Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 478#Question about Hatewatch and the SPLC

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic cross piercing (warning, the associated article contains a NSFW image of a penis), there has been discussion about [https://londonspeak.co.uk/magic-cross-piercing/ this article] from an obscure website called Londonspeak.co.uk, which has been added to source the article, which was previously unsourced prior to the AfD. Looking at the homepage [https://londonspeak.co.uk/] and the [https://londonspeak.co.uk/about-us/ about page], I think this is obviously a content farm and thus inherently unreliable, but the person adding to the the article said they were unfamilar with the concept, so I wanted to get a second opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sure I remember a print media 'Londonspeaks' that was a listing of events and gigs happening in London, not that this has anything to do with that. This looks like a content farm and has nothing to do with London. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is part of a small set of SEO link farms set up by "Seafy Web Solutions", a "linkbuilding and digital PR" entity. Mostly UK-themed domains like birminghamjournal.co.uk, liverpoolbuzz.co.uk, cambridgejournal.co.uk, leedsmag.co.uk, newcastlejournal.co.uk, suffolkjournal.co.uk, and londonspeak.co.uk. Of course, there's also "chicagotweet.com", which they byline as "Chicago Tweet is UK news portal". Okay. Obviously, this is all complete garbage and in no way a reliable source.Sam Kuru (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

URL: {{url|https://spilled.gg/}}

According to {{url|https://spilled.gg/about/}}, Spilled.gg is a special interest news website covering news stories from the worlds of video games, e-sports and streaming. It's about page includes a staff list, with their real names and linkedin accounts which covers their experience and education.

When making exceptional claims, the website cites sources such as New York Times, Business Insider, BBC News, NBC News and Slate as it did in this article, [https://spilled.gg/mexican-tiktok-star-valeria-marquez-shot-dead-salon-livestream/], this article [https://spilled.gg/political-streamer-mikefrompa-draws-fire-comments-israeli-embassy-shooting-victims/], this article [https://spilled.gg/streamer-denims-returns-gofundme-money-dropping-lawsuit-plans-ethan-klein/] or this article. [https://spilled.gg/reddit-harassment-h3snark/].

Articles such as this one [https://spilled.gg/mexican-tiktok-star-valeria-marquez-shot-dead-salon-livestream/] contain speculation/opinion ({{tq|"Mexico’s homicide rate right now is about five times higher than in the United States, and murders linked to organized crime hardly ever get solved. Cops haven’t made any arrests yet in Márquez’s case, and if other cases like this are anything to go by, it’s unlikely justice will come anytime soon."}}) and this one [https://spilled.gg/antonio-brown-fired-gun-crowd-adin-ross-boxing-event/] which states {{tq|The former Pittsburgh Steelers and Tampa Bay Buccaneers wideout has had a string of legal problems and unpredictable behavior since leaving the league. Some people think his issues could be connected to possible CTE from his football days.}}, whereas articles such as this one [https://spilled.gg/avowed-director-carrie-patel-leaves-obsidian-netflix-games/] are relatively straightforwardly factual.

All recent articles on the site come from one author, the site's owner Riley Fox.

The views of the reliable sources noticeboard regulars on this site would be appreciated. CeltBrowne (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Why would you not just directly cite the sources this website uses? Why are claims about Mexico's homicide rate and former(?) American football players relevant to video games, e-sports and streaming? Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The streaming section of the website covers those engaged in political commentary on websites such as Twitch.tv, Youtube and other live streaming platforms.
• :The website could be potentially used to discuss the careers of those commentators. However, it shouldn't be cited if it's felt that the website is not suitably reliable.
• :I myself am on the fence about the reliability of the website, as I find different articles have very different quality levels.
• :The discussion about Mexico's homicide rate is contained in an article about Valeria Márquez (influencer), a Tiktok personality who was, unfortunately, murdered in Mexico this year. The discussion about the whether an American Football player has CTE stems from that player appearing (and getting involved in a conflict) at an event hosted by streamers. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this source reliable? [https://books.google.co.in/books/about/The_Madhya_Pradesh_Leading_Cases_1882_19.html?id=kIMwAQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y] ? Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Reliable for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::See this [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahir_clans&diff=prev&oldid=1277287618]. Chronos.Zx (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::And what does Harihar Nivas Dvivedi have to say on the matter? Given that the book appears to be a collection of court cases, it seems odd that the author (or more accurately, editor?) would be making statements about caste status. Are you sure it isn't something said in one of the court cases that is actually being cited? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Given that {{Ping|Mahensingha}} removed the content, and appears to have access to the source, they should clearly be involved in this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As the source isn't freely available could you give a quote from the section of the book you want to use? Page 198 appear to deal with the Rafiuddin vs Brijmohan court case, so this could well be something said in a court case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't have any intention for using it anywhere. I just wanted to know whether it is considered a reliable source or not, so I came here to get the answer from the experts. Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please don't do that. Abstract questions of reliability are rarely of much merit unless considering sources which come up frequently, and where there seems to be disagreement. As Wikipedia:Reliable sources clearly states {{tq|The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.}} AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@AndyTheGrump Understood. Regards. Chronos.Zx (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If it was reliable it would be for the details of a court case, I can't see how it would be reliable for the historical caste details it was being used for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

In attempting to expand the article 2025 EuroLeague Final Four, I used [https://www.dailysabah.com/sports/basketball/fenerbahce-beat-monaco-to-clinch-turkish-airlines-euroleague-crown/amp this source] which is highlighted in red as unreliable on the cite highlighter tool, but seems to have a good informational game summary. The WP:DAILYSABAH entry at RSP says {{tqq|Some editors consider it to be reliable enough to cite…uncontroversial Turkey-related events.}} Is this one of those qualified exceptions? Left guide (talk) 21:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:This would be the kind of uncontroversial details the exception talks of, as long as it's just basketball and nothing political. Still if you can I would suggest using a less contested source, simply to avoid any dispute, but if this source is needed it's usable in this context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|ActivelyDisinterested}} Thanks for the affirmation. It's difficult to find other sources that go into this level of depth, since this was an international game involving a Turkish club. Left guide (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to post on here with a question about this. By large most of the site is unusable for any type of sourcing, but I vaguely remember someone saying that reviews on this site can sometimes be used to establish notability. I can't remember what the qualifications were. The site almost never comes up in a search for sourcing, but recently a review popped up in relation to a film from the 90s. I tried finding some sort of mention of when, how, and if the site is usable, but can't find anything. I feel like the rule of thumb is that it was usable only if the review was written by certain people and only for films and games. A really common element of criticism was that in most cases the "review" didn't actually review anything and was typically just members screwing around, hence why only specific people were OK to use.

I don't really anticipate anyone really using the site to source anything other than as a primary source about the site itself (and even then alongside a better source for whatever the claim may be), but I thought it might be good to have some sort of discussion about this. But there are some interviews on there so I suppose it might be worth discussing here.

Myself personally, I don't know that I would see the site as usable for reviews. The site is mentioned in various academic/scholarly type books but more as a topic in relation to something else as opposed to being a RS, if that makes sense. I did find one or two things like [https://www.google.com/books/edition/An_Introduction_to_Theatre_Performance_a/eC-nDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=www.somethingawful.com&pg=PA189&printsec=frontcover this] and [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000/GAoPEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=www.somethingawful.com&pg=PA160&printsec=frontcover this], but they're in the minority. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think they'd be usable for reviews, but maybe be more careful. I don't think the bar for being a 'reliable source' for reviews is as high unless it is a scientific book - what is more significant is that the opinion is by an organization or on behalf of an organization that carriers some sort of significance, which I would say they do. The only article I've ever seen them be used on is the GA The Wiccan Web, which I think is a fine usage of it for reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::I just noticed this thread while coming here for something else. Something Awful is, historically, the precursor to 4chan (which, in turn, gave rise to 8chan). It should not be regarded as a reliable source for any opinion or summary of anything else. It can be a reliable primary source for what it, itself, has said. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Tryptofish That's just incorrect. The Something Awful forums were, but the Something Awful website has writing and feature articles, mostly for comedy or media reviews. It was influential in this domain during its heydey. The forum is an entirely different beast and equating them is baffling... of course we aren't citing the forum posts, but that's not nearly what the website was. And why on earth would it impact reliability that a random teenager with no relation who used their forum founded a different forum, who founded a different forum? 4chan is also an entirely different kind of website, lol, like yeah 4chan came from the World Wide Web as well, it doesn't mean 4chan being a website makes all websites unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Frankly, that's ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Which part? The idea that one person using a website's forum makes the non-forum part of a website unreliable? Do comments on news articles have a deleterious effect on the reliability of the news articles? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Peter-Gabriel-Classic-Albums-So-Blu-ray/50184/ Just wondering if Blu-ray.com’s reviews listed at the above link are reliable. Newtatoryd222 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's listed as unreliable by WikiProject Film, see WP:FILMSOURCES. I've left notifications with the project to try and generate some more input. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Just to clarify, that listing at WP:FILM is for Blu-ray.com's database, it doesn't mention reviews. --Mika1h (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:There seem to be two types of reviews: the "Blu-Ray review" and "user reviews". The latter would be WP:USERGENERATED and so generally unacceptable. The "Blu-Ray reviews" are detailed and at least some of the reviewers appear to be writing professionally. The ownership of blu-ray.com is opaque. They seem to have some relationship with the studios ("Blu-ray.com receives free screeners from different content providers")[https://www.blu-ray.com/legal/], and I wonder how they have managed to keep a domain name that is a trademark, so I'd be wary of there being an incentive for the reviews to be unduly promotional. On the other hand, they seem happy to publish some negative reviews. Overall, I'd be inclined to treat the "Blu-Ray reviews" as adequately reliable for straightforward facts, such as the audio format of the film, or whether a commentary track is included on the disc, but the due weight of any opinion expressed in the review would depend on the notability of its author. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would consider the reviews reliable insofar as they discuss the details of the release; for their opinion of the film itself that would be attributable per WP:RSOPINION. In my experience the reviewers are critical when the situation calls for it, particularly on technical details of the film's presentation. Mackensen (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:This came up recently in an AfD for Ultramarines: A Warhammer 40,000 Movie, and given the absence of any kind of information about the site's editorial staff/process, I think we should be treating it as a questionable source. hinnk (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:The reviewers that review the audio/video quality of the home media release, as well as assess bonus features, tend to be subject-matter experts and seem to write professional reviews. As long as that review is the one being cited and the SME's credentials verified (meets WP:SPS concerns), then it seems it would be acceptable as a valid source. With that said, I'm not sure where this has a place on Wikipedia, as our film articles do not usually cover the blu-ray release to that level of detail. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Currently, I'm doing an article for Draft:Grenada District, and I was wondering if the Surface Transportation Board is a good site for sources? https://www.stb.gov/ IC 9612 (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think that source is considered WP:PRIMARY. You can use the source, but it can't be a basis for the whole article. It also depends on what you're citing the source for, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Surface Transportation Board is a government agency. It's reliable (and used) for things like ownership changes of railway lines since those aren't always reported in local news media. I wouldn't necessarily consider it PRIMARY in that sense. See Wilmington and Northern Branch for an example of it being used. Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The Handbook of Texas has extensive information on Texas history and culture. Though, a lot of its articles don’t cite sources, and some articles, such as its entry for Ander-Weser-Kilgore, Texas, lacks mentions of its community outside of the TSHA ecosystem. It makes me question its reliability, despite its inclusion on many Texas articles. Roasted (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:[https://www.tshaonline.org/help-topics/handbook/author-information Their website] appears to say many of the things we like to hear when determining if a source is reliable. With respect to sources for their articles, they say on that webpage that they maintain their own comprehensive records of the sources used for each article: "Every entry in the Handbook, however, is represented by a file in the offices of the Texas State Historical Association, where the whole bibliographical story behind the entry is available." ElKevbo (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Someone may have better luck than I have in looking at the Census data, but I don't see much reason to doubt that this is was formerly an actual Census Designated Place circa 1990 or earlier. Ander and Weser were definitely real towns in Goliad County, Texas. See pg 82 here.[https://archive.org/details/goliad0000star/page/82/mode/2up?q=ander] The book doesn't mention Kilgore, but sometimes CDP names are really small places. Jahaza (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Here's a 1943 photo of Kilgore, Goliad County, TX from the Library of Congress[https://www.loc.gov/item/2017852695/], so these are all real places. Jahaza (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::I had the same problems just now with the current archives of census data - lots of dead links and unresponsive servers. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's a large scholarly work, written by historians with editorial control by a reputable historical organization and in print since the 50's. It is used in many featured articles. I don't think there's any question at all about considering it a reliable source. Prior discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_9#Handbook_of_Texas? here]. Presumably, it's drawing from 2002 census estimate data - you can see a dump at the [https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth162511/m1/302/?q=Acrey 2004-5 Texas Almanac], which includes that CDP. Looks like a cluster of three very small unincorporated communities. As Mr. Kevbo mentions, you can reach out to the identified author if you have questions about sources.Sam Kuru (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Withdrawn|reason=Withdrawn by OP, see discussion section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Rediff.com has been discussed at least 4 times previously ([https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Dimple_Kapadia/archive2#Source_review],[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mallika_Sherawat#Mallika's_age_and_actions_by_user_Shshshsh],[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_171#Rediff.com_News?],[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_322#Rediff.com]). It is [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22rediff.com%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 used in 12,826 articles]. The website is https://rediff.com.

What is the reliability of Rediff.com?

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

KnowDeath (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:ICTFFAQ lists it as generally reliable, though I don't think this is a consensus derived decision. KnowDeath (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've left notifications on the WikiProject India and ICTF talk pages. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• I clicked on the four previous discussions linked in the RFC opening statement and didn't find anything substantive with [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_171#Rediff.com_News? this trivial exchange in 2014] being the only one focussed on Rediff as a whole. {{u|KnowDeath}} can you explain what motivated you to start an RFC and why you believe that WP:NEWSORG and WP:NEWSORGINDIA don't sufficiently cover the issue? I can imagine reasons based on my personal impression but would prefer them to be researched, backed up by reliable sources, and spelled out in a discussion instead of us all jumping into an RFC. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The first discussion I linked did focus on rediff more than any other source. I've seen rediff referred to as a "portal" rather than a news website, and parts of the website are seemingly not news or opinion, so I thought a proper discussion and a listing at RSPS would probably be useful, since it's used in almost 13000 articles. KnowDeath (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{reply|KnowDeath}} Thanks for pointing that out. The discussion at the FAC, especially between {{u|Shshshsh}} and {{u|Nikkimaria}}, is indeed very useful, with both presenting sources and reasons to back up their arguments. I believe it is that kind of evidence-gathering that is needed before an RFC is started here because while independent voices at an RFC are very valuable in evaluating evidence, you need knowledgeable editors to gather and present it in the first place. Note also that the question of reliability of Rediff may very well depend upon the topic of interest (say, politics vs films) and type of articles (bylined, news agency, listicles, etc) cited. So I would recommend closing this RFC and putting in the requisite hours to research the portal and how it is cited and described by other reliable sources; the latter can be done in user space or projectspace in collaboration with other interested editors. Then an RFC can potentially be started if there is reason to believe that Rediif as a whole or parts of it should not be regarded as generally reliable. Abecedare (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Okay, this RfC can be closed. I don't know how to do that myself. KnowDeath (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

[http://entertainmentnow.com This] website is being used to support content about a living person at Rachel Zegler, specifically through [https://entertainmentnow.com/news/rachel-zegler-emotional-snow-white-screening/ this] cited article. This looks to me to be a celebrity gossip site, thus failing WP:BLPGOSSIP and being unsuitable for BLP articles as a result. I wanted to inquire here, since this website does not appear to have been previously discussed on RSN, but I have removed the citation from the article as not being from an acceptable BLP source per WP:BLPRESTORE. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Seems like there may be some editorial oversight [https://entertainmentnow.com/about/] as it has some journalists and it says it is used by other outlets like People magazine, Us Weekly, etc. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:The source doesn't contain the kind of gossip that BLPGOSSIP is warning about, and the content was about some of her acting roles rather than gossip. However looking at where it was used in Rachel Zegler it just fails verification as the source didn't support the content. In general it doesn't look like the kind of "high-quality source" that WP:BLP call for, but it could maybe be used for non-controversial details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The source [{{cite web|last1=Akhtar|first1=Rabia|title=Escalation Gone Meta: Strategic Lessons from the 2025 India–Pakistan Crisis|url=https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/escalation-gone-meta-strategic-lessons-2025-india-pakistan-crisis|website=Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs|publisher=Harvard Kennedy School|date=14 May 2025|access-date=25 May 2025|quote=The clash resulted in the downing of five Indian aircraft, illustrating how quickly escalation can spiral in a nuclearized environment where the margin for error is vanishingly small.}}] is being used in the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict article to support the following: {{tq|The attack was carried out by Rafale aircraft of the Indian Air Force using SCALP missiles and AASM Hammer glide bombs.}}

Can we use it to support the following? {{tq|The attack was carried out by Rafale aircraft of the Indian Air Force using SCALP missiles and AASM Hammer glide bombs, as part of a larger aerial formation that included over 80 Indian aircraft—including Rafales, Su-30MKIs, and MiG-29s—confronted by over 40 Pakistani fighters, including JF-17 Thunders, J-10Cs, and F-16s. The engagement led to the downing of five Indian aircraft.}} I have framed it as neutrally as possible. I would like to hear from uninvolved editors who are not currently editing the article or have previously expressed their opinion on the article talk. I do not want this to turn into a back-and-forth like the other thread.

