Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/noticeboard)
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by Siawase in topic Pravda network sites
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


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

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

    Additional notes:

    Shortcuts
    • RfCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

    RfC: Channel NewsAsia (CNA) and other Mediacorp-affiliated media

    edit
    Latest comment: 22 days ago21 comments7 people in discussion

    Channel NewsAsia (CNA) is one of two major news outlets in Singapore, the other being The Straits Times. How should we consider its reliability?

    channelnewsasia.com    

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

    ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Survey (CNA)

    edit
    • Option 1: Given some growing consensus to elevate The Straits Times to WP:GREL similar to how WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are treated, I will consider it a reliable source, though with considerations similarly applied for The Straits Times given Singapore's limited press freedoms. In fact, CNA, being a mediacorp news outlet, could be considered a state-owned news outlet given Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings - the investment arm of the Government of Singapore. However, compared to The Straits Times, it's considered more reputable particularly due to its documentaries. It was considered broadcaster of the year at Berlin World Media Festivals and New York Festivals, global gold for Best News Website at Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022 and having outstanding reporting on climate change at Asiavision Awards. A Reuters survey in 2024 also showed that CNA remains the most trusted brand among Singaporeans. Also from accessing its usage across Wikipedia, it seems CNA has been used for various topics. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1: CNA should be WP:GREL. While owned by Mediacorp, CNA has demonstrated a greater degree of journalistic independence than The Straits Times. It has positioned itself more as an international news outlet rather than a local one, similar to NHK World-Japan, BBC News, France 24 and Deutsche Welle (DW). Its international coverage is widely regarded as reliable, balanced and professional. While some caution may still be advisable when evaluating CNA's domestic political coverage as with any national outlet, its international reporting is fully reliable and on par with established sources with international recognition for its credibility. Aleain (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1: Per above. I have personally always found CNA more neutral than ST, especially with their international reporting. By extension, I have also found Today to have similar levels of neutrality to CNA. For some context on Today, it is also owned by Mediacorp and was merged into CNA in 2024. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 I still have doubts about this RFC, but will add a comment anyway. The situation in Singapore remains the same, as noted by Reporters Without Borders[1], and especially given the passing of the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill[2]. CNA is a trusted and respected news organisation[3], but editors need to take into account the local situation when dealing with anything related to the government or ruling party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Singapore's media landscape may not mirror that of countries with a freer press, but that does not make CNA unreliable. Option 2 suggests that CNA spreads false statements like fake vote counts or baseless attacks on opposition figures, which is simply untrue. CNA has earned international recognition for a reason, and there is no evidence of it engaging in outright disinformation. While CNA is highly cautious on local politics, it does not cross into the kind of state propaganda seen in fully authoritarian countries where reliable sources such as SCMP and Al Jazeera are based in. Aleain (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Option 2 doesn't suggest they spread false statements or anything such, it states that additional considerations apply which is the case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      WP:MREL, which Option 2 refers to, alludes to a grey area between sources that are generally reliable and those that are not. Has CNA engaged in consistent patterns of poor fact checking, inaccuracies or widespread errors in its areas of expertise that would exclude it from meeting the standard of a generally reliable source under WP:GREL? Aleain (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      There is a grey area when it comes to the situation in Singapore, and shown by the sources linked. In those areas additional considerations apply as per my comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Bad RfC. Rather than how should we consider its reliability, we should consider the reliability of a source (which is not just the publisher), in a context, for a Wikipedia article, if disputed, with no check-one-of-four forms. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • RfC Close/Withdraw No WP:RFCBEFORE here. Adding the comment that I doubt the GREL status of this for anything to do with the govt. Mediacorp is a monopolistic broadcaster directly owned, controlled and funded by the sovereign fund Temasek itself mired in controversy around appointments of close relatives of the top Singaporean political brass. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      It seems you may not be fully informed on the topic and are making a quick remark without engaging meaningfully with the discussion. While Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings, a government-linked investment firm, that alone does not compromise CNA's editorial integrity. CNA has its own editorial team and regularly produces journalism that is regionally and internationally recognised. It covers a wide range of issues, including those critical of government policy. Dismissing it purely based on ownership reflects a shallow understanding of media ecosystems and ignores CNA's track record of factual and balanced reporting. Aleain (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      My vote for this was mainly a procedural one to close neither in affirmation nor in disagreement on the basis that RfCs need a prior infructuous discussion which isn't the case here. A remark/comment was appened, and labelled as such, but neither was it rash, shallow nor made on mere analysis of ownership. Your assumption in that regard is incorrect. I am well aware of the Singaporean media environment, its self-censorship, PAP presurres and intransgencies [I lay the same in the Straits Times discussion above]. Neither the CNA nor the Mediacorp are alien to these.
      Politics and Change in Singapore and Hong Kong: Containing Contention by Stephan Ortmann (2009, Routledge):

      Finally, unlike Hong Kong, Singapore's ruling elite controls nearly all of the major external means of communication. The leading English-language newspaper, the pro-government Straits Times, is owned by the Singapore Press Holdings (SPH), which is closely linked to the government. The other major media company. MediaCorp, a government-linked corporation, has a monopoly over freely available terrestrial television stations and owns the only freely distributed daily tabloid, Today. There are virtually no alter-native voices in Singapore's media landscape, which means that the govern-ment possesses a strong ability to control the masses. Prominent party members have, furthermore, published autobiographies, monographs, and other commemorative books, which are widely available in Singapore book-stores. This stands in contrast to the opposition, which has difficulty getting its books and magazines published. The PAP has also used the mainstream media to broadcast documentaries which are biased in favor of the ruling elite.

      Fake News and Elections in Southeast Asia: Impact on Democracy and Human Rights by James Gomez, Robin Ramcharan (2022, Taylor & Francis):

      Control of broadcast and print media has also been achieved through the total control of Mediacorp via Temasek volding a government investment firm headed by the prime minister's wife, Ho Ching - as well as via the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act (NPPA), where government approved management are given "200 times the voting power of ordinary shareholders", leading to pervasive self-censorship, and the use of domestic media to orchestrare "coverage [that] clearly favors the PAP and "misrepresents[s]" its opponents. In 2021, Reporters Without Borders ranked Singapore 160th in terms of press freedom, only 17 places alove China and 19 places above North Korea.

      But what about CNA itself, let us turn to the enwiki article on it:

      CNA has been criticised for its pro-government bias in Singapore. In its 12th biennial report released on 2 September 2009, Pace stipulated that "the broadcaster was adopting a conservative and careful approach in its reports and programmes", while being labelled as the "voice of the Government".

