Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 480

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 475

←

Archive 478

→

row over book of obituaries

Latest comment: 2 months ago63 comments12 people in discussion

At Talk:Ashleigh Aston Moore, Frobias (talk · contribs) is claiming to be that long-dead actor's brother. He says that much of the cited biographical information in the article is incorrect. He describes the source for that information—Lentz III, Harris M. (2008). Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2007. McFarland, Incorporated.—as a self-published book in 2008 by a man who gathered his information from tabloids, fan fiction, and hey! Wikipedia directly. When attempting to contact him you'll find he has a defunct AOL email address. Lifeandstyle magazine also retrieved their information from the book.

The article cites the book's Google Books listing, which I cannot access. Could someone well-versed in evaluating such claims and sources take a look and see if these allegations hold any water? Frobias appears to've solicited assistance off-site, now, with at least one person promising to "fix this". I'd like to know we're at least supporting keeping and using a good/reliable source. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 09:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It might be worth making a request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to see if anyone has access to the work.
The author is a prolific writer of such reference works and McFarland are an established publisher, so it's the kind of thing that would be generally reliable. That doesn't mean it can't be wrong of course. It's not a self-published work and that an aol.com email address is dead is hardly surprising, or an indicator of anything. The issue is of course that we have no idea who the person posting to Reddit is, unfortunately they could be anyone.
Beyond the question of reliability, if family members have issues with details in the book I suggest they contact McFarland directly, or somehow get they're corrections published in a local paper or something that Wikipedia can then use as a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I found the book. "MOORE, ASHLEIGH ASTON Former child actress Ashleigh Aston Moore died of an accidental heroin overdose in British Columbia, Canada, on December 11, 2007. She was 26. She was born Ashley Rogers in Sunnyvale, California, on November 13, 1981." It cites no sources for any of its entries. Since this was 2007, surely there's an actual obituary or news report somewhere? Gamaliel (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It very little to base anything off of, but it does verify the details it used for in the article. I've tried searching on Newspaper archive (reminder that WP:The Wikipedia Library exists), but it mainly covers local US newspaper rather than Canada ones.
The article used to link einsiders.com (not the current website the address has been usurped), now long dead but archived at the wayback machine. That link is from December 2008, an earlier one simply states she died from a drug overdose, but this one is updated "I originally reported that Ms. Moore died of a drug overdose. This was based on research, news articles and phone calls to Canada. I was recently contacted by someone claiming to be Jaysone Moore, Ms. Moore's youngest brother. He states that his sister died of pneumonia and bronchitis." So at least from within a month of her death reports where stating she died from a drug overdose, and it was being contested. It also suggests that there was reporting on her death at the time, but that it might also state her death as being from an overdose.
I'm dubious of einsiders.com reliability, but if a reliable source could be found for the brothers comments something like "Her death was reported as being caused by a drug overdose, but the family states it was caused by pneumonia and bronchitis." or something similar with better wording could be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

It's worth noting that as she died 17yrs ago there are no BLP concerns, if the coroners report could be tracked down it could be used as a PRIMARY source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Very Polite Person said at BLPN that the person who claims to be her brother wrote on Reddit that "I do have a 30 year old official Name Change document that immediately proves the cited information is incorrect, or the Autopsy Report," so someone could certainly give him instructions for uploading a copy to Commons. We'd need to be reasonably certain that it's authentic. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Are there rules about uploading legal documents to commons? Rorb lalorb (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

No, but I worry about provenance. Images are easy to fake and getting easier. That's not to say it's happening here, but troll would be happy to use such a method. If the documents come from the original source there can be no doubts of there validity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If a troll went to the headache of cosplaying as a grief-stricken family member for weeks based on seeing some obscure "dead celibrity" sound byte on some TV show, about a lady who died 20 years ago and had been (briefly) a child actor, and generated fake BC government death certificates and autopsy reports to just fake a date of birth on that one Wikipedia article... that's an absurd amount of work to troll something that an IP editor would just nonchalantly change the date on. PRIMARY is PRIMARY, but all things being equal, malice is pretty low on the "is this likely?" scale there, surely. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Troll have gone through a lot more. And as I said the issue isn't this instance, but the next one where a troll pulls "Well you did it for them so why not me?". Primary still still has to be sourced reliably. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, good grief. Wow. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Thankfully I'm not sure how much more is needed. The date of birth is sorted, and the incorrect place of birth and cause of death have been removed. Sometimes the solution is just not to include details if they are problematic to source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like that person uploaded.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_Name_Change_-_Ashleigh_Aston_Moore.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:McFarland_Publishing_Communication_-_Harris_M._Lentz_III_Bad_Source.jpg

that email is crazy Rorb lalorb (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The email isn't very helpful for the family or us. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The source isn't self-published, but I do have concerns. The overdose claim appears in two other sites besides einsiders: isthishappening.typepad.com and www.maplejuice.com. Neither is a suitable source for such a claim. It's possible that Lentz independently confirmed the circumstances of her death, but it seems more likely that he aggregated the stories appearing at the time. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Lentz likely took that claim from einsiders.com. His book is available via AA, and in his reference bibliography, the sites he cites include Entertainment Insiders—http://www.einsiders.com/ (also includes Wikipedia, which doesn't inspire much confidence.) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

If he cites Wikipedia then that's a straight up WP:CIRCULAR problem and we can't use it. Mackensen (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rorb lalorb seems to have confirmed that here:

Talk:Ashleigh_Aston_Moore#Obituaries_in_the_Performing_Arts,_2007_by_Harris_M._Lentz_III_is_not_a_reliable_source -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, it looks to me like the author copy pasted the entire reference list from his 2006 edition, which also includes Wikipedia. I think this problem goes much farther than just this article, since it is used as a source for many entertainment related pages! Rorb lalorb (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

2008 has the same one! Rorb lalorb (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. Look at my searches in the below section. If we conservatively assumed the others are used even 10% as often at that one, that's a lot of Lentz. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yep that's a lot of stuff and CIRCULAR is a major issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't have access to the 2009 one, but 2010 has the same reference list that includes Wikipedia. Rorb lalorb (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

NOTE: The email on commons from the publisher says Lentz also has passed away.

For the sake of simplicity -- how MANY of these annual volumes seem to just carry forward prior data or co-mingle data that you've seen so far? And what's the earliest and latest year that cites Wikipedia? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like 2006 onwards at least. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The latest book that I have access to in 2013, which does indeed cite Wikipedia. Every book from 2006-2013 names Wikipedia in its reference list, not any specific Wikipedia pages, just Wikipedia in general.

The latest edition that was in physical print that exists seems to be 2019, with Lentz possibly publishing more editions in online format only on kindle. I don't have access to these, though the physical books seem to exist in a few local libraries out there, so maybe someone else can check if we want to be sure.

2001-2005 do not specifically cite Wikipedia, but have this in their introduction:

"Several sources on the internet have also been helpful, including..." with a short list of sites.

2001 has "You’re Outta Here! (http://home.kscable.com/yohms/), Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/45481/), and the Internet Movie Database, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

2002 has "Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/ 60649/), Famous Deaths — Week in Review (http://famousdeaths.150m.com/WeekInRe- view.Main.html) and the Internet Movie Data- base, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

2003 has "Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/60649/), Life in Legacy (formerly Famous Deaths — Week in Review) (http://lifeinlegacy.com/), Enterainment [sic] Insiders (http://www.einsiders.com/features/columns/2003 obituaries), and the Internet Movie Database, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

2004 has "Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/60649/), Life in Legacy (formerlly [sic] Famous Deaths — Week in Review) (http://www.lifeinlegacy.com/), Entertainment Insiders (http://www.einsiders.com/features/ columns/2003obituaries), and the Internet Movie Database, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

2005 has "Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/60649/), Life in Legacy (formerly Famous Deaths — Week in Review) (http://www.lifeinlegacy.com/), Entertain- ment Insiders (http://www.einsiders.com/features/ columns/2005obituaries), and the Internet Movie Database, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

I did not check any editions from before 2001 since I was looking for Wikipedia mentions specifically. Though these editions do not name Wikipedia, his list of internet sources is not exhaustive. We cannot be sure that he wasn't looking at Wikipedia pages... Also some of the sites that he does list, like imdb, contain user-generated content. He has bibliographies in these earlier editions, but does not include any of the above sites in the Bibliographies, only printed works, even though he is clearly finding webpages "helpful".

In his introductions he will claim to cite primary sources in the entries that they pertain to; he does this in 2001 (i.e., citing a Los Angeles Times article directly under an entry). Though he claims to do this in the introduction to his 2006 volume, I can find no primary sources cited in the entries themselves, though to be sure I did not read all 400+ pages. Rorb lalorb (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

TIL that if I make a curl/wget janky screen scraper (not saying Lentz did, but you get the idea), I too can be a published author.

These books gotta go. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay I was thinking based on the email from the published that was put on Wikicommons that Lentz was deceased but I found the 2024 edition as an e-book online and it was published only a month ago so now I am kind of doubting that he is deceased. Rorb lalorb (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rorb lalorb -- do you mind jumping in here on the brother's talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frobias#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest

He's having some issues with the latest file upload and that's not exactly my forte (I don't want to admit how long it took me to draft up the text on my few non-free uploads). I guess the publisher said he was dead and did some release--for us?--in the email?

As to the ebook, I wouldn't be surprised if that was just some catalog licensing thing. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I managed to see the 2019 copy too and it is the same. So it's probably safe to say that all the physical editions from 2006-2019 cite Wikipedia. Rorb lalorb (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I've spent a few hours trying to dig around actual reporting at the time and it appears sources did report the death as an overdose, but they were doing so straight away before they could possibly have been any real information. Afterwards there's no updated reporting, so reporting in later years gets based on that initial reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I found this person's article on grief from 2018. In it the author, Courtney Heard, talks about Moore's struggles with substances, but Heard also says that the coroner said the cause of death was pneumonia. I'm not sure if this sort of thing counts as a reliable source or not. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessmom/2018/07/how-to-say-goodbye/ Rorb lalorb (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I found that earlier, unfortunately it would be the kind of thing we need. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

What was the best source you found for her death? Regardless of cause, it would be good to have an actual citation for date of death for the article. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that all modern sources are suspect, just as the Lentz books are now. Everything is based on earlier reporting that was never corrected, or Lentz book, or Wikipedia. Entertainment Weekly is green on the RSP, but only give the month and year.[1] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

At this point paring down the article to what can definitely be reliably sourced is probably the best bet, it can then be rebuilt as sources are found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I yanked the last uncited and that redbook bit. We can build out whatever is valid from the remaining good sources. I'll ping her brother on his talk page to suggest he look again at the article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I came across this separate of RSN and had posted here as well, FYI, prior: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ashleigh_Aston_Moore. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of posting to BLPN, but 17 yes after she died WP:BLP would no longer apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

For anyone who wants to read the entire situation here, it's all the links in this section, plus the talk page here of her brother:

User talk:Frobias#Managing a conflict of interest

We did a good thing today. Those Lentz books IMHO should be deprecated possibly as WP:RS. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The actor's brother here on his talk page says the publisher told him in email these books apparently should not have been published. I asked him to share what he can (again) on Commons and to drop the link there.

I don't know the specific policies around this, but if that's true, plus what you all found already, put me down as +1 !vote for someone to use a bot to scrape these books off of Wikipedia as sources today. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately that rarely happens. These discussions are the easy part, the hard part is editors taking it upon themselves to do the clear up work. Just removing the reference doesn't remove any problematic content, so the clean up is always tough work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Surely this discussion and findings here and on the sister's page would count to stick these Lentz books onto the Perennial/Deprecated list? Then people can just chew through the issue. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe finding someone to add {{unreliable source}} or {{better source needed}} to each use, that way it would get added to clean up tasks and is visible to any editor editing an effected article. RSP isn't a list of all reliable or unreliable sources only those that have been repeatedly discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Lentz is widely used

Based on @Rorb lalorb: findings above:

That specific book that cites Wikipedia as a source is used in ALL these articles as "WP:RS"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22Obituaries+in+the+Performing+Arts%2C+2007%22

These four by ISBN:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22978-0786451913%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&profile=advanced&fulltext=1

We use "Lentz" as a source in over 500+ articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22Obituaries+in+the+Performing+Arts%22

What do? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

You can put you urls between brackets, that way they appear as[2], or use brackets but put a space after the URL and then a word (like so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22Obituaries+in+the+Performing+Arts%2C+2007%22 this]) that would you give you this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah -- I left those three exposed on purpose so everyone could see the parameters straightaway. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Is making a RfC on this noticeboard the next step for making people aware that this source is WP:CIRCULAR? Rorb lalorb (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Why would we do an RfC for this? Not everything needs an RfC. Did he cite Wikipedia is a yes-no question: the answer is yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

A picked a random article to see if I could find anything, ended up on the page for Ferdinando Baldi through November 2007 deaths and the biographical information in that page is pretty messed up as well, and Lentz is used a the single reference for the whole article.

Even though he is listed in the page for November deaths his death is given as 12 September 2007 (though this could be a mistake by a wikipedia editor as I can't find that date anywhere else and Lentz is also cited for his entry in the November 2007 deaths page).

His birth date is given as 19 May 1917, while in most of the the other language versions of the article it lists his birthday as 9 May 1927 and his death as 12 November 2007. The early versions of the English versions of this page also list these dates. I was able to find one English language obituary through the internet archive on the einsiders website that lists his date of death as 12 November that he was 80 when he died aside from that I have found sources claiming both dates, but none that I think would be considered reliable, so I can't really tell which is accurate. His birth and death date change in an edit on the 6th October 2018 when Lentz first appears as a reference, though IMDB is cited as a source in previous versions claiming his birth date as 1917. I would be inclined to believe the earlier versions as the article was first written shortly after his death so the early editors likely would have seen the information in the news somewhere and that information isn't available online any more, that is my speculation. But what is clear is that Lentz has been taken as accurate for a long time now and if it as sloppy as it appears to be, then there is a big mess to clear up.. Giuliotf (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Rorb lalorb analysis above[3], the works are all at least in part based on works that includes user generated content and other such questionable sources. So it's unfortunately not a surprise issues can be found where he's been used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I went looking for good references for Baldi and struck out. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Either of those good? I don't know either site. Or if they are Lentz'd... EDIT: Nope, no death date I don't think. I misread the first. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Cinematografo is a pretty old (1920s according to Italian wikipedia) publication that focuses on cinema. I don't know it, but at first glance it seems fairly respected and not sensationalist in its coverage and the article is an obituary dated from the day we think he died, so it would have been pre-Lentz.