{{reflist-talk}} Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:If this was an event from 10 years ago this would be a firm yes, but it's not. In general the source and it's author would be reliable, in particular Rabia Akhtar is well qualified and respected in the field of international relations.
This would be a very reliable source for details pertaining to the interstate relationship between India and Pakistan. For technical details of military actions in a very recent event it's not so firm, Akhtar is very careful to cite her sources for the details you mention. If you want to support {{tq|"The attack was carried out by Rafale aircraft of the Indian Air Force using SCALP missiles and AASM Hammer glide bombs."}} then cite Al-Jazeera[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/7/where-did-india-hit-pakistan-mapping-operation-sindoor-and-border-strikes], as she does. Similarly the other content you mention comes from the Telegraph[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/05/08/how-china-helped-pakistan-shoot-down-indian-fighter-jets/][https://archive.is/TDJII archive] and CNN[https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/06/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-conflict-hnk-intl]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::@ActivelyDisinterested Thank you for your candid feedback. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::@ActivelyDisinterested Al-Jazeera does not support that statement. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's the source she is using for {{tq|"Involving Rafale jets armed with SCALP missiles and Hammer bombs, the strikes targeted..."}}, but there's nothing in the Al-Jazeera post. Could just be a mixup, there are other sources confirming the details - South China Morning Post[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3309909/kashmir-conflict-reveals-power-pakistans-chinese-weapons-doubts-remain] for instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

DMME.net is a well established authoritive site. Can this obituary https://dmme.net/bobby-tench-departed-for-better-world/ be referenced as from a reliable primary source? Lookinin (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's a self-published source[https://dmme.net/dme] that offers apparently undisclosed advertorials[https://dmme.net/services]. I wouldn't think it's a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a list from an Indian PR company called Newsreach. They provide PR services and shared a [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1QlO6EyfJlSVrHDpI4e1FMBeGC5l4OSdoleemvHqr-G8/htmlview# Google Sheet] that lists various Indian news websites, example links, and whether they include disclaimers. Many of the websites provide non-disclaimer articles. In the “do-follow link” section of the sheet, numerous websites are listed that publish user-submitted or subject-written articles without any disclaimer, along with their pricing. This sheet may help editors assess the reliability of Indian news websites and enhance WP:NEWSORGINDIA. GrabUp - Talk 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|GrabUp}} It would be good to document the relevant bits of this information somewhere on wiki, perhaps on a page in WP:INB-space, which can then be linked to from WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Abecedare (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

There is currently a disupute being discussed both at Talk:Andy Ngo and Talk:SPLC regarding the status of Hatewatch and whether it constitutes a different level of reliability than that of the SPLC. WP:SPLC describes the SPLC as being generally reliable for matters of the American far-right however the contention is that Hatewatch is a blog and, as such, should not be used for BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Hatewatch is not currently described by the SPLC as a blog - it is described as a resource. Its reporting includes both SPLC staff articles and articles by named authors with bylines and it does appear that SPLC claims editorial control over it. A counter-argument has been made that this situation is similar to a Forbes / Forbes Contributor one however this hinges on the level of editorial oversight the SPLC exercises over Hatewatch which may end up being something of a subjective measure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think we should be cautions with any content from the Hatewatch section based on several grounds. First, SPLC as a whole is an advocacy organization, not a news media site. It has a perverse incentive to create an US vs THEM narrative in order to drive donations. That concern would apply to the whole organization not just Hatewatch. As for Hatewatch specifically, first it was described as a blog by SPLC for many years. It appears that they quietly changed this (in 2022?) but offered no explanation why or if the change was accompanied by any change in editorial practice. As for editorial practices, it doesn't appear that SPLC was keeping a close watch on what was being published there. The Grayzone [https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/14/anarchist-alexander-reid-ross-cops-cia-dhs/] (a site that is likely to be sympathetic to the SPLC on the whole) reported a whole block of Hatezone content by a writer not employed by the SPLC was removed. That certainly doesn't speak highly of their editorial oversite. Unlike the SPLC reports, much of this seems like opinion/blog commentary, the sort of material we would routinely reject from most minor media sources. It seems very inconsistent to accept this material as factual/green RS from an advocacy organization with the long list of problems that have been raised during previous RSN discussions. Springee (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::That Grayzone piece on Reid Ross seems a bit much though - I'll be honest I have had some minor contact with him in my capacity as a writer and I would call that article an open hit piece based on some rather silly sectarian beefing between Marxists and Anarchists. And that sectarian beef is context that, as it's leftist in-fighting, editors who are not engaged with the left more broadly might not be alert to. Basically, on the topic of that particular man, no, Grayzone, which skews Marxist, would likely be quite unsympathetic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I will also note, per WP:GRAYZONE that Grayzone is a deprecated source. And I'll say that, even among Marxists, it's not particularly well respected except possibly for providing a counter-voice on Venezuela. Grayzone absolutely has a vested interest in playing the "anti-imperialists aligned with Russia are leftists" game which was far more likely to get a receptive response from Marxists in 2015 than in 2025. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I wouldn't put much faith in the Grayzone either. However, it doesn't look good that SPLC let the material go up then later had to pull it down. That suggests limited editorial oversite. Again, we aren't dealing with a news site, this is an advocacy organization. I think a "use with caution" is the best rating we should have for anything they release that isn't supported by a clear RS referencing it first. Springee (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::So first off, considering the Grayzone's deprecation was for publishing factually inaccurate statements, I would not trust based on Grayzone alone that SPLC pulled down Reid Ross' articles for the reasons they describe at all. I can confirm that there are no articles by Alexander Reid Ross on Hatewatch but that's about the extent to which I would trust Grayzone for statements of fact in this matter.

:::::Secondly, let's pretend for a second that Grayzone could be trusted, that might indicate why Hatewatch is no longer managed as a blog - if SPLC had a public relations issue coming out of it in 2021 then it would seem to fit the timeline of Hatewatch being redesigned with tighter control in 2022. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Simonm223}} The SPLC published an [https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/update-multipolar-spin-how-fascists-operationalize-left-wing-resentment/ Explanation and Apology] which you can read for yourself. It paints a far less damning picture than the author of that Grayzone article does. It also suggests that there is active editorial involvement in the writing and publication of the articles on Hatewatch. 18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Considering what I know of Mr. Reid-Ross this makes a lot of sense. Grayzone is one of the least reliable sources around. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I had never heard of Reid Ross when that was published. I spent ages checking every fact in it aboit Grayzone and found them all to stand up completely: http://brockley.blogspot.com/search?q=FACT-CHECKING+THE+SPLC+ON+MAX+BLUMENTHAL It seems SPLC caved in to some lawfare, and tightened up their editorial control afterwards to be double sure. This makes them look good not bad. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::Why would the Grayzone likely be sympathetic to the SPLC? Politically they don't share a lot of ground. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I have some sympathy for people who are distant from the left that they may have missed that there are significant political differences between nominally Marxist, pro-Russia, "anti-imperialists" and anarchist antifascists. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Indeed. Grayzone promote disinformation and hang out with fascists; SPLC oppose disinformation and fascism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|it doesn't appear that SPLC was keeping a close watch on what was being published there. The Grayzone [73] (a site that is likely to be sympathetic to the SPLC on the whole) reported a whole block of Hatezone content by a writer not employed by the SPLC was removed. That certainly doesn't speak highly of their editorial oversite.}} Resisting the urge to respond in my native tongue (sarcasm), I will point out that you just made the argument that the SPLC exercising editorial oversight of Hatewatch demonstrates that they do not exercise editorial oversight of Hatewatch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Only after people outside SPLC complained. Closing the barn door after the horse left. Springee (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ahh, so your argument is that the SPLC is not exercising editorial oversight because they [checks notes] couldn't predict the future wrt the response to Ross' articles. Thanks for clarifying, though that argument is just as vacuous as what I originally pointed out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please keep civil. If the SPLC was exercising editorial oversight why did they miss something so big that the retracted all articles by a given writer? On the other hand if they didn't notice until outside sources raised the issue they aren't doing a good job maintaining quality. What else are they missing? Either version would be an issue if this was actually a media outlet. It's even worse when this is an activist organization. Springee (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Are you arguing that their decision to remove three articles by one author in 2018 somehow impugns everything they've posted? If not, please clarify. "What else are they missing?" assumes that they've missed something else. Do you have any evidence that they published something else that you believe was problematic in some way? I don't see why "It's even worse when this is an activist organization." We use lots of RS that are biased; that only means that we use them with attribution. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{TQ|Please keep civil.}} Please be serious. This is even more ridiculous a statement to make than the arguments above were. If you can't handle attacks on your arguments, you have no business arguing.

::::::{{tq| If the SPLC was exercising editorial oversight why did they miss something so big that the retracted all articles by a given writer?}} Why hasn't this happened more often, if they're not exercising editorial oversight? Even your own unreliable blog source (the irony is not lost on me) implies that was Ross was doing is hardly unusual. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'd like to dispute the basic premise here. It seems the contention is that some people think Hatewatch should be considered less reliable due to publicly holding the opinion that racism is bad. Would Hatewatch be more acceptable with the same staff and editorial procedures if they were ambivalent on racism? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ah the classic twist on if you disagree with me you must be a so and so. Those kind of arguments are worthless. 32.140.33.58 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There is no need to personalize my comment. Would this same staff and editorial processes be less controversial if they were not publicly an anti racism group? That's the question. They advocate for less racism, and the argument here is that this advocacy makes their research on hate groups less reliable. My argument is that the research is sound, and holding an opinion doesn't make it invalid. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think Hatewatch is more or less a news blog and has the same level of reliability as the SPLC which is to say reliable but with signficant qualifications/exceptions as eneumerated by the standing consensus on the SPLC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• I would note that the arguments I've seen so far centering on the SPLC describing Hatewatch as a blog seem rooted in the assumption that the SPLC and us here on WP use "blog" to mean the same thing. But anyone familiar with jargon from more than one field can tell you that's a baseless assumption. The fact that the SPLC stopped calling it that may be worth noting, however, whether that cessation was accompanied by a change in editorial practices is essentially beside the point. That's an argument over whether Hatewatch is reliable, not whether we should call it a blog or not (which is, itself, distinct from the question of whether or not we should consider it a blog for sourcing purposes).

:I could go either way on the question of whether to describe Hatewatch as a blog when we mention it in article space. There are RSes who do so. The SPLC does not. I would oppose any attempt to add "blog" to every mention of it in article space, and I would also oppose any attempt to remove "blog" as a descriptor, unless and until a consensus is arrived at, because both look to me to have no utility other than POV pushing. For now, my advice is: if the word "blog" in an article has been there for some time uncontested, leave it. If a mention has been made which lacks that word and has been uncontested for some time, do not add it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this approach to article mentions. Springee (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Simonm223, it seems like you have more than one question. A few that I see:

:* Is Hatewatch less reliable than other SPLC publications? (And perhaps: even if it is, is it still sufficiently reliable to be considered an RS?)

:* Should Hatewatch be considered an SPS?

:* Have either of these characteristics shifted over time?

:Are there any other questions that you see underlying the talk page debates? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::That seems comprehensive to me. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::OK. I consider it GREL. There's no info about their editorial processes, but Hatewatch addresses lots of contentious issues/people/organizations, and SPLC hasn't faced a slew of libel suits. I can't weigh in on changes over time. As for SPS or not, there is no agreement in WP's editing community about what "self-published" means (see, e.g., this RfC and the BEFORE discussions it links to), but I'm not inclined to view it as self-published. I'd characterize Hatewatch in the same way that SPLC publications as a whole are characterized on RSP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Hatewatch is called a blog because of the one-post-at-a-time format. It is run by a reputable organisation, and it hosts posts by experts, PhDs, recognised and published journalists. I just googled three of the names I saw and two were PhDs in relevant fields and one was a widely-published journalist. Hatewatch is completely fine as a source.

:TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Does the Hatewatch section have any published editorial policy? I know Simonm223 has frequently said they feel basically all media should be MREL vs GREL. I think there is merit to that view. My question is why wouldn't we do the same for advocacy organizations that have a perverse incentive to promote to take in money?[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/magazine/wp/2018/11/08/feature/is-the-southern-poverty-law-center-judging-hate-fairly/][https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center]. It seems inconsistent to, correctly in my view, treat respected think tanks/institutes like CATO, Center for Economic and Policy Research as MREL but treat a the views of contributors to the SPLC as GREL. Do we have any evidence that they actually are reliable? It seems most of the lawsuits against the SPLC are related to inclusion on their hate lists rather than their commentary material. Isn't it at least consistent to treat this content like other commentary material? I think part of the issue is that the SPLC does have very good deeds in its history. However, they also have a perverse incentive to push "hate" to get donations (something respected sources have noted). The articles criticizing the organization are nothing new [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312/][https://www.npr.org/2019/04/17/713887174/after-allegations-of-toxic-culture-southern-poverty-law-center-tries-to-move-for][https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism]. A lawyer working for the SPLC was arrested with other violet activists in Atlanta last year[https://www.newsweek.com/lawyers-arrest-atlanta-protest-sparks-criticism-splc-1785889][https://www.policemag.com/patrol/news/15352183/civil-rights-lawyer-charged-with-domestic-terrorism-in-attack-on-gas-cop-city][https://www.policemag.com/patrol/news/15352183/civil-rights-lawyer-charged-with-domestic-terrorism-in-attack-on-gas-cop-city]. I'm not a big fan of citing Masters Thesis but this paper sees the same issues as many other people, the SPLC has one part that has done noble work and a second part where every problem starts to look like a nail, "Such success can bring about a natural desire for more, but as the relatively small pool of violent racist groups diminished, Morris Dees was forced to expand his definition of “hate group” to include non-violent groups and to include individuals and organizations whose ideologies were diametrically opposed to those of many of the SPLC’s progressive donors." Springee (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::These articles raising concerns about the SPLC are from a previous RSN threads on the topic (compiled from several posts by Guy Macon)

::* [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/southern-poverty-law-center-gets-creative-to-label-hate-groups Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups': Principled conservatives are lumped together with bigots.]

::* [https://reason.com/archives/2018/03/23/the-intellectual-poverty-of-the-southern/print The Intellectual Poverty of the Southern Poverty Law Center: Branding dissenters as haters undercuts its effectiveness.]

::* [https://harpers.org/archive/2000/11/the-church-of-morris-dees/ The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance.]

::* [https://www.philanthropydaily.com/guidestar-has-more-to-do-if-it-cares-about-its-objectivity/ GuideStar has more to do, if it cares about its objectivity.]

::* [https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/28/morris-dees-splc-trump-southern-poverty-law-center-215312 Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way?]

::* [https://capitalresearch.org/article/department-of-defense-purges-splc-information-from-its-training-material/ Department of Defense Purges SPLC Information from its Training Material.]

::* [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/shocked-anti-defamation-league-slaps-fbi-diss-on-hate-crimes The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as "hate groups" for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a "resource" on the FBI's Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group.]

::* [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/ How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?]

::* [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals?]

::* [https://harpers.org/blog/2007/11/the-southern-poverty-business-model/ The Southern Poverty Business Model ]

::* [https://reason.com/archives/2018/01/16/the-southern-poverty-law-center-scam/print The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam: A "hate group" list loved by the media is bogus.]

::* [https://www.wnyc.org/story/southern-poverty-law-center-anti-hate-slick-marketers-both/ The Southern Poverty Law Center: Anti-Hate Activists, Slick Marketers or Both?]

::* [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/03/19/the_hate_group_that_incited_the_middlebury_melee_133377.html The Hate Group That Incited the Middlebury Melee.]

::* [https://www.ocregister.com/2018/06/18/southern-poverty-law-center-pays-3-4-million-says-sorry-over-description/ Southern Poverty Law Center pays $3.4 million, says sorry, over description.]

::* [https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/southern-poverty-law-center-maajid-nawaz/ Pressured, the Southern Poverty Law Center Admits It Was Wrong]

::* [https://www.city-journal.org/html/demagogic-bully-15370.html A Demagogic Bully: The Southern Poverty Law Center demonizes respectable political opponents as "hate groups" -- and keeps its coffers bulging.]

::* [https://capitalresearch.org/article/young-conservative-flagged-on-splc-hatewatch-list/ Young Conservative Flagged on SPLC "Hatewatch" List.]

::* [https://www.weeklystandard.com/king-of-fearmongers/article/714573 King of Fearmongers.]

::* [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-hateful-speech-on-hate-groups/2012/08/16/70a60ac6-e7e8-11e1-8487-64e4b2a79ba8_story.html Hateful speech on hate groups.]

::* [https://capitalresearch.org/article/splc-wont-label-antifa-as-hate-group/ SPLC Won’t Label Antifa a Hate Group: To the SPLC, targeting conservatives and giving Antifa a pass is good for business.]