      Broadcast media is also generally less reliable than print media. Even if we were to rate CNA GREL, I don't see why we should anyhow, that would come with a giant caveat of exempting that status for any local or political coverage.
      PS: Comparisons between Singaporean government controlled media and other outlets such as Al Jazeera and SCMP have been made in the Straits Times discussion above. But I ask those making such comparisons to read Al Jazeera Media Network#Editorial independence. Though I also believe there is evidence for a revisit of SCMP's status at RSP. Gotitbro (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1 CNA fits into the "soft approach" broadcasters Martelanc et al identified [4] in the typology of state-backed external services built for their UNESCO study in the 1970s. The state affiliation, therefore, shouldn't be questioned in its reporting on matters external to the home country and we should default to simply determining if it crests some basic standard of USEBYOTHERS which, as far as I can tell, it does. Insofar as its reporting on the home country goes, the state affiliation itself shouldn't be questioned unless there's evidence (beyond ownership) to support such questions which, as far as I can tell, there is not. It may incorporate or exhibit unique framing in its reporting but that, by itself, is insufficient to question the veracity of the underlying claims. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion (CNA)

    edit
    • In truth, I thought RSNs/RfCs are for discussions for all widely-used sources being used, and I opened this RfC more to also add CNA on the RSP list following the re-evaluation of Straits Times reliability. But an admin off-wiki pointed out to me, if there hadn't been issues, please don't bring them up. So, honestly, I apologise if this is out of process or anything. Let's say I misunderstood the assignment.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      Both the noticeboard header and the edit notice explicitly ask you not to do this. Unless there has been prior disagreement and discussion this should proby be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I don't think this should be closed. The discussion about The Straits Times and CNA is closely linked since they are part of the same country and media environment. CNA is widely used in articles relating to Singapore and the greater Southeast Asian region, and its reliability was already raised on this noticeboard here. If we don't deal with this now, when will we? The same debates are bound to come up again soon so it's better to get everything cleared up. Aleain (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      The issue is that noone who may object to CNA's use can know to comment in this RFC, because they have yet to raise any objection. This feels uncomfortably like pre-approval. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
      I had previously attempted to ascertain CNA's reliability more than a month ago on WikiProject Singapore, but unfortunately there was little response. I believe there had been sufficient visibility on both the WikiProject and this noticeboard for a reasonable amount of time to allow for a range of perspectives on CNA. Aleain (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    RfC: Simple Flying

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 days ago22 comments9 people in discussion

    Is Simple Flying [5] from 2024 and later ...

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

    Is Simple Flying prior to 2024 ...

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

    Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Survey (Simple Flying)

    edit
    • Option 2 (2024+), Option 3 (2023-) ... Recent reporting seems to be fine for non-BLP content on aviation-related matters that doesn't make extraordinary claims or assert information inconsistent with other sources; older reporting may be problematic. Simple Flying passes WP:USEBYOTHERS as it's widely cited by, for example, The Kansas City Star, [6] the Miami Herald, [7] WBOY-TV, [8] USA Today, [9] CNN, [10] WJLA-TV, [11] Fortune, [12] The Week, [13] and scores of others. It has multiple reporters, indicating a gatekeeping process, and it hasn't been negatively checked by fact-checking websites like PolitiFact, Snopes, etc. On the other hand, their reporters all seem to be generalists without specific expertise in aviation journalism, almost all of the USEBYOTHERS has occurred in the last two years, and some basic factual errors were noticed in the years immediately after it went online (2019-2022). Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 2 (2024+) I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. In lack of a specific edit and specific cite, I can only say I would tend to not use it on a basis of low WEIGHT of readers . Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 Option 4 (all years) - If WP:UBO is the only evidence that Simple Flying's reliability may have improved, then I'm going to have to oppose any change at this time. - ZLEA T|C 05:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Changed to option 4 per Avgeekamfot. - ZLEA T|C 20:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 (all years) - Based on AndyTheGrump's research, this is a churnalism outfit that makes schoolboy errors and who's links by other sources can probably be attributed to journalists in a hurry.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 3 (all years) - My experience with SF is that, while some factual information may be buried in their stories, much of it is just farming content for social media consumption. Announcements of new routes, etc., might be factual (even if they're just re-prints of corporate press releases), but there are too many instances of factually incorrect statements included in their reporting. Considering this, it's best that they be considered "generally unreliable" and articles should avoid citing them, especially if other sources exist. I think it's also a bad idea to apply the rubric that reliable sources cite SF here, considering the authors of those otherwise RS are likely not aviation specialists and might be inclined to believe whatever they read on sites like this. nf utvol (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 4 (all years) - I've consistently reviewed additions of Simple Flying as a source since the prior consensus emerged and support fully depreciating it. It is not currently used on Wikipedia but it is added a few times a week. I'm interested in aviation so I often read articles from Simple Flying and often find inaccuracies. It's only really useful as an aggregator of events but completely useless for facts. Depreciating would save a lot of time. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion (Simple Flying)