Unifrance also seems like a respectable organization, but there isn't a lot of information on that page and on internet archive it is only available since 2022, so of the two I would go with Cinematografo.

I checked his IMDB page as well, and the earliest version from 2002 lists the 1927 birth date (though it says 19 May rather than 9 May), and the year is change from 1927 to 1917 sometime between July and December 2007. If the birth year is wrong this seems like where they claim might have originated.

For what its worth the Italian wikipedia lists two sources (though no inline citations so no idea where the information came from) that are reference books on cinema dated 1979 and 1993, however I haven't been able to find accessible digital copies to check.

The most reliable looking source I was able to find was this fan newsletter issue (google just makes me download a pdf don't know how to link it here)^[1], however I doubt it would be considered reliable. Giuliotf (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The URL is https://www.spaghetti-western.net/downloads/WAI_Baldi.pdf
If you are on mobile press the three dots next to the search result and the long press the blue "Visit" in the top right and choose "Copy link address". Ridiculous but Google has made it progressively harder to copy the URL from a search result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Cinematografo looks like a standard obituary to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

References

^ "Special Ferdinando Baldi Memorial Issue (1927-2007)". WESTERNS…ALL’ITALIANA!. December 2007.

What now re Lentz books as RS?

I want to bump this so it can't get archived off presently. What's the best or correct way for us to formally deal with getting these Lentz books deprecated, as there seems to be evolving consensus already toward that? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This board is for advice, the advice is that Lentz books shouldn't be considered a reliable source. There's no special way to clean them up, editors just have to do the work the same with any other unreliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I get that--I mean, is this discussion sufficient in terms of concensus (or not yet?) toward putting this person's books like this onto Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with a WP:QUESTIONABLE or WP:DEPRECATED flag? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The RSP has inclusion criteria, it's not a list of all sources or even all bad sources. I don't think this would meet those inclusion criteria (see WP:RSPCRITERIA), but if it does anyone can add it - the WP:RSP is just another page. Deprecation requires a RFC and isn't needed for very single unreliable source. If this was used in hundreds of thousands of article maybe it would be appropriate. I'm not even sure the edit filter would work, as there's no specific url or scheme to work off. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started changing some of the sources on pages where it is used to better ones or tagging them as circular or as better source needed (depending on the year) when I can't easily find such a source. I'm starting with the oldest pages first. If people argue about these changes being made then it would be the case for a RFC to be made which is pretty much the inclusion criteria for getting on those lists. Rorb lalorb (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

This discussion shows a clear consensus that the source is unreliable, and can be used as justification for removing (or ideally replacing) it where used. If a relevant WikiProject has a listing of good and bad sources, this might be suitable for that list (depending on its inclusion criteria). Similarly if you want a central place to discuss/coordinate/etc systematic removal then a relevant WikiProject is likely the best place (either directly or use the noticeboard to advertise a page in your userspace). A note for GA/FA reviewers might be appropriate, particularly if the source is used in multiple existing promoted articles.

Only if new uses are being added in significant number now, and/or are being persistently added after most of the existing uses have been removed would it be worthwhile investigating options like edit filters. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :) I will try bringing it up on the talk page of WikiProject Film/Resources since a majority of people in Lentz' books are in the film industry. Rorb lalorb (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Business Insider (May/June 2025)

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Business Insider has laid of a massive amount of its journalism staff in order to go "all-in on AI". Per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, we already had them set as WP:MREL. But I think we should change any of their future output to WP:GUNREL level of unreliability. Perhaps even set it back a year or two, considering this statement "“Over 70% of Business Insider employees are already using Enterprise ChatGPT regularly (our goal is 100%), and we’re building prompt libraries and sharing everyday use cases that help us work faster, smarter, and better,” Peng wrote."

What do you all think? Silver seren^C 02:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

What type of AI, and what are they doing with it? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It does depend on how they are using AI. There's a big difference between a journalist using a LLM as part of an articles creation, and a company using a few staff to oversee a LLM in its creation of a content farm. Realistically we won't know what BI is doing until we see how their output changes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This right here gives me the impression they are relying way too much on AI. CycoMa2 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there are still distinctions to be made... Most BI content is more or less churnalism which can be expected to be mostly AI... But they still do some in-depth stories which seem to have a lot more actual work done on them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The question is whether they will still be doing in-depth stories continuing on, since they appear to have fired most of their journalist reporters and just kept the staff that can pump out stuff with AI assistance. Silver seren^C 04:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Its a good question but IMO its still an open one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Cracked.com

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I know that Cracked is not considered a reliable source, mainly due to being a humor website, but i am working on an article about a show and the website itself recently interviewed an actress from it. Could an exception be made here since this is coming directly from someone who worked on the show, and not them making stuff up? I believe it is listed as “generally unreliable”, wouldn’t this mean that it is sometimes reliable? Crystal Drawers (talk) 13:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The actress' statements about herself could probably be used in an WP:ABOUTSELF context if due. Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The contents i was going to use is her saying that her mother was baptized at a church near the set and the info about filming the choir scene. All info added can be seen in Loud Night in the sentence in Production starting with “the church”. Is what’s included okay? Crystal Drawers (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably can't use the bit about her mother from this source as it's not WP:ABOUTSELF. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. It’s been removed Crystal Drawers (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Polandelects.com

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's constantly being cited on 2025 Polish presidential election, it's a user generated source. It's claimed information here does contain any election results, and results are not stated in Poland until all votes have been counted. Not cited anywhere on Wikipedia, up until a few days ago. Des Vallee (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You're going to have to clarify you post. What does polandelects.com have to do with your link data sheets on wybory.gov.pl? But I'm guessing this situation no longer matters, as the official results behave been announced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Working paper/draft

Latest comment: 2 months ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Are working papers considered usable on enwiki? For the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, I was looking to use this and expand from this (already there in the article). But the author notes several times that the paper is a draft and will have to be rewritten. Thoughts. Gotitbro (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you mean to include a link? The way you wrote your comment seems to suggest so.
Working / draft papers are weak sources, maybe if the author can be considered an WP:EXPERTSPS in the field covering the content you wish to add it could be reliable. Even then I wouldn't suggest using it for anything controversial or exceptional, as it won't have gone through any editorial oversight.
If you link the source and give some details of what content you want to support with it, it would allow for a more definite answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, missed this in the initial comment. Here: [4]. Gotitbro (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

The author Christopher Clary would be a subject matter expert according to WP:EXPERTSPS for the dangers of nuclear proliferation, U.S. defense policy, and the politics of South Asia. He has an academic background, and has multiple works published by academic publishers, in the field. I would consider all the background information he includes to be reliable, and his opinions on the political situation as well.
For more recent events he gives a good over view, but using the sources he links directly might be more useful as this is still a self-published source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Yes, I have read the entire paper and overall it is very good. I have some specific questions though:

"This essay seeks to offer a first rough draft of history for that conflict, which does not have a settled name." ... "This essay is an attempt to advance that effort, with an understanding that like all rough drafts it will have to be rewritten several times."

Are these of any concern to us?

The second question is about its specific analysis of a controversial aspect of the conflict, that being how many planes were downed on the Indian side (Pakistan claims 6, India has accepted losses but has given no numbers). Clary basis his analysis on media reports and social media (OSINT) and while 3 have been reported by the media, he adds a fourth basing this on those social media posts. Here:

Yet there is substantiating evidence that Pakistan indeed brought down up to four planes.
A Washington Post visual investigation found compelling evidence of three crash sites in India—two in Indian-administered Kashmir and another in Indian Punjab. The Post went further in identifying two of the three crashed airplanes as types not operated by Pakistan, specifically the French Rafale and Mirage-2000. Additionally, since there are no reports of either air force operating manned aircraft in the airspace of the other, the presumption is any downed aircraft in India are Indian rather than Pakistani. The Government of India has not labeled any of these crash sites as being those of Pakistani aircraft.
Separately, Reuters reported on May 7 that there were three aircraft downed in Kashmir alone, citing local government sources. Since the Post and Reuters reports, video of a fourth alleged crash site has circulated widely on social media. Away from the subcontinent, foreign government officials have confirmed to international media that at least one or two aircraft were downed in India in the early hours of the conflict.

This is all he says about the losses in the entire paper. Can this statement for a controversial claim be used, considering the "sources he links directly" would be those on Twitter and does this being a working paper add any further impedence to that?

Lastly, if working paper issues are not a concern can we make use of less controversial and origninal analysis by Clary from this as well?

Thanks.Gotitbro (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think by "first rough draft of history" he doesn't mean the essay will be rewritten, but rather it's an essay about the first rough draft of history. Sorry I don't know if that's a very clear explanation.
I thought this might be about aircraft. I wouldn't think he's independently a reliable source for how many planes were downed. Clary has no more access to the actual facts than anyone else, that's why he includes sources for his information and why I suggest using those sources instead. Certainly his statements add weight to any argument in discussions above it the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: About the draft, in the next quote I provided above he clearly says that it will be rewitten and has said the same here. I want to use this source but should this stop us? I know we already give less weight (or bar?) pre-prints but this is several stages before that (if this is to be considered as an academic paper). Gotitbro (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this is less than a preprint, which is why I pointed to WP:SPS as it's reliability depends on the author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested It seems the point about attribution has not been raised here. There are many similar sources being used in that article with attribution to experts. I believe there should be no issue in using this source with proper attribution. It is currently being used as follows: According to a working paper written by Christopher Clary for Stimson Center, there was credible evidence that up to four Indian aircraft may indeed have been shot down during the encounter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Though I agree with attribution, I don't think the working draft is usable on wikipedia as it is WP:TOOSOON. It can change. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ramos1990 I understand the concern about it potentially changing, but when things do change, we will update Wikipedia accordingly. Regarding the draft matter, @ActivelyDisinterested said: I think by "first rough draft of history" he doesn't mean the essay will be rewritten, but rather it's an essay about the first rough draft of history. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Nope, Clary says exactly what he means by rewrite here: "This is a working paper. I expect new information to come out in the coming weeks and months. And I welcome feedback. Some conclusions may change as a consequence of new data. Yet I think it is still worthwhile to try to map the contours as we understand them today."

That is what working papers/drafts are ultimately meant for. Gotitbro (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I am thinking WP:NOTNEWS may apply here. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No I wouldn't think it's reliable for that, attribution isn't a magic trick that changes any source into a reliable one. Something that has been discussed several times. Clary has no special knowledge of the situation, that's why he makes sure to cite his sources. As I suggested earlier I would use the sources he cites instead.
If anyone wants to write a different article Clary is probably notable as an author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Working papers are effectively preprints, so WP:SPSPREPRINT should apply. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Parcinq and Gen-Z

Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I was advised to try posting my questions about the reliability of these sources here as well. These are both independent (from what I can tell) Philippine magazines. Context for use of these two as sources is a Filipino singer who's also been recognized as a fashion influencer by Vogue Philippines and Nylon Manila. I was hoping to use the ones below to support her media image as someone known for her fashion.
Parcinq: https://www.parcinq.com/
They're a Philippine magazine and describe themselves as "both an online magazine and a print publication" on their FAQ page. Most of their content seems to be original and exclusive, mainly artsy photoshoots paired with interviews for Filipino celebrities like actor Jeremiah Lisbo, singer Angela Ken, and various Pinoy pop groups (SB19, BINI). They have a dedicated site for selling their print issues. They also have this article about the magazine's history: https://www.parcinq.com/post/behind-the-minds-of-parcinq-how-a-magazine-became-a-home-for-creatives
Gen-Z: https://ph.genz-mag.com/
Another Philippine publication. From what I can see, it's just a typical online magazine through and through in content and appearance. When you click on "Contact us," it provides this info: https://ph.genz-mag.com/contact-us/
I didn't see at first, but Gen-Z also has exclusive photoshoots and interviews with Filipino celebrities such as Sam Milby and Sofia Pablo. Scrolling to the bottom of this cover story, for instance, lists names for Gen-Z's team: https://ph.genz-mag.com/cover/love-in-real-life-how-sofia-pablo-and-allen-ansay-are-growing-together-on-screen-and-off/
I'd consider both of them generally reliable for Filipino celebrities because they have dedicated teams and offices. What are your thoughts? Thank you. Bloomagiliw (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have particular articles and specific content you want use them to support? I would think both are generally reliable, but I would be concerned by any that sounds a bit too promo. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, it's for Maloi.

Parcinq article: https://www.parcinq.com/post/parcinqfashion-imaginarium-featuring-maloi-of-bini

Her Parcinq solo article is described as a fashion editorial, featuring exclusive photos of Maloi. It also comes with an interview about Maloi as a person and her love for art and fashion.

I'd also like to keep this one from Gen-Z: https://ph.genz-mag.com/fashion/bini-maloi-fashion-moments/

That article is just used to support the idea that Maloi's personal fashion has been influential in the Philippines. The Gen-Z article says, "Continuing on her TNT gig, Maloi became the poster girl for the coquette aesthetic, and she sported different takes on the trend." TNT refers to Tawag ng Tanghalan, a singing competition that Maloi was a regular judge for (also mentioned in the Gen-Z article: "Maloi recently was a judge for Tawag ng Tanghalan Kids segment of the noontime show It’s Showtime.")

So in short, both articles would just support the idea that Maloi is widely recognized for setting fashion trends and influencing many Filipinos' sense of style. FWIW, Vogue Philippines (quote 1 below) and Billboard Philippines (quote 2 below), both major publications and definitely reliable sources, also identified a popular aesthetic known as "Maloi-core" in the Philippines, named after that singer.

Quote 1: Among them, BINI main vocalist Maloi Ricalde has found particular joy in this process, pulling together numerous memorable looks that many now refer to as “Maloi-core.” Picture red Bayonetta glasses, ribbons in the hair, oversized jersey shirts paired with ankle-length skirts, and a bag covered in all kinds of charms, and you’d find it would be hard not to think of Maloi’s pale pink flushed cheeks. (https://vogue.ph/lifestyle/people/bini-maloi-ricalde-on-art-and-connection/)
Quote 2: Whether it’s her love for thrift shopping, making artwork, discovering new music from her fellow OPM artists, attending gigs, or growing her physical media collection of music, her habits and quirks have birthed a new term that many online netizens have dubbed as ‘Maloi-core.’ (https://billboardphilippines.com/music/features/bini-maloi-is-more-than-an-it-girl-2024/)

Bloomagiliw (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I see at the moment Parcinq is being used to support "Maloi posed for a fashion editorial published by Parcinq on March 31. In the feature, titled Imaginarium, she discussed her passion for art with the magazine's Hans Ethan Carbonilla." That's a bit odd to include in an encyclopedic article, instead it sounds like something someone would include in a CV. It's not something that adds to the readers understanding of Maloi or a major event in her life. Not that if this is about the AfD that interviews are not generally considered independent sources for the purposes of notability.
Gen-Z is probably fine for the attributed statements that are currently being used in article.