::* [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/southern-poverty-law-center-liberals-islam.html Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals?] --The New York Times::* [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/maajid-nawaz-splc-anti-muslim-extremist/505685/ How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'?] --The Atlantic

::* [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-nawaz-v-splc/562646/ The Unlabelling of an 'Anti-Muslim Extremist'] --The Atlantic

::* [https://www.theweek.com/articles/759498/sad-hysteria-southern-poverty-law-center The sad hysteria of the Southern Poverty Law Center] --The Week

::* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k41PI54ExFc The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam] --John Stossel

::* [https://reason.com/2019/05/06/poynter-institute-splc-retracted-list-media/ Poynter Institute's Retracted List of Fake News Sites Was Written by SPLC Podcast Producer: Media watchdogs should not outsource their fact-checking to the Southern Poverty Law Center.] --Reason magazine

::Springee (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::These are mostly right-wing opinion pieces, which have little validity, for example, "Young Conservative Flagged on SPLC “Hatewatch” List". The SPLC only lists organizations, not individuals, in its hate lists. In this case, an article on the SPLC website about the Family Research Council, which it labels a hate group, listed the program coordinator of Campus Reform among numerous other guests on a radio program hosted by Tony Perkins, who was president of the Family Research Council. It made no commentary about her political views. It was also clear that Campus Reform was not on their list of hate groups.[https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/post/hannah-scherlacher-falsely-accuses-the-splc-of-smearing-her] TFD (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::These are mostly opinion pieces in right-wing outlets which disagree with opinions expressed by the SPLC. Others relate to an employee of the SPLC acting as a legal observer at a civil disobedience event and getting charged with “domestic terror” for that (was he convicted?), which had zero implications for reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse|

:::Did you read these links? Do you really think it is controversial not to call anti fascist beliefs hate? You linked a really whack article that says that. So let's be clear, Springee, is being an anti fascist protestor the same as being in a racist group in your opinion? You linked a source to support that argument. Do you really believe that fighting racism is as bad as being racist, or did you not read what you linked? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Antifa is a group that practices political violence. It is extremist - comparisons are moot. Riposte97(talk) 13:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC) | WP:NOTFORUM}}

:Yes, Hatewatch is a blog. Yes, it is still RS as under SPLC oversight. No, we should not insert blog for inline attribute to it in our articles. The attempt to question Hatewatch usage on enwiki appears to be to deligitimize SPLC and its content rather than a serious review of it as an unreliable source. I saw similar attempts at Homeland Party (United Kingdom) for Hope not Hate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

One example of a factual error in the Grayzone article is that they claim Reid-Ross is responsible for the idea of the red-brown alliance. This is not the case. Martin A. Lee described the term many years before Reid-Ross started using it and Lee's description was based on the origination of the term in post-Soviet Russia. So, right here, we can see that Grayzone is making stuff up because the author was too lazy to do even a 5 minute google check on a key term. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Well, I can't possibly think why some editors appear desperate to have Hatewatch described as a blog. Oh, sorry, I can, it's so that they can continue their interminable attempts to have material from the SPLC described as unreliable. As I mentioned before, the SPLC (like HopeNotHate in the UK) shines a light into some pretty nasty crevices of far-right bigotry, and is quite often the only - or one of very few - resources to report on these groups; without them, we would quite often not be able to report on some of the things that these groups would rather we not know about them, which mainstream sources are often afraid to print. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :If the SPLC is the only source for a claim, is the claim actually DUE? Springee (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :: Case-by-case basis, obviously, but my last sentence is pertinent here. Also, SPLC material is often cited not because it's the only source, but because it's the most detailed. Black Kite (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Yes. It's sort of ridiculous to think otherwise. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• A blog is a format of website where "posts" are displayed in reverse chronological order. They're typically built on top of user friendly software that simplifies the process of publication. There are connotations of unreliability on Wikipedia because they are often self-published sources, not because of the format. It's unclear to me whether Hatewatch uses a blog format, or how we should even conceptualize the meaning of a blog in today's web (where does "blog" end and "online news magazine" begin?). Going around and adding "blog" to undercut its credibility seems utterly unnecessary (it is hard to see it as anything else, as I don't see the same people going around to dozens of articles to add "blog" every time Ars Technica, Gizmodo, or Business Insider are mentioned, too, or to add "newspaper" to New York Times or "magazine" to Sports Illustrated). The only thing that matters is whether it satisfies WP:RS. It has a good reputation, it has paid staff, there are many authors, authors are typically either staff or reputable researchers, and -- following the argument above -- when the credibility of one of its past authors is called into question, there is enough oversight to go back and remove their posts (which is a good thing). I'd regard Hatewatch as below SPLC's annual reports in terms of reliability, but still pretty reliable. All that said, even if it has a good reputation, SPLC is nonetheless an advocacy organization. That doesn't mean adding "blog"-like qualifiers, but does mean some caution is still necessary to attribute extraordinary claims that aren't also made by other sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Considering the claim in question is an interview with Jason Stanley, who is seen as an expert in these matters (I have critiques but they're OR LOL), and that nobody disputes that Stanley said what he said nor the factual contents of his statement I don't think anybody is trying to source extraordinary claims here. I do think that the concerns that adding "hatewatch blog" to copy is likely to be a foot in the door for subsequent removal of SPLC content seems somewhat apropos considering that Springee has, above, attempted to use the Grayzone smear piece on Reid-Ross as a basis to question the reliability of the SPLC in general. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• I concur with Black Kite. Various comments in this discussion seem to be more focused on re-littegating the previous RFC on the reliablity of SPLC, than on discussing Hatewatch's reliablity. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Where is the previous RfC? The RSP list doesn't show a RfC tag and I didn't see one about the general reliability of SPLC or Hatewatch in the list of previous discussions. I think there was a previous RfC but it was about the use in article leads. Springee (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::You're quite correct. I was mistaken. The previous RFC was about whether a designation by SPLC that an entity was a hate group meant that should be covered in the lead.
• ::Given there appears to have been extensive discussion previously, perhaps it's time for a RFC on the question:
• ::{{tq2|What is the reliablity of The Southern Poverty Law Center on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?}} TarnishedPath^talk 05:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::That particular question has been the topic of multiple discussions. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_(again)_&_Rousas_John_Rushdoony] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_128#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_208#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_on_Debbie_Schlussel's_Anti-Muslim_stance] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_230#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_As_Source_For_Labeling_Someone_a_White_Supremacist] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_232#Is_an_SPLC_report_a_reliable_source_for_List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials?] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_245#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_247#SPLC:_not_a_reliable_source] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_260#Is_the_SPLC_reliable?_It_is_reliable] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Southern_Poverty_Law_Center] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_339#RSP_wording_for_SPLC] (this one looks like a bit of WP:RFCBEFORE work) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_347#When_can_SPLC_be_treated_as_a_3rd_party_RS_vs_a_primary_source_that_needs_to_be_first_mentioned_by_a_independent_RS?] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_380#SPLC_at_ALEC] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::SPLC is already listed on WP:RSP. Maybe it is time for Hatewatch to be listed there as well? After an RFC, of course. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Seems perfectly reliable and has an established editorial policy and control over the content, with SPLC writers and states guest writers who themselves are experts on the subjects being used. Springee's use of conspiracy pseudoscience sites and other known unreliable sources as an argument above seems more concerning to me, personally. Silverseren^C 03:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Bloomberg, Politico, the Atlantic, the NYT... conspiracy pseudoscience sites? Really? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The Grayzone, Capitalresearch.org, Reason Magazine, John Stossel and so many right-wing think tanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Springee pointed out they were including any sources they found in old discussions. Better to be over-complete and include any they found than to miss some reliable ones in the name of trying to curate them at this point. Trying to focus on the unreliable sources is attempting to deflect from and ignore the actually reliable sources, which cover the whole spectrum. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Contrary to your opinion, Reason Magazine is a RS with a strong history of journalism. Springee (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::They appear to be opinion pieces, hence are not considered rs. In any case, the focus appears to be on the classification of hate groups which, as has long been accepted, is always a matter of opinion and therefore irrelevant to whether the SPLC is a reliable source. In comparison, Ebert.com is a reliable source for facts about movies. If it says Johnny Depp starred in Pirates of the Caribbean, its probably true. But Ebert's four star rating would be reported as attributed to him, not presented as a fact. TFD (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Silverseren, since you said it has an established editorial policy, can you link to it? I searched but was unable to find it. Springee (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I found this: {{tq|Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center.}} [https://medium.com/hatewatch-blog/about] The Intelligence Project is a recognised reputable organisation that has existed since the 70s. Their historical data is archived at Duke university, directors have testified in front of Congress, their reports are covered by RS, and so on. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :This is reaching [WP:1AM] and [WP:BLUDGEON} territory, with Springee being the only one trying to get Hatewatch removed as a source. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :That is a highly inappropriate perversion of what occurred above. Riposte97 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• From what I can tell it might still be considered a blog, especially considering Turbo's link above from another source describing it as that. It can certainly still be used since I would consider it an expert opinion in its field. It just needs to be labeled as such, that its their opinion and not statements of facts since there may or may not be editorial oversight for that part even though it is under the Intelligence Project section. Just like any other WP:NEWSBLOG. PackMecEng (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Why is it critical to people reading an article to know the source publishes individual articles instead of a monthly edition? I don't understand what you think readers will gain here. We don't usually specify book, magazine, video, etc for other sources. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::We call it out not because of its format but because of its editorial oversight, or lack there of. That is what a contemporary blog is. Not a individual article vs m9nthly edition. Also we call it out because that is the consensus of the community. This has been discussed so many times that is has its own link WP:SPLC PackMecEng (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Did you read the link you are mentioning? WP:BLOG is a redirect to WP:V. It then warns against using personal blogs. How is that related to this scenario? You say it's the consensus of the community, but that isn't a factual statement. 166.205.97.140 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• Hatewatch could only be considered a "blog" in the sense that it publishes in chronological order; it's clearly not self-published since it consists of articles written by others and posted by SPLC. We don't know exactly when or why they stopped labelling themselves as a blog but I would speculate that they realized the confusion and decided "blog isn't a clear descriptor of what we are" rather than suddenly changing from blog to not-a-blog. The fact that they're transparent about corrections indicates strong editorial oversight.

:It seems that using "hatewatch blog" everywhere it's cited only serves to cast undue doubt on its reliability and for that reason we should refrain from labelling it as such. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't see any proof that this claim is accurate {{tq|Hatewatch could only be considered a "blog" in the sense that it publishes in chronological order}}. We are fairly sure that they removed that word from their description sometime in 2024. The issue comes in with WP:SPLC which states that anything from SPLC should be attributed to them, if it is from their blog section, that should certainly be spelled out. Has nothing to do with casting doubt. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If it is merely attribution that you are interested in then that can be achieved by stating "... the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch said ...". Adding blog after Hatewatch is not necessary for attribution purposes. TarnishedPath^talk 03:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I have yet to see evidence that Hatewatch is subject to the same obscure editorial policy - or in fact any editorial policy - as other publications of the SPLC. So until there's evidence that it is, then yes, it needs to be attributed in a way that makes clear it is not just a "part of SPLC". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It has the same URL as the rest of the SPLC, why would you think this section is different? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Berchanhimez see this comment. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::That comment does not identify an editorial policy. It simply provides a source that says they're staffed with people from elsewhere. It's entirely possible for people to work on some stories/information for a source/platform which has editorial control, but also work for another part of that source/platform that does not have editorial control. For example, the NYT allows its reporters to submit opinion pieces under their own name for consideration to be published. That does not mean that those reporters are subject to the normal editorial control that they would be for their normal news stories when they do so.{{pb}}And that said, I haven't seen anything about SPLC's editorial policy to begin with. I don't doubt they have one, but there's a reason we attribute their designation of an organization as a hate group, for example. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::True, and yet {{tq|"The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States."}} If Hatewatch is run by the SPLC then I don't see why Hatewatch can't get the same treatment: GENREL for extremism in the US, attribution of statements and evaluation on a case-by-case basis. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thats basically WP:NEWSBLOG, generally reliable sources can also run less reliable subsections. Again this is the reliablity of Hatewatch, not of SLPC, even if its hosted by SPLC. PackMecEng (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Exactly my point. A reliable source does not mean that 100% of the things they own/publish is reliable. It's entirely possible, and in fact common that a reliable source will also publish/run less reliable portions. Hence why we treat OpEds differently than the main source itself - for example for newspapers. I see zero evidence to suggest we should treat the Hatewatch blog any differently than we'd treat a newspaper opinion section. The only reason to suggest otherwise is because people are trying to enable using that information to violate NPOV. If it's reliable, SPLC should have no problem publishing it under their own name and through their normal editorial processes. If it's only published on the Hatewatch blog, then we should be questioning why they were unwilling to publish it under their own name/main publications. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::SPLC is publishing it "under their own name." All of the content on [https://www.splcenter.org/ their website] is published under SPLC's name. I'm totally baffled about why you would think otherwise. You refer to "their normal editorial processes." Could you elaborate on what those are / where you found that information? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It's not "hosted" by SPLC. It's published by SPLC. Those two words aren't synonyms. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Not the same as going through their editorial process. It is a blog, as Berchanhimez says, there is a difference between the New York times main sections and their OpEd section. This is SPLC's OpEd section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::You've ignored my point. You falsely claimed that Hatewatch is "hosted" by SPLC, when it's actually published by SPLC. Do you understand the difference in meaning between "X hosts Y" and "X publishes Y"?

:::::::::::I'm not sure what characteristics you think make it a blog, nor have I seen any elaboration on what SPLC's "editorial process" is for any content on the site (whether Hatewatch or non-Hatewatch content). For the record, a blog is not the same thing as an op-ed section. The NYT op-ed section definitely isn't a blog. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The issue wirh that is basically whitewashing, trying to make a less reliable source look more reliable than it is by not giving the reader all the information to know that there is no evidence of editorial oversight. PackMecEng (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Go to a web.archive.org 2008 copy of [https://web.archive.org/web/20080822104330/http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ splcenter.org/blog], look at the top to read the title "hatewatch", look at the bottom to read {{tq|This is a moderated blog. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) encourages user comments on blog postings, but these comments are the personal opinions of the individuals posting them and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPLC. SPLC may edit your comments for content or space. SPLC may also choose not to post your comment.}} Till [https://web.archive.org/web/20220828064313/https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch August 2022] the words "Hatewatch is a blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right." were still at the top, but I didn't notice the word "blog" in a later copy. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Ngo&diff=prev&oldid=1291258402 phrase that I used which TarnishedPath reverted] -- inside "In August 2020, the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog said in an interview ..." -- is thus correct and reasonable as 2020 is before 2022. This post is not about some "broader picture", it is about removing the word "blog". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

We really need clearer guidance on when, where and HOW to use think tanks and other advocacy sources. My feeling is that advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion. Do this and the focus shifts from being a question of reliability to a question of proper attribution and DUE weight. The opinion of a very prominent advocacy group (such as the SPLC) can be given a lot of weight… less prominent advocacy groups - not so much. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm divided here because I'm very sympathetic to Black Kite that violent far-right extremists, especially in the current American political climate, are groups that many people are simply afraid to write about. In this regard the SPLC does necessary and irreplaceable work and excluding them as a source would be harmful to public knowledge of these political extremists. Springee's protests are risible to the point of near disruption in this case. But, if I'm being wholly fair, I dislike over-reliance on advocacy groups, particularly when academic sources exist. And if I'm going to make that comment about right wing advocacy groups then I would be inconsistent if I didn't apply the same standard to those advocacy groups I personally value.

:And I do personally value the SPLC. My educated opinion regarding far-right extremist groups is that a fondness for rhetorical games and outright lies is a key part of their discursive toolkit. As such the work of advocacy groups like the SPLC and HopeNotHate is pedagogically valuable. They cut through the bullshit these groups tend to put out. Many of the more mainstream articles shared in this thread attacking the SPLC are American liberal outlets who are distraught that the SPLC is highlighting reactionary political statements from self-described "liberals" such as Majid Nawaz. I actually believe that long list of opinion pieces above is informative for showing the value and significance of the SPLC frankly.

:I do think that advocacy groups should always be attributed at use and that we should avoid using them alone to make statements in Wikivoice. But beyond that I would say that each advocacy group should be assessed on its merits, particularly based on its reception by academia.

:In the specific case of the SPLC and of Hatewatch I would say my personal stance is that it is reliable for use with attribution and with a preference for academic sources where available. From a broader perspective I would say that the maximum level of reliability for any advocacy group should be the same: reliable for use with attribution and with a preference for academic sources where available. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I am definitely NOT saying SPLC is a “bad” source. They are (in fact) a very important source. However, they do have their bias and when they label things (especially BLPs) we need to tred with caution. Perhaps we need a new category in RSPS specifically for advocacy? Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Simon, once again I think we agree though you suggest otherwise. The SPLC's view on actual violet groups is almost certainly going to be DUE and likely covered by independent RSs. Where I have more concern is when we use commentary published through the SPLC to makes claims of facts about groups/BLPs. We agree that such content should be attributed, treated as expert opinion. The question would be how often is such opinion due in an article. Another question is if we should accept them for statements of fact? I do see a concern when the SPLC starts looking at topics that aren't about violent extremists and are instead related to groups that are clearly non-violent etc. In this regard my concerns are similar to those raised by the Washington Post. Springee (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::"The question would be how often is such opinion due in an article" makes no sense as a question. What kind of answer are you looking for (e.g., "it's DUE 57% of the time")? Whether a given piece of information is DUE has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, as it cannot be determined out of context. "Another question is if we should accept them for statements of fact?" Are you suggesting that they're never reliable for statements of fact? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I've seen a lot of people talk about DUE but there's a reason we don't have WP:GDUE or WP:GUNDUE as concepts - even moreso than reliability, due weight is heavily contextual and relative to the things already in an article. I think that we can make a very broad statement that the SPLC is often going to be due on account of its high profile and reputation, but that still leaves the question of how much depth to go into, how much text to devote to what they say, how to position it in the article, etc. and there's really no way to make a universal statement about that because due weight involves so many variables. --Aquillion (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The same applies for any reliable source. If a story about Donald Trump only appears on NBC News and not on CNN and other mainstream media then it is undue. If an article about the Hooterville County Fair only appears in the local Hooterville newspaper, it may be due for inclusion in an article about the fair. TFD (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Andy Ngo is not "clearly non-violent." When you do a ride-along with a violent right-wing group selectively filming them to make it look like antifascists attacked them when that's not actually what happened there's a bit of an asterix next to non violence. [https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/2019/08/26/27039560/undercover-in-patriot-prayer-insights-from-a-vancouver-democrat-whos-been-working-against-the-far-right-group-from-the-inside] Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You are inventing facts. There was no "ride-along" and the source you cite is by a person who later tried to out Ngo to her twitter followers at a protest. She isn't exactly an uninvolved observer. Conversely, Reason, a source that had been nominated for over a dozen Southern California Journalism Awards this year [https://lapressclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SoCal-2025-Finalists-0519025-1500.pdf] ran an article questioning that narrative [https://reason.com/2019/09/03/andy-ngo-video-antifa-patriot-prayer-attack-media/]. Clearly this is a disputed fact. To then suggest that Ngo is "violent" in context of "violent far-right extremists" is, well risible. Springee (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Come on. This is getting ridiculous. You can't call every source critical of Ngo "disputed" just because he denies everything. He threatened to sue the paper and they told him to go ahead and try. There was no correction or walk-back. That's not a thing you expect to see from a paper on tenuous factual ground. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Please stop with the hyperbolic claims. You are the one who brought up the topic. You made the claim that Ngo is "not clearly not violent". You provided a source. I provided a source that refutes the claim. Springee (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You provided a far-right opinion magazine to counter local investigative journalism. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What?! Reason isn't a "far-right opinion" magazine. Per Adfonts they are more centrist than sources like The Atlantic, NPR News Hour, CNN, NBC News and the NYT. The claim of "opinion" is more valid thought they are still in the 'green box' of most reliable sources.[https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive?utm_source=adfontesmedia&utm_medium=website] Springee (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Adfontes is not a reliable source. And it's frankly very deficient for understanding how non-Americans view the American media landscape. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Based on what? It's used as a reliable source in a number of peer reviewed articles. The RSN discussions about such sites have generally said their ratings are not DUE for inclusion in articles about media companies etc. However, while some editors don't like their various methods, they are used as reference sources by scholars. So we have a source that scholarship likes saying Reason is no where close to "far-right". Springee (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::First, they say that anyone applying to be a reviewer must live in the US, the vast majority of the sources they assess are US sources, and they say that "The line between 'Most Extreme Left/Right and Hyper-Partisan Left/Right' is defined by the policy positions of the most extreme elected officials significantly relevant to the scope of the issue being considered," where they're presumably talking about elected office in the US. But en.wiki is not a US wiki, and there is zero reason to believe that the views of Americans are representative of the views of people in other countries (quite the opposite). Second, there's no way of assessing whether they've chosen a representative sample of articles/segments from a given source. I bet that if I dug in, I'd find other issues, but that's a sufficient start. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::This is getting way off topic so let's just leave it as, yes, Adfontes is not a RS for use in Wiki article space. It is a source that is used as a reliable reference in scholarship. They put Reason as, well, far from "far-right". Simon of course can have their own opinion on the source. Springee (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Please do cite research from other countries that uses it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::OK...