    edit
    Why is this RfC distinguishing between '2024 and later' and 'prior to 2024'? Has something of significance changed? If so, we need to be told what it is, and be given evidence that it matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I have the same question. I am unaware of any changes after 2024 that would impact their reliability (which, for the record, is not exactly stellar). nf utvol (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Same here. What changed in 2024 that might change its reliability? - ZLEA T\C 17:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As I said above, virtually every example of WP:UBO I can find is 2024 or later. Why that is I can't say, but it probably doesn't matter. Wikipedians generally don't have the capacity to engage in correct evaluation of the veracity of online sources; a best practice would require evaluation of at least two constructed weeks of content for every six months evaluated. In the absence of this individualized ability, we do (or should) rely on on what RS do to ascertain the reliability of any given source. RS, in this case and as far as I can tell, seem to have adopted an observable pattern of use that preferences 2024 and later. (Perhaps others will notice a different pattern or no pattern at all, though, in which case they can normalize their opinions between the two time periods.) Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As has been explained below, UBO isn't enough to evaluate the reliability of a source. In addition to the factual reporting problem, WP:Simple Flying states that the source has engag[ed] in plagiarism and churnalism. Therefore, I'm going to have to oppose any change in its reliability rating unless and until it can be shown that all of its issues have improved. - ZLEA T\C 23:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I thought I'd take a look at what content Simple Flying currently has on its website. An article entitled How Many P‑47 Thunderbolts Were Built? [15] has just been published, and since I know a little about the P-47, that seemed worth further inspection. And I have to say, I'm far from impressed. The article is repetitive and badly written (e.g. "Thunderbolts destroyed upwards of 7,000 Axis aircraft, with around half of that number being on the ground and more than half being in air-to-air combat." which requires rather unorthodox mathematics) and gives a distinctly unfinished impression - assuming that an LLM wasn't involved somewhere, which seems at least possible. If this is at all typical of Simple Flying's output, I'd have to query why we'd want to cite it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Another example of sloppy writing, from February this year: "Supermarine built a number of seaplanes, including the Seafire (a naval version of the Spitfire)" [16] Either the writer doesn't understand what a seaplane is - a float-equipped aeroplane operating from water rather than land - or he has done zero research into the Seafire, which most definitely wasn't equipped with floats, being instead a modification of the Spitfire design, equipped with a tailhook etc for operation from aircraft carriers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I should probably nominate this bit of insightful writing for the annual internet stating-the-obvious prize (I assume there is one. If not, there should be.), From Why The Boeing 747 Has Four Engines (published 4 days ago) .[17] "The Boeing 747 has four engines because that is what it was designed with. It was designed with four engines because, in the 1960s, four engines were considered optimal given the engines available, the need for power, and the range requirements." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't have much familiarity with aviation but I have to agree with Andy here. This site to an outsider looks like a bit of a content farm, even if it isn't necessarily written entirely by AI. The sheer volume of articles being put out per day by the same contributors, as well as the SEO-bait content Andy highlighted is cause for concern. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't presuppose any knowledge or ability to judge what sources are reliable. I can only go by what reliable sources indicate are reliable. Chetsford (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Evaluation of the reliability of sources (in general, or for specific content) by Wikipedia contributors is a routine process - it is the purpose of this noticeboard. One does not require any particular specialist skill to recognise bad writing, and only minimal knowledge to recognise the sort of obvious error that a legitimate aviation journalist shouldn't be making. And no, WP:UBO isn't some sort of trump card for negating such assessment. It is evidence to take into consideration, alongside other considerations, that is all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    I started an essay which some other editors have helpfully contributed to on this outlet which may be helpful for editors as they participate at WP:Simple Flying. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    RfC: Meduza

    edit
    Latest comment: 9 days ago9 comments7 people in discussion

    Over 3,000 citations on en.wiki. Run by Russian dissidents, considered GREL on ru.wiki (ru:Википедия:Часто используемые источники). Previous discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4

    meduza.io    

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

    Numberguy6 (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Survey (Meduza)

    edit
    one of the most robust independent Russian news sources[28]
    Flagship independent Russian media organization, at least looking at readership[29]
    Extensive article here[30]:
    • Meduza began as mainly a news aggregator but evolved rapidly into one of the leading Russophone news portals, providing extensive analytical reports about social, political, and cultural life in the RF and the wider world to audiences living both in and outside of the country. Its revenue is not based on subscriptions, but advertising, and it is therefore freely available to all users. Mixing news with lifestyle advice, Meduza models itself on The New York Times, a Western liberal media outlet, not Fox, the Daily Telegraph, or similar conservative networks available in the RF online.
    • the distinctiveness of Meduza’s position lies in it being simultaneously and in an intertwined way ‘Russian’ and ‘global’.
    • Meduza’s own developmental strategy is to extricate itself over time from its reliance on handouts from oligarchs, whatever their agenda, and to become economically independent ("oligarchs" e.g Khodorkovsky)
    • In group of outlets critical of the Kremlin, especially of its political authoritarianism and illiberal social policies...but that are not involved in political mobilization as such...their critical stance in relation to what goes on in the RF politically, socially, and otherwise is first and foremost a professional rather than a political position
    • Meduza is to some degree distinctive in that it pitches its own opposition to false, biased, and prejudiced information not only in the context of the RF itself, but also as a response to the global crisis of quality journalism
    Etc and etc Placeholderer (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    • Option 1, per Alaexis and Placeholderer. --12:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
    • Option 1, per above. One of an increasingly smaller handful of outlets in Russia that isn’t directly under Putin’s thumb. The Kip (contribs) 05:13, 21 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Discussion (Meduza)

    edit
    Has there been any prior discussions? Per the header and edit notice RFCs shouldn't be opened unless the source has been previously discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:29, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes. There are links to four previous discussions. Numberguy6 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry not sure how I missed that, apparently I need better glasses. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Politico spreading misinformation

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago12 comments10 people in discussion
      Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Politico spreading misinformation
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 02:36, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    OP has been informed that the appropriate place to challenge the status of a source is WP:RSN. Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

    Hi, Thanks to @Einsof and @AG202, it was revealed that Politico is spreading far-right misinformation. Please label Politico as a source not to be trusted. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/20/mamdanis-social-media-savvy-comes-at-a-cost-00464117 Árvízfúró Tükörtűrőgép (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The relevant discussion appears to be Talk:Zohran_Mamdani#Abolishing_private_property, and your summary here does not match what those two users actually said. I see no basis to deprecate Politico. MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Then just deprecate Politico based on the far-right propaganda they published Árvízfúró Tükörtűrőgép (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Per the edit notice: To discuss the reliability of a source, please start or join a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN). [...] This talk page is for discussing the maintenance of the list itself, and arguments posted here will not be taken into consideration. There is no need to entertain this discussion thus recommend archiving. CNC (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    So you prefer that Politico spread the Kremlin's disinformation? Árvízfúró Tükörtűrőgép (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    The discussion can resume now that it's been moved to the noticeboard page. Are there any incorrect or misleading claims in the Politico article "Mamdani's social media savvy comes at a cost"? I don't see anything obviously wrong at a first glance, and none of the content resembles "far-right propaganda" or "the Kremlin's disinformation", as claimed. As far as I can tell, Politico's analysis here is reliable. — Newslinger talk 18:12, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Mamdabni was asked to choose between the current housing crisis or 'the abolition of private property'. His political opponents and sources that are opposed to him have tried to make a big deal out of his answer. The Politico piece is reporting on the situation, including that this is something being amplified by 'right-leaning news outfits and influencers'. So this seems a long way from "spreading far-right misinformation" as stated by the OP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:48, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Recommend closure of this section until OP can formulate an accurate description of the Talk page discussion in question and quote specific claims that they are basing this request on.
    Until then, this is just wasting everyone’s time. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I agree the Politico piece is far from right-wing propaganda or disinformation. It's a fairly straightforward piece of media analysis about the discourse and coverage elsewhere. It's not making the claims it discusses nor repeating them as factual or reasonable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    OP blocked “ Appears far more invested in being tendentious than building an encyclopedia.”. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    ArXiv.org preprint being repetitively added

