negative indications for notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• This needs to be closed formally by an uninvolved closer, and I restored the text above after a bot automatically had tried to archive the discussions and RfC. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why have you bothered to do this, the RFC tag has been removed, the extra time from the do not archive tags has elapsed, and in all that time no new comments have been added. Maybe it will never be closed, having it on the noticeboard won't make that happen, and if it is closed the closer can restore it to the noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::How do we formally request a closer to come and close it? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::It’s already on WP:Closure requests! FortunateSons (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::How do we prevent an RfC from being auto-archived prior to being closed? Sorry, I am unfamiliar with such requests and the deadlines before archive etc. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::You don’t, generally speaking. It can still be closed despite being archived, and no new comments make that closure easier. FortunateSons (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Oh I thought it could not be closed once archived, or at least it would be much less likely due to being much less visible. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::In practice, that’s a reasonable concern, in theory, the closure request noticeboard should take care of that. FortunateSons (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::I posted a closure request to WP:CR when the RFC tag was removed on the 19th of April, it will remain on CR until someone closes it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{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)

• 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)

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)

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)

If you search for "iUniverse," you find a lot of citations to books published by this self-publishing company. We shouldn't be citing them, removing these citations is a good thing to do if anyone is looking for a semi-robotic task. Prezbo (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:The reliability of a self published work is going to depend on the author, see WP:SPS. So these would need to be checked before being replaced or removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

: I would hope anyone attempting to "semi-robotically" remove iUniverse citations without cause would find themselves "semi-robotically" blocked from editing Wikipedia. Self-published sources are not necessarily bad. Some are quite excellent, in fact. Anyone that thinks commercial publishers provide even a modicum of fact-checking these days is dangerously unfamiliar with how the publishing world works. Carrite (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

In 2023 an expedition to climb the highest point in Uzbekistan took survey measurements of Khazret Sultan (widely described as Uzbekistan's highest point) and also of a nearby peak called Alpomish, and reported that Alpomish is approximately 25 meters higher than Khazret Sultan, making Alpomish the true high point. This was published on [https://www.countryhighpoints.com/alpomish-uzbekistan-highpoint/ the expedition leader's personal website], which was rightfully rejected as non-RS for an exceptional claim of this nature. However, the same claim [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201216908 has now been published] in the 2024 edition of the American Alpine Journal, in an article submitted by the expedition leader. The question: is publication by the AAJ sufficient validation of the claim to justify changing what we describe as the Uzbekistan high point, even though other online sources like the CIA World Factbook have not yet responded to the report by changing their articles? -- LWG ^talk 19:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:That says its a magazine even tho the title is journal, but perhaps its halfway in between. That article is better than the self published website. You could try and put it and see if anyone disputes it or put both figures attributed. Doesnt Mount Everest have disputed figures? It looks like AAJ has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=americanalpineclub.org&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 cited or mentioned] in over 300 articles. Metallurgist (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure "magazine" is an accurate characterization of an annually-published 300+ page book that lacks advertisements and popular interest columns and such. It's not an academic journal in the typical sense, but it's definitely a serious publication. [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/about_the_aaj Here] is how they describe themselves and their editorial process.

::The reason I brought up this question is that some editors have been attempting to introduce the new high point ever since the original expedition, but others have been rejecting it as non-RS. I agree that the original blog doesn't outweigh the CIA Factbook, but I am seeking guidance on how to weigh the AAJ against the momentum of older sources. -- LWG ^talk 01:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's a magazine, and for things like elevations, I'd want to see scientific data, not an individual alpinist' best guess/measurements. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::For the mountains in question rigorous scientific data is simply unavailable as far as I can tell. The question is which secondary/tertiary sources we are going to trust when they cite different non-scientifically rigorous numbers, and specifically how we weigh older sources against more recent ones when the claim is that a new discovery has been made. But if consensus is against using the AAJ for that purpose I will defer to that. -- LWG ^talk 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

: courtesy pings to {{re|DJ Cane|Horse Eye's Back|buidhe|Isaidnoway}} whom have participated in Gilbertson related discussion the last time it was at RSN Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Ping to @Cullen328 in case this interests you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:In the Uzbekistan article maybe mention both estimates and attribute? I expect AAJ is probably right, but may not be as authoritative as other sources (t · c) buidhe 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think the issue being raised is the author of the AAJ article, who had previously published the same info on his personal website, and now AAJ has published it under his byline. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I had a look at it and it appears to be similar to WP:FORBESCON. Given significant vested interest in force by affiliates of Gilbertson to get his name out on Wikipedia, I feel it can be done by using more traditional source from publishers that generally publish in science related articles _without_ using Gilbertson source to ensure no COI issues occur.

::We should refrain from citing surfing mags for oceanographic information or trainfanning zines for transportation info. We should also refrain from citing mountaineering sports mags for geology. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If there is indeed a concerted effort by affiliates of Gilbertson to promote him here, I want no part of it. Even if we accept the AAJ article as RS for the purpose of citing the elevation of the mountains in question, there is no need to mention Gilbertson beyond the citation. I suppose the question of handling COI is an article-by-article discussion more appropriate for the individual talk pages than here. Regarding the AAJ as a source, I see the comparison with WP:FORBESCON, but I think the AAJ is significantly beyond a "surfing mag" or "trainfanning zine" in terms of editorial control and expectation of facts-based reports rather than narrative writing. I agree that more traditional sources would be preferred if they existed. But we're not weighing the AAJ against a competing contradictory claim elsewhere, we are weighing the AAJ's decision to publish material over the fact that other sources have not yet done so. I don't think the AAJ should be seen as so unreliable that it should be excluded from consideration preemptively. -- LWG ^talk 15:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Their [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/about_the_aaj about page] says: {{tq2|The AAJ publishes first-person reports about big new routes, first free ascents, and significant attempts and mountain exploration anywhere in the world.}}

::::And then on the AAJ submission form page, it says:

::::{{tq2|The AAJ does not pay contributors. We have always depended on the generosity of contributors to create this essential resource for the world’s climbers.}}

::::So it is definitely contributor generated content, and if it is to be used, I'd argue that any content added would need to be attributed as an expedition by Eric Gilbertson, and his findings, rather than in wikivoice, or attribution solely to the magazine. It looks like they have previously published numerous expeditions by him as well, [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201213748 2016], [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201214060 2017], [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201214466 2018], [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201214443 2018], [https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201216722 2024]. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Cool cool, I can accept that. -- LWG ^talk 17:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::However, that doesn't necessarily make it WP:DUE as bland xxx -est in xxx is just trivia. For example, largest tire swing set in xx county, the highest public park in City of xxx, and so on and on. So, any inclusion of Eric Gilbertson contents would be due weight issue, but I think that would be on NPOV/N matter. Graywalls (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agree with the DUE concerns. Another alternative to using it as a source in the article, is to put it in a Further reading sect or an ext link. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:As mentioned by @Buidhe, Gilbertson in AAJ is probably on the right track but the fact still stands that this is essentially self-published and thus doesn't reach WP:RS status. As noted in other discussions about Gilbertson's findings (see: Talk:Mount Rainier for instance), for inclusion on Wikipedia Gilbertson's findings should be peer reviewed or otherwise accepted by an entity with more authority on the subject.

:Gilbertson's method is to take some surveying equipment up various mountains and self-survey them. Nothing wrong with that, but then he puts an article out on the subject on his blog and attempts a media blitz without verification.

:More generally, I'd say it's fair to use AAJ as supporting material but not as a singular source for a data point. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 19:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO too weak for supporting stating it as fact in the voice of Wikipedia. Maybe enough to put it in as an attributed claim. With a claim of exceeding the height of the currently accepted peak by a whopping 25 meters I would think that there would be other sources (e.g. satellites). North8000 (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::According to the Gilbertson AAJ article the difference between the peaks is below the resolution of available satellite data, and the Soviet-era surveys didn't record a point elevation for the Alpomish summit, which was what motivated the 2023 measurement attempt. Maybe other editors know more places to look, but I personally haven't been able to find the kind of rigor people seem to want here even for the current claimed Uzbekistan high point of Khazret Sultan. -- LWG ^talk 21:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This source from 2024 matches what the article states:

:::*{{cite journal |last1=Rakhmatova |first1=Natella |last2=Nishonov |first2=Bakhriddin E. |last3=Kholmatjanov |first3=Bakhtiyar M. |last4=Rakhmatova |first4=Valeriya |last5=Toderich |first5=Kristina N. |last6=Khasankhanova |first6=Gulchekhra M. |last7=Shardakova |first7=Lyudmila |last8=Khujanazarov |first8=Temur |last9=Ungalov |first9=Akmal N. |last10=Belikov |first10=Dmitry A. |display-authors=1 |title=Assessing the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Drought in Uzbekistan: Findings from RCP and SSP Scenarios |journal=Atmosphere |date=22 July 2024 |volume=15 |issue=7 |pages=866 |doi=10.3390/atmos15070866 |doi-access=free |quote=The Tien Shan and Pamir Mountain ranges also cross the country, with the highest point being Khazret Sultan, which rises to 4643 m above sea level }} Isaidnoway (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That source doesn't appear to be reporting rigorous measurements of that mountain, or even appear to be about elevation or topography at all. It just asserts that height of Khazret Sultan in an aside in the Materials and Methods section without citation (the two citations given at the end of that sentence relate to the climatological claims and don't discuss Khazret Sultan at all). There's no indication that Natella Rakhmatova et al. have any more relevant expertise on this subject than Gilbertson, or that they or their publishing journal did any more validation of the Khazret Sultan elevation claim than a quick lookup in sources that predated Gilbertson's claims. To be clear, I'm not saying that we must accept the Gilbertson source, just pushing back on the claim that the alternatives are more rigorous. -- LWG ^talk 22:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Don't know what to tell you. There's also no indication the source currently used in the article has any more relevant expertise on this subject than Gilbertson or anyone else. It is a self-published website that is a hobby for the guy who runs it. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Right, that's my point - people are objecting to Gilbertson because he's not peer-reviewed scientific data, which would be fair except that we don't seem to have any peer-reviewed scientific data on this subject. -- LWG ^talk 03:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Wikipedia does not need to lead. We follow what reliable sources say. It's not intended to quickly disseminate information based on questionable bloggy sources with a COI source which was attempted to be promoted on Wiki for gaining views, social media followers, prominence or things of those nature. The Gilbertson brothers sources are particularly contentious given the past history of repeated creation. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Gilbertson_(climber) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eric_Gilbertson_(climber)_(2nd_nomination) Graywalls (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't think anyone here in this discussion is attempting to promote Eric Gilbertson for nefarious reasons. I WP:AGF the OP is trying to get a determination on whether the usage of an article in AAJ authored by Gilbertson, can be used in an article. I am coming down on the side it can be used with attribution. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Another thing that occurred to me is why are we even listing the highest point of Uzbekistan in the country article? Is it really due weight there given it's apparently so unimportant no one (except possibly gilbertson) has even bothered to survey it properly? (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I apologize for the delay in responding to the ping, as I have been unusually busy off-Wikipedia. I want to speak out quite forcefully against any comparison of the American Alpine Journal with WP:FORBESCON content which has {{tpq|minimal editorial oversight}} or to compare it with "trainfanning zines". (And I happen to be a railroad buff.) The assertion that AAJ should be dismissed as {{tpq|contributor generated content}} because it does not pay it authors is equivalent to asserting that the content published by medical journals and other scientific journals is not reliable because the authors are not paid, and the claim that it is {{tpq|essentially self-published}} is uninformed nonsense that displays ignorance of its publisher, the American Alpine Club, founded in 1902 and one of the original members of the highly prestigious Union International des Associations d’Alpinism. The comparison of the highest mountain in a given country as equivalent to {{tpq|largest tire swing set in xx county}} is similarly ludicrous and unnecessarily dismissive. Pretty much every Wikipedia article about a country mentions a high point, even including the tiny country of Monaco. I am unaware that Wikipedia has systematic coverage of tire swing sets by country or county. It should be obvious to thoughtful editors that world class mountaineering is an exceptionally dangerous sport and that mountaineering publications in general and the AAJ in particular take safety and accuracy very seriously. The AAJ is a 95 year old publication with an outstanding reputation and can be considered the "publication of record" of American mountaineering. It is more analogous to an annual book than a magazine. Here is a quote from the publication: {{tpq|All reports are carefully edited by a team of experts, ensuring accuracy and objective reporting.}} That's not FORBESCON or a 'zine or self-published. In the realm of mountaineering, the AAJ is an exemplary publication of the highest reliability. Cullen328 (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I partly disagree with this. When the content is trip reports written by people who were there, there is no real way for there to be independent verification. Standard practice in the climbing/mountaineering world is to take people at their word. So there is no real fact checking, which conflicts with our stated standard for wp:rs. insofar as we cite these trip reports it should probably be attributed.