Taking both articles to say that Maloi is widely recognized for setting fashion trends and influencing many Filipinos' sense of style sounds a bit like WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed. You need an article that actually says that to be true, not use two articles that could be interpreted as showing that trend. But you could instead just use the Vogue article to say she is the inspiration for "Maloi-core". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! Just wanna ask if the mention of Maloi's Parcinq photoshoot should be removed. I thought it was worth mentioning because Jennie Kim's article (which has a pretty good rating of B) mentions that her first solo photoshoot was with Dazed Korea.

Thanks so much again! Bloomagiliw (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's due for inclusion either, but that other articles do something isn't much of an article unless it's a good, or preferably featured, article. The other ratings are just someones assessment, the GA and FA ratings have actual requirements (particularly FA). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted! I've authored a few GA-class articles myself, but with every article, it's worth asking these sorts of questions. Always grateful whenever someone like you provides answers. Bloomagiliw (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops sorry you'll know those requirements better than me! Always remember this is third opinion not policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

National Geographic Atlantis documentary for Richat Structure

Latest comment: 2 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Over at Talk:Richat Structure#Fortresses, tumuli and rock art at the Richat structure A user has proclaimed that a 2020 episode "The Curse of Atlantis" from National Geographic documentary series "Atlas of Cursed Places" is a reliable source for the claim that enclosed structures found near the Richat Structure are around 8,000 to 5,000 years old. I can't verify the claim, but the user asserts that this claim was made by the archaeologist Sarah Parcak, who seems to be a somewhat well regarded aerial archaeology researcher. As far as I can tell there is not a better source for the claim. While I think that National Geographic's written material is often reliable, I am concerned that some of its documentaries may be prone to Ancient Aliens-style sensationalism, and that this user is trying to push WP:PROFRINGE Atlantis content into the article, so I want a second opinion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The episode can be watched for free on YouTube in the US [5], and can be watched elsewhere via the use of proxies. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not think we get to decide to exclude an expert becasue we do not agree with them. However (given the degree of synthesis the user has engaged in) I think we do need verification for what she did (in fact) say, as well as the context. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I do recognise her expertise, however if this is a off-hand comment in a senstationalist documentary, then it may be undue regardless. Given their obvious SYNTH and use of other unreliable fringe pro-Atlantis sources, I'm entitled to take the user's word with a grain of salt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

If it is, and if it is not taken out of context, ect ect. But if she straight up says, "these are 8,000-year-old man-made structures," I do not think we can exclude her claim. We would need to attribute it, not exclude it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I watched the episode and transcribed Parcak's comments from the end of the episode.

Initially when we started looking, we weren't really finding anything. We kept looking and looking and looking and nothing was popping out. There's no visible architecture of any kind anywhere. But then, once our eyes got adjusted to the landscape, then hundreds and hundreds of features started popping up, if not thousands. In the heart of the Richat structure are two absolutely massive, rectangular structures that look like they have rounded towers at the end. To me, that was one of the most exciting finds. These are pretty major. They're pretty wild and they're definitely ancient, they're not anything more modern.
So we'll go to the westernmost one, we'll zoom in and zoom in and zoom in. You can actually see the little animal pens. So this could have easily housed more than a hundred camels or donkeys. This wouldn't have been a place where you just kind of camp out for the night. They're clearly going to have food, there's going to be trading that goes on and there probably would have been wells there. In fact, previous research reports that were done, they said, you know, we've been there, we've found hand axes from more than a hundred thousand years ago. We've found neolithic blades. But absolutely no evidence until now of any kind of built, human structures in and around the Richat structure. But I think the story has changed.
These probably date to eight thousand to five thousand years ago. I'm super, super excited about what we found. It opens up, I think, a chapter of archeology that archeologists didn't know was there.

So from where I sit, this isn't a reliable source for any such claims. She's making a guess, and you can tell by the fact that she gives a three-thousand-year span in said guess. She hedges herself with uncertain language ('probably') and doesn't describe any methodology to her date. I don't think this is due. She very well could have been harangued into making a guess by the producers, despite not wanting to, and they simply cut to this bit for the narrative. She certainly never says anything about Atlantis.

P.S. If anyone is curious, the structure she is referring to is located at 21° 7'22.12"N, 11°22'23.15"W. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:27, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The claim appears to be in a larger set of changes, but the specific content is "Around 25 large stone fortified enclosures have been spotted in and around the Richat structure. Satellite archaeologist Sarah Parcak estimated them to date to around 8.000 - 5.000 BP". Is "fortified structures" from a different part of the episode or a jump from "rectangular structures that look like they have rounded towers at the end"? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't hear Parcak say anything about fortifications. She only called them animal pens. But I watched the episode on Disney+ (I would make a joke about how I have to have that for my kids, but the truth is that Andor is a brilliant show). The one on Youtube, being released by NatGeo itself, might have some differences. It's not uncommon for studios to re-edit episodes before putting them on a platform like YT, though that usually means removing content, not adding it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:01, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for reliability assessment of Matca (Vietnamese photography journal) in BLP context

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

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

Hello,

I’m seeking input on whether the Vietnamese photography journal Matca meets Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sources, specifically for use in a Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) context.

Context:

The article on [[Réhahn]] includes a paragraph in the “Reception” section citing Matca’s 2017 article by Hà Đào, which offers criticism of the subject’s photographic work. A follow-up response by Réhahn is also cited, also hosted by Matca.

Concerns:

[[WP:BLPSOURCES]]: Matca is a small, independent online publication primarily run by photographers. While it has editorial content, it is not an established journalistic or academic outlet. The article in question includes subjective interpretations, such as referring to the subject’s work as projecting a “colonialist fantasy,” without external corroboration.
Lack of Independent Confirmation: The views expressed in Matca do not appear to have been picked up or discussed by any independent, third-party secondary sources. This raises concern about due weight and the threshold of notability for criticism in BLPs.
Potential Weight Issues ([[WP:UNDUE]]): The Matca paragraph is one of the most detailed segments in the Reception section and is currently the only paragraph offering criticism. This may give disproportionate emphasis to a single, unconfirmed opinion.
Author Notability: Hà Đào, the author of the critique, is not independently notable and does not appear in other published academic or media criticism. Their viewpoint is not framed with broader contextual commentary.

I have disclosed a conflict of interest on my user page, as I work professionally with the subject. I am not editing the article directly and am raising this for review by neutral editors. Input on whether Matca qualifies as a reliable secondary source for BLP criticism would be appreciated.