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago24 comments16 people in discussion

    This source [31], an ArXiv preprint, has recently been added to Anthropic Bias, Superintelligence, Philosophy of artificial intelligence, Animal consciousness, Anthropic principle, Vertiginous question, Artificial consciousness, Technological singularity, and Fermi paradox. Example texts of what it's being used to source:

    • The question of why we exist as humans has implications within the field of anthropics. Toby Pereira has proposed a principle in anthropics called the super-strong self sampling assumption (SSSSA), which is a variant of the strong self-sampling assumption proposed by Nick Bostrom in the book Anthropic Bias. The SSSSA asserts that the probability of a conscious observer existing as a particular being is weighted toward the "size" of that being in cognitive terms. Since non-human animals vastly outnumber humans, this begs the question of why we happen to find ourselves as humans, since it is statistically far more likely to exist as a non-human animal if animals are conscious. The answer according to the SSSSA is that humans take up a disproportionate amount of consciousness-space. However, following this logic, this begs the question of why we don't find ourselves as superintelligent beings, since they would have an even larger cognitive size and share of consciousness-space if they existed. This may be evidence against the existence of future artificial consciousness and conscious superintelligent AI.[1] Diff

    • One argument based on the anthropic principle argues against the future existence of future conscious superintelligent AI. A variation of the self-sampling assumption (SSA) introduced in the book Anthropic Bias is the super-strong self sampling assumption (SSSSA), which weights the probability of existing as a given observer-moment according to their "size" in cognitive terms. Since non-human animals vastly outnumber humans and humans only form a tiny fraction of conscious observers on Earth, this begs the question of why we happen to find ourselves as humans rather than as non-human animals. The answer proposed by the SSSSA is that a human mind takes up a larger share of "consciousness-space" than the mind of a non-human animal. If existing as a human is a typical observer-moment, it can be argued that this is evidence against the existence of future conscious superintelligence, since conscious superintelligence would take up a far larger portion of consciousness-space than a human mind and would imply that human observer-moments are far more atypical.[2] Diff

    • Toby Pereira has argued against the existence of future conscious superintelligence based on anthropic reasoning. Pereira proposes a variant of Bostrom's original SSSA called the super-strong self sampling assumption (SSSSA). The SSSSA asserts that the probability of a conscious observer existing as a particular being is weighted toward the "size" of that being in cognitive terms. The SSSSA is also related to the question of animal consciousness. If non-human animals are conscious, humans only form a tiny fraction of all conscious beings on earth. This begs the question of why we happen to find ourselves as humans rather than animals, since a given conscious observer finding themselves as a human would seem to be statistically extremely improbable. The answer provided by the SSSSA is that humans take up a disproportionate amount of "consciousness-space". However, following this logic, this begs the question of why we don't find ourselves as superintelligent beings, since they would form an even larger share of consciousness-space. Pereira argues that this is evidence against the existence of future conscious superintelligent AI.[3] Diff

    References

    1. ^ Pereira, Toby (2017). "An Anthropic Argument against the Future Existence of Superintelligent Artificial Intelligence". doi:10.48550/arXiv.1705.03078.
    2. ^ Pereira, Toby (2017). "An Anthropic Argument against the Future Existence of Superintelligent Artificial Intelligence". doi:10.48550/arXiv.1705.03078.
    3. ^ Pereira, Toby (2017). "An Anthropic Argument against the Future Existence of Superintelligent Artificial Intelligence". doi:10.48550/arXiv.1705.03078.

    This seems to me both unreliable and UNDUE. I removed the instance at Fermi paradox, but since it's recent, possibly ongoing, is affecting multiple articles, and seems to be linked to one editor, I thought this might be a centralized place to have it reviewed by others. Geogene (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Notified FTNB [32] Geogene (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC) Reply
    Not making an argument for the reliablity of pre-prints, but what exactly is fringe about the anthropic principle? TarnishedPathtalk 04:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This isn't about the anthropic principle, it's about Pereira's argument. Elestrophe (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I don't see a good reason to cite an 8-year-old   preprint (RSP entry) that has not been subsequently published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. "An Anthropic Argument against the Future Existence of Superintelligent Artificial Intelligence" is a self-published source, and I can't find any evidence that the author Toby Pereira is a subject-matter expert (in general, or as defined in WP:SPS). Pereira does not seem to disclose any information about who he is, other than his name, in any of his four indexed publications (all of which are preprints on arXiv). This preprint is unreliable, and so are Pereira's other preprints. — Newslinger talk 18:37, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Alexey Turchin has cited Pereira in multiple articles he has written. Turchin cites Pereira in this article on Boltzmann brains and this article on quantum immortality. He also lists Pereira's SSSSA in this LessWrong post. ImmortalRationalist (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    A peer-reviewed article citing a preprint does not automatically make that preprint reliable, as the preprint itself has not passed peer review. Peer-reviewed articles can cite all kinds of information, including unreliable and self-published sources. The fact that a self-published eprint in PhilPapers (philarchive.org) and a self-published blog post on LessWrong mentions a preprint does not make the preprint reliable, either. Google Scholar finds that the preprint has only been cited five times, with only two of those citations being peer-reviewed publications. — Newslinger talk 19:49, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    ArXiv is basically a hosting site, making the works effectively selfpublished. For selfpublished works you should look for the author having been previously published in the relevant field by other reliable sources, see WP:EXPERTSPS for the policy. A few cites and a mention on a website wouldn't be enough. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Turchin is a crank anyway. All these longtermist people are a walled garden - they cite each other a lot but nobody outside of their very insular bubble gives any consideration to their drivel. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    One of the two citations mentioned is in the Journal of Ethics and Emerging Technologies, which is an outlet of a transhumanist group, not a mainstream journal. So, there's really not a lot indicating that this preprint had any influence. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Hard to see how this is due. If the preprint was highly cited/influential I could maybe see a case for making an exception, but it's obviously pretty obscure and has made little impact on the field. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Unreliable, undue, and possibly fringe as well. The claims are extraordinary on their face, and this arxiv preprint is certainly not enough to justify them. Elestrophe (talk) 06:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Good catch. Let me just point out that ImmortalRationalist, who commented above, is the editor responsible for all these additions. Also let me point out -and some will say that it doesn't matter to this discussion, but I disagree- that Since non-human animals vastly outnumber humans, this begs the question of why we happen to find ourselves as humans, since it is statistically far more likely to exist as a non-human animal if animals are conscious. is a ridiculously fallacious statistical reasoning and anyone who writes such nonsense is unlikely to be a reliable source for anything. VdSV9•♫ 12:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Fringe, if not complete bollocks. Certainly doesn't belong in any article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Bostrom represents the very worst of the "thought-puzzle in an abstract void" style of philosophy and this paper seems to be... like... a bad retelling of one of Bostrom's thought puzzles. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Jagannath