::Just because the high point is commonly included in articles, does not make it WP:DUE in every case. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::How is that different from any other discipline involving field measurements? To take an example from my own field, if I submit for publication linguistic data that I claim was uttered by a 53 year old male native Murkim speaker from Milkim Village, nobody is going to trek out there and find the guy and check his birth certificate. They are going to take my word for it on my actual observations provided my analysis and methods check out and there is no reason to suspect me of academic dishonesty. Peer review isn't a replication study. -- LWG ^talk 12:32, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If we had a career dentist DDS who is a mad scientist in his free time and he made his own actual observations of solubility of uranium hexafluoride in a solution of 1/3 ethanol, 1/3 methanol and 1/3 isopropanol at -25C, that's no reason to cover it just because nobody else had it formally published.

::::Gilbertson is a mechanical engineer with a h-index of 5 in mechanical engineering discipline. He's not a geology or earth science professor, so his findings would be considered that of a "seasoned hobbyist's personal account", just like the mad scientist's finding. I'm with buidhe on the use of AAJ for altitudes. Graywalls (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::A mad scientist is defined as [https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100125951 a scientist or inventor who is insane, especially one whose madness (intentionally or unintentionally) endangers himself, others, or the world]. So trying to compare Gilbertson's findings to that of a mad scientist's findings is absolutely ridiculous, and not grounded in reality. In addition to the numerous articles the AAJ has published by Gilbertson, he has also been published in the Canadian Alpine Journal in [https://archive.org/details/isbn_9770068820001/page/70/mode/2up 2016], [https://archive.org/details/mit_the_tech_newspaper-v136-i11/page/18/mode/2up he has scaled the highest peak of every country in North America], he was [https://explorersweb.com/eric-gilbertson-3rd-american-snow-leopard/ one of only three Americans] to receive a Snow Leopard award, reliable sources [https://www.theolympian.com/news/state/washington/article293659974.html describe] [https://www.newsweek.com/washingtons-tallest-mountain-shrinking-age-mount-rainier-1966278 him] [https://observers.france24.com/en/tv-shows/the-observers/20221109-himalaya-k2-mountain-climbing-rubbish-pollution-environment as a] [https://www.seattlemet.com/travel-and-outdoors/2024/09/mount-rainier-shorter-gps-summit mountaineer], and Larry Signani, who headed the first survey of Mount Rainier said [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/climate-lab/mount-rainier-is-shrinking-and-now-has-a-new-summit/ Gilberton's findings are sound]. He's been mountaineering for at least [https://web.mit.edu/egilbert/Public/Californiea14ers/russell.html 18 years], and I have not seen any reliable source whatsoever compare what he does to that of a mad scientist. I'm not seeing any compelling reason his findings, attributed to him, can't be included in Khazret Sultan. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Where is the validation of Gilbertson in geology or earth science related discipline though? Graywalls (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Not required. The publication is a reliable source, and attribution to these findings are his is sufficient. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Dear Community — I am seeking consensus and understanding on use of ndtv.com news as source, in this context, in a biography of a living person (BLP) article (Sachit Mehra). In this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sachit_Mehra&diff=1295798791&oldid=1295695896 diff], you can see the statements that were supported by a source from ndtv.com, which was undone by a user as "unreliable" citing WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I opened a talk page discussion with the editor, citing that I did my search for reliability of this source and did not find any concerning information. It is not listed in the WP:RSPLIST and the noticeboard general search for this source did not reveal any concerning informaiton. In fact, it is currently being used [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22ndtv.com%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 in ~15,000 articles]. The editor then responded that they're using NEWSORGINDIA and RSP as the source, along with a list by Indian cinema task force ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources here]). Upon review, none of these sources list NDTV.com as unreliable. In fact, the cinema task force has listed it as generally reliable—quite the opposite of what is being asserted. Upon searching through the noticeboard for this source, I found [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_350#WP:NDTV #1], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_425#NDTV_still_RS? #2] — none of which also support the assertion about unreliability. Since further discussion was unfruitful and the source is still being challenged, I am seeking a broader consensus here that can hopefully resolve this (to some extent) for future editors?

tldr; Is NDTV.com a generally unreliable or questionable source? — WeWake (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Not exactly what happened. NDTV is a reliable source. I did not object to it for being unreliable nor send you the link to lists to indicate it was not reliable. In fact, the context in which the links were sent was pointing out how both cite NEWSORGINDIA as an exception to the reliable sources on the list. I objected to the specific article you used from the source which is bylined by "NDTV News Desk," indicating it falling under NEWSORGINDIA. Do you have another source that supports the claim? --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::CNMall41, two of the sentences that you deleted, "His father, Kamal Mehra, moved from New Delhi to Canada in the 1960s." and "In May 2023, he was elected party president at the Ottawa national convention, defeating the party's Vice President (English) Mira Ahmad." are also supported by Ref [https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/indocanadian-sachit-mehra-elected-president-of-liberal-party-of-canada-aims-to-improve-membership-and-fundraising-101683528064946.html 4] (currently) from Hindustan Times. Ref [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-party-president-in-the-midst-of-a-whirlwind-after-trudeau/ 10] (The Globe and Mail, generally reliable per RSPLIST, currently in the article) confirms his "Chairman of Downtown Biz" role. So three sentences all of which are supported by other sources in the article as well. Given totality of the facts and that NDTV.com article also contained the very same facts, I had no reason to believe that in this context it was an unreliable source. — WeWake (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Why would we need a questionable source to be used redundantly if a source on the page already supports the content? I am confused why we are here now. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Looking closer, that was the only reference that was inline to support that statement. Likely should have been checked prior to your approval through AfC and then again prior to your removal of the cleanup tag. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes which is why the questionability of the source needed to be clarified. Since it contained the same facts as other articles did, and no other red-flags given everything I have shared above, I had no strong reason to doubt its reliability in this context. Plus, your edit also remove content so a reversal was not an option for me to avoid edit warring. Looks like you're ok with reversal of your edit sans ndtv.com as source? — WeWake (talk) 05:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Where did I say I am okay with using the NDTV source? You could easily restore the content with the other sources you claim support it. Instead, you want to use a questionable source. Why? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for your input. I will revise the article. In the meantime, I have updated my question to reflect the input I am seeking. — WeWake (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::If you do update your question, I would suggest striking the original and then adding so as not to seem misleading since the discussion above may seem out of sink to others reviewing and opining. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:NEWSORGINDIA doesn't ban Indian sources. If there are no indications that this is likely a paid news piece, then it can be used in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 17:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:NEWSORGINDIA means to say that such sources are reliable unless a particular report is promotional, and lists ways that help spot such reports. It doesn't say that every article with no byline is unreliable, but that having no byline could be one of the things that helps identify promotional content. There does appear to be some misunderstanding about that.
As to the particular NDTV report[https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/sachit-mehra-the-indo-canadian-president-of-justin-trudeaus-liberal-party-7417176] and article content[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sachit_Mehra&diff=1295798791&oldid=1295695896] I'm not sure if the report is promotional but it does include lots of minor details. For instance I can't find any other major source for him being the chairman of Winnipeg Downtown Biz so it should probably be left out per WP:BALASP (having said that the Globe and Mail mention it in one an article I found while writing a later part of my comment [https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-party-president-in-the-midst-of-a-whirlwind-after-trudeau/], so maybe). But some mention of him being elected as president of the Liberal party is needed, if even just to explain why he was the one accepting Trudeau's resignation. It's also something that was reported on at the time by other sources (Hindustan Times[https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/indocanadian-sachit-mehra-elected-president-of-liberal-party-of-canada-aims-to-improve-membership-and-fundraising-101683528064946.html], iPolitics[https://www.ipolitics.ca/2023/05/06/liberals-elect-sachit-mehra-as-new-party-president]). That just leaves the piece about his father's emigration from India to Canada in the 1960's, it's a common but of biographical but it's again not mentioned by many sources (it's mentioned in the Hindustan article). So it's inclusion could be questioned. Ultimately this seems more about whether these details should be included in the article than about a particular sources reliability, something that should be discussed on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Thanks for sharing your perspective and doing the background work. I had to come here because of the pushback I received on the talk page discussion specifically around the reliability of the article (talk page edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sachit_Mehra&oldid=1295839775 "Not my job. Get consensus or look up the links provided"]). So I appreciate having discussion in a forum, and a consensus if any, that everyone can benefit from in the future. WeWake (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Let's not muddy the waters. You were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASachit_Mehra&diff=1295825885&oldid=1295813884 provided with reasoning] but did not want to see it. If you want to make an accusation of conduct, please do so at ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::CNMall41, I think we have already chatted about this. So you're welcome to respond to others comment if you have anything to add there. Thanks! — WeWake (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There are discussions about sources here and here. For some unknown reason the protagonists are arguing about who should create a report here so I am doing so. I have no opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Phil Bridger

:Maybe in this case a case by case basis should be used for the sources in the article. Stuff like The Paper, China News Service and People's Daily are quite different in nature.

:By the way, here is more context:

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 311#RfC: Global Times

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Is global times banned in ALL contexts or can it be used in some cases

:* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 468#Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV) (Non-CGTN CCTV channels are not deprecated; state owned sources usable with context)

:* Wikipedia:WikiProject China#English language news sources (People's daily online is put as one suggested resource)

:Additionally, i think there should be subcategories to state owned sources. Overall, from what I've seen and heard from both fellow editors, personal experience and other WP:RS, the state owned sources of local governments, such as Hunan Daily, The Paper(both of which I used in the current argument), The Beijing News and Nanfang Daily(2 sources I often use) are overall more independent than sources affiliated with the central government(They still are reliable IMO, but I think overall I find provincial government affiliated sources better.). Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::The fact that the state operates less control is (to my mind) irrelevant (well not even that, just operates control at a more local level). Unless it can be shown they they contradict national media. Otherwise, they are still not neutral. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::See the articles for The Paper and Nanfang Daily(those in particular are seen as argulably the most neutral); also complete contradictions with national media does not really mean it is neutral or not neutral, other stuff such as tone counts.