::::::::::::::Here is a paper with contributors across the US and Europe: Grant MD, Markowitz DM, Sherman DK, et al. Ideological diversity of media consumption predicts COVID-19 vaccination. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):1-15. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-77408-4.[https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=ad443d7f-b53f-4d41-9579-c483e1f89a54%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=181066026&db=a9h]

::::::::::::::This one is from Germany Michael H, Werner V. Hybrid News (in the) Making: A Content and Corpus-Based Discourse Analysis of Political Live Blogs on the 2020 US Presidential Debates. Journalism Practice. 2025;19(4):896-922. doi:10.1080/17512786.2023.2215254[https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=f2a1a429-fad3-4c71-a056-03575604a556%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=184162596&db=ufh].

::::::::::::::This one is from the Philippines, Panao RAL, Gache AJL. Level field? Sports, soft power and the liberal democratic bias. International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics. 2024;16(4):675-691. doi:10.1080/19406940.2024.2356590 [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=40a566e7-1fce-4a29-8323-8b747605ed75%40redis].

::::::::::::::This one is from a land down under Abid A, Harrigan P, Wang S, Roy SK, Harper T. Social media in politics: how to drive engagement and strengthen relationships. Journal of Marketing Management. 2023;39(3/4):298-337. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2022.2117235 [https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=d231e31f-10be-4824-baf3-222ac854a763%40redis].

::::::::::::::These authors are from Japan and Poland Szwoch J, Staszkow M, Rzepka R, Araki K. Limitations of Large Language Models in Propaganda Detection Task. Applied Sciences (2076-3417). 2024;14(10):4330. doi:10.3390/app14104330[https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=d92b53e3-020f-4f5c-81b6-c68d1c400b77%40redis]

::::::::::::::I found quite a few more and I will grant that the degree to which the papers use Adfontes varies. In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference. Springee (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Your first and fourth citations are for research carried out in the US. Your second citation is research about reporting on US presidential debates. Your fifth citation merely mentions it without using it in any way. Congrats: you came up with a single article (the third citation) where the researchers were not focused on the US and used Ad Fontes as a reference, and oh, look, it was mentioned briefly with respect to a grand total of one news source. So let me be clearer: I'm not asking about researchers in other countries carrying out research focused on the US (e.g., using Americans as subjects), and I'm not asking about researchers who simply mention it without making significant use of it in their actual research. I'm asking about researchers in other countries doing research on other countries and using it in a significant way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I think you are moving the goal posts. People say AdFontes isn't reliable so we show it's used as a reference in scholarship. Then the claim is it's only used in the US. Then I show researchers outside of the US using it. Now you are trying to find nits to pick with that. Look, using the Wiki library I found 65 hits for peer reviewed papers that used it. Are all of them good? I suspect not. I think I even said as much, "In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference". If you want sort through and dismiss all 65 hits, be my guest. Springee (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I'm simply clarifying what I was asking for when I said "Please do cite research from other countries that uses it." I wasn't looking for researchers from other countries using it for research about the US. I was not asking for researchers from other countries who mention it without using it. "using the Wiki library I found 65 hits for peer reviewed papers that used it." Unless you read each of them, you have no idea whether they used it or if they simply mentioned it without using it. I already pointed out that one of the five references you cited fell in the latter category. Contrary to your claim "I even said as much, 'In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference,'" in that article, it was not "a supporting reference." It appeared nowhere in the references. If you think that I'm going to go through other WML articles on your behalf to investigate your claim, you're kidding yourself. I already told you two reasons that its bias ratings are not reliable from a global perspective. You couldn't bring yourself to address either one of them. Here's a third: there is no objective way to establish where "neutral" is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I'm sorry I'm unable to navigate the rules you wish to apply to show that a source is used in peer reviewed scholarship in a way that you find acceptable. Springee (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::I didn't say that its use in research was "unacceptable." I pointed out that (a) Ad Fontes is US-centric, (b) it does not provide sufficient information to know whether they've taken a representative sample of reporting (or even what it would mean for the sample to be representative), and (c) the way in which it mathematizes subjective judgements has significant problems. These issues exist notwithstanding that some researchers focused mostly on US-related research use it, perhaps never having considered these issues. You haven't attempted to address any of them. Feature (a) alone is reason not to use it on en.wiki, because en.wiki is not a US wiki (in the sense that neither the subjects nor the editors are limited to the US). FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I thought Reason was centre-right / libertarian? Void if removed (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Reason is unambiguously libertarian. It's officially a libertarian magazine, has a libertarian slogan ("Free minds and free markets"), and publishes more or less universally libertarian content.

:::::::::Obviously it's a matter of debate where libertarianism itself falls on the "left" vs "right" spectrum, and these days many people characterise any kind of liberty-valuing politics as extreme right-wing (either sneeringly or approvingly depending on their own views).

:::::::::What Reason (and libertarianism in general) is definitely not, though, by any normal definitions, is "far right". "Far right" does not simply mean "extremely right-wing" but rather indicates politics based on some kind of racial or ethnic nationalism or supremacism. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Adfontes is a pile of crap that is just regurgitating US popular opinion, but saying that Reason is not far-right (unless it's reporting has taken a severe turn since I last looked at it). Definitely right wing, don't get me wrong, just not far-right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::A paper out of MIT found they were pretty good, Lin, Hause, Jana Lasser, Stephan Lewandowsky, Rocky Cole, Andrew Gully, David Rand, and Gordon Pennycook. "High level of agreement across different news domain quality ratings." (2022). Other peer reviewed sources have used these rating groups as references in their research. Springee (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::OK they have been used in research in a way that regurgitates US public opinion. In a lot of research that's fine, if it's about US politics for instances. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Adfontes is garbage but it shifts the Overton window to correspond to a world view where the Democrats are "center left" and the Republicans are "center right" so lots of Americans like to use it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::MAGA is center right? Not in the real world. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Why would you exclude advocacy organizations as sources for statements of fact? Consider, for example, the Innocence Project, which is used as a source for multiple entries in List of exonerated death row inmates. Why would you reject them as a source for that factual information? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would not exclude something like Innocence Project… but I would use in-text attribution when we take factual info from them. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you wouldn't exclude the Innocence Project, then how would you modify your proposal that "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact"? As for in-text attribution, that list doesn't have in-text attribution for any of the information. What would you say: "According to the Innocence Project, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were convicted in 1985 and exonerated in 1995"? Why do you think that needs to be attributed? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Wouldn't there be independent RSs that could back back the claims? Springee (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That's irrelevant to my questions to Blueboar. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps I am overly skeptical, but I don’t trust any advocacy org to present data without massaging it to better fit their stated goals. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think you're overly skeptical. I don't even know how one would massage the year of conviction and exoneration. I don't think you're going to get very far in changing other editors' minds if you first say "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion," then say that you'd accept a specific advocacy organization for some statements of fact as long as it's attributed, but then won't clarify what you're actually advocating. If all you're advocating is something like "we should be skeptical about statements of fact that come from advocacy organizations and should determine that on a case-by-case basis," I think that's already the case. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::As far as reliability goes… I don’t think we should choose on a case by case basis… I think we should use in-text attribution for all advocacy groups (regardless of their advocacy). Shift the discussion to DUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Of course we have to make reliability assessments on a case-by-case basis. That's what WP:RS requires.

::::::::If all you're saying is "we should use in-text attribution for all advocacy groups," OK, but that's very different from "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion." Attribution does not imply opinion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Conflating acquittal and exoneration is an obvious response. But in any case, it’s irrelevant. Our porcine friend is speaking sense. Riposte97 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Often not. The topic area of far-right people has a paucity of other sourcing, when it comes to modern people atleast. Even the academia on the subject often just treats SPLC stuff as gospel. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• It's extremely common for advocacy groups to be leading sources of factual data and also publish opinionated commentary. One does not detract from the other, just as a newspaper's opinion columns do not detract from its news reporting. A local historic preservation organization might maintain an architecture database while also lobbying the city to reject modernist building proposals, or a wildlife organization known for its annual volunteer bird survey might push for habitat restoration projects. Like any reliable source, we should cite them for facts in wikivoice and use in-text attribution for opinions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :My concerns are that advocacy groups are prone to “spinning” (or manipulating) data… downplaying or ignoring data that does not further their agenda and highlighting data that does. This can be quite subtle. Their conclusions (opinion) can often be very important to mention… but we should look for unbiased sources for raw facts. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::What about Hatewatch specifically? Does Hatewatch manipulate data? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Probably (and no I don’t have “evidence”). However, I would be surprised if they didn't. They are an advocacy website. It’s the nature of the beast. I assume that they ALL do (no matter what the cause of their advocacy might be). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Now we have a starting point. Can you provide examples of Hatewatch manipulating data, or is it just a vibe? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I don't think that data is the right word to describe what I see at https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/ Information such as "Antigovernment leader Ammon Bundy loses pandemic-era court case in Idaho" isn't data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|My concerns are that advocacy groups are prone to “spinning” (or manipulating) data… downplaying or ignoring data that does not further their agenda and highlighting data that does.}}
• ::This is no different than many mainstream media sources which are considered to be generally reliable. Per WP:POVSOURCE having a bias, which includes on what data is more pertinent, does not speak to a sources reliablity. TarnishedPath^talk 03:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::A biased source may be reliable for every claim it makes.
• :::They will emphasise some facts that are important to them or de-emphasize or omit some facts that are unimportant to them.
• :::WP:BALASP only says we should {{green|strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.}}
• :::If we simply treat biased sources as reliable without any qualifier, we breach WP:NOT ADVOCACY.
• :::If we try to account for the bias in emphasis, we run into difficulty. It can be difficult to know which facts are being emphasized/de-emphasized because of bias and that we should de-emphasize/emphasize. But it is often impossible to know which facts they are omitting and which would be included if not for bias.
• :::This was raised as an issue last month [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#c-HaeB-20250501000800-Bluerasberry's_conflict_of_interest at the Signpost]. {{noping|HaeB}} wrote, in response to an editor with a COI writing a piece, "If this article had been submitted by an independent Signpost journalist, it might have focused more on basic questions like "Where is the money coming from?" or "How is it going to be used?" etc.".
• :::I don't have answers to this, but I hope editors like Blueboar can give advice if they have any. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:The thing is with far-right people there really isn't much other coverage in many cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::As someone who edits in this topic area a lot, I would oppose any attempt to always require in-text attribution for the SPLC. For specific claims that are especially contentious, yes, but that isn't unique to them, and for "hate group" status. But while they come from an explicitly against the subject matter angle, that is also the case for almost all academic sourcing on the matter, so the SPLC isn't any worse. I do not think it has an impact on their factual accuracy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Entirely agree. I also edit a far bit about subjects on the far-right and it can often be a challenge finding sourcing which goes into depth on the politics of such subjects. Often mainstream reporting will only go into detail on the subjects in regards to the events that they are involved in. That sources which do go into detail about subjects' politics have a bias against hate doesn't make them any less reliable. This is clearly covered in WP:POVSOURCE. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't think I've seen the Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields essay before. Thanks for the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• My 2c is that advocacy sources as a category - by which I assume we mean think tanks and NGOs that have a demonstrable political POV and tend to fall into a partisan lean - which could, in my view, also include sources that claim or aspire to be nonpartisan - are less reliable than journalistic sources that have oversight, and less reliable than academic or expert books, journal articles, and other publications. Even a magazine article in the New Yorker will undergo a lot of fact checking and editing and a corrections process. A blog on an NGO or think tank could have a single author and no oversight, no different than any other blog except for a higher level of presumed prestige and funding. But nonprofits, charities, etc., do not necessarily have a reputation for accuracy. Some do, and those should be treated that way on a case-by-case basis. When challenged or for controversial matters, I tend to think that the category of groups like SPLC and Hatewatch should not be treated as academic unless a specific piece of content from them is cited by a reliable expert academic and that academic also has a high reputation for accuracy. In terms of bias, a reliable biased source should be attributed and not used in Wikivoice, and it should be contrasted with other POVs. Disclaimer: I have no idea what this particular thread is really about as pertaining to specifics. In my experience SPLC is generally reliable but if there is something controversial coming from there it should be attributed, balanced, and maybe omitted if other RS are not talking about or citing it. Andre🚐 22:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• "Advocacy sources"? Every publication has an agenda. Some hide it better than others, but every news outlet out there is advocating for something. This thread is becoming unwieldly quickly, we should have an RFC on Hatewatch and be done with it. Litigating Wikipedia policy regarding classification of sources is offtopic and beyond the scope of this discussion. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :What would the RfC do? We've had quite a few on the SPLC already. And what is an RfC if not a timesink that will make this even more unwieldy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::This isn't about the SPLC, which is listed at RSP. This thread is about Hatewatch. From the OP: {{tq|the status of Hatewatch and whether it constitutes a different level of reliability than that of the SPLC}}. There are editors who think it does and there are editors who think it doesn't. How do we overcome the impasse except with an RFC? This discussion satisfies RFCBEFORE. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::As a clerking issue if a RFC is started can we please do so in a separate section. The board is rather bloated at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::No, a RSN RfC should be on the RSN page. It should not be on a separate page where people who watch this page won't see it. Springee (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Just to be clear I only said separate section not a separate page. Having a separate section allows this discussion to be archived without having to wait 30+ days for the RFC to be closed. I'm not opposed to having it on a seperate page, or on RSN in a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::OK, I'm 100% in agreement on making the RfC a separate section from this discussion. Springee (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Yeah I have no problem with that, we just don't need to keep this pre-discussion on the board for the whole time. I'm going to remain neutral on whether it's should be here or on a separate page as long as proper notifications go out . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Labelling sources as advocacy to filter out which content to attribute to them inline is quite a task and such a broad policy/guideline/precedence will be hard to implement. Focusing on [advocacy?] sources (like SPLC) which we already deem RS or acceptable, we already do attribute (contentious) labels to these sources especially for BLPs. To say that we need to put this into overdrive and attribute every statement coming from these sources is untenable. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

: I think you are onto something here, but I don't think it's as easy as saying advocacy group = opinion. For example, [https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/antigovernment-leader-ammon-bundy-loses-pandemic-era-court-case-idaho/ this article] contains the sentence {{tq|Bundy and others were charged with misdemeanors for trespassing and resisting and obstructing officers.}} which seems straightforwardly factual (I haven't attempted to verify it; I know nothing about this case and only picked this article because it was top of the list on their homepage). So an advocacy source should, in principle, be usable as a source of facts. In practice though, we know that advocacy groups exist to manipulate public opinion, and so using them as a source requires a high degree of media literacy to sift the fact from the framing. They should not be used to support use of contentious labels or value-judgements. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Part of the issue there would be that the Murdoch owned media exists to manipulate public opinions in favour of Ruperts own believes, that behaviour isn't something limited to such groups. Saying that I like attribution would probably be for the best in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I am also uneasy about the focus on the designation of "advocacy groups." While they are of course generally WP:BIASED, and therefore generally require attribution, I would argue that an advocacy group, which makes its advocacy clear, is sometimes more usable as a source than heavily-biased "news" sources that seek to conceal their biases. Ultimately, what matters is the extent to which secondary sources treat them as having a {{tq|reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}} vs. treating their biases as impacting their reliability. Outside of a few specific areas related to WP:FRINGE topics, we're not supposed to ourselves say "ah this source is biased and therefore unreliable" (doing so invites us to inadvertently weigh sources according to our own biases), we're supposed to look at how secondary sources cover them. Bias is a reason for caution but only in the sense that it's a good reason to turn a critical eye towards their reception. And in this case the broad reception of the SPLC is about as good as any organization of its type could have. --Aquillion (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is what the RSP entry already says! {{tq|As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.}} Perhaps there is some slight leeway for statements that are uncontroversial and clearly not opinionated, but usually the standard for that is "does anyone object?"; unexceptional and anodyne statements can be cited to lower-quality sources or to ones that wouldn't be usable in the article voice for more WP:EXCEPTIONAL things. --Aquillion (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Let's look at an actual example. In the article on VDARE, an anti-immigration group, the SPLC is used as a source about when the group was formed, who the founder was, what it was named for, who contributed to its website, that allegations were made against it by the NY attorney-general, the retirement of its leader and its dissolution. None of these facts are questionable and the SPLC website is the most user friendly and up-to-date source for this sort of information and may be the only source for smaller groups.