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

    I am unable to tell whether this source falls under scholarly source or news (or blog): mainstreamweekly.net. There is an editorial board, but the editors are not all scholars and there is no indication of a peer-review process.

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

    Also, this specific article [35] describes Vivekananda's view on the Jagannath temple. However, is one person's view/observation a reliable source to describe the historical origin of Jagannath? Swirlymarigold (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    what is the context for this? If it’s not widely used or causing disputes it’s really hard to justify rating this. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Can I suggest removing the rating options, these are only used in RFCs (which this is not). They only cause confusion in any replies.
    The context for your question appears to be is "Did Ambedkar Appreciate Puri's Jagannath?" by A K Biswas (Obit.) reliable for "Swami Vivekananda in his book Lectures from Colombo to Almora mentioned that Jagannath temple was once a Buddhist temple." Biswas gives a citation for his claim, Swami Vivekananda in 'The Sages of India' in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol 3, p. 264, looking that up the full quote from Swami Vivekanada is "There was a book written a year or two ago by a Russian gentleman, who claimed to have found out a very curious life of Jesus Christ, and in one part of the book he says that Christ went to the temple of Jagannath to study with the Brahmins, but became disgusted with their exclusiveness and their idols, and so he went to the Lamas of Tibet instead, became perfect, and went home. To any man who knows anything about Indian history, that very statement proves that the whole thing was a fraud, because the temple of Jagannath is an old Buddhistic temple. We took this and others over and re-Hinduised them. We shall have to do many things like that yet. That is Jagannath, and there was not one Brahmin there then, and yet we are told that Jesus Christ came to study with the Brahmins there. So says our great Russian archaeologist."
    A lot of what mainstreamweekly.net publishes appears to be opinion, so some caution should be used, but I don't see why this shouldn't be considered reliable for the claim of what Swami Vivekananda said about Jagannath. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thank you @ActivelyDisinterested and @Bluethricecreamman.
    This was my first time posting on a noticeboard so this feedback is definitely helpful for how to structure future posts when needed.
    @ActivelyDisinterested, I appreciate your perspective that the source is reliable for what Swami Vivekananda has to say about Jagannath. I agree with that. The fact that Swami Vivekananda said what is quoted is verifiable. However, I am wondering if this quote can be used as a reliable source for the historical origin of Jagannath from a scholarly perspective. Swirlymarigold (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The question there is no longer reliability but NPOV, in particular WP:DUE. Whether Swami Vivekananda statement should be included depends on secondary sources, does it represent a significant viewpoint about the template and do secondary sources consider the comments by Swami Vivekananda notable. That's a question that can only be answered by an editor with subject matter knowledge of the temple and any controversy about it's history, unfortunately it's not something I can answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Japanese Regional Newspaper?

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

    I wanted to expand WP:JAPAN/RS and wanted to see what you guys think of the following sources:

    I'm also asking for accessment of reliability of prefectural newspapers such Okinawa Times and Iwate Nippo and more. I also uses them alot so this is also useful for me. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Are these being challenged by anyone? Which article and what claim are these being used for? Ramos1990 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Not necessarily, but I just want to see if there is problems with these sources. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 23:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Newspapers are usually reliable, but local newspaper often report on minor events, and things that only have local coverage might be WP:UNDUE for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Siawase (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I see, Thanks @Siawase:. Only one question, Can we use them as as source for a national event (i.e. a heatwave) to report on what is it's impact on said region/prefecture? Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    As far as reliability goes, I don't see a problem. Whether coverage is WP:DUE or not would have to be determined on a case by case basis, but common sense should get you pretty far with that. Siawase (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    WP:NEWSORG likely applies. I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be reliable unless there's any evidence to the contrary. Left guide (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    German government sources as self-published?

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago46 comments7 people in discussion