:::The Paper has also been used as an example of "independent coverage" in several occasions such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Casualties_of_the_2015_Tianjin_explosions#c-Toadspike-20250523084000-Thehistorianisaac-20250522132200] Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::True, but if they do not contradict them, that is not a good sign there is in fact a meaningful editorial difference. So we need toi ahve a good reason to use state-controlled sources, no matter at what level they publish. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Again, contradictions do not mean there is no difference.

:::::There are tonnes of openly anti-chinese sources and pro-chinese sources which do not contradict, however how they report things is vastly differnet Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::But this is about establishing that there is a difference; otherwise, why not treat all Chinese state media the same? That is the case YOU need to make. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I would suggest checking out the wikipedia articles or the sources themselves;

:::::::But here is an example

:::::::https://m.mp.oeeee.com/a/BAAFRD0000202411281029241.html (Southern Metropolis Daily - Guangdong provincial government affiliated, also famous for being rather more indpenedent)

:::::::https://m.thepaper.cn/kuaibao_detail.jsp?contid=29482672&from=kuaibao (The Paper- shanghai goverment affiliatted)

:::::::The two sources report criticism of the Pingyin county government's plans on making new heliports and developing the low-altitude economy , while the [https://m.chinanews.com/wap/detail/chs/zw/351841.shtml China News Service](central gov affliatted) article report the benefits of the county government's plans Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Can you provide the quotes of the criticizing government officials, as I cant find it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::SMD source:

::::::::::Many of the questions are coming from criticism by locals, such as "国有独资企业承揽低空经济有何隐忧？谨防国资垄断" (Idk how to translate this, but it basically brings up local concerns of monopoly of state owned enterprices) and "“低空空域作为公共资源是有价值的，但在低空空域规划、基础设施、如何管理使用都未明确，空域资源还不具有实际价值的情况下，这9亿多元的金额是如何估算的？”马剑直言，如果按照平阴县的这一做法，是不是意味着，全国县级财政资产增加了几千亿元？" basically about concerns of the costs

::::::::::The SMD article is mostly about local's concerns about the project, while the CNS article is mostly saying how it will benefit the local economy Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::And I read how experts are saying those criticisms are wrong, that in fact these seem to be trying to push the idea that the criticisms are mistaken, at least that is the impression I got. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Simonm223 Sorry for the confusion, I found the wrong the paper article

:::::::::::::https://m.thepaper.cn/kuaibao_detail.jsp?contid=29545062&from=kuaibao

:::::::::::::This article is on the same topic and provides much heavier criticism in comparison, stating that for such a high cost somehow the helipads were not used Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:In very general sense it's to general a question to answer. Some state owned media isn't reliable, others are not independent, while several are both independent and generally reliable.
In China all news sources are never going to be completely independent of the state, but will still vary when it comes to reliability. Context will also be important, reports about non-controversial details events in China are likely to be more reliable than those of the articles on more controversial issues. They will all be reliable for the statements and opinions of the ruling party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I would argue in all countries news will never be independent in any context, it is more of reliability Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::The difference is the amount of control; the BBC has no governmental editorial oversight at any level. Any such control is exercised via things like what they say TO them, not what the BBC says. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::My point is, there is no such thing as a completely independent source, however overall most chinese state media is generally reliable for non-controversial topics per previous consensus. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Then what are we discussing, if they can already be used? Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with you here; Don't know why a completely new discussion is needed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The reason why is because there's an argument at AN/I about whether or not to use a police website to say "non-controversial" things about the police in which one editor opined that no state source, from any state, should treated as reliable in any circumstance.

::::::::Of course reliability is supposed to be contextual. I have not seen the diffs of actual usage and don't know if the inclusions were "non-controversial" or not. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I personally think that this question is overly broad, and for the original ANI argument, I think this seems to be more of a rookie mistake(I have to say so per AGF and I also hope that this is simply a rookie mistake) on the other user's end, as they seem to be a new editor and aren't really familiar with WP:RSPNOT, as their main argument was that the sources I used did not show up on WP:RSP. So basically, I would assume/hope that this was all thanks to an inexeperienced editor not knowing guidelines, which to be fair we have all done before when we were unexperienced Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yeah. I don't like biting the newbies when we can avoid it. Hopefully you're correct. But also, hopefully, we can close this thread off with minimal tears. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Some news organisation are partially or fully controlled by the government, some have limitations or controls on their reporting, and other are completely independent of the government. It's a spectrum and all of them can't be treated in the same way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Some of those links do not work. Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would suggest that those here who are saying context matters go to the sections on the SWAT and Chenggyuan talk page and contribute directly to the disputes. Judgments about the usability of a certain type of source shouldn't be used as a substitute for judgments about the usability of a specific example of it in "this-or-that" context. Nghtcmdr (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::If you actually believed context matters and case by case would be better, this discussion wouldn't even have started at all.

::I would suggest a speedy close since as I said, this came out of a rookie mistake of WP:RSPNOT and lack of judgement, not the need for a long discussion Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Interesting discussion but it seems to me that all media are state controlled, what varies are the means that states use. The British state controls its state broadcaster BBC with a ruthlessness that can be breathtaking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:For Chinese media sources, the main guideline that was built from consensus is "does the Chinese government have a reason to lie/hide what they are reporting?". I don't see a reason why Chinese media/government sources would falsify mundane, non WP:EXTRAORDINARY detailing of the role/job of SWAT teams, but noting that per WP:NONENG, if an English source can be used instead of a Chinese one it is preferred as it is easier to verify by other editors. For the other article it is more debatable but English sourcing is available ([https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2141284/8-chinese-police-officers-hurt-clashes-100-eviction-officials SMCP]) so that matter would be moot per WP:NONENG. Jumpytoo Talk 05:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::kinda irrelevant, but SCMP is basically the best english source for chinese things as I noticed it has the least mistranslations. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Jumpytoo Can you clarify what it is that you are recommending? There are two areas of disagreement, one coming from the SWAT article, the other from the Chengguan one. For the SWAT article, the disagreement revolves around the write-up for the "Use of term in other countries" section. My version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SWAT&diff=prev&oldid=1293147516] is drawn from an English-language journal article while the version by the other editor uses state-owned publications that are all in Chinese [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SWAT&diff=prev&oldid=1293482406]. Based on your comments, it appears you would prefer my version of the "China" subsection as that's where there is information overlap, but I can't tell what your opinion is when it comes to the other editor's "Prison SWAT" subsection where that overlap doesn't exist.

::For the Chengguan article, it revolves around the write up for the clashes section. Again, based on your comments, it appears that you'd support a rewrite based on the SCMP article, but I can't tell for sure. Nghtcmdr (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Nghtcmdr No, what @Jumpytoo(Correct me if I'm wrong) is saying is that state owned sources would be reliable in this case. {{tq| I don't see a reason why Chinese media/government sources would falsify mundane, non WP:EXTRAORDINARY detailing of the role/job of SWAT teams,}}

:::Additionally, I would suggest you address the concerns from other editors [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Thehistorianisaac-20250618064300-Nghtcmdr-20250618052600], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Weirdguyz-20250618150600-Thehistorianisaac-20250618030600] on WP:ANI regarding your behavior towards other editors before trying to continue debating. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::For SWAT, the Chinese sources are reliable for the given content, but if the English source could be used to cite the same content I would use that for editor convenience.

:::For Chengguan, it is of a similar rationale; we can use the English SCMP source to cite the same information so we don't need to use the Chinese sourcing. Jumpytoo Talk 02:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Maybe we could have both sources.

::::However, the main point is, in both contexts, they are likely to be reliable. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Jumpytoo I can do the rewrite for the Chengguan section, but I am still unclear on what it is that you are recommending for the SWAT article. It appears that you are saying while my write up of the "China" subsection should be kept, so should the other user's "Prison SWAT" subsection. Is this correct? Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::For SWAT, from a glance I don't see any reliability issues with the sourcing used in both versions. I will let you two hash out how the content can be merged. Jumpytoo Talk 03:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Nghtcmdr I would not suggest making any changes outside of grammar to either article on your end, since you are the subject of a discussion on WP:ANI and such editing could be evidence of WP:ICANTHEARYOU or WP:GASLIGHTING Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Jumpytoo I'll open a new section on the SWAT talk page and continue trying to resolve the dispute there. However, before we put this discussion between us to rest, I do have one final question which I forgot to ask earlier and that concerns the sourcing in the "Notable Incidents" section. Right now, for the "China" subsection, each entry has a source at the end of it, but it seems more appropriate that they should go inside the linked article that explains the incident. Your thoughts? Nghtcmdr (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Per MOS:SOURCELIST it's only required if its a direct quote or possibly contentious. It's neither of those things so it's left to editor discretion. Personally I would not add them myself, but if they were already there I would leave them there. Jumpytoo Talk 07:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I would suggest leaving them. SWAT being involved is not always notable info on the incident article, though notable incidents with SWAT involvement is definitely notable info on SWAT. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Thehistorianisaac you left out the second and more important half where the other user said "but noting that per WP:NONENG, if an English source can be used instead of a Chinese one it is preferred as it is easier to verify by other editors." You not fully agreeing with what they said is not a reason to distort what they actually said. Nghtcmdr (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Nghtcmdr

:::::# {{tq|You not fully agreeing with what they said is not a reason to distort what they actually said.}} please seee WP:GASLIGHT. I did not distort what they said, in fact it is ironic you are trying to falsely accuse me of distorting what they said, as this is your comment {{tq| Based on your comments, it appears you would prefer my version of the "China" subsection as that's where there is information overlap, but I can't tell what your opinion is when it comes to the other editor's "Prison SWAT" subsection where that overlap doesn't exist.}}

:::::# I did read WP:NOENG, but I said we could keep both sources.

:::::# I highly suggest you to stop falsely accusing me, as all of this will be seen on the WP:ANI discussion.

:::::Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Thehistorianisaac There would have been no distortion issue if you didn't quote only half of what the other user said. Nghtcmdr (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No, I quoted the important part of what they said. The important thing, is that they have agreed the chinese sources have no reliability issues[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Jumpytoo-20250619034200-Nghtcmdr-20250619033100], which disproves your entire point of deleting content, as many users have pointed out before [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Weirdguyz-20250616122700-Nghtcmdr-20250616113200][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Simonm223-20250618152700-Weirdguyz-20250618150600].

::::::::Again, you refuse to read any consensus or policies that disprove your claims. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• As noted above, you need to evaluate each state-owned source separately, as well as how reliable the information is likely to be for each statement. The unfortunate reality is that in some countries there is no reliable local media for many topics, and information will have to be left out as a result; there is a discussion below where the same issue is being discussed with respect to Singapore. Furthermore, trying to predict what a government is likely to censor or falsify is very difficult. In my view, a lot of editors also significantly underestimate what a government may have an interest in. Various governments routinely decide they need to censor or falsify some very unexpected things, and a lot of information that could be considered basic at first glance is not actually basic once you consider the full context. It is also likely to be contingent on the culture of the specific country (e.g. what is considered socially proper) and on the worldview or motivations of the specific people in charge.