Thank you for your time and guidance.

~~~~ DinhGiang (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

For the interested, content in question is second paragraph at Réhahn#Reception. Previously discussed at

Some coverage of Matca at This online journal and publishing house is on a mission to uplift Vietnamese photography, from British Journal of Photography. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

DinhGiang, please try that again in your own words without using an LLM-generated comment from an AI chatbot or similar tool. — Newslinger talk 15:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Another instance of LLMs not understanding policies or guidelines and instead making up stuff based policy titles with some additional words it considers appropriate. If you have concerns I suggest just trying to explain yourself in simple terms, and if other editor point you towards a policy or other guidance read it and come back to the discussion once you understand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Matca Journal is a very well respected online journal focused specifically on photography. It is based in Vietnam, and thus expertise in photo work related to Vietnam, (and therefore is relevant to the subject of the article. It is certainly not a blog. The content Matca publishes is not user-submitted content, but rather the journal has an extensive editorial board of contributors, thus content has oversight and is vetted. They are also a respected publisher of art books. It is definitely a reliable source for the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention that the writer of the piece in Matca, is a well respected subject matter expert on photography. Here is some info about her: [6], [7], [8] (which also includes info about Matca Journal). She's been published in The Routledge Companion to Global Photographies, by Taylor & Francis: [9]. She's a credible and relevant writer. Netherzone (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

WHYY

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I used this article from WHYY to add information on the etymologies of neighborhoods in Philadelphia. Magnolia677 reverted my edits stating that the source is not reliable. To avoid an edit war, I would like to bring the discussion here. The contention is because the article is based off a social media post by content creator Adam Aleksic. I believe the article is fine to use as it was written by a staffed reporter who verified the claims in the social media post. मल्ल (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I see that you've edited a few different articles using this as a source, and Magnolia677's edit summaries say "The source cited states the actual source is https://www.etymologynerd.com/uploads/1/5/8/8/15888322/philly.png, which is a personal website with a gmail address. Please discuss." It doesn't look like you've tried to discuss it on any of the articles' talk pages before bringing it here, and that would have been the place to start.

That said, Billy Penn is a local news source that was acquired by WHYY, which is an NPR affiliate, and should be GREL. Yes, the original source for the image / etymologies is a personal website. Looks like the creator, Adam Aleksic, is young but seems trusted by several RSs (e.g., he's written a few opinion pieces for the Washington Post, NPR and the NYT have drawn on him in their commentary, he's given lectures at some well-known colleges/universities). That specific article says "We [at Billy Penn] ran through Aleksic’s list, and found some context for each description," and some of the sources they've linked to clearly back up the claims by Aleksic in the image (though I only checked a few, and had to use the Internet Archive for one site). So I'm inclined to see it as an RS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I brought it here because it was a multi-article dispute so I wasn’t sure which talk page to start it on but I’ll do that next time. मल्ल (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

In that kind of situation, I'd just choose one of the talk pages (probably the one associated with the article where you'd made the most edits). If the consensus after discussion is that it's an RS for that content, you can link to that talk page discussion in your edit summary on other articles. Since you've asked here, let's see if anyone else has a response. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I would consider this an appropriate source. While the article is written based on an infographic, WHYY is staffed by professional journalists who clearly vetted the infographic's author and felt his work was reliable. Furthermore, the article says that the author of the infographic used WHYY and other reliable sources to build his resource. Finally, this WHYY article includes link to supporting resources that corroborate the infographic. I support the restoration of the material you added. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic.com for BLP content

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is a consensus that the staff reviews at SputnikMusic are acceptable to use with attribution, per WP:RSMUSIC. One area I have minor concerns about, however, is the use of these reviews on BLP articles. I found the site being used to support content on a BLP, Pink (singer), about the subject's record sales. That may not be as problematic as being used to support content about, say, a living subject's personal life, but its presence on a BLP itself arguably does open the floodgates for this sort of thing. Which leads me to ask -- is Sputnikmusic.com an acceptable source for BLP content? I'd argue that we should treat it similar to Anthony Fantano's reviews in this regard, in that they are acceptable to cite for reviews of music, but even the staff articles should not be used for content about living people. I am more than willing to change my mind about this if someone shows me compelling evidence to the contrary. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that it's a usable sources for BLP details, even if it could be used to source non-BLP details in a BLP article. In the last discussion I came to the side that it's reliable due to use by others, after initially being rather sceptical (and still a bit sceptical). But I don't think that reliability extends to it being a 'high quality' source for BLP content.
As to the question of whether it can be used in BLPs at all I would have thought it could, as far as I'm aware BLP only blanket prohibits self published sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

If the source would be usable for the same claim made in an article that wasn't a BLP, then it should be usable in a BLP. For example, if the claim in question was "Pink is also the most-played female solo artist in the United Kingdom during the 21st century" and the source would be usable on an article about airplay in the United Kingdom, then it should also be usable on Pink's biography article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I would agree I was thinking more of not using it to support something like Pink's mother being Jewish, or that she struggles with anxiety and depression. Such details would be outside of their area and they wouldn't be a strong source for such statements. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Game Rant

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I am thinking about using this article from Game Rant as a source in a debate. I don't know if it is reliable though. The general consensus is that Game Rant articles are reliable for things such as general pop culture topics and game information, but I want to be sure. Mk8mlyb (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why this property would be treated any differently than Screen Rant, now under discussion on this board. BD2412 T 18:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

See WP:VALNET for how the video game world is generally going to see using Game Rant as a source. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:VALNET states of Game Rant, "Topics of low potential for controversy such as general pop culture topics or game information are allowable areas." This is similar to Screen Rant. Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Right. But do you think a month-spanning argument you've been engaging with the community in is a "topic of low potential for controversy"? Sergecross73 msg me 19:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Good point. I'm better off using sources that are 100 percent reliable with no controversy whatsoever. Mk8mlyb (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

There was a RFC here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_328#RfC_-_Screen_Rant

^ on the Screen Rant side. If you search there's a few token discussions on Game Rant that kind of end up the same way: fine for general entertainment/culture stuff, not for "big" stuff in terms of like BLP's for anything controversial.

If you want to see what seems to be a reasonable use case for Screen Rant as WP:RS look at the article Spore drive that I made--

Example refs to follow up to what they cite if you click there. Things like that are likely fine for the equivalent sort of Game Rant coverage, I'd imagine. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Sons of the American Revolution and Daughters of the American Revolution

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey I have been working on a wikipedia article about a certain American family, called Draft:Hatfield family. They are notable for the Hatfield–McCoy feud. But they have notable family members with no involvement with the feud and the article on the feud doesn't touch on the overall history and origins of these 2 American families. So I decided to make this article that goes in depth on how these families came to America and why they settled in Tug Fork.(I am planning on writing an article for the McCoy family as well.)

(The article isn't in the best state right now because I am mostly in the stage of collecting sources on this topic.)

When doing research on the Hatfield family, it appears they are related to 2 men who were involved in the American revolution. When doing research on these 2 individuals, I keep stumbling upon Daughters of the American Revolution and Sons of the American Revolution. However, I am not 100% sure these are reliable sources for genealogy or history.

Here is DAR page on Joseph Hatfield. Some information here contradicts reliable sources. For example it says that Joseph didn't have a wife named Elizabeth, he mostly likely did because I saw many genealogy books from historical societies say he did. CycoMa2 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I would not consider either to be a generally reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

To the extent that either organization has articles on its website (e.g. here [10]) I think they're fine resources. However, in the way you're suggesting -- referencing their raw genealogical files -- I think we should treat it better than WP:RSPFINDAGRAVE, but defer to more authoritative sources in almost all cases. A passage like "no evidence he had a wife named Elizabeth" is essentially just a margin note in a WP:PRIMARY. The SAR/DAR genealogical files are compiled primarily for use as pedigree records to to prevent the corruption of the lineage of their membership rosters; they are good as resources for historians conducting original research where information will also be pulled in from other sources that SAR/DAR disallow to create a holistic picture, but information contained within them shouldn't generally just be ported over to our articles unless it's first gone through that filter and appeared in a secondary source. Though, perhaps basic vital statistics like DOB/DOD would be fine where not contradicted by a secondary source. Chetsford (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Myanmar/Rohingya issues: Narinjara News and Development Media Group

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Restarting this since the last thread was archived

Narinjara News and Development Media Group are both media websites aimed towards an ethnic Rakhine audience. They are part of the Burma News International, which is a network of publications that are against the Myanmar State Administration Council junta military. 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 "Bengalis" before the 2021 coup while Narinjara denies many atrocities allegedly committed by AA (unless the ULA/AA spokespeople acknowledge those atrocities. Both organizations mostly softened the Rohingya rhetoric by simply grouping them as "Muslims," but claim that they are safer and more free under ULA/AA rule.

On the other hand, a Rohingya news publication called Kaladan Press is part of BNI, and their Maungdaw report (which I cited in the Arakan Army article) highlights alleged AA war crimes.

While both Narinjara and DMG are probably more reliable than the junta's Global New Light of Myanmar, I am iffy about citing them for most Rohingya-related articles. Any citations about Rohingya issues are about actions by the junta or ARSA.

All in all, can both DMG and Narinjara be cited for topics not related to the Rohingya such as anti-junta victories or affairs in other parts of Myanmar with or without attribution ? If approaching Rohingya issues, should they be cited with attribution or not cited at all? If cited, is a secondary source such as The Irrawaddy, Democratic Voice of Burma, or Myanmar Now also needed to corroborate publications from Narinjara and/or DMG? Battlesnake1 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems an issue with bias, but biased the sources aren't necessarily unreliable (see WP:RSBIAS). Instead the solution is to find other sources that add balance. WP:NEWSORG also has some good advice on using news media, and it's limitations. Judging on a case by case basis and using attribution for the controversial details is probably the way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Global New Light of Myanmar

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

When reviewing the list of perennial sources, I noticed that the Global New Light of Myanmar was not on that list. I was even more surprised that no one else discussed it on the noticeboard. gnlm.com is used on 190+ articles ranging from Burmese history and Japanese gymnasiums to beauty contests and football players. "Global New Light of Myanmar" is used on 300+ articles.

The overarching issue with this source revolves around its ownership by the Ministry of Information. Currently, the official government of Myanmar is the State Administration Council military junta. Aside from wartime propaganda where they denounce rebels as "terrorists," they perpetrated falsehoods that contributed to Rohingya persecution.^[1]

Additionally, their "debunking" of "fake news" mainly consists of denials from military forces, or claiming that the rebels committed the atrocities. Targets include independent media organizations like The Irrawaddy or foreign outlets like Radio Free Asia.^[2] ^[3]

Finally, Myanmar is in the extremely low range for journalistic freedom according to Reporters Without Borders.^[4]

Overall, I view GLNM as a source that is generally unreliable except for uncontroversial matters or attributions of the Burmese junta's POV (if not a source teetering towards deprecation). Battlesnake1 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Fwiw, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Myanmar/Reliable sources page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it's time to update that WP:MYANMAR page too. The media landscape has changed since 2021. I will propose new additions of sites in a few days there.

re: the original question: gnlm should definitely be considered unreliable with the exceptions as mentioned. I do want to note that sometimes junta sources are the only sources available to expand content for certain geostubs- mostly quieter towns that arent covered by the major independent media since most other local independent media exists entirely on facebook. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 09:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

References

^ How state-run media shape perceptions: an analysis of the projection of the Rohingya in the Global New Light of Myanmar Kristina Kironska and Ni-Ni Peng. South East Asia Research. Volume 29 (1). 2021
^ Fact or fiction? Inside the regime’s ‘fact-checking’ team. July 10, 2024. Ye Mon. Frontier Myanmar
^ Myanmar's military weaponizes disinformation against media. April 5, 2024. Deutsche Welle
^ Reporters Without Borders: Asia-Pacific - Myanmar

The Harvard Crimson

Latest comment: 2 months ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Would it be fine to use this article from THC on jschlatt? I don't understand how THC works, so idk if this just a student newspaper, or if this is written by an expert, etc. KnowDeath (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Have you thought of reading the Wikipedia article on The Harvard Crimson? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, no. I guess that since it's run by undergrads, it's not reliable for that article? KnowDeath (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

There are a few discussion on it if you search the archives. The last time I was thinking about using a student newspaper at a more established or arguably reputable venue like this, the general consensus seemed to be "generally ok" but "not the best", and that context is important--so if it was say the MIT equivalent being used as WP:RS about some student or school thing or applicable STEM topics there... probably ok, but not probably not really ok for some sort of hard hitting controversial BLP things, compared to say the Boston Globe. Unless you're planning on working something that will end up on WP:ANI into an article about a Youtuber covering Christmas classics... it's probably ok? I would say no for things like GNG. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I made use of The Harvard Crimson in the (Featured) article on James B. Conant, who was President of Harvard University from 1933 to 1953. I found it to be a reliable source on events at Harvard and the standard of journalism to be of high quality. This is in line with prior discussions and I am in agreement with Very Polite Person. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Since noone has mentioned WP:RSSM yet, I'll do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I would consider them generally reliable for their school and local community, as RSSM says, but I'm not so sure on their use for a random youtuber who doesn't appear to have any connection with Harvard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if the issue here is "reliability" per se, but a music review in a student newspaper is not likely an appropriate source. Articles on signers and other entertainers often discuss critical reactions to their work; these should be sourced to more authoritative critics/publications. More of a due weight issue there. For basic factual information about the creator or the song, THC is likely unreliable since jschlatt has no obvious connection to the school, as has been mentioned. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I once went to a press conference with a well-known musician and it was the student newspaper reporter (probably a music student) who asked all the intelligent questions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

This comes down to a WP:DUE question. It may not be whether the student newspaper can produce a cogent review (although, if it isn't a cogent review it is probably undue) so much as whether such a review is going to matter to a reading audience of an encyclopedia. Is The Harvard Crimson a paper that people with no connection to Harvard are likely to consider important on the question of YouTube performers? Simonm223 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That was my thinking. I've now gone and located the reference (#28 at jschlatt): On November 7, 2024, Schlatt released a cover of the Christmas song "Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town" and announced the beginning of work on his debut Christmas album, A Very 1999 Christmas.^[1]^[2] The statement is already sourced to Dexerto, an entertainment news site, and there is zero need for a second reference for a bland factual statement like this. I see questions have been raised about WP:DEXERTO for "serious journalism" but it's not clear it is improper, or worse than the Crimson, for this. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:02, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I would honestly prefer the Crimson over Dexterto for this.Simonm223 (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure it matters except that the fact no other source has been found again raises the question of the notability of this release. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 13:36, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Jschlatt is notable. Documenting that he did a christmas album as part of his creative output seems due even if it isn't a Billboard chart topper. I'd say use both or use the Crimson for this. Either way it's due a very brief "that happened" sort of inclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I think a somewhat tabloidy publication covering internet culture is probably reliable for a release date and I find the Crimson a more surprising source here, though not to the point I would question the claim. Despite my earlier comment, I think the status quo is fine and I wouldn't push for a change. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

References

^ "JSchlatt's singing voice stuns fans with first single from new Christmas album". Dexerto. 2024-11-07. Retrieved 2025-02-28.
^ Grewal, Anmol K. (November 26, 2024). "Jschlatt's Cover of 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town': Why the Hell Did a YouTuber Release a Christmas Song and Why is it Good?". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved November 30, 2024.

Review It

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hey there, I came across certain articles where this site here was used as reference. So I used in one of the drafts I have submitted recently. Can it be considered reliable? Should it be considered a part of my articles for future purposes? Let me know regarding this confusion cause I believe it to be a reliable source in context of television shows. Reshmaaaa (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't find anything about it, how it's run, by who, nor can I find any use by others. Articles about living people in particular should use high quality sources, this doesn't seem to be one of those. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @ActivelyDisinterested for taking out time and address my concerns. Can it be used with respect to television dramas and soap operas. Not that it's a high quality support, but can it be considered as a reliable source? Following are the few examples:

[11] — This one pertains to a review of a TV show.
[12] — This one relates to a release of Pakistani film.
[13] — This one pertains to an interview of a TV actor expressing his personal views.

What's your take on the above? Reshmaaaa (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Considering it's a WordPress site and the contact info goes to a gmail account it appears to be an amateur WP:BLOG. Absolutely cannot be used for WP:BLP and I would say it's not really useful for anything else either. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, Noted for future compliance. Thanks @Simonm223 Reshmaaaa (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

LiveMint for the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict

Latest comment: 2 months ago166 comments23 people in discussion