    I hope this is the right place to ask about this. An editor on the page Socialist Equality Party (Germany) claims that sources of the German government, specifically the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung and Verfassungsschutz, may count as WP:ABOUTSELF when reporting about political parties. This would have implications for a lot more articles. The reliability can certainly be debated on a case-by-case basis since these are politically operated and motivated publications but such a discussion hasn't taken place thus far from what I can tell. I also especially don't see the case for WP:ABOUTSELF applying. Though even if it did, shouldn't the sources still suffice for minor things like membership numbers? I'd be happy about anything that helps clear this up as I couldn't find a direct policy about this. Frijfuhs (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    For membership numbers, it should be fine unless there's a valid reason to believe they have a vested interest to exaggerate, in which case attribution would be more appropriate, or better yet an independent source if possible. As for the rest, what specific (types of) claims are these sources being used for? Left guide (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Typically just simple facts about the party's program/views, history, and numbers. Here an example for the article subject [36]. Although older publications (in the form of documents/books) by the bpb sometimes also offer a more in-depth description of mostly historical parties (as seen here for example [37]). Frijfuhs (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Government sources would often be WP:PRIMARY and have bias concerns, and some of the time in-text attribution would be appropriate. But in this case I don't see how WP:ABOUTSELF would apply. The sources aren't published by the party, they are published by the government. Siawase (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I think I kind of understand the concern even if it is phrased incorrectly through policy. The concern is probably that the Verfassungsschutz is rather often seen as putting its fingers on the scale, especially with regard to socialist parties, and that it cannot be trusted to provide accurate information about socialist parties because its mission includes preventing the return of socialism to Germany. This is a source reliability question but WP:ABOUTSELF is not really in play here so much as just the question of whether that source can be trusted for accuracy. Simonm223 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    For the Verfassungsschutz especially that should be a wider question though. Wikipedia always trusts its assessments and prominently displays them on the page for the Alternative for Germany for example, using a secondary source that just repeats what the BfV says doesn't really change the message either. In my opinion, listing the assessment is probably valid as long as the article doesn't take heavy reliance on it as the BfV is a decently important institution in the country, even if heavily biased. For simple facts like party members, leadership and state chapters I see less of an issue though, there's little reason or room for misrepresentation there. Frijfuhs (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Wikipedia always trusts its assessments and prominently displays them on the page for the Alternative for Germany for example, using a secondary source that just repeats what the BfV says doesn't really change the message either (bolded for emphasis)
    This is the key point here. Wikipedia should always aim use reliable reporting in secondary sources rather than primary sources and we should only be using primary sources in extremely limited circumstances as set out in WP:PRIMARY Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    That's of course true, membership numbers definitely fall under very limited use by the way, but in the above message I was merely commenting on the reliance on the BfV and that its assessments don't become less biased just because they're repeated somewhere else. Frijfuhs (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Frijfuhs they don't become less biased, I agree. But the point is that citing them from reliable reporting elsewhere means we're citing that assessment as reported in secondary sources (which is more appropriate to our policies and therefore challenge) than citing directly from the primary source.
    It seems odd in this case, but the policy it's keeping to exists to stop Wikipedia becoming full of claims that are cited directly to who made them. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Siawase, @Simonm223 WP:ABOUTSELF applies to the source, not the article subject. So the policy does apply because it's a government office self-publishing claims about a third-party and therefore fails under condition 2 "It does not involve claims about third parties".
    There's also been a greater problem in that much of the article has been reliant on primary self-published sources by government agencies about a political party those agencies explicitly judge to be an extremist group, and given the way these agencies in particular are "involved" in the political process (rather than a more apolitical statistics organisation that exists in other countries), it's hard to justify their use. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Government sources aren't self-published, at least not as intended by Wikipedie's definition. So ABOUTSELF isn't applicable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @ActivelyDisinterested if that's the case then can it please be written into the policies or pointed out to me where that is written, because currently from all I can find where it is written a government website very much is a self-published source and therefore we shouldn't be using them as sources of information about other organisations. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Selfpublished deals with instances where someone publishes without any oversight, that isn't the case without something like a government website. Overwise all sources where the writer of the source was an employee of the publisher would also be selfpublished. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @ActivelyDisinterested and you say all that, but my problem is still that you are saying that without any reference to policy, meanwhile that actual policy currently reads as the opposite. Nowhere do our policies establish an exception for government websites or contain an establishment of the reliability of them, so instead we can only go by the words as written which instead prohibit the use of a self-published website. A quick flick through the historical discussions of this noticeboard shows this topic has come up before due to this very issue of whether SPS applies to Government websites.[38][39] Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    For total transparency see this RFC. There's no exact agreement on what is or isn't a selfpublished source, but the maximalist interpretation you're using would be closest to option C for question two, something that had little support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @ActivelyDisinterested thanks for providing that (I did chuckle as it seems one of the more popular options was "Bad RFC"). I understand this is a nuanced issue, my issue here is in part because unlike some other countries, government agencies in Germany take a more "active" role in the political process by their ability to designate political organisations as being extremist. For instance the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung source, who were widely used as a source for the article in various forms, explicitly state that: The SGP is classified as left-wing extremist by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, partly on the grounds that the party's goal of "overthrowing capitalism" refers not only to the prevailing economic model, but also to the end of the existing liberal-democratic basic order.
    It sits more uncomfortably with me as a result here because of that more "activist" nature of the agencies involved that it stretches into what we would usually want to avoid as a SPS because it's not something more beige or pedestrian such as a statistics authority publishing a report on GDP figures but a government agency that also declares this group will overthrow the state itself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    See my comment on the second RFC below, as that was specifically about organisations that could be labelled as activist in nature. Again the idea that this is always selfpublished isn't supported. This is the government publishing it's opinion, maybe primary and in need of WP:INTEXT attribution, but not selfpublished. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You would need to find community supply for your interpretation, something that hasn't been found previously. As it's stand only the wording at WP:SPS is policy, and that doesn't support what your saying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @ActivelyDisinterested I'd very much disagree with that. The wording at WP:SPS makes no direct mention of government websites either way in its lead, however it does have a see also for the explinatory essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works, which does contain the following as an example of self-published sources:
    Examples of self-published sources
    • Almost all websites except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations), including:
    So as the policy and explanatory essay is currently written, a government website is included under the definition. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The RFC above was in part about that essay, it doesn't enjoy community support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It was also at least partly invalidated by the rejection of option 2 in the RFC below -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    This RFC touches on the same issue. Again no consensus on exactly how to define selfpublished sources, but note that option 2 was rejected e.g. that reports written and published by an organisation always constitute selfpublishing isn't supported by consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:06, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @ActivelyDisinterested that's fair enough, but I'm not arguing it's always applicable (which was option 2 on the RFC), my issue is that I believe this is one of the cases where it would be considered given that it's a government website that's been heavily used on a article about a group it designates to be extremist and essentially an opponent of the state itself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I struggle to see how in a "case by case" basis usage of the SPS policy, this is an appropriate instance of it as a source of information for the group. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I would agree, but it would be up to you to convince others that it was selfpublished and I'm not the only other editor in this thread who remains unconvinced. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @ActivelyDisinterested to be honest I don't think this report/discussion has been opened on the issue the edits were largely disputed over to begin with. The real issues hasn't been simply WP:ABOUTSELF as a specific instance (is this site ABOUTSELF, yes/no)but more that they were introducing an article overwhelmingly reliant as a whole on those that were definitely WP:ABOUTSELF issues (such as blogs by other political groups attacking them) or cases like here where if not ABOUTSELF they were certainly WP:PRIMARY which both policies have clear-cut restrictions over. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Reports by groups that are opposed to them would also not always be considered selfpublished, but there inclusion would have to be shown to be WP:DUE. That an opposition political party doesn't agree with it's opposition is hardly surprising, there would have to be some other reason it was relevant. Completely agree articles should be predominantly based on secondary sources, but PRIMARY doesn't mean unusable or unreliable. If a primary source is giving a simple fact such as membership it would be usable and reliable per PRIMARY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @ActivelyDisinterested by "reports by groups opposed to them" I'm talking about 'website run by Trotskyist Group A states that Trotskyist Group B are fake Trots who are really tools of capitalism' which, as I've learnt from the last two years of trying to clear up articles on minor Trotskyist groups, make up the majority of some of the articles on this site (and which this one also had). The amount of articles we've had on a "two men and a shed" outfit where all the sourcing is by other "two men and a shed" outfits is frankly hilarious.
    And yeah, it's really an issue of proportionality of sources that's been the main issue here and it's now in a place where it's just about meeting thresholds on that issue of secondary sources and that's where I'd like to keep it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yeah whether they should be considered selfpublished or not the opinion of different small groups about other small groups are likely undue for inclusion, but that's a NPOV issue rather than reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Comments by government organisations can usually be shown by secondary sources either reporting directly on the comments or by normally considering comments from organisation as notable. For instance NOAA in the US is generally due inclusion in storm related articles, whether directly reported on or not, as secondary sources normally do report on its reports related to storms. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @ActivelyDisinterested exactly, and that's what I've been editing to focus on. So in instances where it can be sourced via an existing secondary source, the primary and/or SPS source is removed. While I will use primary and/or SPS sources at times, I usually see them as a weakness to be avoided unless it's really limited both in amounts and sorts of information. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Primary sources aren't 'weak' - at times they are the most reliable source for certain information, they are just limited in how they can be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It's not the source itself I regard as "weak", more in terms a weakness in the article. You can't say as much with them, they're rather limited in terms of the information you can rely with them, they provide more avenues for challenging an article's notability etc. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    For added context, these are the diffs this relates to ([40], [41]) and strangely seems to revolve around wanting to replace a reliable third-party source with a government self-published webpage for the exact same figure of current members. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My main concern is the precedent. With this article specifically it's only the historical membership table, every other citation you removed has been sufficiently replaced. I just saw that I did indeed get something wrong with the 2024/2025 numbers, but 2021 should still be listed. Frijfuhs (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Frijfuhs a membership number table for such a minor organisation is already kind of trivial to be honest, just a recent sourced figure for the infobox is typically regarded as enough.
    The greater issue with the page though has been a policy-breaking reliance on both primary and self-published sources, as articles reliant on these are grounds for deletion (hence why I had redirected it a couple of months ago). It's now in a place where it's just about safely based on reliable, independent secondary sources and therefore meets criteria for inclusion.
    So wanting to reinclude the 2021 figure from a primary, self-published source that doesn't denote any notable new information, as the figure of 280 members sits between the reliably reported 2016 and 2024/2025 figures and doesn't buck the trend of slight growth from 273 to 294 in the last 10 years, isn't worth inclusion. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I disagree that it's not worthy of inclusion, such tables should be as complete as possible and that one citation being included doesn't affect the rest of the article. Frijfuhs (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    that one citation being included doesn't affect the rest of the article.
    Actually it has the potential to do exactly that, because adding more primary sources and self-published sources from where it currently stands makes it more likely to be challenged on notability grounds due to being reliant on those sources.
    If it had been a reliable independent source from say 2006 and then added membership figures for a whole different decade, then there'd be more possible argument for inclusion and avoids any questions over primary and selb-published grounds. But just adding from a primary source that four years ago its membership numbers were in the exact same range as already established is trivial when it's a fringe/minor political group whose numbers have consistently remained in the same range of 250-300 over the last decade at least. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    So just to make sure I understand the locus of the dispute fully, the concern is that using this potentially dubious primary source for this unremarkable factoid may establish a precedent for more extensive future uses of it?
    Because I would say that this is not the case. WP:PRIMARY already makes it clear that the use of primary sources should be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. If nobody disputes this datum then I don't see why we need to spill so much ink arguing over whether or not to include it. Doing so establishes no precedent. Simonm223 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Simonm223 no, the issue of "precendent" seems to be something the other user is concerned about but I don't believe this is relevant at all. For me the issue is both triviality (on which this isn't really the most appropriate venue) but more relevant here is that the article has suffered from being reliant on primary and self-published sources so we shouldn't be introducing more of those. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Ok so maybe the appropriate venue is WP:AFD. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Simonm223 at this point this isn't an AfD issue, as I've removed enough instances of sources like the one proposed to maintain it as an article that is notable and isn't reliant on primary and self-published sources (but it is closer than I'd like). That's why I'd rather not re-introduce trivial material that would render it vulnerable to an avoidable AfD. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    My main point in opening this here was to establish if German government sources count under WP:ABOUTSELF. I believe that isn't the case, with most here seeming to agree that they fall under WP:PRIMARY. Under that policy I don't see an issue in its usage for these kinds of simple facts. Frijfuhs (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No government sources aren't selfpublished. There's some disagreement on exactly what constitutes a selfpublished sources, but that government websites are selfpublished seems like an overreach. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    They aren't about self for most uses, if the government is publishing a biography, for example, neither the topic is self, nor is it self-publishing, it is publishing (otherwise every publisher would be self-publisher). One may argue it's somehow connected (see WP:Independent) or is biased, but that is not self-publishing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    @Frijfuhs the greater issue though is the proportion of that article that's established by WP:PRIMARY or WP:ABOUTSELF sources, which both carry clear restrictions over. If you wish to expand the membership numbers table, while I may personally find it trivial if you find the figures in an independent source (so another ARD webpage like the others) then I'm fine with it, but adding further non-independent sources is an issue when so much of the article is already sourced from that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Draft:Alexander Ziwahatan are the 3 sources reliable sources?