:As an example, governments generally have an interest in portraying themselves as competent, well-liked, and helpful. This should be unsurprising for any government, of course, but this incentive applies to a wide variety of information. For information on government services, as in this case, any information about training generally reflects on their competence, any information about duties generally reflects on their helpfulness, and so on. This doesn't make state-controlled sources entirely unusable, but attribution is likely required, and if there are no independent sources on the topic, it may not be possible to write neutral content. The issue is reduced for potentially embarrassing information, but not necessarily eliminated: in addition to cultural differences in what is considered embarrassing, it may be a matter of internal politics (e.g. blaming a person/group that's currently politically disfavored, or to deflect criticism away from other people/groups), it may be that acknowledging a certain degree of failings is used as a strategy to control the narrative (e.g. to minimize its importance or present it as an isolated incident), it may be to present themselves as responsive to criticism, etc. These may or may not be relevant in any specific instance, but they generally still have to be considered. Sunrise (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think consensus is overall that the state affiliated sources in this case would be considered reliable [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-Jumpytoo-20250619020500-Nghtcmdr-20250618210200] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#c-Simonm223-20250618152700-Weirdguyz-20250618150600]. It also seems that contrary to popular belief, Chinese state affiliated sources have been more open to potentially embarrassing information, such as tonnes of the most reliable information of Chengguan brutality against police coming from state affiliated sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Most of the discussion in this section hasn't addressed the specific sources, though several of us have recommended exerting more caution than you seem to be using. For instance, my own comment is primarily about the analysis procedure that needs to be applied. Perhaps consensus would indeed support reliability in this context, but I would note that linking two arguments by people who support you, only one of which mentions the sources in question, is very weak evidence for a claim of consensus. With regards to potentially embarrassing information, I agree that these sources have a limited freedom to criticize in some cases (but not in others), and I have also included a description of the caveats that still apply even in that context. Sunrise (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi there - it was recently drawn to our attention that Healthline.com was deprecated and placed on the Wikipedia blacklist in July 2023, per this talk page. Upon discovering this, we reached out to one of the editors (@Colin) involved in the original blacklisting discussion for guidance and after further discussion, were directed to appeal the decision on this board, so here we are.

Once we became aware of the blacklisting, our Editorial and Medical teams moved quickly to review the 16 specific links flagged as problematic within the original thread.

We ran a further audit of 880 (invariably older) articles in the topic areas and adjacent topic areas flagged in the original thread. In all cases appropriate updates were made by our editorial team based on input from medical professionals within our network. These updates varied in scope—from minor edits to language and sourcing, to extensive rewrites or redirects.

As a specific example, in relation to @SandyGeorgia’s note regarding dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), after medical review we clarified the distinction between DLB and Lewy bodies dementia (LBD), including referencing that those terms are often mistakenly conflated. We also amended the assertion that DLB is caused by abnormal protein deposits in nerve cells, clarifying that whilst they are present, the exact cause is as yet unknown.

On a broader note, over the last 15 years and more, Healthline has invested in creating and maintaining a large library of free-at-the-point-of-access health information that draws on peer reviewed medical research, all of which receives medical review (or fact check in the case of our News output) carried out by credentialed medical experts. Our Medical Network comprises 200+ practicing medical professionals. Our Editorial team is composed of more than 100 in-house writers, editors and subject matter experts. Every one of those individuals carries a deep and personal commitment to editorial integrity, and to the paramount importance of creating accurate and accessible health information.

We do not create spam. We do not deploy generative AI in any of our content. We are not a content farm. We are a team of experienced and committed editorial and medical professionals working to create accurate and inclusive health information at scale. Often that means we cover broad and emerging health topics that people are actively searching for information around. We do so in a balanced and inclusive way, calling out pseudoscience and medical inaccuracies wherever they exist, but also ensuring we remain accessible and non-stigmatising.

We’re by no means infallible, but we think deeply about how we can better show up for our audiences through the information we create and distribute. That approach evolves over time, meaning some of our existing content either becomes out of date or no longer passes muster against evolving styles, values, societal norms, and the latest medical research. It is an ongoing challenge to surveil and maintain a corpus of 50k+ articles, but it’s one we own with integrity and intentionality. As part of that process, we value and constantly elicit feedback and insights from a broad range of quarters. Those insights enable us to identify blindspots, and we use them to refine and improve both our library of content and the surveillance processes we deploy to maintain it.

We hope the extensive work that we undertook upon discovery of the articles that led to our blacklisting underlines that ongoing commitment.

We also believe it’s important to bring attention to the inconsistencies in how these standards have been applied to Healthline. No editorial content on Healthline is generated using AI - something that was inaccurately assumed by at least one Wikipedia editor in the original thread. There are many other health sites of comparable size, reach and focus to Healthline that cover the same wellness topics as we do, and who openly cite their use of generative AI in their content creation processes, yet remain listed as credible sources. Although we recognise Wikipedia’s caution regarding wellness content, it’s important to note that most major health publications cover wellness topics extensively and are not being flagged as a deprecated or blacklisted source.

Ultimately, at a time when people need access to trustworthy, inclusive, medically accurate health information more than ever, we believe we share the same values you do: editorial integrity, scientific rigour, and making information freely accessible to as broad an audience as possible.

We hope you’ll take another look at the updates we undertook and the wider points made above and reconsider the blacklisting. HealthInsights (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have any evidance that you are considered a reliable source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:also can you actually give an example of an updated (now error-free) paper of yours? Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::Courtesy link to previous discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_409#Healthline:_deprecate_or_blacklist?. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|Slatersteven}} We don't appear to be able to include direct links to Healthline in our messages. Assume this is because we are blacklisted?

::In 2023 we formed a partnership with the CDC and CDC Foundation to reflect their recommendations for RSV vaccinations and treatment in the patient population of pregnant people and infants within our content in order to provide scaled insights into the impact of communication messages on RSV vaccination uptake.

::We are extensively referenced across various reputable health sources including the CDC (https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/28/3/21-1561_article), ClevelandClinic (https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22210-pulmonologist), and [http://nih.gov/ nih.gov] (https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2025/when-it-comes-health-benefits-coffee-timing-may-count). Additionally, an independent study published on Pubmed found Healthline to be rated "good" within accuracy, readability, and transparency (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6381637/).

::As a specific example of an updated article based on feedback we received from Wikipedia, in relation to @SandyGeorgia’s note regarding our 'Understanding the Different Types of Dementia' article and specifically the section related to dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), after medical review we clarified the distinction between DLB and Lewy bodies dementia (LBD), including referencing that those terms are often mistakenly conflated. We also amended the assertion that DLB is caused by abnormal protein deposits in nerve cells, clarifying that whilst they are present, the exact cause is as yet unknown.Let us know if there's a way for us to include Healthline links and we will be happy to provide more examples. HealthInsights (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::ON Pubmed it says "Websites excluded because they are not explicitly based on systematic reviews" Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::PubMed is a search engine/database. It is not a publisher. The "independent study published on Pubmed" is actually a peer-reviewed[https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-019-0772-5/peer-review] journal article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::So what does it say about them? Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Slatersteven, AFAICT the only thing that this (open access) paper says about Healthline is that the study didn't look at their website. They're listed in Table 2, "Websites excluded because they are not explicitly based on systematic reviews". See https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-019-0772-5#Sec3

::::::@HealthInsights, I'm assuming that someone on your marketing team fed you that line about the study rating your website as "good". Maybe you should go back to that person and find out:

::::::# whether you linked to the correct study (everyone makes mistakes; I've personally pasted the wrong URL into a comment multiple times in the past), and

::::::# the exact, quoted words in the study that refer to your website, so we can double-check that the alleged content actually is in the source as claimed.

::::::WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Your example shows exactly why we cannot trust this site. You claim to be "cited" by CDC, but if you follow the link in the CDC article it takes you to a completely different article. That doesn't happen with peer-reviewed papers in press. I am sure that health authorities do want to partner with health and wellness sites to promote reality-based information, though I think they could do a better job (for example, excluding any site that promotes pseudoscientific commercial ideas like homeopathy or chiropractic). Guy (help! - typo?) 11:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Nothing has changed. This is still not a RS. See www(.)healthline(.)com/health/sepia-homeopathy - egregious bollocks. Also, it's blacklisted due to spamming.. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::It was not blacklisted due to spamming. Zero evidence was given in the RFC about actual WP:SPAM. The RFC said: {{xt|Due to the heightened requirements for biomedical and medical sources on Wikipedia, the consensus of editors in the RFC is to deprecate Healthline as an unusable source that cannot meet WP:MEDRS and to blacklist Healthline as a hazard to readers}}.

::In other words, we put it on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist for reasons unrelated to spam. We put it on the spam list because we were concerned that readers, [https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3366423.3380300 who almost never read any cited sources at all], might actually read this source if it were cited.

::I'm doubtful that blacklisting was warranted. We could probably have addressed additions with a Special:AbuseFilter warning and a bot that auto-tagged all uses with {{tl|unreliable medical source}} instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Everything we might source to Healthline is covered by WP:MEDRS requirements which their business model is totally incompatible with. I spot checked some of the examples cited in the last RFC, and I found plenty of obviously wrong content (Chiropractic as a treatment for ADHD, etc.) is still on their site. And even if a few things got fixed, we should be worried about all the bogus information that wasn't specifically mentioned in the last RFC. Leave it blacklisted. MrOllie (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's important to remember that although we talk about sources being generally reliable or generally unreliable there is an unspoken "for Wikipedia's purposes" after those statements. Healthline was deprecated and blacklisted because of the additional sourcing requirements for certain medical information in Wikipedia articles as laid out in WP:MEDRS. Healthline is a medical website, while Wikipedia isn't. They don't have to follow WP:MEDRS, but Wikipedia should because Wikipedia's editors are not medical experts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, let's take Guy's example. Go read the article rather than assume an article on homeopathy is "egregious bollocks". I read the introduction, uses, cautions and side effects, when to seek care, and the bottom line. All factually accurate AFAICS and in line with what most editors here would hope for. Then we come to the "Effectiveness" section. Let's quote it:

{{tq|Homeopathic medicine has not been widely studied for safety or effectiveness. Whereas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs to meet regulations, the same is not said about homeopathic remedies. An old 1999 research review showed that there is not enough evidence that homeopathy is clearly effective for any single condition, but there is probably little risk.}}

{{tq|The same 1999 research review above showed that homeopathic remedies are so diluted that there often isn’t even one molecule of the original solution present. Some researchers have hypothesized that the benefits of homeopathy are mainly due to the placebo effect. But in the research review above, double-blind, randomized trials showed significant differences between homeopathic remedies and placebos.}}

{{tq|Homeopathy can be effective. One explanation for this may be that during serial dilution, there might be an interaction between the water molecules and the original solution to create a sort of memory of the original solution at an atomic level that we don’t measure with a simple microscope.}}

Don't think we'd argue with the first paragraph, or the first two sentences of the second (some would argue there is a "risk" if patients avoid seeking effective care for serious conditions). The rest is more contentious. The sentences are in themselves true. Those trials did indeed show significant differences between homeopathic remedies and placebos. Homeopathy can indeed be effective (but most here would argue not for the reasons practitioners claim) and the memory effect is indeed "one explanation" albeit not one accepted by western science. But our biggest problem for claiming this is "egregious bollocks" is that those sentences are a close paraphrase of the [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1116906/ source article] in the British medical journal. Maybe we should blacklist the BMJ?