There have been disputes at the above page regarding the reliability of LiveMint for covering the conflict. In 2020 RS/N found the outlet to be generally reliable although some editors expressed concern about international reporting stemming from its broad and undisclosed use of syndicated feeds. However the reliability has been questioned by some editors now on the basis that LiveMint is closely aligned with the Modi regime and cannot be trusted for accurate reportage of an in-process military conflict involving India. LiveMint's parent, Hindustan Times has been identified by WP:NEWSORGINDIA as an example of an outlet that has undisclosed paid reporting however LiveMint is not mentioned by name in that document. Bias in an otherwise reliable source is not cause to treat a source as unreliable but undisclosed paid reporting certainly is cause to treat it as unreliable, as would be factually inaccurate statements involving Indian foreign relations, if they exist.

I felt this particular outlet was questionable enough that a reasonable course of action would be to get a sounding from RS/N about it. I should note that I don't currently have a strong opinion either way on this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Totally unreliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. HT media owns both Hindustan Times and LiveMint and is known for colluding with the Modi government.[14] (archive link) It is just another Godi media outlet. Orientls (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

There are broader issues with this source. Yes it is unreliable for the conflict, and even outside this conflict, one will have to be very careful with using this source given the various instances where it has published false claims and disinformation,[15][16][17] and also used misleading headlines.[18] Wareon (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Note - Both the above users have attempted to discredit this source in other discussions using rationale that are completely unsupported by WP policy - Namely, by declaring sources to be "Godi Media" ^[a] and then arguing that such a characterization makes them unreliable by default. Inspite of being informed that such a rationale (using user-assigned labels to declare sources unreliable) was not in line with WP policy, one of the the editors has repeated the same rationale above. The other editor has produced some examples that, contrary to their characterisation, show that LiveMint is less likely to publish false news, with [19] showing an example of reliable reporting where other media omitted relevant information. [20] was an op-ed, and [21] is for an instance where Reuters-published false information was reproduced by other media. None of these is by any stretch a valid reason to call it "unreliable".

I'll be adding a longer response here in some time, but found it necessary to add this context for now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Please focus on content. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I accept that I could have probably reworded in a way that avoided mentioning editor conduct, but the points raised are still valid. There's been an lot of arguments used by editors to classify sources arbitrarily as "unreliable", arguments that have no basis in WP policy. The second portion regarding specific sources is also relevant. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree that references to "Godi Media" are, at best, unproductive. Simonm223 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't use LiveMint much since I prefer print newspapers. But I haven't found any serious problems with LiveMint on the occassions where I had to use them. Wareon's comment is trying to hang LiveMint for putting out ANI/PTI/Reuters news releases. Practically all news outlets do that, perhaps some more than the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORGINDIA primarily relates to overly promotional material for individuals and companies, rather than overt bias in politics. If anyone can show they are posting paid propaganda from the Indian government then they would be entirely unusable, but I don't think that is shown by past discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you know I don't like over-using news sources much. As such I'm a bit of a hanging-judge when it comes to news source reliability and I find the ambiguity about who is paying a news organization to write its content troubling. As I said at article talk the reason I consider NEWSORGINDIA relevant to HT in this context is precisely because we don't know if they've been paid to post propaganda. In fact, in this regard, I kind of trust outright state media more because that ambiguity is resolved and we can, at least, understand where their positions are coming from. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You would need to proof separately that it applies to political matters as well as what has been previously discussed, using NEWSORGINDIA to completely block the source isn't appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I believe that Hanlon's razor applies. I have found that the more I know about a subject the worse the media look, which suggests ignorance and laziness rather than bias. Of course, that does not rule out bias as an additional factor. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

And, again, bias should not be our concern here but rather reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

General comments: Hindustan Times and Mint are among the better news sources in India, which is not to say that they are free from issues that plague Indian media or that have not or cannot be incentivized/pressurized. But I would suggest discounting any editor who throws around the term "Godi media" for these news organizations willy nilly, since that's more name-calling than argument, especially since for the recent Indo-Pak conflict the flaws in Indian media reporting are likely more a result of nationalism than political partisanship. For similar reasons, WP:NEWSORGINDIA is unlikely to play a role here.

That said, the Indian and Pakistan media's coverage of the conflict has been pretty flawed and should be handled carefully. For example, by checking if the reports are based on government/military statements or named experts, which then should be attributed appropriately as their claims; the publication's own on-the-ground reporting; or, just mere assertions, either unattributed or attributed to generic "sources", which should be deeply discounted or even ignored.

In order to enable such an analysis, can someone point to the specific HT and Mint articles whose reliability is to be evaluated and what they are being cited for? Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know, Indian english digital media hasn't published inaccurate stories other than one instance [22] from The Hindu, which was later deleted. However can't say the same for Indian broadcasting media, they were indeed found in serialising poor updates but we are not even citing them to begin with. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

HT has been cited more than 20,000 times. If you wish to challenge this source as unreliable, the first step should be starting an RfC at WP:RSN. Given there are no major instances of misinformation by it, I'm not sure how you intend to justify declaring the source as unreliable or deprecated. Al Jazeera, in comparison, has been caught publishing more fake news [23], yet that alone hasn't been enough to label it an unreliable source. I've already explained on that sources can have a WP:PARTISAN point of view, and it's not up to us to start a CNN vs Fox or right vs left kind of debate. Claiming it leans toward the 'Modi regime' is a weak argument, especially when the other source leans toward the "Qatar monarchy" and effectively acts as its mouthpiece. I've asked Orientls and Wareon to present their case at RSN and establish a consensus as to why these sources should not be used. The WP:BURDEN lies on them and anyone who wants to remove thousands of citations from a widely used outlet. Again, 'Godi media' is not any metric for dismissing reliable sources. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment - This section has been titled LiveMint for the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict. So can the comments be restricted to that source please? It is owned by HT Media, which is not the same as Hindustan Times. Hindustan Times is not under discussion here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, but HT Media owns both, and it would be unusual for two parts of the same media empire to have widely differing biases, especially in Indian media. Having said that, we need evidence that LiveMint has a BJP/Modi bias and some evidence of unreliability before this discussion can go anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes. And fwiw, the industrialist family/group that ultimately controls the two publications has traditionally been closer to the Congress (I) party rather than the BJP. See for example, Christophe Jaffrelot's India's first dictatorship in which the he discusses Indira Gandhi's links to K. K. Birla; the latter even wrote a book in memory of the former. Although even then, HT's slant was more nuanced than being a Congress party mouthpiece; see for example this column by Inder Malhotra.

In short, we should stop painting with a broad brush and actually examine the particular articles and claims they are being cited for. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare and Black Kite: I have already provided a report from The Wire showing how one of the editors of Hindustan Times (HT) had to leave after the outlet got the calls from Modi government over the coverage of 2016 Indian Line of Control strike, which is also a part of India-Pakistan conflict.

Here is a report from The Caravan which said that the things for HT "changed by September 2016, when the government was trumpeting its disputed “surgical strikes” against targets in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. That, the former executive said, was when Bhartia began receiving calls from the prime minister’s office and Amit Shah." It adds "a leading newsroom role told me. “Ministers did not like Bobby very much, and half the job of the editor of the Hindustan Times is to court ministers. He upset people like Smriti Irani”—the minister of information and broadcasting at the time—“and these ministers were complaining to the PMO”—the prime minister’s office."

It is also addressing the last points of Abecedare by saying: “While the other regimes asked for reasonable restraint, this regime asks for absolute restraint,” the editor who spent years in the editorial leadership said.

As for LiveMint, it frequently published the false claim that India had downed F-16 during 2019 Balakot airstrike.[24][25] Sources on the Balakot strike article shows how this claim was false.[26][27] HT even published a dubious report[28] claiming that the Foreign Policy magazine making a false claiming by publishing this report. This report on "US government’s position" couldn't be supported by any third-party sources. Instead of questioning the Modi government, HT and LiveMint were instead finding ways to repeat their false claims. Orientls (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Orientls: Thanks for the link to the Caravan article. I am not surprised that HT/Mint are pressurized by the government as are other media in India (and, unfortunately, now in US), and therefore such sources need to be treated with care. I have thoughts about the previous HT/Mint reporting you link to but since they are not of current interest, can you please provide the links to the specific articles currently under dispute and what claims they are being cited for? Afaict, that hasn't been mentioned in this RSN discussion. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Abecedare: We are here discussing whether HT and LiveMint are reliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. Their reporting of the other recent conflicts absolutely matters. Even during this conflict, they have engaged in promoting the agenda of pro-Modi government as it can be seen with this random article where is using biased terms like "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK)", added a totally false claim that the "operation saw the deployment of air, naval, and ground forces, making it India’s largest cross-border precision strike since the 2019 Balakot airstrike". It added "attackers were reportedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group", but provided no subsequent rejection by the group and is providing "the list of nine terror facility locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir that have been successfully neutralised" without attributing it as just a claim from the Indian government. This is the problem with all of the articles of HT and LiveMint.Orientls (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The term "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" is widely used in India, and many scholars have analysed the issues behind it. "Air, naval and ground forces" were deployed, and that is a fact. What is false here? "Reportedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba" is enough hedging for a newspaper to use, in my view. They might have made an own judgement but didn't state it as a proven fact. Quite acceptable. If TRF's claim was mentioned and retraction was not mentioned, you might have some basis to question it. Even then it is up to the source to decide how much weight is to be placed on the original claim and how much weight for the later retraction. Plenty of RS have ignored the later retraction. Manoj Joshi commented on an international video debate that, having faced almost universal oppobrium, it was not unusual for the organisation to have retracted it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It's a standard practice of terrorist organizations involved in India Pakistan conflict to retract when things get too serious this happened after Pulwama also.

Regarding terror infrastructure beign hit, well in this case HT and livemeint is reporting what GoI is saying at the very best we could say that these sources should be used with caution that's it. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The first two links (numbered [78] and [79]) are syndicated columns from ANI, and cannot be attributed to Mint. The third one (numbered [82]) was reporting on an official statement from the Pentagon, which I am sure every Indian newspaper would have reported. How do these examples prove anything? Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

General media reliability of news sources should not be assessed based on their coverage of conflicts in which their home market is directly involved, otherwise cases of NYT-WMD-Iraq abound. For Indian news sources (and generally as well) this scale serves as a helpful guide from low to high reliability: Broadcast (TV and radio, the former is where the "Godi media" label originated for and is still mostly applied to, radio news in India is under state monopoly); Websites (unless otherwise known to be notable/reliable non-notable sites should be avoided, I would apply this to the websites of newspapers and magazines and where if the need is still felt to use them we should look for bylines et. al. and even then prefer the print versions of those articles); Print newspapers/magazines (which are generally the most reliable news sources in India).

Mint falls in the last of these and to discount it as RS, we would need to show a sustained pattern of unreliable coverage which I believe hasn't been shown (instances here and there of online fake news shouldn't really affect its general reliability). Hindustan Times (which owns Mint) is a legacy Indian newspaper (along with others such as The Times of India) which is widely used on enwiki and a much higher bar would be needed to discount it and subsidiaries overall. Though it has been known to have aligned with various governments at times due to pressures or otherwise this doesn't affect it overall reliability; we can on a case-by-case basis discount articles where unreliability has been shown.

Press freedom in India is a concern but that does not mean we use that as a cudgel to bar all Indian news sources, we don't do this for any country. Of course for conflict articles we prefer academic, non-involved, and in-depth RS but that isn't a say on the general reliability of sources from countries with limited press freedom (which are nonetheless suspect of government parroting and nationalism). News sources in the end are the bottom end of RS, when the fog of war here clears for this conflict and [uninvolved] academic sources become available the article should be in a much better shape. Gotitbro (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, except to add that the news websites attached to newspapers/magazines cannot be expected to be of the same standard as the print newspapers. LiveMint falls in that grey area. So does the India Today website. The corresponding print publications are of high quality. But the websites are not. That means that some of their content is questionable, but not all. What I generally do is to look for corroborating information from other sources and use them in conjunction with the others.

Websites attached to TV channels. e.g/. News18 or NDTV, should be treated on par with the TV channels. They seem to have the same editorial policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I say as much above "I would apply this to the websites of newspapers and magazines and where if the need is still felt to use them we should look for bylines et. al. and even then [meant wherever possible] prefer the print versions of those articles". Gotitbro (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

These are unreliable Indian media sources that report the claims made by the BJP government as truth. They are mouthpieces of the Indian state engaging in misinformation campaigns like they have done in the past; Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. They should not be used for neutral analysis in this conflict, third party sources are the only thing we can cite here. The objections to use of the term "Godi media" are also unfounded given India ranks at the very lower ranks of press freedom despite being a democracy, these biased indian print and newspapers are actively functioning as mouthpieces of a certain political party that has much to gain from this conflict; (e.g swaying Bihar elections with nationalist rhetoric). Shankargb (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

for what it worth Livemint should only be considered for business reportage cause that's their main area of focus. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Notes

^ The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.

Reliability of Indian media sources in 2025 India–Pakistan conflict coverage

In light of the New York Times report titled How the Indian Media Amplified Falsehoods in the Drumbeat of War, which discusses misinformation and bias in Indian media coverage during the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, can we assess the reliability of Indian media sources in this context? Specifically, should certain outlets be considered questionable or unreliable for coverage related to India–Pakistan military tensions? If so, should they be listed at WP:RSP with appropriate context? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

NYT seems to be referring to the Indian sources that are often described as Godi media. Yes they are not reliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. I would urge you to merge your thread with the one already opened above at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LiveMint for the 2025_India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
That thread appears to focus specifically on LiveMint, whereas the New York Times article addresses a broader range of outlets. Some editors are attempting to include information from Indian sources that is either not fully corroborated by third-party sources or is contradicted by them. I need to clarify my own thinking on this as well—should we prefer third-party sources over Indian sources when covering the India–Pakistan conflict, particularly in cases where third-party reporting either does not support or directly contradicts Indian media claims? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
There is also a discussion immediately above regarding the use of LiveMint on that very page. See WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LiveMint_for_the_2025_India-Pakistan_conflict Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown: Yes that thread is about Hindustan Times and LiveMint, however the dynamics are the same. I am sure that discussion will benefit if you convert this thread into the sub-thread of the former.

Yes, Indian media sources cannot be used for anything other than stating the position of the Indian government in the India-Pakistan conflict. Whatever has been corroborated by the third party sources should be given more weight. Orientls (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with this, but some editors are promoting the view that Indian media sources—currently considered reliable and not listed as questionable or unreliable at WP:RSP—should be treated on par with third-party sources such as The Guardian. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes that kind of comparison is totally misleading. The Guardian is a reliable third party source for this conflict. Shankargb (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Orientls is correct. This particular New York Times article is of little value for us since it doesn't name the sources it is complaining about, but statements like this: "Some well-known TV networks aired unverified information or even fabricated stories amid the burst of nationalistic fervor" suggest that it is mainly complaining about TV channels. The Economist was more honest in pinpointing "India's broadcast media". We rarely ever cite TV programmes for anything. Even when we do, perhaps via their associated websites, they have long been flagged up as unreliable sources even outside this topic area. The Godi media page itself is an example of this. There is nothing new for us here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
This has been raised multiple times on the Talk page of the concerned article and shot down. As I point out above, and as have other editors on that very Talk page, we simply do not blanket ban sources just because they come from particular countries. Yes we tend to prefer those from uninvolved parties for conflict-related articles but since this is an RS issue, particular sources will have to be taken up on a case by case basis. The original attempt (and here still) to bar Indian sources but to still make way for Pakistani sources [claiming that the latter are reliable simply on accord of not having been brought up RSN is also very partial] (the pressures of the government/military on news media in these countries are not exactly unknown). Indian TV news media, what the term Godi media is meant for and what recent articles about the conflict highlight, should not be genericised for all Indian media (PS: we already barely tend to use Indian TV news media in our articles on account of the same). Gotitbro (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you think of any Indian media outlet which is capable of questioning the Modi government over their exceptional claims about their own involvement in the India-Pakistan conflict? If you know any, then just show their relevant article here. Orientls (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