::There is also a section about analysis of the group by the SPLC and ADL. If this is undue, it's an entirely separate issue from whether the SPLC is a reliable source.

::No one has raised any issues about the facts reported by the SPLC. TFD (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Aquillion}} the issue is not whether SPLC is reliable itself. From the "part 1" comments above, I don't think anyone, even those of us who think it is a biased source, are questioning the SPLC's reliability when they publish something under their own name. The question is whether the Hatewatch blog is automatically as reliable as the SPLC as a whole is. And to me, there is zero evidence or reason to treat the Hatewatch blog any different than, for example, a NYT Opinion piece. There's a reason it was published under the Hatewatch blog and not as an SPLC publication/document/etc. Maybe that reason isn't related to reliability - but we have no evidence one way or the other, and should thus assume that there's a reason related to editorial scrutiny until proven otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean, as I said, that's already covered by {{tq|As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.}} We already treat the entire SPLC, including Hatewatch, as biased and opinionated and therefore as requiring attribution for anything remotely controversial. If you feel it is somehow worse than that (my impression is that you want it to be attributed with "Hatewatch blog" or something?) then you'll have to produce secondary sources clearly separating it from the SPLC - you say that {{tq|there's a reason it was published under the Hatewatch blog and not as an SPLC publication/document/etc}} but that's speculation on your part. I don't even agree with your characterization of it as a blog - see the discussion above; they don't currently call it a blog, and in a quick search the only source I could find that did was the Center for Immigration Studies, which is obviously not an impartial or reliable source on the subject. To me, carve-outs require strong secondary sourcing indicating that something is not covered by the source's general reputation, or overt statements by the source that something isn't covered by their editorial controls; the default is that coverage of the SPLC covers the entire SPLC. I feel that your argument is like saying "ah, but is page fifteen of the NYT reliable? There's a reason why something was published on page fifteen and not the front page, so you need to produce sources saying that page fifteen in particular is reliable!" EDIT: See my summary of recent coverage and feel free to add to it if you want. Aside from showing strong WP:USEBYOTHERS, it's pretty clear that it's not described or seen as a blog by most current coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center#RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think those are quite the right questions. Can we pull the RfC back and workshop the questions first? Springee (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, why isn't that RfC on the normal RSN page? Is it a new thing to put RfCs on a separate page? Springee (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Springee, the RFC is own its own page because of a comment above by @ActivelyDisinterested. One which I happen to agree with. TarnishedPath^talk 12:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I do not agree that RfCs should be on some page other than the RfC home page. That isn't a thing and it tends to hide the discussion from those who aren't already involved or who are just watching this page. Springee (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::RFCs being on subpages is specifically discussed at WP:RFCOPEN which states:

:::::{{tq|In some situations, such as when you expect an extremely high number of comments or there is no obviously relevant talk page, you may instead place an RfC discussion on a subpage of an appropriate, relevant page}}.

:::::It's not about hiding discussion, it's above making it easier both for other users of this page and for the closer. Besides which I've pinged everyone from this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This is not the same thing as some of the super long RfCs we have had in the past. Also, everyone in "this" discussion isn't the idea. The idea is to get the widest input possible. Hiding the discussion off the RSN page doesn't serve that end. Springee (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ps, the questions don't have to dictate the direction in which the discussion goes. Any decent close should evaluate consensus on the basis of the discussion, not on the basis of !votes or the question. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::However, in a case like this it would be good to propose the questions to the group first. I agree with looking at the Hatewatch articles separate from the reports/statements of the SPLC but it also might be useful to ask about their use in things like BLPs cases. Springee (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::People can cover that in their comments if they wish. If for example there was consensus of participants who stated that it should not be used in BLPs, even if that is picked up by the option 1 to 4 !votes, I would expect a close to reflect that and I'd say it would be open to challenge if it didn't. TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:Move RFC to RSN page What is the correct process for moving that discussion to this page (as a new topic)? ActivelyDisinterested's valid concerns about section size would be addressed simply by making the RfC a new topic on this page. Having the RfC on a separate page is problematic since, if this discussion is archived before that RfC closes, there will be no RSN topic on or link to what is supposed to be a RSN discussion. It's also not clear where such a discussion would be archived since the RSN auto archive would have to merge that subpage into this primary page. Springee (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::(Again neutral on whether it's on RSN or in a new section) If this is put on a new page I'll add a section stating such and make sure it's not archived before the RFC is closed. I think it was the heritage RFC that moved to a separate page once it grew to several tomats, and I did the same for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{u|ActivelyDisinterested}}, were you initially asking to split the RFC into a new section or a new page? I took it as the former and I'm wondering if there was a misunderstanding? –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes I only meant a new section, maybe I could have been clearer. Personally I'm not opposed to having the RFC on RSN or on a separate page. Notification can be sent and maintained either way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I’d prefer that it be kept to this page, when it’s ready. However, I don’t think the RfC as formulated by TP is particularly close to where the discussion above has moved. Riposte97 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Since it seems like nobody actually wants it on the separate page, let's just move it back here before it gets any more responses. I'd do it myself but I'm away from my PC at the moment. –dlthewave ☎ 14:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've just moved the RFC. It is now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::IMO close that premature RFC and when one does open, open it here and stick to what this is about, ie the difference between SPLC and Hatewatch. Doesn't make sense to have a new RFC on SPLC suddenly with no RFCBEFORE. Void if removed (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There has been plenty of discussion on SPLC previously. That some editors have called into question its reliability above speaks to the need for an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|TarnishedPath}} Thanks for getting the RfC started and for the ping. I agree with others that it's a bit premature to open it, however, so will not be !voting at this point. I think the questions need to be workshopped a bit more, and ideally this would be an RfC that encompasses more than just the SPLC and its reliability - such as expanding it to cover "if advocacy-based sources are used, do they (and if so when) need to be attributed in text". There can be subquestions about the SPLC specifically, but I'd like to see it be expanded. If people don't want it expanded, I still think the questions should be workshopped some more. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::FWIW, I'd identified the following questions earlier, when I was trying to understand what Simonm223 was hoping to resolve in starting this RSN discussion:

::* Is Hatewatch less reliable than other SPLC publications? (And perhaps: even if it is, is it still sufficiently reliable to be considered GREL?)

::* Should Hatewatch be considered an SPS? (for purposes of BLPSPS)

::* Have either of these characteristics shifted over time?

::Another issue that several people have discussed is:

::* Should Hatewatch be identified as a "blog" in the body of an article that uses it as a reference, and has that changed over time?

::I think the first question that TarnishedPath asked is a good replacement for the first bullet above. TarnishedPath also proposed a question about SPLC more generally:

::* What is the reliability of The Southern Poverty Law Center on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?

::I, personally, would oppose asking about advocacy organizations overall. If you want to ask about that, I'd create a separate RfC for it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think questions along the lines of "if advocacy-based sources are used, do they (and if so when) need to be attributed in text?" are broader and separate questions and I'd suggest perhaps questions that need to happen on the talk pages of the relevant policies. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::A general policy on how such groups should be handled would be better discussed at WT:RS than here. It's something that goes quite away beyond the discussion in SPLC and hatewatch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

{{moved|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#How Hatewatch is characterized by secondary sources_2}}

{{Clear}}

{{atop|status=Duplicate discussion|reason=Discussion has been reopened on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather, any interested editors should continue the discussion there rather than having duplicate threads open in different places. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Copying from a discussion that Hurricane Noah closed for being on the wrong channel.

Feel free to remoce anything that shouldn't be here. I had to copy the entire discussion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I literally just opened it back up right as you posted this here. RSN was literally not needed, based on tons of other WikiProject-based source lists, which I gave in my edit summary. What an edit conflict issue. lol. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Well, I reclosed it now. Since RSN was started, we might as well use it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:*:I’ve asked them to revert their clearly-improper closure. ^EF⁵ 13:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Can these be added to the list? They're not reliable for US severe weather, as they usually parrot warnings such as tornado emergencies within minutes of them being issued without any critical commentary, and everything else seems to be just parroting AP. In both cases, a primary source should be used. Departure– (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Probably not reliable for both. Unless they are pertaining to the weather in India or elsewhere in Asia. Definitely not reliable for America use the AP source they're parroting instead. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::It would be the equivalent of me citing an article "from" KTUU on Hurricane Foo making landfall in Florida, and KTUU likely parroting the AP. I'll hunt down said AP article instead. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

A few sources not talked about, which we can discuss as a project. ^EF⁵ 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• I say case-by-case. All tornadoes are cited to either TPG, DAT, StormData or additional sources that are almost always (if not always) reliable. The one exception to this are a few tornadoes in Asia they've mapped where they use radar data to estimate the tornado's track (obviously WP:OR). I think it depends on which tornado track you're using it to cite, but I wouldn't say flat-out GUNREL. ^EF⁵ 21:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I've cited Tornado Archive before. For tornadoes in the United States, it's likely reliable, elsewhere on a case by case basis. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think it's best to not directly use them as a source. They can be good for finding sources, but on its own I don't think it should be trusted. My biggest issue with it is South America, which has loads of WP:OR and a lot of mistakes. Their primary source for the majority the entire continent is a Google Maps project that says that it adds information from (among others) Wikipedia, forums, and reports sent in from anyone. Yobatna (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I usually only use Tornado Archive for state summaries (eg: the Tornadoes in West Virginia article I created last year). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::And by that, only for the overall numbers of tornadoes. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Additional considerations apply as they cite reliable sources, however their sources should be used where possible. Departure– (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :*Generally reliable for USA tornadoes as I believe they meet the bar to be a reliable tertiary source, but I'm struggling to see why we would use TornadoArchive instead of the source itself (e.g. Grazulis, NWS). Case-by-case for tornadoes outside of the USA per concerns found before.
• :WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::@Wildfireupdateman, I use it for the number of tornadoes that way I don't have to try to cite dozens/hundreds of NCEI pages. But I cite said NCEI pages/Storm Data on the individual tornado entries. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding him due to his known anti-climate change views. Does not include stuff written by him in his duties as a meteorologist; obviously that will be reliable. ^EF⁵ 21:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say case by case. If it pertains to the weather in Alabama, it might be reliable, if posted via a WBMA account. Outside of Alabama, probably unreliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Mostly reliable for anything not pertaining to climate change. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Especially if pertaining to Alabama. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable for anything not mentioning climate change - Look, we all love Spann. Great guy and has been in the business since the 1970s. If I would to go anyone about weather info, it'd be him. However, he does maintain a pro-religious view on climate change which is blatantly inaccurate, so I will say that he shouldn't be used for anything related to climate change. I believe he was the first "certified meteorologist" from the AMS, although I'm not completely sure. His expertise definitely outweighs a relatively minor viewpoint, in my opinion. ^EF⁵ 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Generally unreliable. Barring his factually questionable views, he holds no apparent qualifications for making claims. Claims made by him that are found in sources with editorial standards, for instance the TV station he is affiliated with, appear reliable. Do we have any proof he has his TV station repeating his anti-climate change views? Departure– (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:*Subject Matter Expert - Reliable for the field of broadcast meteorology. Case-by-case for most other weather topics. GUNREL for climate change topic.

:WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Why is he considered a subject matter expert? He was a broadcast meteorologist and I don't see any other qualifications beyond that. His tenure may be long and include the Super Outbreak but I can't see anyone calling him an expert at anything beyond the act of broadcast meteorology itself. Departure– (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Departure–, he has a masters in journalism from Columbia. Also, good to note that he's the 33rd "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" from AMS, a reliable and academic source. Apparently, he's also won an Emmy, which I just found out about! — ^EF⁵ 23:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So he's a subject matter in broadcast meteorology. I don't see how he's a reliable source for other aspects of meteorology, though. Departure– (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's what I meant, hence why I say case by case for other weather topics and unreliable for climate change. Sorry if I was unclear in my statement. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable for WX due to the outcome of a WP:RSN discussion. No comment on engineering, which is out-of-scope for this project. ^EF⁵ 21:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'm going to second this - generally unreliable per the RSP discussion. I'd argue they're also unreliable for engineering topics. Departure– (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Small note for {{u|EF5}}, since this will be a source list for weather articles in general, including individual tornado/tornado outbreaks, and lists like List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes, ect.., I believe his engineering topics can be discussed here as well, since this could be provided to new editors as "This is a list of good and bad sources you can reference when creating an article". If a split consensus forms (example: unreliable for meteorology but reliable for engineering), then he can easily be split in the table. WP:RSP does this all the time, with a good example being WP:FORBES (generally reliable) and WP:FORBESCON (Forbes.com - Generally unreliable). I will comment on the reliability later. I just wanted to make that note for EF5 and others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::In that case, unreliable for engineering too, again as per the RSN. — ^EF⁵ 22:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that this YouTuber does have a Wikipedia account, so they could probably answer questions. ^EF⁵ 21:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Wikiwillz}} courtesy ping WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I have to say unreliable. Sorry @Wikiwillz. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable - no evidence this YouTuber has qualifications that would make them a subject expert, at least from what I've found. ^EF⁵ 01:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Case-by-case because some reliable meteorologists do use this weather blog to relay information, including James Spann, who is being discussed above. While it is a WP:SPS, I don't see how this differs from meteorologists writing about their experience in a news article. This should be considered unreliable if the post is by someone not a meteorologist, as they do not meet the subject expert guidelines. ^EF⁵ 22:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable - This is the guy that said there would be over 200 tornadoes on March 15, 2025; there were only about 63. He is known for his aggressive style of "hypecasting" and besides driving into tornadoes doesn't contribute much. ^EF⁵ 22:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Generally unreliable for any claims not directly related to himself or the Y'all Squad. Besides forecasts which as EF5 brings up are often overemphasized I don't know what else you'd use him as a source for. Departure– (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'd say ditto there. He also popularized the term "gorilla hail" in the 2020s as well. The hypercasting falls in line with Accuweather's damage estimates (see Mt section on that). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Note that there is a COI with the person who started this page. ^EF⁵ 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know who added the above comment. But YouTube accounts are (no offense intended) typically unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Now I could be wrong, but Ryan Hall seems to fall into the "self published" category. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:YouTube is a WP:SPS, and those are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is why he's here. ^EF⁵ 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well, I personally think that one falls into the "self published" and "generally unreliable" category (at least by WP standards). I wouldn't lean on Ryan Hall to be my first choice in a citation, I'd wait for a more reliable source (eg. The AP or the National Weather Service). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Hurricane Clyde, this is overall, not immediate citations. — ^EF⁵ 21:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Overall, probably case by case, but still leaning towards unreliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment - {{ping|WeatherWriter}} do you know what qualifications Ryan holds, i.e. degree and college? I thought I saw something on a WeatherBrains episode in 2022 about him switching his major halfway through. — ^EF⁵ 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:My comment was lost in an edit conflict, but generally unreliable for anything not directly related to his own work or to the Y'all Squad. Forecasts especially, per all above. Departure– (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't know for sure whether or not he has a meteorology degree. I know he interned at WYMT for a short time. IMO, it's just as unreliable as me launching a (hypothetical) "Hurricane Clyde Weather Channel" on YouTube and then trying to cite myself on Wikipedia. Or creating a website titled "hurricaneclydewx.com" (again hypothetical, none of these sites actually exist) and then citing my hypothetical website on Wikipedia. Does anyone see my point? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable for forecasts, which have a history of being fear-mongered and overhyped. Just take a look at some of the videos he's posted and every single one says something along the lines of "THIS IS DANGEROUS!" or "RARE SETUP!"; all buzzwords. ^EF⁵ 22:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I've seen them. He uses extensive sensationalism. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Hurricane Clyde, [https://www.reddit.com/r/weather/comments/1gy95t0/fear_mongers_and_hype_men_are_seriously_starting/ this Reddit post] always gives me a chuckle. — ^EF⁵ 22:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Lots of buzzwords in that reddit. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding this section here, since Ryan Hall's videos are different from the non-profit organization he runs, The Y'all Squad ([https://www.theyallsquad.org/ Website] & [https://www.youtube.com/@YallSquad YouTube]), which is a citation on some articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say maybe case by case on that. Reliable if it's them saying they're going somewhere to assist. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:For self-descriptions, they can be reliable in some cases per WP:PRIMARY. However, I wouldn't trust them to for any extraordinary claims beyond the scope of the Y'all Squad as an organization. Departure– (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::The question I would ask is how reliable would the source be for mentions of them on, for example Tornado outbreak and floods of April 2–7, 2025#Relief efforts, where a post from The Y'all Squad, is used to source how much where they were going to aid. Thankfully, a few other times The Y'all Squad is mentioned in articles, actual RS are mentioning them, so their own posts aren't needed: Greenfield tornado#Aftermath & 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado#Aftermath are examples of that. For a hypothetical example, say [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoP76f2Jjjc The Y'all Squad video] of their aid for the 2024 Columbia tornado. Would that video be reliable enough to source a sentence like "The Y'all Squad gave at least $30,000 to victims of the tornado". Based on the three instances I know of (all linked above) where The Y'all Squad is mentioned/sourced, it appears to all be related to X dollars of aid went to X location in the aftermath of X storm. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@WeatherWriter, in that context, I think it would be marginally reliable. However, as mentioned above, that is the only context where I think it would be even remotely reliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable - Basically a carbon-copy of Ryan's method. ^EF⁵ 22:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Generally unreliable Recently received a bachelor's in meteorology, but his personal YouTube channel doesn't have any claims to be made except for forecasting, "nowcasting" (which can be very unreliable), and parroting claims from actual reliable sources. He doesn't appear to bring anything new to the table besides that which he is not qualified to say. Departure– (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Ditto per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::The sensationalism that Max Velocity uses is also cited in the Reddit post that @EF5 linked in the Ryan Hall Y'all section. The post said "looking at you max velocity" in parentheses at the end of the paragraph. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for sentences such as "In total, there were 50 tornado reports received", but do NOT say "50 tornadoes reported" or "a total of 50 tornadoes occurred" using the unfiltered storm reports as the source. A single tornado can have several tornado reports associated with it. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Ditto per WFUM. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable per WFUM's reasoning. ^EF⁵ 01:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable - No evidence this YouTuber holds the qualifications needed to be a subject expert. ^EF⁵ 22:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Where it was used on Tornadoes of 2024, I found that he has a master's in meteorology and is / was a research partner to Howard Bluestein. Departure– (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Departure–, huh, didn't know that. I could've swore I'd seen somewhere that he never worked in anything weather-related and was just an enthusiast. — ^EF⁵ 22:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't there a consensus either last year or in 2023 that it was unreliable? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable as user-generated. ^EF⁵ 21:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:Generally unreliable as a tertiary source, similar to Wikipedia; however, as they cite their sources (and dare I say are more thorough than Wikipedia at it), they do seem to be a good starting point for sourcing deaths etc. Departure– (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes and no. If the article is saying that "a Tornado Warning was issued for so and so", then yes it's reliable. But if it's being used to cite a tornado that supposedly touched down. Then no it's not reliable, wait for official confirmation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why it can't be allowed with attribution - "The National Weather Service upgraded the warning to observed due to a public / spotter report of X (not just tornadoes)". If it turns out to be incorrect, that can be explained later on in the prose. Departure– (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see the point. But it still should be treated with caution, especially with the tables. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable for prelim touchdown reports - This is basically public confirmation that there was indeed a tornado down at a specific time in a specific county, at a specific date near a specific location. No reason why this can't be used for tornado tables, especially as the event is ongoing. ^EF⁵ 01:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@EF5, sometimes people will send the National Weather Service false reports. It's illegal, but they still do it. And sometimes people will accidentally submit mPING reports and didn't intend to (that happened to me recently). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Hurricane Clyde, very, very, very, very, very rarely has that ever happened. I can't name the last time that happened prior or post-2022, when that Arkansas freak TOR-E happened. — ^EF⁵ 01:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::May 2022, public report of a tornado near Middlesboro, Kentucky triggered a confirmed Tornado Warning for the Ponza, Kentucky area. No tornado ever occurred. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Hurricane Clyde, other than 2022. That year was peak "wrongful reports" for some reason. — ^EF⁵ 01:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::I'd say it's generally reliable for preliminary tornadoes, but not necessarily for tornado ratings. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm adding this because during outbreaks people tend to use confirmed warnings as a source to add preliminary, "EF?" tornadoes to tables. ^EF⁵ 21:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Yes and no. If the article is saying that "a Tornado Warning was issued for so and so", then yes it's reliable. But if it's being used to cite a tornado that supposedly touched down. Then no it's not reliable, wait for official confirmation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Agree with Clyde on both tornado warning discussions above. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable except for RC-TOREs - The reason I separated these are because public confirmation and radar confirmation are two different verification methods. Radar-confirmed is a lot less "solid" as a source than public confirmation. TOR-Es are different, as all but two-or-so tornado emergencies ever have produced tornadoes. ^EF⁵ 01:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Independent German organization that has high-quality documentation and surveys of tornadoes in Germany ([https://www.torkud.de/]).