Relying on such an old source from 1999 (which the article does admit to being old) is a problem. The sources listed at the bottom of the Healthline article don't link for me but I found them [https://mansapublishers.com/index.php/ijim/article/view/1946 here] and [https://www.ijrh.org/journal/vol13/iss4/3/ here] and I don't think anyone here would rate those journals. However if those are just sources for what homeopaths "use" sepia homeopathy for, which appears to be the case here, then they are fine. Remember there's a big difference between what "treatments" are "used for" and what they are "effective for". Western drug companies and pharmacies sells millions of bottles of ineffective cough medicine.

While the efficacy section is more credulous than we'd be, the contentious sentences are nearly word for word what the BMJ says. In the end, the "bottom line" of that Healthline article is no different to what we'd write, except we wouldn't be giving the medical advice to first see your GP.

I don't think articles Healthline's "Wellness" section should be used as a source, but their Health section is generally fine. Stop cherry picking your favourite quack remedy and actually go read a bunch of common-or-garden conditions and diseases and ailments. We all here know one can prove anything by cherry picking. We could cherry pick quack/contentious articles in the BMJ or NEJM or Lancet if we wanted. Pick half a dozen of the non-contentious conditions you know about and read their articles.

I think our articles on contentious topics like homeopathy should be strictly sourced to the highest quality sources. Like, cough, a review in the BMJ. But I followed the above article to their article on psoriasis (www(.)healthline(.)com/health/psoriasis) and it does not suggest using homeopathic sepia. Indeed I don't see a quality difference between that article and [https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/psoriasis/ the NHS]. The Healthline article cites its sources, and the NHS doesn't. The NHS page on psoriasis would have been written by an NHS Website staff member, not a consultant dermatologist. And neither was the Healthline article. However, we know the healthline article was reviewed (www(.)healthline(.)com/reviewers/joan-paul-md) by Joan Paul, who "is an ABMS board certified dermatologist who specializes in psoriasis, skin cancer, skin of color, and global health." I know the NHS web pages are expert reviewed, but there's no detail.

I don't see any reason why Healthlines Health articles on non-contentious topics can't be used as an "ok" source. It is accessible to the general reader, not behind a paywall. And we are the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. This is material that is sourced and reviewed by named experts.

As for the claim about spam, I'd like to see evidence please. I suspect there's a confusion over our use of the blacklist mechanism to block a site some editors hate, and reality. -- Colin°^Talk 08:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The problem is how do WE differentiate, do they have a seperate "wellness" section, do they only ever publish wellness advice there? Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:So we have to do original research to decide whether an article is in their walled garden of bollocks or not? I don't think so. And actually I thnk you missed my point: any article that proceeds on the assumption that homeopathy has any validity whatseover, is by definition credulous nonsense. I'm not suggesting it as a source on a contentious topic, I am saying that its adoption of in-universe claims by hoemopathists disproves the assertion that its peer-review system works. Of course there are still a trickle of papers int he reality-based literature looking at hoemopathy, but the trickle is drying up and that is a function of science doing science and refuting nonsensical claims. This claims to be a health resource summarising the best available information. The best available information on homeopathy is that it is confectionery not medicine. I am convinced that there will be nothing in this website that is not covered by an alternate and more reliable source that hasn't tried to abuse Wikipedia for SEO. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Colin, I could argue all day long with the first paragraph. For example, the claim that {{xt|the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs}} is not only factually incorrect, but something that is widely known among Americans that have ever had any professional dealings with the FDA. This is the kind of mistake that "credentialed medical experts" and "subject matter experts" don't make. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yikes; the FDA approved Aducanumab in spite of the advisory panel recommending against it, leading to several prominent resignations, and of course, the drug was later abandoned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• No way Jose Healthline is far from WP:RS. I do not want someone getting sick because of these "long pleadings" by their marketing staff. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Not yet If they still say things like {{tq|One explanation for this may be that during serial dilution, there might be an interaction between the water molecules and the original solution to create a sort of memory of the original solution at an atomic level that we don’t measure with a simple microscope.}} then they clearly aren't reliable, plus, as far as I can tell, they are still owned by Red Ventures? Some of their information may be top quality, but if they are known to also include misinformation and might abruptly go back to posting AI-generated cruft, how can we call them reliable? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• No if they can't even get the basic stuff like water memory being horseshite, blacklisting is still warranted.
• : Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Blacklisting may have gone too far, Struck per Doc James. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC) but the site is not reliable. One indication that they don't have proper editorial oversight is that, even after issues were raised here, they weren't corrected. I inquired [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colin&oldid=1294119560 in this discussion] what they had done about that, and got no answer. Is there a marketing reason for being in a hurry? And yet, their article on Tourette syndrome still has errors (and by the way, is also very poorly written -- have a glance, even someone unfamiliar with TS can see the poor writing, which suggests lack of adequate editorial oversight).
• #Vocal tics don't have to be "outbursts" (even they give throat clearing and hiccuping as examples of vocal tics)
• # Maybe they meant to say that it's a tic disorder ("Tourette syndrome is a tic syndrome"); makes me wonder if the person writing this article knows what TS is.
• # Their definition of a tic sounds equally novice (I don't expect most physicians to understand the difference between involuntary and semi-voluntary response to an unwanted urge, but this goes beyond that).
• # "As many as 1 in 100 people in the United States experience milder symptoms." This figure applies to tic disorders, not TS. Again, suggestive that the person writing the article doesn't know the difference.
• # I don't even know where they got this, since it leaves out environmental factors: "Researchers believe that an inherited genetic difference may be the cause."
• # Outright wrong: "The diagnosis requires both one motor and one vocal tic for at least 1 year."
• # Under treatment, haldol is the first listed, with no disclaimers -- so now we're getting dangerous. I stopped there; have not revisited dementia. The list above is not comprehensive.

:: If this is the best this group can do before re-approaching Wikipedia when problems were pointed out to them, I'm not too concerned that they are blacklisted. They have inadequate oversight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Well, that was a waste of time; I now see I raised most of those points in the last discussion, and nothing changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I wouldn't be surprised if the disorder vs syndrome thing is intentional. The Neurodiversity movement argues against calling neurodiverse behavior "disordered" because it sounds derogatory or disease-related. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Understood -- the writing overall is so unprofessional that it's hard to tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• A general concern. What bothered me most was the length of the pleadings by the marketing staff. That means they really, really want to get Wiki-approved. The concern is that they may clean up their act to look good for now, then slide back being sloppy. And it would take some time before their sloppiness is detected, and they get blacklisted. In the meantime they feed people misinformaton. I suggest a 10 year ban on them, then think about it again. Better be safe than get people sick. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• :There should be no time limit placed; if they can demonstrate they have changes we can reconsider this in a year. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep blacklisted They continue to copy and paste our images without attribution and this despite it being reported to them. So add copyright concerns to the list. https://www.healthline(.)com/health/gout#gallery-open-Gout-effect-on-ankle Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• The sepia homeopathy page is egregious both-sides-ism and blatant misrepresentation of the consensus opinion on homeopathy. No we should not trust a source that hedges its commentary on homeopathy efficacy with "not enough research has been done" (yes there has!) and is based on one 25-year-old semi-favorable article (not a review!) in a BMJ special issue series on CAM by a biostatistician and a GP, two highly unreliable homeopathy publications from a "homeopathic physician", and the website for the National Center for Homeopathy. No we should not trust a source that claims a "holistic nurse" with an unaccredited, unlicensed 3-year "PhD" in "health psychology" from a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQLdhVpLBVE for-profit online university] (please watch this informative documentary) is qualified whatsoever as a medical reviewer of such an article. {{pb}}I don't see any distinction between what you're classifying as "wellness" articles and "health" articles. The url for the sepia homeopathy page is just /health/sepia-homeopathy. {{pb}}There is no reason to use Healthline when plenty of reputable free sources exist. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep blacklisted To add to the examples, they have pages supporting Chiropractic (including for ADHD!) and Reiki. The approach appears to be to find some study written somewhere to support CAM treatment without any apparent care for whether that's what studies in general or meta-analyses show. Too much of a risk. That they are coming to ask without first addressing such glaring issues as the ones people have found here suggests to me that they're not yet serious about being a top level medical information resource. OsFish (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep blacklisted I don't see what we would use Healthline as a source for. It's not suitable for MEDRS, so it can't be used as a source for medical information. Best to keep it blacklisted to prevent users from mistakenly using it to support medical claims instead of a MEDRS-level source. Unless the visitor from Healthline can suggest some other topic healthline could be used to verify? Daphne Morrow (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• keep blacklisted per above 3 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Keep blacklisted - Wikipedia readers benefiting from GDPR, or similar, shouldn't be forced to opt-in to tracking cookies just to verify a source. Little pob (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I see a similar discussion ongoing for China-based state-owned sources and I also want to raise two issues I'm having over when putting FAC nominations for Singapore-related articles such as Singapore Rail Test Centre and Sengkang LRT line. The former is in fact now being at GAR because of concerns raised over the use of government press releases and how the other secondary sources, particularly local media, are not independent and said to be merely repeating those claims.

I can understand for SRTC since it's a new exclusive rail facility and I decided to withdraw my FAC nomination due to NPOV concerns. But I find pulling it to GAR a step too far. If The Straits Times or local media are considered as invalid since they are considered still too close to the government and merely copying these claims, then almost every article related to Singapore would need to be re-evaluated and purged since there's often very little coverage on our country by international news and we rely a lot on government reports. Already I tried my best, along with the GA reviewer starship, to scourge for more secondary sources, such as International Railway Journal covering this subject. I also doubt even local news reports would blindly copy from the press releases before publishing them, since they still have editorial standards to verify these claims...

I also despise the generalisations of Singapore's news sources as unreliable just because they are "pro-government". The Straits Times has also been assessed as reliable [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_350#Reliability_of_The_Straits_Times as a newspaper of record except in cases of political controversy], and I don't see any political controversy here behind that project. Singapore is a small city-state and almost everything here is tied to the government in some form.

Similarly for Sengkang LRT line, the sources (LTA, Straits Times, SBS Transit) used are for statements of basic facts, including the opening of stations, the construction of the lines, the awarding of contracts, the technical specifications, the features of stations... But again, concerns are raised about the sourcing quality.

I have to raise this up to this board because otherwise future GANs and FACs for Singapore-related articles would remain stuck just because there aren't sufficient independent and reliable sources to the satisfaction of other reviewers. I just hope for consensus on the use of Singapore-based sources for Singapore-related articles, because to avoid them entirely is very unrealistic.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Hmm... It would be good if you can provide the list of articles that we should evaluate in this context. – robertsky (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::As in Wiki articles or news articles?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::This is the wrong venue for this discussion. My objection to these sources is not that they are unreliable in the sense that we can't trust them to correctly report basic facts. When The Straits Times writes {{tq|Renovation works will soon begin at Sengkang LRT station to improve the flow of passengers, and will be completed at the end of 2024, said the Land Transport Authority (LTA)}} I completely trust that the LTA really did say that. But having 100 of that type of source is not what we should be basing GA and FA articles on. RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I was advised by {{u|Robertsky}} to raise this issue on this board, because you can't seem to stop and keep criticising my use of local sources.