That (sources critical of governments) is not something that determines or has ever determined RS, factual reporting is the criteria for news media. For the implication see my above comments about press freedom in the Mint thread above. There is not a dearth of news media, including mainstream, which is regularly critical of the government in India and can be easily listed here but that is not relevant to our discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors have been arrested for editing the Sambhaji wiki page. Of course the media can't question the narrative without risking hard time. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note I don’t understand why discussions about controversial topics related to India on Wikipedia always bring up past debates. There are suggestions for a blanket ban on Indian sources, and some people on the ANI talk page have even proposed that Wikipedia should block access from India altogether. Neither of these ideas aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines, whether it's a blanket ban or blocking Wikipedia in India. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest that all Indian and Pakistani sources be barred from being used in the context of WP:CT/IPA. While both sides media has outlets that are considered generally reliable, these outlets assume a view that heavily supports their own governments agenda during their conflicts with Pakistan/China, as well as on any controversial subject. An exception can be made for all of these sources so that they are considered generally unreliable in controversial topics. Ecrusized (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This whole RfC would be slightly mnore convincing if the OP themself didn't use edit summaries such as Pakistani source supporting Pakistani claim, what’s wrong with that. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I've said this on the talk page and I'll say it here, I don't support this blanket ban unless the same standard is applied to every conflict page on Wikipedia starting from USA waged wars or conflicts. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

You are not making any sense with that false equivalence. Read about World Press Freedom Index, and see how Pakistan and India have a poor ranking there. The ranking of the US in press freedom is many times better. Orientls (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I can't remember a few fake and unverified news circulated by Indian digital media during this India-Pakistan conflict. It's baseless to put such a proposal. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That's misleading. OpIndia, FirstPost and more Indian digital media outlets are frequently spreading fake news. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I would support banning both Indian and Pakistani sources, but we should not use RSN to take sides. So would oppose any ban on just Indian sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That wouldn't make sense, a blind carpet ban is unnecessary. Point out the sources and we can specifically discuss their credibility. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

First you need to point out which Indian publications can be trusted for the India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

As I've said WE do not take sides, so we cannot blanket ban all Indian media, yet allow Pakistan's media. So we ban both or niether. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't support blanket ban we could discuss individual sources though. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It already exists for many years. The Indian and Pakistani publications can be used only for stating their own government's position in the India-Pakistan conflict. If you want to specifically discuss any source, then you should first point out which source from India is capable of questioning the claims and actions of the Indian government over the recent military conflict? Orientls (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No such broad consensus exists or has existed for India-Pakistan conflict articles. We tend to go for 3PARTY in conflict articles and that is what the local agreement for the 2019 Balakot airstrike was limited to. Gotitbro (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

That broad consensus exists since the Balakot strike dispute and has also been followed on the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict page as well. That's why this thread was opened because some editors are now refusing to comply with that long-term standard but not telling why. You are also not providing any Indian news publishers who can be termed reliable as a whole for the India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Rather than repeatedly claiming a broad consensus exists why not link that broad consensus here then. You won't be able to though as none has ever existed. The only broad consensus that emerged in India-Pakistan articles post 2019 was for handling Kashmir related leads and infoboxes. No such discussion blanket banning domestic sources has taken place, beyond ad-hoc handling of those sources on particular articles (that includes Balakot and the recent conflict).
I think others here have already shown those RS, though the burden is on those asking for blanket banning of sources for which no precedence exists. Gotitbro (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

From claiming "local agreement for the 2019 Balakot airstrike was limited to" you have expanded the scope to "consensus that emerged in India-Pakistan articles post 2019 was for handling Kashmir related leads and infoboxes". That is actually self-explanatory and is only proving my point that there has been consensus not to use Indian media sources for anything more than the position of the Indian government in this conflict. There have been many discussions throughout the recent years to confirm this standard.[29][30][31][32][33] Which part of those discussions makes you think that their scope was limited? Nobody including you has provided any Indian news publishers that can be termed reliable as a whole for the India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Go through your links and tell me where does the consensus extend beyond the Balakot page (even that page does not outright bar local sources). You are clearly not familiar with WP:INB discussions, where the Kashmir consensus emerged, I am saying that is the only broad consensus which emerged post-Balakot and 370 revocation. Repeatedly asserting something exists when it doesn't is not tenable. Advocating for nebulous blanket bans is not something we do or have done. Editor discretion exists, and that is how we will continue doing things. This discussion is now going around in circles and I would like to rest my case. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Those links do not concern only the discussions from 2019 Balakot airstrike, but also 2019_India–Pakistan_border_skirmishes and 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. It is clear you haven't checked those links. There are actually more given the consensus on Surgical strike was also no different. Orientls (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The former is a part of Balakot, local understandings on specific articles for generally not using involved sources is not the same as a bar on those sources nor is any broad consensus ensued from these. You need to understand how Wikipedia:BROADCONSENSUS is made rather than badgering the same points ad infinitum. I did not and do not want to continue this but please do not misrepresent discussions. I will let other editors comment on this

Though if a wide consensus existed there would be no need for this discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting those discussions by limiting their scope to just a single 2019 Balakot strike article when they concern articles across wikipedia over India-Pakistan conflict of the recent years. This discussion is happening because one editor was claiming that LiveMint and HT are reliable for this conflict. He has already been proven wrong above. Now some participants in this thread are misrepresenting the purpose of this discussion by claiming to have intended a blanket ban on Indian sources. Orientls (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Ecrusized and Slater say exactly that (bar on all Indian and Pakistani sources from the conflict), you say a consensus already exists for it (it doesn't).

A broad consensus has to be explicitly sought and applied, can't be willy nilly extracted and claimed to exist from limited historical dicussion on singular articles (after all Indo-Pakistani sources aren't entirely barred from the Balakot article as well). HT and Mint are RS (whether we use them for this conflict due to being from an invovled party is another matter).

This dicussion is ultimately futile if no end goal is even set for it. Is the purpose to treat sources from involved parties as suspect (we already do), is the purpose to rely on international sources and limit local sources to claims (we also largely do that). These are things that basic editorial judgment and discretion provides for in conflict editing.

But a total bar on domestic RS is something that is not happening or has ever happened, they can be essential when reporting on local deaths, destruction, false claims, and other essential things not reported by the international media. How and when to use them and if they are due is upto editorial discretion. We are not going to throw the entire wiki process away because of a 4-day conflict. We have not done this for Israeli sources for the Gaza war or Russian sources for the Ukraine invasion (yes we limit them and we would do the same here but a bar or nebulous RSP labelling is not happening). Gotitbro (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Consensus exists for barring Indian and Pakistani sources for the India-Pakistan conflict. That's why you are not allowed to use them on any of the pages that I have linked.

You keep bringing up Russia and Ukraine yet you have frequently failed to answer the questions below about it, same way you have also failed to answer the question "Can you think of any Indian media outlet which is capable of questioning the Modi government over their exceptional claims about their own involvement in the India-Pakistan conflict?" Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

limiting their scope

No one here is limiting anything. I can't speak for other editors here but I for one just don't agree with you so the question of limiting their scope doesn't even arise for me. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

That sentence was meant for another editor, so if you cannot "speak for other editors" then simply don't make these unhelpful responses. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: It seems you are misleading the other editors here. In 2021, you were against Indian media sources so much that you believed "they shouldn't even be in the body"[34] on the article like 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes even though I was only using Indian media sources as representative of Indian claims. You wanted only "an official press release from the Indian Army"[35] to be used for Indian military claims and removed the Indian claims supported by Indian media.[36] What made you supportive of Indian media outlets all of now? I would like to hear a proper explanation. Shankargb (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
You are bungling uo two different issues here. That discussion was about using unnamed sources and portraying them as official Indian claims in the infobox and body which is obviously a no go. This dicussion is about blanket banning Indian news sources. Simply not the same thing. Gotitbro (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

A source does not become unreliable only because it is citing unnamed source. You are only confirming your distrust over the Indian media sources that they used unnamed sources and portrayed them as official Indian claims. You are in fact taking a more extreme position than those who still allow using Indian media sources for the official stance of the Indian government. Seeing the rest of the messages of yours, you are just contradicting yourself. Orientls (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
There should be no ban on Indian or Pakistani sources as long as they're in WP:RSP and please don't put words in other editors mouth if they're saying that they don't want a blanket ban then accept that instead of misrepresenting what they've said previously. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting this discussion as a whole. The above discussion is about why a user who evidently distrusted Indian media sources and won't use it for stating even for the stand of the Indian military is now opposing the factually strong objections to the use of Indian and Pakistani sources on India-Pakistan conflict. Nobody is asking for a total ban on Indian and Pakistani sources but only for this particular subject. Orientls (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Nobody is asking for a total ban on Indian and Pakistani sources but only for this particular subject.

Well that's a climb down. But still no as long as sources are in WP:RSP they will be used there should not be a blanket ban.

You are misrepresenting this discussion as a whole. The above discussion is about why a user who evidently distrusted Indian media sources and won't use it for stating even for the stand of the Indian military is now opposing the factually strong objections to the use of Indian and Pakistani sources on India-Pakistan conflict

I was making a very narrow argument that since the editor has said that they don't want a blanket ban that should've been then end of the matter but you took it further in anycase I won't comment on it since at this point it's relevant to the issue at hand. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Orientls, It is not clear what you are saying. Gotitbro was just pointing out that Shankargb misrepresented a previous discussion which was about the validity of a particular source as representing the Indian government position. That discussion had nothing to do with reliability of any source. We are just getting tangled up with too many irrelevant issues. This particular subthread here is all bunkum. It is best to ignore it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Gotitbro said "Discuss here if they should be in the "article body" (infobox is a clear no go for unofficial media claims), and I think they shouldn't even be in the body because unnamed and no international media has reported on them." This completely contradicts your falsification of the dispute that the "previous discussion which was about the validity of a particular source as representing the Indian government position." The difference between "media claims" and "a particular source" is huge. Now look at the page history, there was no discussion over a "particular source" but Indian media sources that Gotitbro was removing as clear here but had to later stick to them.[37] Orientls (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I suppose he meant "because [of] unnamed [sources] and no international media has reported on them", which suggests that for that particular factoid based on unnamed sources, he would have accepted it if international media had reported on them. That simply means that he would give international media sufficient WP:WEIGHT for accepting the apparently contentious claim being made there. There is nothing unusual here. We all give higher weight to international media. All of you would benefit from carefully contemplating what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says:

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.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

These admonitions nowhere suggest applying a brute force black-and-white evaluaiton like "yes, that is a reliable source" and "no, that is not a reliable source". Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

If you agree that you are supposed to give more weight to the reliable international sources which are not Indian or Pakistani publications in this conflict, then what is making you disagree over the standard that we must use them only for stating the position of their own governments in the India-Pakistan conflict? Orientls (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Becuase international media have only limited resources in the subject countries, just a handful of reporters, if that, for the huge geographies concerned. The local media would have reporters in every part of the country. What they claim about what had happened or not happened is much more reliable. The international media also write primarily for their domestic audience, and don't have an abiding interest to follow up on uncertain happenings. In this particular conflict, when major escalation happened on the intervening night of 9-10 May, most international media were having a weekend. They just came back the next morning and wrote about the ceasefire from their headquarters. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You are missing my point, my argument is that almost all of the Indian media promotes the indian narrative of the conflict and reiterates anything the government says. The collusion between Indian media and the state is well known (see our article on Godi media), so is their history of undisclosed paid coverage (see the guidance at WP:NEWSORGINDIA). These sources are unusable for anything other than what the Indian government says. For my point on press freedom, try finding a source that reports that India lost 3 jets including a Rafale (like the actual independent sources have reported) and criticises the government over it, hell try finding Indian media sources that even report that India lost jets! Orientls (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The first and most important check on reliable sources is meant to be editors own good judgement. Is a source offering a obviously biased view of a situation? Then maybe you need to find other sources to balance out the situation. Intext attribution can also help, make sure claims and positions are stated as such - especially in situations where the actual facts are clouded or contested. Editors who can't edit in a balanced way should try taking a brake and editing a different are for awhile, there are always other editors who can take up the slack. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
My opinions more or less. Even if a proposal wasnt about a one-way ban, a blanket ban on media based on nation of origin is pretty hard to justify. If there are sources that are peddling misinfo, they can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
I am quite opposed to a blanket ban of any kind. The Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS etc. are more than enough to take care of disparity in the sources. Reliability mainly depends on a source's long-term conduct. It can't be applied willy-nilly on a topic by topic basis. I also wonder why only one side is asking for a ban of the sources on the other side. It is all fishy to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

If you don't want to maintain such a prohibition then you should first cite the Indian media sources that are questioning the handling of the Modi government of this recent conflict like the rest of the world has done. Who is that only one side that is asking for a ban of the sources on the other side? Asking because it looks nothing more than baseless aspersion. Orientls (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Because the NYT article cited at the beginning mentions only one side as being problematic in handling the facts during this conflict. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Did it mention any source we regard as WP:RS? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

It raises a gigantic question mark on the reliability of Indian media and sources as a whole. That is why we are requesting that they not be cited in conflict-related articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

We do not blanket ban sources. Editor judgment for any conflict would be: prefer third party sources and use reliable domestic sources only when no alternative exists for the info sought to be included (which though ultimately may or may not be due). Judgment also tells us to avoid broadcast media and random websites (I see that you cited Samaa TV in one of your edits, and replaced it with an unknown Azerbaijani website calibre.az in another saying it is third-party; though Azerbaijan appears to be directly involved in this conflict and of course unvetted websites are always a no go); better just cite known [Pakistani] print media.

Russian invasion of Ukraine and Gaza war which are much larger and significant than this relatively minor [border] skirmish have not lead us to blanket ban domestic sources from the parties involved, even though their issues are far more widely covered and known (media coverage of the Gaza war and media portrayal of the Russo-Ukrainian War). We are not going to do break precedent here based on a single news report.

PS: Another issue with seemingly only relying on 3PARTY sources is the determination of what sources are truly independent of a conflict (as shown by the Azerbaijan example above). That is to be left to editors but no source comes without bias. Ultimately we need to rely on academic sources. Gotitbro (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Gotitbro: Can you name some Russia-based outlets that are used in the Russia-Ukraine conflict articles in an unbiased manner? Wareon (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to visit the articles of the Gaza conflict and the Russo Ukrainian war to see the usage of RS from either side. That is not what this discussion is about though, a blanket ban is being proposed here which is what I point out has no precedent and is unlikely to materialize here. Gotitbro (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I did not propose a blanket ban; I intentionally left the question open-ended for neutral, uninvolved editors—those not regularly editing the article—to consider the matter, so that we could take a broader perspective. This was precisely why I refrained from giving my own opinion. However, the discussion was steered in a particular direction by involved parties. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You are simply confirming that you cannot name any Russia-based outlets that are used in the Russia-Ukraine conflict articles in an unbiased manner. There should be no use of Indian or Pakistani based sources in an unbiased manner on their conflict pages. Wareon (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to drive this discussion in a tangent; Israeli, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian sources are all used in their related conflicts when and where necessary. Obviously we rely on international media and obviously we attribute wherever necessary. We already suspect sources from involved parties (basic editorial discretion). This discussion is a nothingburger with no end goal. Gotitbro (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Then don't make false claims about the conflicts and their handling on Wikipedia when you are not able to back up your claims. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Russo-Ukraine conflict is irrelevant here you're drawing unnecessary analogy. Both India and Pakistan are relatively free compared to Russia or Ukraine you can't put them in one basket. Also come to think of it there are countless Ukrainian sources beign used so go remove them first.