Italian organization that documents severe weather in Italy, including for tornadoes ([https://www.meteonetwork.it/] & related [https://stormreport.meteonetwork.it/ database]).

French organization that documents weather in France, incl. tornado surveys ([https://meteovaroise.fr/ website] & [https://www.facebook.com/MeteoVaroise Facebook page]). The main problem is that a lot of valuable information is posted on their Facebook page. Would it be okay to cite their Facebook posts? For example: List of European tornadoes in 2025#1 February event-- they gave a rating for a tornado but only posted it on their Facebook page.

Brazilian organization that documents severe weather in parts of South America. ([https://metsul.com/])

I'd like a clarification on FOX Weather's reliability status, given Trump's policies (which they wholeheartedly support) are now affecting the weather community. ^EF⁵ 22:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd say case by case per above concerns. Though leaning towards being more reliable (unlike their partners at Fox News) for non-political weather topics. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Case-by-case per Clyde, but the second FOX Weather (inevitably) starts pushing a pro-Trump agenda it should be GUNREL'd. FOX is nothing to play around with, and this is barely over the bias margin. ^EF⁵ 01:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@EF5, I 1,000% agree. If it gets politically biased, then GUNREL it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Quick note that bias alone has never been used to deprecate a source; it must be actively spreading misinformation etc. Bias is only half of the problem, and can easily be addressed per WP:DUE etc. Fox News as a whole has, but I'm unsure if Fox Weather has. Departure– (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|EF5}} Fox is considered unreliable for anything to do with science or politics. No need to discuss since the community at large already decided. Noah, BSBA^Talk 02:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is FOX Weather, not FOX. ^EF⁵ 13:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Avoid Fox for anything where facts can come into conflict with political agenda - which unquestionably includes the weather now. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Depends on what we are using Fox Weather to report. It is certainly reliable for reporting that a tornado touched down in a specific town, but not reliable for saying that the response to the tornado was poor due to the incompetence of a specific political party (etc). Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:What is being sourced? A claim that it was 65 and sunny in [city] would be fine. Politics, that would probably violate the Fox politics. However, this should be decide on a case by case basis. Absent a specific example the answer is yes, but considerations apply. Springee (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable - From Yale University, which is a top-tier academic institution. ^EF⁵ 01:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I'd say most accredited universities will probably be reliable to some extent. Especially ones like Yale and Iowa State. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

I noticed an editor removed use of Daily Hive from ~25 restaurant articles I've worked on ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lil_Woody%27s&curid=74994667&diff=1292451818&oldid=1268252772 here's a representative example]). I'm not seeing a past discussion about whether or not Daily Hive can be used on Wikipedia. I can understand not preferring to use this source to verify historical, operational, or contentious claims, but in many instances I was just noting the restaurant's inclusion in a list published by Daily Hive.

I wouldn't think this is particularly problematic, but what do others think? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like it is a very local source [https://dailyhive.com/page/about-us]. I am not sure of how they get their information. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's a Zoomer Media product which means it has national level reach through the various armatures of its parent. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Once upon a time there was a very funny episode of Candid Camera, in which Allen Funt told some office workers about a new, advanced fax machine which would receive sandwiches once an order had been faxed to a nearby deli. The sandwiches were of course put in the machine by a man hidden in the wall behind the machine. So given that Alyssa Therrien seems to be based in Australia, I wonder if she had an Allen Funt fax machine that sent her bagles from Seattle, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westman%27s_Bagel_%26_Coffee&diff=prev&oldid=1292451994 as here]. Anyway, I would not trust a single sentence in the Daily Hive given what their wikipage says about their ethical standards. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:It looks like Alyssa Therrien moved to Australia from Canada, which maybe why the Daily Hive list her as being a former staff writer. The article you linked to is in there Seattle section, one of the locales they operate in. So Therrien being in Seattle working for the Daily Hive at the time of the article is entirely plausible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:I doubt her opinion based on a listicle was due inclusion though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:Daily Hives operates like a local newspaper in the cities they operate in, so I would not consider them a qualifying source under WP:NCORPs audience requirement. By that same reasoning I also wouldn't consider the inclusion in their lists notable enough to mention in Wiki. Jumpytoo Talk 01:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm planning to expand The Finale (Everybody Loves Raymond), and found some information which can be backed by one source, but I’m not too sure if it's okay. The original interview with Academy of Television Arts & Sciences was done in video form and the only article I see written on it ([https://www.cheatsheet.com/news/everybody-loves-raymond-ep-phil-rosenthal-shows-very-dark-finale-no-jeopardy.html/ this one]) is from Showbiz CheatSheet, but I’m not too sure if it’s reliable. I found a handful of discussions about it in the Noticeboard archives, but all they say is not to use it for rumors and such. So, tl;dr: is [https://www.cheatsheet.com/news/everybody-loves-raymond-ep-phil-rosenthal-shows-very-dark-finale-no-jeopardy.html/ this source] okay? Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive top

|status = NEW CONSENSUS

|result = Consensus holds that the Free Beacon was "generally unreliable" during Continetti's editorship, but has become "generally reliable" during Eliana Johnson's tenure. Some editors consider the Free Beacon a partisan source. All editors should be aware that the Free Beacon sometimes publishes satirical or humorous pieces, which should be distinguished from their usual journalistic work. I will update WP:RSNP accordingly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Regarding the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon. Previous discussions from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_227#Washington_Free_Beacon 2017] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#Using_The_Washington_Free_Beacon_in_politically_related_BLPs_-_is_it_an_RS? 2020]. Discussion that led to creation of this RFC is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_476#Washington_Free_Beacon here]. Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Question #1 What is the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon during the editorship of Matthew Continetti (2012–2018)?

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

Question #2 What is the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon during the editorship of Eliana Johnson (2019–present)?

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

• Generally unreliable - the previous editor was a salacious political firebrand, and the paper regularly did BLP vios and false statements, as per RFCBEFORE. It appears to have reformed, but any article during previous EIC should be taken with a grain of salt, and other sourcing is generally preferrable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Alaexis and others, see previous RFCBEFORE.
• :{{cot|some of the undue/unreliable stuff from RFC Before, and other things i scrounged up}}
• :Zialater made these points about 6 years ago based on searching, i assume, snopes [https://www.snopes.com/search/?q=washington%20free%20beacon#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=washington%20free%20beacon&gsc.page=1]
• :* [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-fundraisers-groups/] claim ilhan omar funded groups tied to terror
• :* [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-fundraisers-groups/] claim that europe was gonna label "jewish-made" products
• :* [https://www.thedailybeast.com/dear-conservative-media-do-some-more-damn-reporting/] reduced reliability in wake of trump election
• :other stuff that is unreliable or undue
• :* [https://freebeacon.com/national-security/no-birth-certificate-required/] some [https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/may/08/national-right-life-committee/obama-white-house-security-unborn-babies/ 2012 conspiracy] amplified by free beacon
• :* [https://freebeacon.com/blog/the-obama-bird-genocide-is-out-of-control/] an opinion piece about windmills and weaponization of solar farms causing a "bird genocide"
• :* [https://freebeacon.com/issues/cia-dedicated-program-recruit-transgender/] cia's dei program is dedicated to recruiting transgender folks
• :* [https://freebeacon.com/blog/elysium-is-actually-an-anti-obamacare-parable/] some tortured analogy about obamacare death panels and a scifi show

{{cob}} Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable - I would place the reliability of the more advocacy/tabloid era of the Free Beacon in the same bucket as WP:MEDIAMATTERS. Marquardtika (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Reliability depends on context - in this era it qualifies as an advocacy outlet, usable with in-text attribution. But not reliable for verifying unattributed statements of fact written in “wikivoice”. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable per current rating, do not use for politics or BLPs. Trashy advocacy source given to gossip. Absolutely not a source we should be using - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable I do think that the WFB was more ideological during Continetti's tenure, that being said, it still engaged in original reporting and several of the things it reported on were picked up by more mainstream outlets. Like other ideologically driven outlets such as Mother Jones, its reliability depends on the type of content being cited. For original reporting and routine coverage, it meets the standard of verifiability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable - There was certainly clear bias, especially in this era, but not of a nature that it ought to lead to differing treatment than myriad other sources with clear ideological slants. Obviously, how the content should be treated depends on the context, but that's always the case with anything we do here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable - no examples of uncorrected falsehoods have been presented. Open to downgrading my !vote. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Striking out my vote after having reviewed examples provided by u:Bluethricecreamman. While they are not unambiguously bad ([https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-fundraisers-groups/ here], the False verdict hinges on the assertion that IR USA and IRW are distinct), they seemed to publish less potentially useful pieces during this period. Alaexis_¿question? 06:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable The way that this outlet selects stories is so enmeshed with their political opinion that it is functionally impossible to separate opinion from news with this source. The opinion of a political extremist media outlet is generally unlikely to be due inclusion in articles. Simply put this is not a source we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable Openly and repeatedly published outright falsehoods and misinformation for political purposes. Among the worst of the several right wing outlets that did so over the past decade, openly promoting conspiracy theories as facts. Silverseren^C 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Attribution is a good opition in general either way. But there is a basis for WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. Coverage just doesn't support the idea that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See eg. the coverage of its flat misinformation about Truthy.{{cite web|first1=David|last1=Uberti|accessdate=2025-05-06|title=How misinformation goes viral: a Truthy story|url=https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/how_misinformation_goes_viral.php|website=Columbia Journalism Review}}{{cite news|first1=Henry|last1=Farrell|accessdate=2025-05-06|title=No, the National Science Foundation is not building an Orwellian surveillance nightmare|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/22/no-the-national-science-foundation-is-not-building-an-orwellian-surveillance-nightmare/|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=22 October 2014|issn=0190-8286|via=www.washingtonpost.com}} Other sources, like {{cite journal|first1=Craig|last1=Silverman|title=Lies, Damn Lies and Viral Content|url=https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8Q81RHH|date=2015|doi=10.7916/D8Q81RHH|journal=Tow Center for Digital Journalism}}, document its place in the misinformation ecosystem, describing how it originated a misleading and unverified claim, stating it as fact. This is not how one would expect coverage to describe a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable Its reporting was repeatedly questioned by Politifact [https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/23/hillary-clinton-quotes-Internet-complete/], Snopes [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ilhan-omar-fundraisers-groups/], [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eu-jewish-products-labels/], and others [https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/02/fact-check-biden-administration-is-not-funding-crack-pipes-heroin-for-drug-use.html] during this period and I could find limited to no instances of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Chetsford (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

• Additional considerations for BLP, generally reliable but dueness always matter - the most salacious info on BLP topics should still be corroborated by other news sources before being put on wikipedia, otherwise it's likely undue. seems reliable as is, might have some bias like any other outlet so always weight dueness. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Newslinger, HaeB, and Astaire made me want to refine my vote.
• :* In general: Additional considerations, For investigative/original reports: Additional considerations for BLP, generally reliable but dueness always matter, Other: proceed with extreme caution, likely extremely unreliable or undue Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable - In the Eliana Johnson era, they have broken several high-profile stories via original reporting that have seen notable WP:USEBYOTHERS. See [https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/01/04/free-beacon-harvard-claudine-gay/ The Washington Post], [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/nyregion/columbia-deans-antisemitism-panel.html The New York Times], [https://www.axios.com/2024/08/08/columbia-deans-texts-antisemitism-resignation Axios], and [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/25/aaron-sibarium-conservative-media-00117899 Politico], for example. Aaron Sibarium is a legitimate journalist. See [https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-z-reporter-aaron-sibarium-harvard-president-claudine-gay-plagiarism-2024-1 Business Insider]. Marquardtika (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable with Eliana Johnson as editor-in-chief, with various original and credible scoops having been used by other reliable outlets. - Amigao (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally Reliable in this era. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
• I have a hard time considering the Washington Free Beacon generally reliable when [https://freebeacon.com/ its current home page] has a prominent section titled {{xt|"Enemies of Freedom"}} that lists exclusively members of the US Democratic Party, and [https://freebeacon.com/enemies-of-freedom/enemy-of-freedom-barack-obama/ the section's entry] {{small|([http://archive.today/2025.05.02-031249/https://freebeacon.com/enemies-of-freedom/enemy-of-freedom-barack-obama/ archive link], [https://web.archive.org/web/20250502031327/https://freebeacon.com/enemies-of-freedom/enemy-of-freedom-barack-obama/ archive link 2])}} on Barack Obama repeats the conspiracy theory that Obama is a {{!xt|"secret Muslim"}}. Another questionable article linked from the Free Beacon{{'s}} home page is [https://freebeacon.com/media/fact-check-eugene-daniels-says-journalists-care-deeply-about-accuracy-and-are-not-the-opposition/ "FACT CHECK: Eugene Daniels Says Journalists 'Care Deeply About Accuracy' and 'Are Not the Opposition'"], which is a mislabeled opinion piece with the statement {{xt|"If Daniels meant to imply that journalists are currently not behaving like an opposition party under President Trump, then of course that is false"}}, instead of an actual fact check. The Free Beacon{{'s}} reliability falls somewhere between {{rspe|The Daily Beast|The Daily Beast|nc}} and {{rspe|The Daily Caller|The Daily Caller|d}}. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I had a look at that Obama article - this is obviously an opinion piece (as evident form the section title alone) that is very polemical and not a suitable reference, but is that "occupation" seriously an endorsement of this conspiracy theory, or rather tongue-in-cheek snark? Has the publication made serious claims elsewhere - in a non-opinion article - that Obama practices Islam? (Can't find anything in a quick search [https://freebeacon.com/?s=Obama+Muslim], but haven't looked thoroughly.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I am almost certain the "secret Muslim" thing is intended as a joke, given the piece's tone and the fact the website still maintains an active "satire" section [https://freebeacon.com/tag/satire/]. Astaire (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Yes, the satire section seems to be along the lines of the Babylon Bee. Obviously unreliable and unusable, but also easily identifiable and clearly distinct from their original news reporting. Marquardtika (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• : Another portion of the Free Beacon{{'s}} [https://freebeacon.com/enemies-of-freedom/enemy-of-freedom-barack-obama/ "Enemies of Freedom" entry for Obama] claims, {{!xt|«"Born" in "Hawaii" in 1961, B. Hussein Obama moved with his mother at age six to Indonesia and ate dog meat»}}, with the words born and Hawaii in scare quotes. About a week ago, the Free Beacon published [https://freebeacon.com/democrats/why-democrats-should-hate-and-republican-should-love-barack-obama-the-foundational-maga-warrior/ an article] claiming {{!xt|"Obama was particularly aggrieved by Trump's relentless quest to uncover the truth about his birth certificate, a matter that has yet to be fully resolved"}}, with the word has in present tense. Both sentences echo Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.{{pb}}Many of these problematic articles are not adequately labeled or tagged. Although the Free Beacon has a [https://freebeacon.com/satire/ "Satire" section] and an [https://freebeacon.com/arts-culture-opinion/ "Arts, Culture & Opinion" section], none of the articles I linked to are in these sections. Instead, the [https://freebeacon.com/media/fact-check-eugene-daniels-says-journalists-care-deeply-about-accuracy-and-are-not-the-opposition/ faux fact check] was placed in the [https://freebeacon.com/media/ "Media" section] and the [https://freebeacon.com/democrats/why-democrats-should-hate-and-republican-should-love-barack-obama-the-foundational-maga-warrior/ latter article about Obama] was placed in the [https://freebeacon.com/democrats/ "Democrats" section]. One of the authors, [https://freebeacon.com/author/andrew-stiles/ Andrew Stiles], is described by the Free Beacon as {{xt|"senior writer at the Washington Free Beacon"}} with no disclaimer regarding the veracity of his content. This lack of disclosure blurs the boundary between news content and polemic on the Free Beacon, and is an "additional consideration" regarding the website's general reliability. — Newslinger talk 07:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::The "fact check" and the Obama article are both written by Stiles and part of the [https://freebeacon.com/stiles-section/ "Stiles Section"], which I specifically highlighted in my response as generally unreliable.
• ::There is precedent to upgrade or downgrade the reliability of a specific writer (e.g. upgrading Sibarium, downgrading Stiles) at WP:RSP - see the entries for Boing Boing, Jacobin, Der Spiegel, Quackwatch, and Hardcore Gaming 101. Astaire (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable, per Newslinger. It's not just a blaring advocacy source, it's a trashy blaring advocacy source. Should not be used for politics and really should not be used for BLPs. I wouldn't object to deprecate, frankly - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1 for its investigative and original reporting (especially from Aaron Sibarium). Option 2 for editorialized or sensationalistic articles that lack original reporting. Option 3 for assorted tabloid nonsense.