::::Anyway if you really have a problem, then feel free to really haul all my GAs and FAs to GAR and FAR.

::::*Hume MRT station: 14 Straits Times, 12 Land Transport Authority, 2 Ministry of Transport (out of 45 sources)

::::*Nicoll Highway collapse: 34 Straits Times, 14 Land Transport Authority, 3 Ministry of Transport (out of 128 sources).

::::*Toa Payoh MRT station: 22 Straits Times, 7 LTA, 3 government press releases (out of 52 sources).

::::*North East MRT line: 76 Straits Times, 37 LTA, 9 Ministry of Transport, 11 SBS Transit (out of 204 citations)

::::*Changi Airport MRT station: 26 Straits Times, 14 LTA, 2 government speeches (out of 72 sources).--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Were they saying that those reports weren't independent because they simply repeated press releases, or the the paper isn't independent? It seems from skimming the discussion the issue was the former, not the later. The same press release being republished by different media organisations is still one press release, regardless of state ownership or the country. You see the same issue with newswire agencies, with different news media publishing the same report - it's just one article being republished in different locations.
The other issue appears to be articles authored by the local rail authority, obviously no matter where these articles were published they wouldn't be independent. Again whether the source was state owned media, private, in Singapore, or not wouldn't change that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::This is essentially a repeat from Talk:Singapore Rail Test Centre but The Straits Times is NOT churnalist. They don't copy and paste the press release word for word in their articles. They took the liberty of interviewing the relative authority from the LTA and even gave contextual information. Also don't other news organisations use press releases for some of their articles? Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 12:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Even then, I think there's a notability/WP:DUEWEIGHT issue, since the Straits Times, as a state-owned outlet, is clearly not neutral when reporting on the importance of things the state does. The BBC, for example, regularly posts articles which seem largely of interest within the BBC itself -- if an article on Doctor Who were cited entirely to BBC News, even though those things are technically separate organisations, I would not consider DUEWEIGHT (which requires independent sources, per the link in its first sentence) to have been shown. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I believe editors who are not familiar with Singapore should exercise more nuance when evaluating Singapore-based sources. ZKang123 has made several valid points. It is virtually impossible to avoid using local sources, even those with ties to the government, when writing about topics related to Singapore, including ordinary subjects such as public transport. If sources like The Straits Times or CNA are deprecated or deemed unreliable, it would significantly weaken Wikipedia's coverage of Singapore across a wide range of subjects. As a small country, Singapore typically receives little international media attention for everyday developments outside of politics. Locally, the main alternatives to state-affiliated media are sensationalist online outlets such as Mothership, which often have even lower standards of reporting and sourcing. Bringing his well-researched articles to GAR at this point feels premature. If Singapore Rail Test Centre is demoted from GA, it would send a discouraging message to contributors working on good or featured articles related to Singapore and cast a shadow over the future of Singapore's WikiProject. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I was asked to comment here off-wiki, though these thoughts are strictly my own. I do recognize that there are issues regarding press freedom in Singapore, and that Singaporean news sources such as The Straits Times are listed as marginally reliable on WP:RSP. However, from what I've gathered, they'd still be considered reliable with regard to matters that don't involve the government. In instances that do involve the government, they'd be considered primary sources (and thus can't be used to cite any critical analyses of the subject). Due to Singapore's small size and its lack of full press freedom, I'm not sure that—for some Singaporean topics—it would be possible to create a comprehensive, or even broad, article without using such sources.{{pb}}The LTA, MOT and other government sources are definitely primary sources and should be treated as such. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah at this point I'm not questioning about the use of primary sources, because that's more of a separate discussion. However, the problem now is that when writing Singapore-related topics, it is impossible to avoid using local sources, when writing about local topics in Singapore such as public transport. And the only reputable local sources (in English) are either The Straits Times, which is still a private entity with shares held by banks and local education institutions, or Channel NewsAsia under Mediacorp, which is definitely state sponsored but it's like Al-Jazeera with an regional/international outlook and the government tries not to interfere much into its coverage.

::To frame it from another perspective regarding DUEWEIGHT, there would not be as many objections if it were the New York Times reporting on the opening of a NYC transit route, even if NYC's transit system is owned by New York state, because the NYT is not itself affiliated with the state government. Or that some tram line in some obscure town of the US or Europe would be brought to FA more easily just because there's sufficient local free press news coverage, but not a tram line in an authoritarian state. Which I find it's a rather unfair assessment of what articles should be brought to the FAC stage as reviewers continue to insist on the use of independent sources, which given SG's press freedoms, is almost non-existent.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{green|Reviewers continue to insist on the use of independent sources, which given SG's press freedoms, is almost non-existent}}: it sucks, and is by no means your fault, but I'm afraid this is an admission that an article meeting the FA criteria cannot be written on this topic. There are no exceptions in WP:RS etc for "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, unless the only sources you can find are unreliable, partial or dubious, in which case, don't worry about it". UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::OK, then, why don't you open an FAR on my past FAs, then? Since they aren't supposed to meet the standard?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 07:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::On the face of it, this seems a strange argument: a bit like "you're giving me a speeding ticket? But I drove much faster yesterday!". But, to be clear, if I came across another article largely based on primary or non-independent sources (that is, an article relying on government sources to talk about a government project), that would to me mean that it did not meet the FA criteria, and could be the start of the road towards FAR if there were no means of remedying it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I welcome for you to do it then, if you are so keen.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 10:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think there is a certain implication here that sources may not be used in FAs if they're only "marginally reliable", and not "generally reliable". I don't really agree with the implication, insofar as that I think marginally reliable sources can be used in the circumstances where they are considered reliable (in instances where a marginally-reliable source is deemed to be reliable only for certain topics). {{pb}}Specifically relating to the topic at hand, I had a look at the Straits Times' entry on WP:RSP. The entry says: "There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage." I interpreted that more narrowly, as in "the ST is generally reliable for not-explicitly-political topics" (e.g. elections, politicians). However, I recognize that others may interpret it as meaning that the ST is only generally reliable for topics not related to any SG governmental agency. This may benefit from additional clarification—perhaps another discussion here, for example.{{pb}}The second thing I'd like to address is whether the ST is independent with regards to the LTA, MOT and other agencies. My feeling is that, even if both the ST was by the government (which may not even be the case), it may still be true that the ST reports critically on actions that other government agencies take, rather than just acting as a mouthpiece for these other agencies. If I'm looking at these other RSP discussions correctly, the concern was not that the government was censoring the ST directly, but that the ST was self-censoring. Again, this is something that would benefit from another RSN discussion. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I've never liked the idea about not using MRel sources in FAs. The source could be not only the most reliable source available, but the most reliable source possible. That it's MRel may just mean it's should be used in a very specific circumstance, but outside of that it's fine. All MRel means is that you you should check it's entry in detail, it's not a middle ground between generally reliable and generally unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think there are two matters to establish here, with two different "bars" -- are the ST etc reliable enough to be cited at all, especially to verify factual information? Secondly, are they independent enough to establish notability and WP:DUEWEIGHT on government-related topics, or do we need the article to be based primarily on more independent sources, even if they could then be used within it to cite particular details? The bar of reliability for the first is relatively low, but I think that for the second is quite a bit higher: in particular, establishing that they generally tell the truth wouldn't be enough, I don't think. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::In truth, also given this mainly concerns the residential town of Sengkang, that it would be more difficult to find other viewpoints on this topic. That said, I don't really believe this is an issue of DUEWEIGHT because for a line that is running for only 20 years, this is a significant capacity upgrade for a town that's expanding. A CNA article (cited in the article) has published [https://www.channelnewsasia.com/today/big-read/25-years-lrt-launch-future-4670156 a couple of residents' viewpoints about concerns of crowding and capacity] and how LTA is working to improve. I was also explaining what the upgrade works involve, otherwise other editors would come and ask what upgrades specifically, which I thought it's relevant concerning the 2017 renovations. Anyway, this discussion is better brought back to the FAC.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This category is being used as a clearing house for unsourced claims that various Chinese Classical philosophies and various contemporary politicians in China are conservative. An example, Confucianism is on the list despite the fact the only mention of conservatism in the Confucianism article being one that contradicts its inclusion. Xi Jinping and Xi Jinping faction are also included. Neither page makes any mention of conservatism. I've made several requests for reliable sources but the editor who keeps forcing these inclusions has provided many sources that, upon review, do not support inclusion for various reasons (reliability in some cases, and straight-up contradicting the claim in others). I need help here. And, frankly, I'm getting pretty upset over the bad sources being supplied and need some dispassionate eyes since I think it'd probably be wise for me to step away until I regain my composure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I'm putting this here because this is not so much a neutrality issue as a source reliability one. Some of these claims may, on the surface, even feel intuitively correct. However a perusal of the associated pages and their sources show they're unsupported to be in the category. Furthermore some of the novel sources provided include Intercollegiate Review and Jamestown Foundation which I doubt the reliability of but for which other opinions would be valuable. I would also urge anyone who does participate to make sure they carefully read the sources as many sources used in the discussion have been misrepresented. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:What am I missing? I can't see that Xi Jinping or Confucianism are in, or have recently been in, :Category:Conservatism in China.
In general categories need to be supported by content currently in an the article. So if an article doesn't mention the category subject it should be removed from the category. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Ok nevermind, I see this is about Template:Conservatism in China rather than the category. I don't know if there's any specific guidance about inclusion in such sidebars, but I would have thought it would be the same. The target article should include content that makes it clear why the article is included in the sidebar, simply because readers won't understand it's inclusion otherwise. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Also these sidebars can be used for subtle pov pushes when they're not supported by RS. Sorry for mixing up category and template. These areas all seem far too wild-west from a sourcing perspective for my comfort. Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Like categories I don't think sidebars need references. Instead they should only link to relevant articles, and the content that supports that link needs references. It's kind of like the leads of articles, they shouldn't require references as they should only summarise what already exists in the body of the article, and the content in the body of the article should be referenced.
As an example take Confucianism. It could (depending on sourcing) contain a small section on its use by modern Chinese conservatives, that would requires referencing to reliable sources. If that section existed then including a link in the {{tl|Conservatism in China}} sidebar would be appropriate. So it's more a matter of what's due inclusion than sourcing, as the sourcing should already exist in the target article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This was my point at the template talk about Confucianism. I found one reference to conservatism in the article about Confucianism and that was saying that Confucianism has an ambiguous place in the left-right dichotomy. IE: It is not clearly conservative. Similar problems with the inclusion of Xi Jinping, Legalism_(Chinese_philosophy) and Xi Jinping faction - the articles don't really speak to conservatism as a topic at all. But the editor who keeps re-including these is arguing basically that they meet the vibe check and therefore should be included. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think it should be added to the Xi Jinping article that he is a Chinese conservative, and in the Xi Jinping article, at least "Conservatism in Hong Kong" is mentioned. If you remove anything related to CCP from the template, there's nothing left. Conservatism in China or Conservatism#China article describes conservatism of Xi Jinping, Chinese Communist Party (CCP), Confucianism and Legalism.