this ban you're proposing cannot be supported. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Gotitbro is creating that analogy and failing to back it up. I am not proposing deletion of Ukrainian sources. Free in which sense? Press freedom? Ukraine has a far better press freedom ranking than India and Pakistan. It ranked #62 at World Press Freedom Index while India ranked at #151. You must stop falsifying my words, and also stop presenting false claims. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Ukraine is under martial law. There are lots of things that Ukrainian press can't report most of the Ukrainian press coverage of war has been pretty biased DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown says the New York Times article raises a question mark over the "Indian media as a whole". Such a phrase doesn't appear in the NYT article. The examples cited are all TV networks: India Today TV, Aaj Tak and News18. The terms "television" or "TV" appear 8 times in the article. No print newspaper has been mentioned. None of the example pieces of misinformation appeared in any print newspaper. And, the article also praises the tremendous work done by Alt News and "Some small independent online news publications". Sumitra Badrinathan, the scholar quoted there, also talked to South China Morning Post, which focuses entirely on television and social media, and cites both Indian and Pakistani instances of misinformation. The "previously credible journalists" is apparently a reference to Barkha Dutt, whose tweet has now been deleted. None of these matter to Wikipedia because we never cite tweets and rarely ever cite any television news. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Why cite websites operated by the same TV channels mentioned? If these channels spread fake news on air, how can their associated websites be considered reliable? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
Ideally, we shouldn't cite their websites either. I made a pass on a couple of sections yesterday, removing some of these websites. I also tagged Samaa TV website, which you apparently reverted! You remember this, right? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
@Kautilya3 Did the NYT article specifically mention Samaa TV or the Pakistani media as a whole as having spread fake news? Samaa TV was used to cite a claim made by the Pakistani government. Many editors here have pointed out that it is acceptable to cite sources from respective countries to support their own government's claims. You were tagging Samaa TV while retaining India Today and The Indian Express, and using them to support neutral claims rather than claims made by the Indian government. This kind of double standard should be avoided. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
We don't need NYT article to decide the quality of sources, do we? I would prefer if all TV sources are removed in a contentious topic. Surely you can find better quality sources for the claim made? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

We tend to avoid broadcast media when better print sources are available, this is not something unique to this conflict that is standard determination of RS. Rather than Samaa, Geo, Ary etc. better cite Dawn, Tribune or TNI and other known print media from Pakistan. Gotitbro (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Note It would appear that editors who have Indian flags on their user pages, as well as those whose account contributions are entirely focused on editing Indian-Pakistani conflict, and other subjects related to India have arrived in this discussion to oppose the ban on Indian media outlets. Respectfully, I don't think these users should be allowed to comment on this since they are evidently biased towards their own country/government.

I am yet to see a single editor so far, who is not Indian that has supported using Indian media sources. I also want to add that I am neither Indian nor Pakistani, nor have I ever been to one of these countries in my life, nor do I ever intend to visit them... I believe both countries media should be barred from being used in this topic. (I am pointing out that I am not from this region because I've had baseless accusations made by some Indian editors against me who have accused of being Pakistani). Ecrusized (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

First and last warning to all future posters. Singling out other editors based on there ethnicity or nationality has a name, and it's not acceptable. Additionally discussion of any editors behaviour is not appropriate on this noticeboard. Disruptive editors should be deleted with by the normal methods regardless of where they come from, see WP: DISRUPTIVE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your comment is quite clearly violative of Wikipedia:PERSONALATTACK. No we don't care what your nationality is nor whether you have travelled to or are connected to the countries you wish to edit content about. For someone who has been here for years such a comment is beyond the pale. And for someone who is focused on conflict-related articles, why does no precedent exist from other conflicts for something that you propose here (blanket ban on domestic media); it is because that is not simply something we do. Editor judgment based on policies and guidelines to determine RS is what we rely on and this board exists to determine other contentious cases. If these are to be thrown out the window, might as well do away with the entire wiki project. Gotitbro (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I have tried to rephrase this the best way I can. What I'm trying to point out is WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST. Ecrusized (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

This is not what conflict of interest is about, not even close. See WP:NOTCOI, being from a place is not a conflict of interest in articles about that place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

No, it isn't a conflict of interest. At all. Remotely. What you are doing is Singling out other editors based on [their] ethnicity or nationality, it does indeed [have] a name, and that name is "racism". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Man don't do this at this point you're beign rude I don't throw the "r" word around casually but it seems you want to earn it. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

In the context of that conflict it is very unlikely that anything reported only in the press in a participant country can be relied on, but in general we shouldn't ban completely sources from any country. Even if all current sources are suspect, there remains the possibilty that someone may start a better source except in the most totalitarian countries. I doubt that we would see such calls for a blanket ban if we were talking about a European country. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: That was not the original question, but "can we assess the reliability of Indian media sources in this context? Specifically, should certain outlets be considered questionable or unreliable for coverage related to India–Pakistan military tensions? If so, should they be listed at WP:RSP with appropriate context?" Reading it as demand for a "blanket ban" is a misreading of the question. Wareon (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't buy your reasoning I'm of the opinion that this whole thread is about instituting a blanket ban but you're entitiled to your opinion.

can we assess the reliability of Indian media sources in this context? Specifically, should certain outlets be considered questionable or unreliable for coverage related to India–Pakistan military tensions? If so, should they be listed at WP:RSP with appropriate context?

The answer to this is WP:RSP itself if there are Indian and Pakistani sources listed there then they should be used also one must keep in mind that in an conflict the information flow is very rapid maybe some Indian or Pakistani sources listed at WP:RSP had reported misinformation but that shouldn't be used as a cudgel to throw them out outlets like The Hindu ,The Indian Express, The Wire and many more tend to be very transparent regarding problem in their stories. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Like I said, that is a misreading of the actual question asked on the thread. It did not propose "blanket ban".

WP:RSP is not a sole indicator of reliability on Wikipedia and where does the RSP say that these sources are usable in context such as this conflict? Sources are gauged based on the context, Indian media in its jingoist frenzy is reporting the claims made by the government as truth which is not surprising given strong collusion between the state and the press in India.

You are citing The Wire which was banned by the BJP government for being critical about their actions,[38] and The Hindu had to retract their news about 3 aircraft losses regarding the Indian military[39] even though the whole world maintains that 3 aircraft of India were lost. You cannot rely on these sources for the India-Pakistan conflict when they are working under the pressure of the BJP government. Wareon (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems as though only @Wareon understood my question. I never intended a blanket ban; my question was open-ended and intended to elicit the views of neutral editors at this forum. It was raised in the context of the NYT article — whether some of these media outlets, or if most editors believe all of them, should be considered unreliable, we cannot treat the websites run by the same outlets as holy cows in this matter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

All sources of involved parties are suspect in a conflict, we rely on international media and use editor discretion elsewhere. We already disavow usage of broadcast media and their websites as the lower tier of news RS. This proposal to especially consider the case for Indian media is headed nowhere. Gotitbro (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this and the comment by Fortuna imperatrix. It's vague enough that we're only discussing the Indian media, even though the Global Press Index ranks it far better than either of the two IPA countries. The discussion has stalled and isn't going anywhere unless we shift back to focusing on issues with specific sources. As far as I can see, the users bearing the burden have failed to establish any kind of consensus. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

You are citing The Wire which was banned by the BJP government for being critical about their actions, and The Hindu had to retract their news about 3 aircraft losses regarding the Indian military

In the hindu case they were right and they reported it's another thing that they had to retract. In The wire case sure they're always on the wrong side of the government but as I see it none of these incident compromised their future coverage. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Why The Hindu had to remove their factually correct article? Why The Wire had to remove their article in order to get their ban overturned by the BJP government? This is exactly how these media houses have been intimidated and they happen to lose their quality and credibility by accepting the demands of the government. Wareon (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Why The Hindu had to remove their factually correct article? Why The Wire had to remove their article in order to get their ban overturned by the BJP government?

there's no merit to these questions. If these retractions had affected their future coverage then that would've been another thing but that didn't happen. Also I'm 100% sure that you haven't even seen the hindu 3 jet downed story cause they didn't report that story that story came from Press Trust of India wire feed.

https://archive.is/2XpdG here's the archived link. I'm not even sure why even a reliable source like The Hindu is also in your line of fire. Even though this wasn't a story of The Hindu's journalist they owned it and published a retraction as far as I'm concerned there are many reliable news organization in India and Pakistan therefore this blanket ban is unnecessary. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Both the retracted/deleted articles had to do with Indian aircraft losses, which the news outlets wrote independently, and perhaps withdrew them under government pressure. In my view, these are examples of the independence of Indian media (at least those that choose to be independent) rather than any evidence of government manipulation. It is a pity that The New York Times chose to write about only negative examples, but not about positive ones, but it is not really that surprising that NYT would do that. That is what they always do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be no specific issues being discussed. A number of specific issues need to be discussed when evaluating the reliability of a source. For the Israeli-Palestinian topic the misinformation peddling is quite blatant and extends out to other countries and instances of it have been brought up for discussion here - however usually the worst that happens is that they are considered biased for the conflict and should be treated with caution and attributed. Trying to deprecate sources just based on bias, and that without any examples even, is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. NadVolum (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Its also weird that the editor starting the thread chose to single out Indian sources, when the incentive for misreporting is much higher across the fence - I'd assume getting killed or kidnapped is far more consequential than losing government ad revenue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

How is a 2024 article relevant to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict? It seems like you're clutching at straws. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Just to address the portion about me "clutching at straws", the practice of enforced disappearance of journalists in Pakistan is not new, not rare, and not likely to die out soon - as an example, there have been some high profile cases this year as well - [40] [41] [42]

However, if you read my opinion I posted above, I am opposed to any sort of generalisation of sources from any country, because excepting a few totalitarian regimes (the North Korean sort), media everywhere is a spectrum of reliability and unreliability. If anyone wants to take any specific source up on a case by case basis, they are welcome to - But any discussion that is targeted at a country in general (such as this one) is a non starter. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Your comment is irrelevant to this discussion; the thread is about NYT article exposing disinformation in Indian media regarding the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict and their reliability in light of that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

the NYT article itself is irrelevant because they don't name names and beacause they don't name names we're out here talking about a blanket ban which is wrong. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

First of all, a news organization's words and defamations against other media houses should never be taken at face value. Being an RS newspaper doesn’t mean they are the judge and jury of other news organizations—some of which may be their competitors. Proper academic and scholarly RS, in addition to irrefutable evidence of continuous disinformation, should be required to ban or delist any news outlet. And I mean, The New York Times is one of the most controversial news outlets out there—and people want to blanket ban an entire country just because NYT says so? Damn. 2409:40C1:2E:DE83:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Not really. See my reply above to Phil Bridger. The purpose of this discussion is being grossly misrepresented. Wareon (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@DataCrusade1999 How about India Today, News 18, and Aaj Tak? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Someone had already made the point that News channels and their website should be avoided but IMHO India Today website can still be used with proper caution. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is to ascertain whether there are legitimate reliability concerns regarding a single news outlet - LiveMint - in connection to their coverage of a single event - the 2025 Pakistan / India conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems you didn't pay much attention to this section. Nothing is beign discussed here some editors are conducting a roving enquiry of Indian and Pakistani media sources this is why every news organization of both of these countries is beign brought up if any news organization gets caught up in that dragnet then that would be used as a cudgel to beat other Indian and Pakistani sources which would result in a blanket ban on all sources from India and Pakistan. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a complete misrepresentation—at least of my thread—which I had opened as a separate section on LiveMint. Someone else moved it here as a subsection. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Simonm223 You are commenting under a subsection that was originally started as a separate section and had no connection to LiveMint discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It would have been wise for people not to have exploded the scope of this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@DataCrusade1999 I don't think we should be using the websites of the same TV channels that were caught propagating misinformation. These websites often carry the same content presented on TV in printed form, meaning the misinformation is also propagated to their websites. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

That website carries content from the much higher RS India Today (magazine) along with India Today (TV channel); we need to differentiate between the two. I made the same determination previously regarding Dawn News (TV) and Dawn (newspaper). Gotitbro (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you. I even said it earlier in an comment. And by the way just so that no objects when someone cites from Outlook which comes under India today group, people shouldn't object to that cause Outlook is a reliable source even though it comes under the same company. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Both the magazine and the TV channel share the same website: indiatoday.in. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

No, the magazine articles are under that label even in URLs: https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine. Gotitbro (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

yeah you're right I messed up i just saw but still India today magzine is reliable and I for one consider their website reliable too specially their fact check unit. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about others but I need a list of News channels and their website that you don't trust only after that I'll make my determination. On HT and Livemint I oppose any efforts to deprecate them from wikipedia, HT should be used with caution and Livemint should be used for business reportage purpose only. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

My proposal was based on the NYT article, which mentions India Today, News 18, and Aaj Tak. I don't think the websites of any of these outlets should be used to source content on India-Pakistan conflict articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

India today is reliable the same NYT article also says that senior news anchor apologised for airing fake news. On the other two I would like to see other peoples opnion first. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

India Today is no longer a reliable source for years. They evidently refrain from questioning the Modi government and justify it. Read this for now. Orientls (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

"Reliability" applies to what a source publishes, not to what it omits to publish. Your arguments are all fallacious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

That's too misleading even if your claim (though inaccurate) is accepted because omission of facts associated with Modi government changes the entire working of the publication. India Today is here to spread the agenda of the Modi government, thus it is no longer a reliable source for any controversial topics. Orientls (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

It they are omitting information due to government pressures, that would make them biased, not "unreliable". You are totally confused. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

changes the entire working of the publication

that's a very big accusation.

India Today is here to spread the agenda of the Modi government, thus it is no longer a reliable source for any controversial topics.

more often than not they publish factually correct stories. I wouldn't dispute the fact that they're close to Modi government but then that same argument can be made for CNN beign close to democrats so If CNN is still considered reliable why not India today. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source to back up this claim about CNN? You need to read WP:CNN and the discussions it has listed. India Today cannot be used for the India-Pakistan conflict or anything historical. Orientls (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability. from WP:CNN. I like CNN don't get me wrong but If I take my understanding of Godi media and apply it to the USA then CNN is for democrats and FOX is for Republicans.

bias or closeness to a political party hardly comes into play as long as reporting is factual.

Do you have any reliable source to back up this claim about CNN?

I have many smoking gun kind of evidence but none that even I would respect since I'm not familiar with USA and it's campaign finance pratices process all I was able to get was data from FEC and OpenSecrets I found close to 15-17 CNN people(including people who donated to Obama) donating to democrats including the CEO of CNN. I wasn't sure if I could post their donation records here but if you think it's alright then I can post their records here. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

That false equivalence won't work because CNN does not report under pressure like Indian media does. In any case, you are forgetting that the topic is about Indian and Pakistani media, not CNN. Orientls (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That false equivalence won't work because CNN does not report under pressure like Indian media does

I reject your whole false equivalence line also how would you know that that CNN doesn't work under pressure do you any material evidence of that and please don't throw that RSF index that index is not an indictment of all the Indian media houses.

In any case, you are forgetting that the topic is about Indian and Pakistani media, not CNN

that's where you lose me. for every fake news from south asia I can give you 10 fake news from USA so standard that you're applying for Indian media should be applied to the media of every other country otherwise this discussion won't go anywhere cause you're never going to get me to agree to your framing of this argument no matter the justifications you come up with.

I've said it somewhere here that editors should stop conducting this roving enquiry if you have something specific then we can discuss that but throwing shades over reliable sources because they don't meet your worldview or objective standards is just bad pratice in general and at this point I'm familiar with the whole readymade arguement of western sources calling indian mainstream media scum of the earth in not so many words but fact of the matter is we already don't use much of mainstream media as our sources and the one that we do use are reliable barring few mistakes here and there. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Newspapers and wartime