:* Per BuzzFeed News, the Free Beacon is best described as {{tq|somewhere between a traditional news organization and a high-concept prank... Alternately parodic and wire-service serious, it has broken major political news, mostly negative, about Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, and occasionally members of rival Republican factions, like Rand Paul}}. [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/bensmith/eliana-johnson-free-beacon]

:* The Washington Post described the Free Beacon as {{tq|the rare conservative media outlet that does significant reporting of its own}} and said that it has an {{tq|unusual commitment to original reporting... The puckish Free Beacon has managed to dig up damaging stories on politicians — Republican as well as Democrat}} [https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/01/04/free-beacon-harvard-claudine-gay/].

:* Politico called the Free Beacon {{tq|an online publication that is explicitly conservative and dedicated to “combat journalism,” but which is somewhat grudgingly respected in liberal circles}} [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/25/aaron-sibarium-conservative-media-00117899], specifically praising Sibarium's work.

:* The Atlantic wrote that the Free Beacon has {{tq|produced some memorable political reporting over the years}} and suggested that it is a rare example of a right-wing outlet doing credible journalism [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/01/dispatch-tries-sell-real-news-right/605860/].

:Under Johnson's tenure, the Free Beacon has broken multiple stories of significance that were later mentioned in WP:GREL sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS), such as:

:* Plagiarism allegations against the Harvard University president [https://freebeacon.com/campus/harvard-president-claudine-gay-hit-with-six-new-charges-of-plagiarism/] [https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/01/03/the-decline-and-fall-of-harvards-president], after which she resigned.

:* Leaked text messages between Columbia University administrators [https://freebeacon.com/campus/columbia-administrators-fire-off-hostile-and-dismissive-text-messages-vomit-emojis-during-alumni-reunion-panel-on-jewish-life/] [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/nyregion/columbia-deans-antisemitism-panel.html], after which they were placed on leave.

:* A hospital network using patients' race as a factor in rationing COVID-19 treatments [https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/food-and-drug-administration-drives-racial-rationing-of-covid-drugs/] [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/race-based-covid-rationing-ideology/621405/], after which this practice stopped.

:* A free speech uproar at Yale Law School [https://freebeacon.com/campus/a-yale-law-student-sent-a-lighthearted-email-inviting-classmates-to-his-trap-house-the-school-is-now-calling-him-to-account/] [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/yale-law-diversity-bureaucrats-made-five-mistakes/620428/], after which the school's associate dean retired.

:* A controversial deposition from the Columbia University interim president [https://freebeacon.com/campus/columbia-universitys-armstrong-cant-recall/] [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/nyregion/columbia-president-armstrong-federal-deposition.html], after which she announced her departure.

:However, the Free Beacon's track record does not extend to tabloid silliness like [https://freebeacon.com/media/breaking-exclusive-cnns-brian-stelter-spotted-shoeless-and-disheveled-on-amtrak-train-leaving-dc-after-nerd-prom/ this recent story about a CNN reporter not wearing shoes on a train]. Articles like this, and the [https://freebeacon.com/media/fact-check-eugene-daniels-says-journalists-care-deeply-about-accuracy-and-are-not-the-opposition/ Eugene Daniels "FACT CHECK"] mentioned above, are written by Andrew Stiles and compiled under the website's [https://freebeacon.com/stiles-section/ "Stiles Section"], along with obvious satires like [https://freebeacon.com/newsletters/exclusive-we-got-joe-bidens-list-of-absurd-demands-for-speaking-gigs/ "Exclusive: We Got Joe Biden’s List of Absurd Demands for Speaking Gigs"]. This section is a grab bag of undue BLP material, opinion pieces, joke articles, etc. Not encyclopedic, but they are self-contained and easy to separate from the rest of the paper (just look for the byline). Astaire (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::To briefly add to my comment here, it was recently reported that the Free Beacon's EIC Eliana Johnson was part of the nominating jury for the 2025 Pulitzer Prize in the National Reporting category [https://freebeacon.com/media/occasionally-we-misjudge/] [https://www.thewrap.com/pulitzer-board-rebuke-juror-eliana-johnson-winner-mosab-abu-toha-mock-israeli-hostages/]. This is another sign that the paper's original reporting has a positive reputation. Astaire (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable Under Johnson, the WFB improved in journalistic rigor and made many original reports that were widely used by various outlets (i.e. NYT, WP, etc.). Reporters such as Aaron Sibarium are professional reporters and his work has been validated through secondary coverage. The official editorial stance is conservative but the official stance of Mother Jones is liberal/progressive. The actual thing in question is the site's factual reliability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - The WFB has done plenty of legitimate reporting during this era, and I'm frankly a lot more confident about this as a reasonable source than Continetti. Of course, the fact that they house satire on the same site as news reporting means extra care should be taken on exactly what is being used from the site. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Additional considerations (Marginally reliable): Generally reliable for investigative/original reporting per WP:USEBYOTHERS with Johnson as the new EIC. Conservative bias on politics. Satirical and pop culture articles generally unreliable. I'm seeing this one as a right-wing cross between a WP:DAILYBEAST and a WP:MEDIAMATTERS which are both WP:MREL. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment/Question - is there a corrections policy/examples of the outlet issuing corrections or updates when needed? Currently I don't see anything that militates towards the current GUNREL designation, but given that there seems to be consensus that they do in fact print quality original journalism, I think looking at editorial behaviour should probably be the difference between an MREL or GREL outcome. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::There are editor's notes such as [https://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/a-note-to-our-readers-on-the-departure-of-bill-gertz/ here] and [https://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/editors-note/ here]. Marquardtika (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks! The later note is more encouraging (that is the kind of behaviour that gives some confidence in the editorial processes). The earlier one, which affects question 1 more than question 2, raises some questions (what are the different editorial processes for "aggregated" news pieces as opposed to "original investigative" ones, and are these types of articles categorised separately in a way that is visible to the reader?). I see the above !vote says {{tq|Generally reliable for investigative/original reporting}} but less reliable for other things, and I'm wondering if the difference is always obvious.

:::Another question: Now that there are some more GUNREL !votes, I see a several that argue that the outlet pushes misinformation/conspiracy theories. Can we please have a link to articles from the Beacon that exemplify this? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Marginally reliable. On one hand there is a lot of stories they broke, on the other hand u:Newslinger's examples are concerning. I think that the distinction suggested by u:BBQBoffin makes sense (investigative/original reporting vs satire, pop culture and opinion-style pieces). Its use should be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who wrote a given piece. If it's authored by someone who had produced high-quality content previously, that should be a positive signal. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Significantly better than during the previous era, although not entirely sure whether its now Marginally or Generally reliable... But I think we're at least close to where we would need to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Don't like the choices. A related case started on 21 April is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Free_Beacon_cite Free Beacon cite] thread on the talk page thread of Charlie Hebdo shooting, participants = Peter Gulutzan, David Gerard, David O. Johnson, Gamebuster. David Gerard removed a cite of the Free Beacon and later mentioned "a broad general RFC" somewhere. I believe this edit should be overturned and more generally Free Beacon censorship should end. But I'm not enthusiastic about the the RfC's 4-way choices and their links. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Do you have a suggestion for a different option beyond the given choices? When I wrote the RFC I just copied the four main options that seem to be listed in other RFCs about source reliability. I thought they were the standard options. Am I missing something? Marquardtika (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Renaming_%22Option_4%22_in_RfCs recently-changed] 4-way form pays attention to only the publication rather than the other things in WP:SOURCE; the links are to an essay-class page defining (changeably) what your !vote means, regardless what your comment is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:For anyone who can't read the cite of Washington Post that Aquillion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=next&oldid=1289032846 added] as a reflist-talk at the end of Question #2: it's a for-subscribers blog post by [https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/henry-farrell/ Henry Farrell] from October 2014 i.e. before the editorship of Eliana Johnson. Its first sentence is {{tq|On Oct. 17, Ajit Pai, an appointed member of the Federal Communications Commission, wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post making scary-seeming claims that the National Science Foundation was funding a scheme to surveil the Web for "subversive propaganda" that seemed "to have come straight out of a George Orwell novel.}} The mentions of Daily Beacon later in the blog post are "The rumor that it is something scary seems to have started with a discredited and disingenuous article at the Daily Beacon." plus (in a quote from Filippo Menczer and Alessandro Flammini) "A first wave of attacks in August was ignited by a story in the Washington Free Beacon. It made very misleading allegations, ignored our body of research and made no effort to verify the accuracy of the allegations by contacting any of the researchers." They also say the original story was debunked by Columbia Journalism Review. Though they don't get specific, we can see from the dates that the Free Beacon article is [https://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-creating-database-to-track-hate-speech-on-twitter/ Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate Speech’ on Twitter]. There were others, as late as November 2014: [https://freebeacon.com/issues/truthy-explained/ Truthy, Explained], which includes some response to the Post criticism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable My opinion about the outlet under its new management is unchanged from my opinion of them prior: The way that this outlet selects stories is so enmeshed with their political opinion that it is functionally impossible to separate opinion from news with this source. The opinion of a political extremist media outlet is generally unlikely to be due inclusion in articles. Simply put this is not a source we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable I don't see the claimed improvement in content by the publication. They still push the same conspiracy claims and misinformation, just perhaps slightly more subtly. The claims above of their breaking reporting picked up by others seems to entirely revolve around Claudine Gay and nothing else, which was itself a massive political furor. And therefore no need to use an already unreliable source like this because of that one instance. I see no point in using this source for anything. Any actual useful stories will inherently already be covered by better and more reliable sources. Silverseren^C 15:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|The claims above of their breaking reporting picked up by others seems to entirely revolve around Claudine Gay and nothing else}} This is simply untrue. I gave five examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS for their investigative reporting (and there are others, omitted for brevity), only one of which was the Claudine Gay story.
• :{{tq|They still push the same conspiracy claims and misinformation, just perhaps slightly more subtly}} It would be helpful if you gave some examples of this in their news reporting. Astaire (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable for investigative and original reporting. Tchouppy (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable on comments on WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• I just want to confirm here, since there is a lot of focus on stories that they're breaking, that we're all aware that WP:RSBREAKING exists, right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally unreliable. No indication that their reputation has improved; if anything it has gotten worse, with sources overtly describing them as publishing misinformation - see eg. {{cite book|accessdate=2025-05-06|url=https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003171270-8/mis-disinformation-social-media-melissa-zimdars|chapter=Mis/Disinformation and Social Media|title=The Social Media Debate|first=Melissa|last=Zimdars|date=2022|quote=The right-wing media sphere is very interconnected, and websites tend to legitimize each other and circulate the same information across social media platforms. Websites like Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Washington Free Beacon, Campus Reform, Gateway Pundit, and many more are known entities for spreading unreliable junk.}}{{cite book|first1=Elaine|last1=Kamarck|first2=Darrell M.|last2=West|title=Lies that Kill: A Citizen's Guide to Disinformation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oOsBEQAAQBAJ|publisher=Brookings Institution Press|date=3 September 2024|isbn=978-0-8157-4073-5|via=Google Books|quote=One of the linchpins of disinformation networks is the multiple levels of the information ecosystem that try out particular attacks to see which one work before elevating them to sites with a wider readership. Rumors might start out on obscure bulletin boards such as Reddit or 4chan, but as they gain currency, they move up to conservative sites like Infowars, Breitbart, or the Daily Caller. If people read those articles, the information can get picked up by conservative newspapers like the Washington Examiner and the Washington Free Beacon. The most effective stories eventually are broadcast by mainstream media such as Fox News or other cable outlets.}}{{cite book|first1=Melissa|last1=Zimdars|first2=Kembrew|last2=Mcleod|title=Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1WPMDwAAQBAJ|publisher=MIT Press|date=18 February 2020|isbn=978-0-262-35739-5|via=Google Books|quote=If you searched Google for information about potential collusion between Russia and Donald Trump in May 2017, the first results that appear are propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable websites like the Washington Free Beacon, Infowars, and the Daily Caller, respectively.}} Simply breaking stories isn't WP:USEBYOTHERS; simply doing "original reporting" doesn't make a source reliable. Any outlet can sometimes break a story. What matters is the context; whether secondary sources treat them as reliable. And high-quality sourcing absolutely does not - they're treated as producing a fountain of misinformation. Many of the stories they "broke" - especially surrounding are described by high-quality sources as full of distortions. Their coverage of Claudine Gay in particular has attracted serious academic criticism, eg.{{cite web|accessdate=2025-05-06|title=Claudine Gay, Plagiarism, and AI|url=https://www.aaup.org/JAF15/claudine-gay-plagiarism-and-ai|date=24 October 2024|website=AAUP|quote=Or at least that is what the bad faith efforts of Christopher Rufo and the Washington Free Beacon would have us believe. ... A more comprehensive review conducted for the Harvard Crimson by Rahem D. Hamid, Nia L. Orakwue, and Elias J. Schisgall (2023) demonstrates how Sibarium’s original reporting distorts the context somewhat.}} WP:RS isn't about effectiveness, it is about reputation. They plainly lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|Their coverage of Claudine Gay in particular has attracted serious academic criticism, eg.}} - huh? A "distorts the context somewhat" would be pretty gentle even for lots of criticism within academia - professors sling worse invectives at one another in academic debates all the time, without us GUNRELing an entire academic journal because it had published an article that was criticized in another one this way.
• :And your quote (which you misleadingly end with a full stop that is not present in the original) conveniently omits the subsequent part of the sentence part where the author admits {{tq|although they [The Crimson] acknowledge many errors of a similar kind [as those reported by Sibarium] across multiple pieces authored by Gay}}. What's more, in the sentence right before, the author himself seems to accept the Beacon's core factual allegations: {{tq|Writing for the Washington Free Beacon, Aaron Sibarium (2023) has highlighted numerous instances of overlapping phrasing, unclearly cited or incorrectly formatted quotations, and apparent copying in Gay’s scholarly output.}} When it comes to differences of interpretation (plagiarism or not), it's also worth noting that the opinion which the article advocates ({{tq|I do not even see plagiarism, in any meaningful sense of the word}}) flatly contradicts that of several other academics, e.g. Carol M. Swain. However, you apparently want us to believe that the article somewhat represents the academic consensus, as if Sibarium had engaged in climate denialism.
• :Based on this additional information and the fact that you tampered with a verbatim quote in a way that both furthered your argument and violated MOS:PMC, it could even be reasonably argued that your own comment here "distorts the context somewhat". But I wouldn't accuse you of being {{tq|a fountain of misinformation}} just because of that.
• :Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The "fountain of misinformation" bit summarizes the other sources, which are much more in-depth and clear that the Free Beacon is not a reliable source (one of them says as much in as many words.) I included the bit about Gay merely because that is the main focus of people arguing that it is reliable and to demonstrate that there are sources that cover that as part of the the same thing; and "somewhat distorts" adequately summarizes their position, as you conceded. If the best you can muster in defense of what is supposedly its star bit of reporting and the thing that its defenders believe is that academics have only said that it "somewhat" distorts the facts, then that's hardly enough to overcome significant academic coverage overtly describing it as a {{tq|propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable website}} or saying that it is known for {{tq|spreading unreliable junk.}} This is simply not something that could conceivably be considered a reliable source; the only serious debate is between unreliability and deprecation. They are not simply biased, they overtly and systematically distort the facts in the service of an ideological agenda. "One of their hit pieces got wider coverage" obviously does not render such a low-quality source reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|significant academic coverage}}

::::* Let's not overstate the case here. This "significant academic coverage" consists of two throwaway comments both from a single person, Melissa Zimdars. "Significant coverage" would be analyzing one or more of the Free Beacon's stories in detail and showing how it contains factual inaccuracies.

::::* Your summary of the first comment is not even correct: the quotation in full is {{tq|propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable websites like the Washington Free Beacon, Infowars, and the Daily Caller, respectively}} (emphasis mine). So Zimdars is calling the Free Beacon "propagandistic", but not "conspiracy-oriented" or "unreliable".

::::* Moreover, this first comment is describing the Free Beacon as it was in May 2017, before Johnson became EIC in September 2019. And the comment is taken from a book published in February 2020, which - given the speed of book publishing - could very well have been written before Johnson even assumed the EIC position, and at any rate is not very far into her tenure.