:::::No existing users have objected that Confucianism is a key component of Chinese conservatism; even if the Christianity article does not state that Christianity itself is a conservative, it is not denied that it is the principle of Western conservatism; as a similar example, Neo-Confucianism is included in conservative Ideologies in Template:Conservatism in South Korea, and no one seems to be taking issue with it. Furthermore, the CCP no longer pursues orthodox Maoism or orthodox Marxism-Leninism, but instead develops socially conservative state capitalist policies; Chinese Wikipedia includes Chinese conservatism (more precisely neo-authoritarianism) in the CCP's own infobox.

:::::Just as Simonm223 removed Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) and Pro-Beijing camp (Macau) even though "conservatism" was clearly mentioned in the article, Simonm223 seems to want articles related to the CCP not to be included in the conservatism.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AConservatism_in_China&diff=1296036564&oldid=1296035125] I don't think when discussing the pro-Beijing camp or neoauthoritarianism, which is absolutely marked by modern Chinese conservatism, there is no reason for the CCP and Xi Jinping to be left out.

:::::Sentence from the Confucius article: {{tq|Confucius is often considered a great proponent of conservatism}}; Confucius (孔子) is the founder of Confucianism (儒教). ProgramT (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I just added a reference to Chinese conservatism to the Xi Jinping article.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xi_Jinping&diff=1296179192&oldid=1296041903] And even before that, the link 'Conservatism in Hong Kong' existed in the Xi Jinping article. ProgramT (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The sources at the above diff are quite questionable - An american conservative advocacy group, a book that makes reference to neoauthoritarianism but not conservatism and a forbes article. ProgramT I have serious concerns about your source review standards. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think this may perhaps be an issue with the article as I had always thought that Confucianism was generally considered conservative and indeed it is described as integrating "philosophy, ethics, and social governance, with a core focus on virtue, social harmony, and familial responsibility"—virtue ethics and social/cultural conservatism being viewed as conservative/right leaning in a western context.

:On the other hand perhaps it serves our readers better to describe Confucianism in its own terms rather than via labels such as "conservative". In which case, I think we should have the option of including the referencing with the template (t · c) buidhe 21:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::My position is that describing Confucianism as Conservatism is somewhat like calling Platonism Conservatism. It significantly predates the concept of conservatism and, while it may have been involved in its genesis, it is a distinct worldview with significant differences. This is what the line about Confucianism's ambiguity is about. Simonm223 (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Agree that we should avoid describing ancient Chinese Confucianism as a contemporary concept. That said, it is interesting to note there are academic observations (e.g., by Daniel A. Bell) of how traditional values of Confucianism have been promoted in modern China in an effort to preserve traditions. Here is [https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691145853/chinas-new-confucianism one of his works]. Path2space (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh yeah, as I said at the top in some of these cases there is an intuitive through-line. But these changes need to flow up from the articles rather than jamming pages onto a stuffed template based on intuition alone. If the Confucianism page says something apropos about conservatism in China then it could be added to the template. It isn't presently there. And template additions should not be used to circumvent reliable sourcing - if the sources to support the template aren't in the article the article should not be added to the template. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::There seems to have been a slight misunderstanding, I wasn't saying Confucianism should be defined with modern terms, rather the article on Confucianism could contain a section on how modern conservatives in China use and promote Confucianism as part of their politics. That section would justify it's inclusion in the Conservatism in China side bar.
Without it you have a kind of reverse Easter egg situation, where a reader navigates to the Confucianism article through the Conservatism in China side bar, but the Confucianism article contains nothing about Conservatism in China. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think we actually agree - just are approaching the question from slightly different angles. Certainly you are talking sense. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Context: I was planning to nominate the article My Monopoly for deletion because it had no citations to sources, and I couldn't find any, except for this page about it on Retro to Go [https://www.retrotogo.com/2009/11/my-monopoly-personalised-board-game.html] and this page about on CoolThings. [https://www.coolthings.com/my-monopoly/] I want to know if these sources are reliable; if they are, I will add citations to them in the said article, but if they are not, I will proceed with the nomination of the article for deletion. 1isall (talk/contribs) 17:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I found out that these sources are blogs, making them unreliable. I'll just proceed with either a PROD or AFD for the article on My Monopoly. 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:The Retrotogo.com about us page[https://www.retrotogo.com/all-about-the-retro-to-go-website] states {{tq|To put it simply, Retro To Go is a blog about retro things}}, so it's not a reliable source.

:Coolthings.com is marginal as it has some very minor use by others, being used as a citation in a couple of books published by Springer but that's it. It's about us page[https://www.coolthings.com/about/] shows it's part of Adfamous LLC, which holds a lot of different sites[https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/adfamous-llc-1415000/]. If it wasn't for the use by others I would say it feels a bit like a content farm. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::Knew it.

::* Retro to Go explicitly states it's a blog, and blogs are unreliable sources.

::* CoolThings is close to being a content farm, which is a user-generated source, so it's also unreliable.

::I have already proposed the deletion of the My Monopoly article, but I've found one other source: GeekAlerts. [https://www.geekalerts.com/my-monopoly/] What's the reliability of this source? It obviously won't be enough to establish notability, though, so I'm still predicting the deletion of this article in a week. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::GeekAlerts appears to be somewhat established, it lists it's staff on its about us page[https://www.geekalerts.com/about/] and appears somewhat well established. I can't find any real use by others, but again for board games it probably ok. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• [https://www.thestar.com.my/tech/tech-news/2023/11/09/not-an-ai-fake-social-media-in-china-delighted-to-discover-world-famous-jiafei-meme-is-real Not an AI fake: Social media in China delighted to discover world-famous Jiafei meme is real]

This is the article in question, it's used in Draft:Jiafei.

Also, here's the claim it supports:

{{tqq|Jiafei is the name given to a TikTok meme that originated from a photo commonly used as a profile picture by bots on the website that posted advertisments for Chinese product, with the premise of absurd situations. The song used in most ads, called 野花香 (Ye Hua Xiang) (Wildflower Fragrance) by Mo Si Man, also became part of the meme. In late-2023, a Chinese model known as Dai Dai (Chinese: 戴戴) found out she was the meme Jiafei}} TheGoofWasHere (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The text at the bottom indicates that the original source is this SCMP article [https://www.scmp.com/news/people-culture/trending-china/article/3239411/not-fake-social-media-china-delighted-discover-world-famous-jiafei-meme-real]. SCMP is generally reliable (WP:SCMP), but these two articles would only count as a single source for the purposes of notability. Astaire (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Are the British Deaf Association and UK government reports reliable for the numbers of British Sign Language speakers?

On Languages of the United Kingdom I made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1296167435 this edit], reproducing [https://bda.org.uk/help-resources/ figures] from the BDA.

It was immediately reverted on the grounds that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1296169356 "What the BSL (sic), or anyone, thinks the true figures are is just opinion”] and that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=1296176748 it was “original research” for the BDA to make statements based on official statistics], stating that lobby groups could not be trusted.

Although to me this is clearly not WP:OR (I made no inferences myself), I endeavoured to find another source in case this one was seen as unreliable or primary. So I found [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-british-sign-language-bsl-report-2022/the-british-sign-language-bsl-report-2022 this UK government report] from the Department of Work and Pensions that directly cited the BDA’s figures without any caveat.

The same editor refuses to accept this source on the grounds that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=1296178409 "it isn't a secondary source. All the UK govt source is doing is passing over the opinion of the BDA. It is not giving a considered opinion of its own about those numbers. A govt published source anywhere is rarely if ever truly secondary"] and that as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Languages_of_the_United_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=1296261694 government reports should not be used as a source because they are "self-published"]. I have to be honest, I wasn't aware that government reports were, by default, considered non-reliable sources for statistics.

Google scholar shows these figures are [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22british+sign+language%22+151%2C000&btnG=5 cited in numerous articles], but I get the strong sense based on the editor's comments about sourcing and mistrust of the BDA that no source reproducing its figures would be acceptable - and possibly no numbers at all would be acceptable as they are all "just opinion". (By the by, the current figure used sourced behind a paywall to Ethnologue - a website that I see that previous RSN discussions find is generally reliable but not perfect - [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22british+sign+language%22+77%2C000&btnG= doesn't seem to be cited much if at all], so it looks like the numbers should be updated.)

So I thought I would nip things in the bud and ask here. It also seemed to me better for users to link directly to a widely relied-on source (or to a government document relying on it) than on an otherwise random scholarly article that just happened to use those figures. Especially as the BDA gives a breakdown of speakers into the four nations of the UK.OsFish (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes both are fine and reliable for the figures, that other reliable sources use the figures adds to it's reliability. Govermental sources are considered reliable for statistics relating to their country, WP:PRIMARY sources are acceptable as are sources that could be considered nsidered biased (see WP:RSBIAS). If there are differing figures there's no reason both can't be used, unless one figure is outdated in comparison.

:It's not WP:OR, as that only applies to editors and content on Wikipedia, it has absolutely not thing to do with sources. This is well discussed and the argument is a none starter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:02, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for a comprehensive response. It’s pretty much as I was thinking too.OsFish (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Following a discussion on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Singapore-based_sources Singapore-based sources], I decided to open another RfC regarding the current wording of The Straits Times' reliability on RSP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_350#Reliability_of_The_Straits_Times from the previous RfC]:

{{tq|The Straits Times is the largest newspaper in Singapore. There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage. However, since Singapore has a poor record on freedom of speech and press, and given known practices of self-censorship and political meddling into coverage, news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt.}}

However, some issues remain, especially the interpretation of: "There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage." For a bit of clarification, The Straits Times isn't at all state-owned and is still a private entity. As I quote from its parent company SPH Media Trust: "SPH Media Trust is managed privately by its shareholders. The management shares are regulated through Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA) and its issuance and transfers have to be approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information, and in "any resolution relating to the appointment or dismissal of a director or any member of the staff" the vote of one management share is equivalent to 200 ordinary shares." These shares are mainly held by banks and education institutions in Singapore. I won't really say ST should be treated like WP:XINHUA, which is more directly government-owned, although one can say it's a similar situation due to Singapore's and China's poor press freedoms.

Another part: "news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt". While a few might interpret that more narrowly, as in "the ST is generally reliable for not-explicitly-political topics" (e.g. elections, politicians), I recognize that others may interpret it as meaning that the ST is only generally reliable for topics not related to any SG governmental agency or its projects. And the latter broader interpretation is rather problematic, because Singapore is a small city-state and most infrastructure projects are tied to the government in some form. It would not be possible to create a comprehensive, or even broad, article in Singapore without using local sources like ST, since other external news seldom report on local infrastructure projects.