I think what it comes down to is that news publications have been wartime propaganda outlets consistently at least since the late 1890s. Parties to an armed conflict will manipulate newsmedia as much as they can get away with so that it can serve a propagandistic function. This is not an India specific problem nor a Ukraine specific problem. This is a problem that is rather global regarding newspapers and wars.

Now I do understand why Wikipedians like using newspapers for wars even understanding that they're going to be full of propaganda: they're timely and convenient. Historians don't generally move in until the armed conflict is well in the rear-view mirror. Now there's a few ways we could handle this:

We could decide that we are going to ignore this as being bias and only act when third party sources make it clear that bias has become outright disinformation. This is where we are right now and it's frankly not working. Our various CTOPS related to protracted inter-state conflict indicates that clearly.
We could decide that we should only use news sources from states that are not a party to an armed conflict. While this would allow for the timely use of dispassionate sources it's going to descend into a morass of arguing over which states are party to a given conflict. We've already seen a bit of that with arguments that Al Jazeera is not reliable because of the differential relationship enjoyed between Qatar and Pakistan vs between Qatar and India. Returning to Ukraine we could then ask the question: Is the United States a party to that conflict? Is England? Is China?
We could decide we shouldn't be using news sources at all for wars. I prefer this one because it will reduce the ability to use ambiguities to POV push. Is it a news source? Don't use it for war. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any "India-specific problem" here. Neither did the Indian government try to manipulate the newspapers, nor is there any evidence of them getting manipulated. All we have seen is a sloppy New York Times article, which people failed to read closely and started making wild allegations. Where is the evidence of any newspaper misdoing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

No, not at all. You have praised this source elsewhere[43], and it says "Both sides have declared victory amid considerable misinformation and disinformation about what occurred." It also says "The crisis has been characterized by exceptional disinformation and misinformation in both social and traditional media." Now we have this recent article from The Guardian which also details this problem. All of this just solidifies the fact that we must not use Indian and Pakistani publications for India-Pakistan conflict unless it concerns the position of their own governments. Orientls (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian has "social media" in the title itself. And Christopher Clary mentions "traditional media". Do you think India Today TV would count as one of those? Why are you people misrepresenting sources to make fake claims here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Instead of addressing the problems in your misleading argument, you are rather focusing on falsifying the source and misrepresenting what I said. The Guardian article does say "Many of these posts first generated by Indian social media accounts gained millions of views and the misinformation spread to some of India’s most widely watched TV news."[44] Dont just read the title but read the whole article. Yes "India Today TV", is a traditional media outlet, running for over decades. Orientls (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The section clearly mentions Newspapers. Why are bringing in "widely watched TV news"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

What makes you think Indian newspapers would act differently? To address your claim that "Neither did the Indian government try to manipulate the newspapers," I would ask you to read this article to understand how the Modi government has harassed Indian newspaper Gujarat Samachar to comply with their agenda. We have seen the same over other newspaper outlets such as State Times,[45][46] The Hindu [47] and more. Orientls (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

So, if the Modi government targets the media, you want Wikipedia to target them too, by declaring them "unreliable"? You are out of your mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Sources that operate under fear of any government and have to comply with their agenda are unreliable. Your snide personal attacks only speak of your own ignorance. Orientls (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I support using third-party sources for independent claims presented in Wikipedia's voice, and limiting sources from countries involved in direct military conflict to statements about their own positions, or using them only with attribution to a specific news or media outlet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

This is more of a policy discussion than about the reliability of any particular source, I would suggest taking it to WP:VPI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment – I do want to say that some people are suggesting a 'neutral' proposal, which is to limit such articles to 3rd party sources. While I can understand the though process, I do want to emphasise on the point that the (longstanding) issue has been specfically with Indian media's coverage of Pakistan, but not necessarily Pakistan's coverage of India. Pakistani sources, while sometimes do have issues, are generally reliable, if not anything other than reporting of incidents that take place within Pakistan. نعم البدل (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Nintendo Supply

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is this article reliable? I'm thinking of using this one as a source, but I'm not 100 percent sure it's reliable. Mk8mlyb (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't find anything on that website that illustrates the expertise of either the author or the site itself. I'd advise against using it. JeffSpaceman (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a fan generated site [48]. Its contents may be true, but not enough for wikipedia. Ramos1990 (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Liberty University

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion

liberty.edu

We cite Liberty University as a source of fact in hundreds of articles, often using doctoral theses as direct references. Liberty has an... unusual position within the world of education. I don't think we can take anything they publish as representing mainstream scholarship on Christian topics. I am unconvinced that the many references to Liberty are appropriate. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:03, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, Liberty University is unreliable. Their viewpoints aren’t even widespread among Christians. CycoMa2 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Appears to have been discussed several times before,[49] many prior comments aren't exactly positive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we citing the university itself, or the academics attending/working at the university? Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

factsanddetails.com

Latest comment: 2 months ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Is https://factsanddetails.com a reliable source? I ask because of this edit by User:Battlesnake1, which I reverted because, even though it looked like a typical good-faith edit, I wasn't exactly convinced that it was an unreliable source as they claimed. The website's about page claims that the author (of which there is exactly one) researches their articles using a large number of different sources, which makes me more inclined to trust it. Any other thoughts? Duckmather (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: Battlesnake1 reverted my own revert claiming that the website is facially user generated. Duckmather (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Remsense was the one who reverted your revert, and there's no WP:EXPERTSPS exemption for "author uses sources". The authors for any SPS we use are supposed to be experts in the field with prior publications in reliable sources, which the site explicitly disclaims. Otherwise, we need to se an editorial process. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The source was been put together by a non-expert and explicitly contains copyvio material (quote "This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been authorized by the copyright owner"). It's not reliable and should not be linked. The original material could be reliable if it can be found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I've requested blacklisting due to the copyright concerns. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Added to spam blacklist per the request at WT:SBL § factsanddetails.com. Citing this website would be a violation of WP:COPYLINK ("if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of copyright, do not link to that copy of the work without the permission of the copyright holder"). — Newslinger talk 13:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Plus, the guy behind it even stated, "I try not use Wikipedia except when I am desperate as I find it annoying that Wikipedia is the primary source of information on so many things and I want to offer a different perspective in my site." That implies that he does use Wikipedia as a source on occasion. Battlesnake1 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

TressaMagazine for interviews

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a website named Tressa Magazine which I am unsure about its reliability as it is powered by Wordpress. I wanted to use some of the information from its interviews (e.g. [50] and [51]) for BLPs per WP:ABOUTSELF, but I wanted to ask here first for opinions/advice. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The words of the interviewee are reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF details even if they are in questionable sources. For instance Twitter or Instagram are not reliable sources, but are regularly used for ABOUTSELF. This does only extend to non-contentious detail about the subject themselves. You can't use it to say something about someone else ("Mr Smith says that his brother was convicted of murder"), to claim something about the subject that others disagree with ("Mr Smith confirms he is the tallest man in the world").
I kind much about Tresa Magazine itself, and it appears to operate as some kind of group blog. I wouldn't use it as a reliable source beyond ABOUTSELF details, and would avoid using anything the interviewer states. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Using Global Times for information unrelated to reason it was put on blacklist

Latest comment: 2 months ago30 comments10 people in discussion

Australia's under-17 soccer team recently competed in an U16 tournament in China with the last match against China U16. Due to this being a youth friendly tournament, info about it is hard enough to come by, so I was very happy to find this report at Global Times detailing the Chinese scorers. When I published the edit the link got flagged, but seeing as it was about an unrelated subject, I was sure it's good enough to use. Now Amigao has removed the source saying need a reliable and non-deprecated source for factual claims, not WP:GLOBALTIMES and also Rv per WP:ONUS - please discuss on talk FIRST when I challenged them to actually explain why they think source is not reliable here. Firstly, I'm not sure why WP:ONUS was linked since that talks about inclusion of information, not sources. More importantly, the page linked says It was deprecated near-unanimously in a 2020 RfC which found that it publishes false or fabricated information, including pro-Chinese government propaganda and conspiracy theories. Now I think it's quite obvious to anyone that the information about goalscorers for an under-16 youth soccer match is hardly anywhere near pro-Chinese government propaganda or conspiracy theories. So again I challenge Amigao to find me proof that in this link there is pro-government propoganda or any false information or any reason not to include it specifically for this. And please don't give blanket answers like There's no carveout for this in WP:GLOBALTIMES; feel free to discuss on talk or WP:RSN - we're talking about a very specific case here. --SuperJew (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If that's the only source you can find for the event, I think it's safe to assume that it isn't that significant. We aren't obliged to document everything a soccer team does. More so when it is an amateur youth team playing friendlies. WP:ONUS seems relevant to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:VNOT and WP:ONUS used to be one section but was split, leading to some confusion. Ultimately the point is that if you want to add challenged content it's on you to persuade other it should be added.
Sports propaganda was quite normal during the cold war, and a CCP source being the only source to publish details about the victory of the Chinese under 16's soccer team could be seen in that light. That would be more an issue of WP:DUE than reliability though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There's no dispute that the Chinese team won. Football Australia posted the score and now I'm seeing also the video of the match. I just wanted to use the source to list the Chinese scorers too and show a more complete picture of the match, as is usually done. --SuperJew (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

For basic information such as the goalscorers in a soccer match using the WP:PRIMARY sources from Football Australia would be sufficient citations. Another option would be to use Chinese language sources covering the match. If neither of those existed however and Global Times was the only outlet covering the match even including primary sources it will be a difficult battle justifying the inclusion of the content. Jumpytoo Talk 02:34, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Football Australia only mentioned the scorers for Australia, as Global Times only mentioned the scorers for China. That is not uncommon for youth matches (especially when FA posted on Twitter which is limited characters per update). Would you be able to help finding Chinese language sources? I don't read Chinese. --SuperJew (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I see Newslinger provided some Chinese sources below, but if you wanted to only use English language sources & we are assuming the video didn't provided the Chinese goal scorers explicitly, I would argue watching the video, and noting down which player made the goal using the video is an appropiate PRIMARY source usage as "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts".

For searching for sources in foreign languages, if you're unable to craft a native search term by yourself I find using Google Translate or an LLM to translate/craft a search term is generally a good enough solution. Jumpytoo Talk 23:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I did end up using the YouTube video to back up the facts of the scorers, and thanks to Newslinger replaced it with the Titan Sports source. --SuperJew (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The Global Times doesn't publish anything that isn't pro-Chinese government propaganda. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hmm so I hear from everyone. Can you please explain how this match report is pro-Chinese government propaganda? Or at all related to government? --SuperJew (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Actualy whilst they may not have done, there is a history of fake sports results for propoganda [[52]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? Ironically, it is you who fell for Western propaganda: A parody of a North Korean state news broadcast claiming that the isolated nation's team won the World Cup group stage (despite not qualifying for the tournament) has some people convinced it's real and everyone giggling at its claims. (emphasis mine) TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

My point is, it happens. As such we need a very good reason to use a deprecated source (especially when others will be available). Especially when dealing with a country that has been accused of fixing results [[53]]. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That's a much better argument, and one that is relevant to the issue at hand because the source is talking about match fixing in China. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a relevant point because the result isn't in dispute and has been confirmed by Football Australia too. The extra information gained from the Global Times report is the names of the goalscorers (which can also be confirmed by the video of the game available on YouTube posted by Football Australia) --SuperJew (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I said it's a much better argument and relevant to the issue because it is actually about China, and not about a different country. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

How is a parody site western propaganda. I mean it's nonsense and some sources fell for it, but there doesn't appear to have been any intent behind it other than trolling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That parody relies on the assumption that North Koreans are consistently lied to and don't know anything about the outside world. That assumption exists because of propaganda in the West. If someone thinks that parody video is genuine, they only think that because they fell for the propaganda about NK. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

So the contention is that they fell for it because of western propaganda, rather than it being western propaganda. I can't attest to what north Koreans know or don't know, but that they're lied to by their government and that their news is little but propaganda is well documented. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

This is rather an aside though, as I don't think anyone would seriously consider using NK sources for anything but the opinion of the NK government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, so the Global Times isn't a commercial, academic, or charitable news outlet its explicitly a Party propaganda outlet. If something doesn't have propaganda value they don't publish it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Titan Sports covered the match in this article, and its reporter Ma Dexing also wrote a commentary piece; the Global Times article in question is based on this coverage from Titan Sports. There is additional Chinese-language coverage of the match in this article from the Shanghai Observer (Shangguan News), this page from Sina, and this video from the sports channel CCTV-5+. I would use some of these other sources instead of the Global Times. (By the way, please note that the Global Times is deprecated, not blacklisted.) — Newslinger talk 11:35, 8 June 2025 (UTC) Added link. 13:20, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for actually commenting on the specific issue and not ranting about "Global Times baaaaaaaaaaaad" :) These sources, and especially the Titan Sports one which it's based on especially with the same reporter quoted just strengthens that this specific article is reliable enough to be included as a source (personally I think it has an advantage that it's in English). --SuperJew (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Using the least controversial source is always a good idea, as it doesn't waste editors arguing over it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

If the least controversial source is in a foreign language, then it wastes editors time to find it or to enlist people to find it --SuperJew (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Then the question becomes wp:undue, if no one cares, why should we? Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Non-english sources are fine. English sources are only preferred if they are "of equal quality and relevance", per WP:NONENG. So a quality non-English source is definitely preferable to a questionable one in English. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:16, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

No problem, but I have to disagree with your conclusion. For example,

Breitbart News (RSP entry) does have sports coverage, much of which is summarized from other higher-quality sports-oriented sources because Breitbart's main focus is political content. We generally do not use Breitbart's sports reporting, particularly as the sources summarized by Breitbart are more detailed and published by entities that are more focused on the subject matter. The Global Times is also first and foremost a political publication, so it would be preferable to use the more comprehensive coverage from the higher-quality Titan Sports (which I consider generally reliable for sports) over the Global Times's summary of what Titan Sports has published. — Newslinger talk 15:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:ONUS applies because you are seeking to include information in an article. Regardless of what you interpret to be the reasons for Global Times being deprecated, the fact that it is means that it can't be used at all. It's not like source where community consensus is that it is WP:GUNREL, meaning that in some use cases it might be reliable. Deprecated means that a sources engages in misinformation and is never to be used. TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

(Comment: deprecated sources may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions[1]) Placeholderer (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Temple of Geek

Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Is Temple of Geek a reliable source? According to its About Us page, Temple of Geek is an entertainment website that covers a wide range of geek and pop culture news, events, movies, television shows, and more. What began as a podcast in 2012 has grown into a network of five podcasts, a news website, and a YouTube channel, all run by a group of passionate geeks. Each article appears to carry an author byline—for example, this review of Ave Mujica. I’m not certain whether it qualifies as a reliable source. 深鸣 (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

How are you trying to use it? Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't really contribute to the English Wikipedia. I wanted to write an entry for BanG Dream! Ave Mujica in the Chinese Wikipedia and saw that there were episode reviews in this source. 深鸣 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Every project has its own policies. I can't tell you what zh.wiki would think of tbe source. Simonm223 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

[1] "Special Ferdinando Baldi Memorial Issue (1927-2007)". WESTERNS…ALL’ITALIANA!. December 2007.

[2] How state-run media shape perceptions: an analysis of the projection of the Rohingya in the Global New Light of Myanmar Kristina Kironska and Ni-Ni Peng. South East Asia Research. Volume 29 (1). 2021

[3] Fact or fiction? Inside the regime’s ‘fact-checking’ team. July 10, 2024. Ye Mon. Frontier Myanmar

[4] Myanmar's military weaponizes disinformation against media. April 5, 2024. Deutsche Welle

[5] Reporters Without Borders: Asia-Pacific - Myanmar

[6] "JSchlatt's singing voice stuns fans with first single from new Christmas album". Dexerto. 2024-11-07. Retrieved 2025-02-28.

[7] Grewal, Anmol K. (November 26, 2024). "Jschlatt's Cover of 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town': Why the Hell Did a YouTuber Release a Christmas Song and Why is it Good?". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved November 30, 2024.

[8] The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[a]