::::{{tq|"somewhat distorts" adequately summarizes their position}}

::::* No, it doesn't. I am familiar with the Crimson piece referred to here [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/allegations-plagiarism-gay-dissertation/] and nowhere does it suggest that the Free Beacon "distorted" the facts. In fact the Crimson article serves more to verify them: {{tq|Some [passages] appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.}}

::::* The closest thing to a "distortion" would be this part, which confirms that the Free Beacon has a standard corrections process: {{tq|The Free Beacon initially reported that Schwartz was not cited in the paragraph at all, when in fact, his work was cited at the end of the subsequent sentence in Gay’s article. The publication corrected the error after being contacted by The Crimson Monday night.}} Astaire (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

• Generally reliable - Many articles are well researched. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable They have been putting out good investigative pieces in the last few years. -Bruebach (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable/additional considerations. They do some original reporting to reasonably high levels of journalistic professionalism. We'd want to make that easy enough for WP editors to use, while at the same time cautioning editors that they need to keep an eye out for the other content. They are conservative and they make that clear. Perhaps because of their conservative convictions, they might take on stories that others would miss or not think to investigate. We wouldn't want to miss stories like that. Novellasyes (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable Although they have a partisan/ideological bent they seem relatively well respected among the wider journalistic community. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable The persistent, negative factchecks I cited in my comment in the previous section pretty much evaporated around 2018. Moreover, we can find numerous examples of recent WP:USEBYOTHERS like Staten Island Advance [https://www.silive.com/politics/2025/05/is-pope-leo-xiv-a-never-trump-republican.html], NPR [https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/03/claudine-gay-s-resignation-highlights-the-trouble-with-regulating-academic-writing/], the Wall Street Journal [https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/gop-senator-drops-hold-on-stopgap-spending-bill-over-drug-pipes-11644963036], Washingtonian [https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/01/15/the-nra-declares-bankruptcy-will-keep-offices-in-fairfax-for-now/], etc. Combined with the more perfunctory elements like an obvious gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be liable for its publications, this should be sufficient. Chetsford (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable The complaints about it are primarily that it's opinionated, and shares opinions editors here disagree with, but that's never been a reliability issue; many progressive and liberal publications are considered reliable. And WFB has published significant stories that have been picked up by other, mainstream publications, as detailed above.Hi! (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
• Generally reliable. Not only ample WP:USEBYOTHERS, but the ringing endorsements of its reliability and credibility by competing WP:RS highlighted above by {{u|Astaire}} is proof that its perceived bias does not affect its penchant for facts, which is what we look for here. This year, Johnson was even asked to serve on the nominating committee for the Pulitzer Prize. Secondary sources treat the WFB as reliable. In addition, recognition of its reliability will start to rectify some of the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS here on WP. Longhornsg (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
• Additional considerations: it's a clear partisan source which frequently criticizes political left and is heavily opinionated. That being said, it doesn't have a history of publishing outright misinformation. It may have done it here and there, but not to the point where it can be considered outright unreliable. PierroPawleczko (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{Archive bottom}}

{{archive top|Clear consensus that (1) the United Airlines Fleet website is a self-published source and (2) the as-yet unidentified maintainer is not a subject matter expert. Whether FlightAware is a reliable source is out of scope. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)}}

I'm reaching out to get the opinion of the board on whether or not the site [https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfleetsite/home UNITED Fleet Website] is a reliable source for the number of aircraft in the United Airlines fleet. The site doesn't say who runs it, it appears to be an enthusiast/fan site. It doesn't list where it gets any of its "publicly available information". This site is starting to get used heavily for source of United Airlines fleet and related items such as individual number of aircraft, which have been upgraded, the status of individual aircraft etc. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:As if poor sourcing isn't already a problem for airline fleets. There's a lot of information on there that looks to be publicly available only in the sense of "I flew on all the aircraft and took a lot of notes". - ZLEA _T\^C 20:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah. A lot maybe coming from spotting websites like Planespotter etc which are already ruled as unreliable user generated sources. This feels like an extension of all the other sources that have been deprecated over the years. And from those just because a plane appears in the livery of an airline doesn't mean it belongs to the airline. It feels to me like someone's passion project that cannot be backed up, and if it can be backed up then why aren't we using those sources? Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There's a lot more information there than can usually be found on spotting sites. For example, the site has a comprehensive schedule for business class upgrades for the fleet. I would assume only United employees have that information readily available. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Unfortunately it doesn't disclose where the information is coming from or who is publishing it. It claims all the information is publicly available, so there should be better sources out there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is by far the most reliable source of any airline's fleet in the world. Each and every aircraft in the UA and UAX fleets have a FlightAware hyperlink that enables you to know its actual current position. Each and every modification of every aircraft is updated within hours of it rejoining the fleet. The site also tracks UA and UAX orders and retirements more accurately than any source I have found. Norco3921 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Can you show us where the website was described as the most reliable? If it is, this should be a non-issue, but I've never heard of it, and it doesn't even have its own domain name. I have no doubt a lot of work went into it, and it may even be correct, but Wikipedia isn't about the truth, it's about WP:Verfiability. The fact that it still has placeholder text ("Add Headings and they will appear in your table of contents.") suggests there is limited if any editorial oversight, and the lack of transparency around who operates the site is not reassuring.

::::::I am aware that its spreadsheets cite Flightaware.com, but that makes this at best a WP:PRIMARY source, which is disprefered. I've worked with large data sets before; it's REALLY easy to make a mistake somewhere, which is why we want our WP:RS to have editorial oversight. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Is FlightAware a reliable source? Norco3921 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::It doesn't matter if it is or not for this discussion. We're not citing Flightaware. I could write whatever I wanted and cite RS, but that doesn't make my work a RS. If you want an answer to that question as anything other than a rhetorical device, I suggest starting a new thread. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, it does as each and every plane on the site includes a hyperlink to FlightAware which allows you to not only see where the aircraft is, what flights it is/has operated, but also to corroborate that it is indeed in the United fleet. Norco3921 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No, as we aren't citing Flightaware. Even if it were trusted, we don't and can't know if the United Airlines Fleet team(?) made mistakes, cultivated their data, etc. Also, please read WP:RSSELF. In the interest of not WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I'll restrain myself from further comment. I suggest you do the same. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::FlightAware gets their data from a wide array of sources including ground ADS-B, space-based ADS-B, air traffic control systems and data feeds from airlines and datalink providers along with FLIFO data, flight planning information and schedule information.

:::::::::::https://www.flightaware.com/about/datasources/ Norco3921 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Please point out some data on the site that is incorrect. Norco3921 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No point to what proves this site has {{tq|"a reputation for fact checking and accuracy"}} per WP:REPUTABLE. Having loads of data that is useful and we think is ok, is not part of any policy or guidance on how to judge if a source of reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Still waiting for someone to point out where the data is unreliable. Crickets. Norco3921 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Still waiting for you to show by what policy or guideline you think this shows this source is reliable, and not just show random website that someone has put online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::It is reliable according to the all WP guidelines you have cited. Its reliability is demonstrated continuously by the FlightAware links and its almost perfect alignment with all the other sources in the WP article. The best evidence is your all's complete inability to identify any inaccurate data from the site. Still waiting. Norco3921 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{tq|"It is reliable according to the all WP guidelines you have cited"}} Nope, which one and how?
{{tq|"Its reliability is demonstrated continuously by the FlightAware links..."}} And again no, that has nothing to do with policy and guidelines.
{{tq|"Still waiting"}} Wait forever, you point has nothing to do with if we can trust this source without checking every detail. That you believe it's accurate is irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{tq|"The best evidence is your all's complete inability to identify any inaccurate data from the site"}} The only thing apparent here is you inability to understand policy or grasp the purpose of a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Got nothing still, huh? Norco3921 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::So you've descended to the level trolling on your replies now. I suggest you read WP:1AM for the situation you're in, you don't like the answers you have been given but WP:IDHT doesn't change the answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If as you say, "Wikipedia isn't about the truth, it's about WP:Verfiability" then the FlightAware hyperlinks for each and every aircraft in the UA and UAX fleets do just that and quite elegantly. Hit any N number for any aircraft and the FlightAware hyperlink will take you to more current and historical data than you ever wanted and even more hyperlinks to United's reservation system with even more information. Norco3921 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I quote myself, {{tq|q=y| If you want an answer to [whether Flightaware is a RS] as anything other than a rhetorical device, I suggest starting a new thread.}}. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No thanks as it is not a rhetorical device, but an integral part of the site in question that more than fulfills WP:Verifiability. Norco3921 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Not true. This discussion is about the United Airlines Fleet website. Just because it links out to Flightaware for some things doesn't mean it's reliable and accurate. There could very well be errors of omission. Plus not every aircraft in some airline's use and livery is part of the airline. Additionally only the actual tail is linked to Flightaware, and most of the rest of the information on that sheet isn't sourced. Plus it disagrees at times. For instance [https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N823UA this aircraft] is claimed by that website to be UA Mainline and owned by UA, however Fightaware disagrees and it has an unknown owner. Who is right? If not Flightaware where does that website get its details from on that? Is it UA owned or not? Is it leased or not? Is it operated by someone else in UA livery or not? It doesn't say. Aircraft ownership isn't a simple matter, it's not that common anymore for airlines to own all their planes, but they may not disclose who has all ownership of it. Just because they register it and paint it doesn't mean they own it, the data isn't telling us properly on that. Flightaware is only a small part of it, there is no source or indication as to where all the other information comes from. It's an enthusiast site with no evidence it is reliable, all the rest of the data could be randomly generated for all we know. Canterbury Tail talk 00:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Where on the site does it claim that plane is owned by United and why would that matter as that information is nowhere to be found on the United WP article? Also, none of the following WP airline articles have any reference for the fleet total in the info box: DAL, AAL, JBLU, Alaska, Frontier, JetBlue, Air France, British Airways, JAL. Some of these WP articles reference the static 2024 10K filing in their fleet paragraphs, but their fleet totals have updated with no applicable reference. The United fleet Google page with the FlightAware hyperlinks is superior to any of these other airlines' WP pages, but you all are concerned about it. And none of those WP articles have the 'better source needed' annotation. Interesting. Norco3921 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::As an example let's look at the Delta Air Lines WP article. The 2024 DAL 10K reference has a fleet total of 975 airplanes, but the WP page says 985 total, 10 more with no other references and no 'better source needed' annotation in the info box which has NO reference at all. Interesting. Norco3921 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::The solution is not to use a unreliable source, the solution bis to remove the content. If there are no reliable sources for the information then it can't be verified and should be removed, verifiability to a reliable source is required for all included content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Since the source is extremely reliable and corroborated by the Flightaware hyperlinks then we should obviously use it. Norco3921 (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::You have failed to show any reason why this site should be considered reliable. Is it a work published by an expert, per WP:EXPERTSPS, is it regularly used as a citation in reliable academic works, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, are there other works that show it has a reputation for fact checking or accuracy, per WP:REPUTABLE, etc, etc. You think it's good is not a policy or guideline based argument.
As far as I can tell it the work of a random person who published a random website, and I can't find any secondary sources that vouch for it. If it's just regurgitating a primary source then use that primary source, the use of WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The site fulfills all of the above except as I said before it is not self-published by WP's definition, "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same". Its reliability is demonstrated continuously by the FlightAware links and its almost perfect alignment with all the other sources in the WP article. The best evidence is your all's complete inability to identify any inaccurate data from the site. Still waiting. Norco3921 (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I never said it was self published, I was saying that WP:EXPERTSPS is one way that these types of site can be considered reliable. You have provided zero policy based reason why this site should be considered reliable. Unless you can why should anyone consider it a WP:Reliable Source.
This isn't about proofing or disproofing if the information on the site is correct. You can wait forever on that point, I won't answer it because it completely misses the point. The purpose of a reliable source is that we can trust it with having to check every single detail, so whether you believe it's information is correct doesn't matter.
The only question to be answered is what policy based reason do we have to show that we can trust this source? I can't find one, if you can I'm happy to listen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Asked and answered repeatedly. Does FlightAware ring a bell? And not one example of erroneous data. At least Canterbury Tail and EducatedRedneck tried albeit unsuccessfully to find incorrect data. Amazing. Norco3921 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::{{tq|q=y|EducatedRedneck tried}} I did no such thing. Please strike your false statement. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::You said, "Note that United's in-text source disagrees with your preferred source. The 2025 10-K form has an entirely different figure, depending on whether you count leased or only owned, and it's undoubtedly more of an authority AND doesn't require frequent updating." This is a misleading if not erroneous claim. Of course the numbers of airplanes is different today than on 12/31/24. Just another reason the site in question is superior due to its dynamic and accurate updating. A 10K filing is a just snapshot in time. Norco3921 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::That quote shows I found that a source we used disagreed with the source you presented. I myself made no attempt to show that the data was better or worse on any. Whether it's erroneous does not change that you claimed I attempted something I did not. Again, please retract your false statement about me; I at no point {{tq|q=y|tried... to find incorrect data.}} If you don't, that's fine; the record to shows my correction, and I trust any observer will accurately interpret the facts. I just figured you'd like the opportunity to be sure what you say is correct. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::We'll just have to agree to disagree. Norco3921 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Sources must be both reliable and verifiable. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Cool. They are. Norco3921 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::Can you show us where exactly you saw "I flew on all the aircraft and took a lot of notes" on this web site? Norco3921 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I never said I saw that on its website. The site doesn't say where it got its information, but only claims that it is "publicly available". My point was that the sheer level of detail to the information far surpasses anything I've seen United release. Therefore, it appeared to be "publicly available" in the sense that you can fly on the aircraft and take notes about their configurations, not that United, the FAA, or anyone else associated with them publicly reported the information. With no way of verifying where the information came from, there's no indication that this is any more reliable than a typical WP:SPS fansite. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. Thanks. Norco3921 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

:This seems like an open and shut case: the site is a self published source. With the author not naming themselves, they can’t be an established subject-matter expert. RickyCourtney (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::"Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same" which is not the case so I guess not. The FlightAware data is integral to the site and it gets its data from a wide array of sources including ground ADS-B, space-based ADS-B, air traffic control systems and data feeds from airlines and datalink providers along with FLIFO data, flight planning information and schedule information. This data corroborates and confirms the data on the site. Still waiting for examples of bad data. Anyone? Norco3921 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I see no evidence that the author and publisher are not the same. Synthesizing data from another party doesn’t change that. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It says it right on the site. Norco3921 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::If the author and publisher are the same (they are) and they can’t be established as a subject-matter expert (they can’t without their name being shared, which it isn’t)… it’s an unreliable self-published source. The fact that this self-published source that synthesizes data from a possibly reliable source doesn’t change that it’s an unreliable self-published source. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::They are not the same so it is not self-published by the WP definition. Norco3921 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Where does it show that the author and publisher aren’t the same? RickyCourtney (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that I unarchived the discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:How does one get a discussion "closed" here? This seems pretty clear-cut to me: the consensus is that this site is unreliable, despite the very passionate arguments of one editor flooding the discussion and making the consensus harder to see. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree, the page clearly states that it is a fan website. It isn't a reliable source. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Burma News International is a network of independent Myanmar media outlets reporting on issues happening in the country. Right now, they are one of the many anti-military junta media networks publishing information censored on state media channels. 262 citations use the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22bnionline%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 bnionline] url and a further 93 articles use its sister [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22mmpeacemonitor%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 mmpeacemonitor] url.

The main issue revolves around the reliability of two of its members, [https://www.bnionline.net/en/ethnic-media/narinjara Narinjara] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=insource%3A%22narinjara%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 News] and [https://www.bnionline.net/en/ethnic-media/development-media-group Development Media] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22dmediag%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Group]. Both are based in Rakhine State. Although Narinjara does republish articles from AFP, AP, and Dhaka Tribune, both publications are biased towards the Arakan Army. While that by itself does not indicate unreliability, DMG has referred to Rohingya people as "[https://web.archive.org/web/20230127184555/https://www.dmediag.com/news/89-bengalis-killed-in-northern-rakhine-bombardment-2 Bengalis"] while Narinjara [https://www.narinjara.com/news/detail/6812daf1d08f26ee838b43a7 denies] [https://www.narinjara.com/news/detail/680a7d3a07b610d26a05dc43 many] atrocities allegedly committed by AA. Both organizations mostly softened the Rohingya rhetoric by simply grouping them as "Muslims," but claim that they are [https://web.archive.org/web/20240420004357/https://dmediag.com/news/wapsawit.html safer] and [https://www.narinjara.com/interview/detail/66747633f89d22ff6d07deeb more free] under ULA/AA rule.

On the other hand, a Rohingya news publication called [https://kaladanpress.org/ Kaladan Press] is part of [https://www.bnionline.net/en/ethnic-media/kaladan-press BNI], and their Maungdaw [https://kaladanpress.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Unravelling-the-Maungdaw-exodus-03-final.pdf report] (which I cited in the Arakan Army article) highlights alleged AA war crimes.

While both Narinjara and DMG are probably more reliable than Global New Light of Myanmar, I am iffy about citing them for most Rohingya-related articles. So far, any current citations about Rohingya issues are about the junta's actions and statements from locals about ARSA.

All in all, if both publications are to be cited, should they be cited with attribution in all cases? Can they be cited for topics not related to the Rohingya such as anti-junta victories or affairs in other parts of Myanmar? If approaching Rohingya issues, should they be cited with attribution or not cited at all? Battlesnake1 (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to add the fact that Flint has cancer. Is this source enough?[https://www.skeptic.org.uk/2025/05/fenbendazole-the-cancer-curing-anti-parasitic-beloved-by-joe-rogan]

Note that I have asked him if he wants this and he has said yes. He is even planning a documentary on it. Treatment seems to be working.

Also, I may have a COI here as after he agreed he asked me I would come on his channel to be interviewed and I agreed. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:His cancer isn't a controversial detail, as he has discussed it on multiple occasions. There's [https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/why-i-talked-to-pseudoarchaeologist-graham-hancock-on-joe-rogan/ this article] he wrote for ZME Science that should be usable per ABOUTSELF. It details his cancer and treatment rather than just mentioning it in passing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. I’ll look at that tomorrow when I’m back on my PC. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Both sources look usable for the basic claim. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)