I would also like to point out instances of ST's independence, such as its critical commentary of [https://web.archive.org/web/20250603065229/https://litter.catbox.moe/h4tlr6.PDF the Light Rail Transit] (2012), [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/empty-shops-boarded-windows-has-holland-village-lost-its-soul placemaking in Holland Village], [https://www.straitstimes.com/life/the-streets-were-full-of-laughter-what-happened-to-clarke-quay-keong-saik-road-and-club-street Clarke Quay] and [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/rising-rents-put-the-squeeze-on-small-businesses-should-the-government-do-more on rising rents]. There's also coverage of ST's critical analysis of some government policies such as SimplyGo: [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/passengers-happy-simplygo-move-shelved-but-observers-point-to-lta-s-lack-of-preparedness] and [https://www.straitstimes.com/tech/tech-news/drastic-simplygo-move-puzzling-in-the-absence-of-big-picture-transport-payment-plans], and it has also published a few opinion pieces showing that ST does not always toe the official government line: [https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/industry-veterans-verdict-rising-supply-likely-to-push-down-coe-prices] and [https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/what-s-really-driving-coe-premiums-and-the-price-of-cars-in-singapore]. In the recent elections, there's also sufficient coverage on the opposition: [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/wp-kickstarts-ge2025-campaign-with-slogan-working-for-singapore], [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ge2025-wp-candidates-warn-against-monopoly-call-for-competition-and-diversity-at-sengkang-rally], [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ge2025-psp-urges-release-of-probes-findings-into-volunteer-harassment-allegations-before-polls] and [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/sda-donates-16k-to-st-school-pocket-money-fund-after-sale-of-poll-posters].

I believe the wording should be improved such that it's clear ST is generally reliable for factual reporting, particularly on some local (non-controversial) issues, but greater caution should be applied for political coverage (such as those concerning elections and politicians). And/or that the current RSP entry for ST could probably be divided into: "Generally reliable" for non-politics topics and "additional considerations apply" (or "marginally reliable") for politics topics. There should also be a clearer definition of what also falls as a "politics topic". For instance, is a transit project, run and managed by a government agency, a political topic? If so, is ST reliable on that topic?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 05:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:While Singapore's press freedom record is undeniably inadequate compared to other liberal democracies, I would argue it is not comparable to the level of state control seen in China. There remains a degree of editorial independence in Singapore that allows for coverage of politically sensitive topics, albeit in a limited form. For instance, The Straits Times recently reported on Ng Chee Meng, a politician of the ruling party, addressing both his photo with Su Haijin, a convicted money launderer, and his conduct at a controversial Ministry of Education dialogue ([https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/politics/ng-chee-meng-apologises-for-moe-incident-asks-pm-not-to-assign-him-position-in-government link]). Such reporting on ruling party figures would be impossible in the context of Chinese state media.

:Singapore's media environment may be more aptly compared to that of Qatar (WP:ALJAZEERA), where coverage of domestic political issues is generally restrained. In Qatar’s case, the restrictions are arguably more severe, as criticism of the royal family is strictly prohibited and the country does not hold national elections. However, both contexts allow for open and professionally managed reporting on international and non-political subjects. While The Straits Times generally presents factually accurate and well-structured reporting, one could argue that they lack critical depth or investigative rigour on politically sensitive matters. That said, it does not necessarily conform entirely to the government line in the way seen in fully authoritarian regimes like China or Russia, as illustrated by the examples cited by ZKang123. I therefore support his proposal to revise the wording of the RSP entry to reflect a more nuanced distinction, particularly given that government involvement in Singapore extends into many areas of public life, such as infrastructure and policy, owing to the country's small size. Aleain (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:This isn't a WP:RFC, and if it was it's question wouldn't be brief or neutral (see WP:RFCBRIEF). All you've done is create a new section to continue the prior discussion. Can I suggest reading WP:RFCOPEN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, right. Then should I just remove the RfC prefix then?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I've done so. It doesn't stop you from discussing the wording of the RSP entry, it just avoids any confusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Urban, Hugh. [https://www.academia.edu/8979853/A_Dance_of_Masks_The_Esoteric_Ethics_of_Frithjof_Schuon "A Dance of Masks: The Esoteric Ethics of Frithjof Schuon"]. In Crossing Boundaries: Ethics in the History of Mysticism, edited by G. William Barnard and Jeffrey J. Kripal (New York: Seven Bridges Press), 2002. Page 440.

Frithjof Schuon was a philosopher and spiritual leader. Near the end of his life he was indicted for child sexual abuse but the charges were dropped two months later for lack of evidence. Urban's article critiques Schuon's philosophy/theology through the lense of this incident. I want to cite the appendix at the end of Urban's article, where he lays out the details of the allegations and the court case. Given that Urban is an academic I think his summary should be reliable. Other editors want to exclude this citation because they believe that Urban's critique of Schuon's theology is unfair and dishonest. A fresh set of eyes might break the deadlock, the article talk page would be the place to comment. Thanks, Prezbo (talk) 09:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It's being added to multiple articles by User talk:Cypern20. Publisher is [https://vernonpress.com/reasons-to-publish]. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:100% of this editor's activity is to add books by Winbladh or links to sites connected to them. Reliable or not, this is a pretty clear case of WP:REFSPAM. MrOllie (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Very off topic for this noticeboard, but edits going back to 2020 show refspam for the same author[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_history_of_Cyprus&diff=prev&oldid=956493834][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_Cypriots&diff=prev&oldid=956493996][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_problem&diff=prev&oldid=956494135]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The app Watch Duty has been used more and more frequently as a citation source on Western United States wildfire articles and related pages. However, according to the app information its a combination of OpenStreetMap, traditionally reliable sources, but also is user updated as well, making it a wiki-like entity. As such it would seem to fall afoul of the same citation rule as other user generated sites.

As the 2025 fire season is ramping up already it would be good to get clarity on the app as a source across the various pages.--Kevmin § 17:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:This isn't WP:User generated content, unlike a wiki you can't create an account and edit events or add comments. Only their staff and volunteers can do that. However although they say those staff ands volunteers are {{tq|active and retired firefighters, dispatchers, and first responders}}[https://www.watchduty.org/about/about-us] if you check their team page it's apparent not all volunteer reporters match that[https://www.watchduty.org/about/team]. If you look at page to become a volunteer reporters[https://www.watchduty.org/careers?gh_jid=4011474007] those things are 'Nice to have' rather than a requirement. But over all it's quite clear that they are somewhat picky with who can report, make edits, or comments. As to how reliable they are I would like to see use by others, but I haven't had time to do a proper search. I'll try to do some more as I have time.
Is there a project that covers this type of content? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} I notified wp:wildfires of this discussion, and will note that on the talk page there there is a short fizzled discussion regarding this same issue. I can say that for Washington state its actively not reliable with fire sizes being misreported, and so small fires or incidents are shown as different from what other agencies are collectively showing.--Kevmin § 14:20, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Watch Duty seems well reported on[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/05/watch-duty-wildfire-app][https://www.npr.org/2024/09/25/g-s1-24534/wildfire-app-watch-duty-firefighting][https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/11/us/watch-duty-wildfire-app.html], but that's the kind of thing that makes the app notable rather than reliable. What I can't seem to find is anyone using their reports as the basis of reporting on a fire.
It could be that this is a better resource than it is a reliable source, they link to updates from a sheriff or fire department and those could be used as reliable sources (maybe with attribution). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{ping|ActivelyDisinterested}} The app has been used in the 2024 fire seasons across may western states, such as 2024 Idaho wildfires.--Kevmin § 13:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::All I can say is I wouldn't use it as a reference, although as I said the reports it links to could be usable. They may screen who can do reporting, but that's not a high bar. Without some kind of use by others, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the UK Companies House database considered reliable source, following previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408#Trans Safety Network that mentioned in {{url|https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13739860}}. Absolutiva (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:its a primary source, as the information is submitted by companies. As such it could be used for non-controversial information about a company. Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::It can be used for biographies of living persons as a source? Absolutiva (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Well as information about things like CEO's is subject to laws about falsification of records, more or less. I would need to see what is being added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 10:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No it absolutely should not be used for 'information about things like CEO's', per WP:BLPPRIMARY. {{tq|Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.}} AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Source mentioned that https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/4DBvt2wmNyuKDBIIOV8E5JkLeoQ/appointments is considered WP:BLPPRIMARY from Talk:Qigang Chen#Requested move 21 June 2025. Absolutiva (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Absolutiva}} in that instance you're confusing WP:BLPSELFPUB (also see WP:ABOUTSELF) and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Primary sources from the subject of a BLP article are acceptable in a limited way, see the policies links for details. The restriction on primary sources in BLPs is about sources not from the subject themselves. So as an example a Facebook post from the subject is ok, but the companies house database is not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The Wiki page for Companies House states "almost 4,000 of the names on the Companies House register of directors were on international watchlists of alleged fraudsters". Given that fact, does anyone suggest that there is anything WP:RS here? No way. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would strongly suggest that this factoid has no bearing on reliability. A fraudster listed as the director of a company with Companies House absolutely is the director of that company. A name appearing as a director on Companies House website does not in anyway serve as a recommendation of that company.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

• Companies House is a primary source with legal weight. This means we can say things like "Josiah Bloggs is listed with companies house as a director of International People Exportation Limited", on the page of International People Exportation Limited. However, we are very frequently going to be limited as to whether we can link this entry to a specific Josiah Bloggs, as that would be WP:OR. I have frequently used Companies House to research people for a variety of reasons, and have almost always found enough information to be sure of exactly who the person concerned is. However, I have rarely been so sure that I would add it to the BLP of a named individual.Boynamedsue (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This is another good example of where the question "is 'x' a reliable source" makes no sense, until qualified with what is being cited and in what context. As Boynamedsue says, it can be used to say "Acme Widgets is a British widgetmaker established in 2015" but not much else. So while it may be reliable for basic facts, I can't see any practical use for it, as for genuinely notable and encyclopedic topics, there will usually be a better secondary source available to pull the information from. I definitely can't see a reason for using it in a BLP, per AndyTheGrump's reasoning. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The article Attempt (German penal code) is exclusively cited to [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesetzeskommentar Gesetzeskommentare], which are works written by academics about specific laws. While their reliability is not disputed, there seems to be some uncertainty about whether or not they are a primary or secondary source.

I consider them to be secondary, and they are described as such at [https://www.jura.uni-frankfurt.de/49827945/Erstellung-von-Hausarbeiten---Leitfaden-fuer-Studierende-FB01.pdf page 14] and [https://www.jura.uni-passau.de/fileadmin/dokumente/fakultaeten/jura/lehrstuehle/martens/Formalia_Seminararbeiten.pdf page 3] here. @Gatoclass wasn’t sure about that and pulled it from the dyk prep area, and we’re looking for some additional input. FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:[https://www.beck-shop.de/von-heintschel-heinegg-kudlich-strafgesetzbuch-stgb/product/36911282?srsltid=AfmBOorL9CCYpRHCMgO-zIO7bfi54XuQPxMZeJdNzrOcdux7rLXvwFIM Example] (print edition of Fn. 1) FortunateSons (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::They're analysis and evaluation of a primary topic (the laws) so would seem a classic example of a secondary source. I posted a notification on WT:V to see if anyone else has an opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:w:de:Versuch (StGB-D), which has an interlanguage link to Attempt, has 116 sources. Maybe sidestep the question by seeing if any of the other sources there could be added? I would not be surprised if the real concern is a lot closer to {{tl|one source}} than to "technically, this is primary/secondary/tertiary".

:And, yes, when you take a pre-existing publication (e.g., the German criminal code) and add analytical commentary, the result is a classic secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, that’s a good point, and I plan to add more in the article over the next few months, I just want to make sure it a) passes DYK and b) that I can write articles on more obscure topics while exclusively relying on that type of literature. FortunateSons (talk) 21:07, 22 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)

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)

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)

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 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)

[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)