    edit
    Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    [42] - there are a lot of Nexus awards, I'm not sure if these are notable.

    Democrat Digest written by a "Democrat Digest contributor". I can't find anything not written by a contributor, but I might have missed something.

    [43] "Repoublican digest" looks like a clone. Doug Weller talk 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    No. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Both the digests are the same company, Global Operations Group, and the specific articles are advertorials. The byline for both is "(insert version) Digest Contributor", and both have the same description "This article features branded content from a third party. Opinions in this article do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of (insert version) Digest". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science

    edit
    Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    On the Talk:Dead Internet theory, an article titled "The Dead Internet Theory: A Survey on Artificial Interactions and the Future of Social Media" has been brought up by another editor (@Qualie). I've been watching this source for a while, but it was previously just a pre-print. Now that it is published, it looks like it could potentially have some weight to a long standing dispute over the lede sentence, specifically because the articles authors redefine the Dead Internet Theory in the context of social media. The journal it is in, Asian Journal of Research in Computer Science, is named like many predatory ones I've seen, but I'm not seeing it on any specific lists. When I attempted to introduce it into article space, the predatory journal warning popped up. Coming here for some 3rd party guidance, as this article would be really useful if it proves reliable. If we don't use it, I suspect it will be brought up quite a bit, and I would like to have a discussion I can point to when it is brought up users wanting to change the articles lede. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    According to this it is a Science Domain journal which is in the list of predatory publishers. Jumpytoo Talk 02:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Thanks, that is really unfortunate to hear. The article would have been very useful to us if reliable, and I'm not looking forward to it being brought up in the future talk page discussions... GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd like to note for future editors stumbling upon this that according to undetectable.ai, the article is 95% AI-generated. Ironic. Amberkitten (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Shūkanshi (Japanese tabloids)

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    Shūkanshis (can be called Japanese tabloids) are widely known for their sensational headlines and gossip regarding BLPs both policitians and celebrities. I notice that these sources are widely used across multiple BLPs. Friday (1     1     1    ), Shūkan Bunshun (1    ), Shūkan Shinchō (1    ), Weekly Asahi Geinō (1    ) are probably the most infamous ones involving in multiple controveries and as far as I know these sources can be compared to Daily Mail. Josei Seven (1    ) a couple of issues with the Imperial Family. Shūkan Gendai (1    ), i personally use this only for articles other than BLPs as it seems reliable for general topics other than articles for BLPs as there is a bit of controveries against it. Josei Jishin (1    ), no major issue mentioned on the article (both en and ja). I'm surprise on how many articles this sources uses, I want to know if my assumptions are correct. I also don't know if I should merge this discussion with my discussion above. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:03, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The guidance at WP:RSP#Tabloids may be of relevance and value. Left guide (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Probably better to keep this discussion separate as tabloids are very different from local newspapers. I'm not sure where these outlets fall on a scale of needing to be deprecated and WP:TMZ. But in most cases it would probably be best to replace with better sources, especially in BLP articles, or delete the material where better sources can not be found. A recurring issue with material only found in these types of outlets is that it is often WP:REDFLAG, in which case better sources need to be used, or it's so trivial it's not WP:DUE anyway. Siawase (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Playbill.com

    edit
    Latest comment: 4 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Are Playbill's online news articles reliable sources of information? The specific context in which I was wondering about this was an article about employment at a university that I was considering using for L Morgan Lee.

    There are over 10,000 uses of it     currently, which leads me to believe other editors have not identified any issues with it, but in the poking around I did I found next to no information about their editorial policies, or any clarification on if the editorial policies vary between the website and physical magazine. In a search of the archives, I did not find previous discussion about this. Apologies if the answer is obvious, but I'd rather be safe than sorry going forward. NovaHyperiontalk 23:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    See Playbill. It's probably fine. Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    It should be fine for this use. Playbill is essentially promotional in nature, so I would limit its use to uncontroversial facts. John M Baker (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Okay, thank you both! The promotional nature of the site did concern me, which is why I was concerned they might lower editorial standards for online articles. I would not even consider using their news for controversial claims and I do not think most of their articles present such claims, so it seems pretty okay to use for straightforward facts. As I said, better safe than sorry, and thanks again! NovaHyperiontalk 09:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Opinion on these two source

    edit
    Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

    Wants others opinion. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability's "because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance" and "A recent source is better than an old one", I wanted to know Wikipedia's opinion on this sources Ушницкий 2011, Золхоев 2014 (both in Russian language).

    First "because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance": majority of English sources (and even non English sources) consider Keraites as Turkic on there hand Ушницкий 2011 claims majority consider Keraites as Mongolic but when you look at reference and source he use in his work, again majority of the reference he used lean towards Turkic orgin for Keraites. There is also several other error in his work like for example he consider khitans a likely Para-Mongolic speaking tribes as Mongolic (Khitans spoke the now-extinct Khitan language, a Para-Mongolic language related to the Mongolic languages).

    Second "A recent source is better than an old one": even Золхоев 2014 (as I said before also in Russian) which is a newer source wrote majority of scholars and researchers consider Keraites as Turkic. Bezartanha (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Ushnitsky meets the requirements set out in WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS. According to the Russian Academy of Sciences website, his works have been published in high-ranking journals indexed in WoS and Scopus. He also has a considerable number of works on ethnography (see here). The difference between the publications of Zolkhoev and Ushnitsky is only three years. The use of works written in Russian is not prohibited in Wikipedia, considering that Russian and post-Soviet authors often publish their research precisely in Russian. I consider it incorrect to call the statement that the Khitans were Mongols an error, given the existence of hypotheses where the language of the descendants of the Donghu and Xianbei is not separated from the wider group of other Mongolic-speaking ethnoses. For example, according to the Great Russian Encyclopedia, the Khitans are classified as belonging to the Mongolic group of tribes. I also do not see any problem in the fact that Ushnitsky cites authors who support the Turkic version. At the same time, Ushnitsky himself takes a neutral position regarding the linguistic affiliation of the Keraites. As for Zolkhoev, this author also mentions scholars who support the Turkic version, but he himself adheres to the Mongolic version.--KoizumiBS (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Me and you talk about this and I want opinion of others. I answered all of your questions like Khitans are likely Likely para-Mongolic Speakers (and not Mongolic speakers). Thanks for your answer but as I said I wanted to know others opinion. Bezartanha (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I believe it is important to leave my comment, as I consider it essential to follow the rules set out in WP:NPOV. KoizumiBS (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    i don't do it on purpose, if you look at previous edits (and at all edits as whole) you see i have some problem with editing. I have knowledge in history but not in Wikipedia. Bezartanha (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Yes, thank you for your clarification. I understand, and I appreciate the effort you are putting into contributing. KoizumiBS (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    When the policy on non-English sources (WP:NONENG) mentions sources that "are available and of equal quality and relevance", it is referring to equivalent sources that are available in multiple languages. For example, the French-language newspaper Le Monde has started publishing English-language translations of its articles in 2022. If we wanted to use a recent article from Le Monde that is available in both French and English with equivalent content, then we would cite the English version because it is more accessible for readers and editors on the English Wikipedia. Another example: if a report from a news agency (such as Reuters) were incorporated into an article in a reliable English-language publication and an equivalent article in a reliable non-English publication, and neither article adds original reporting or analysis to the news agency report, then we would prefer to cite the English-language one for the same reason.
    The WP:NONENG policy does not restrict the use of non-English sources that have no English-language equivalents. If there are no English-language equivalents to Ушницкий (2011) and Золхоев (2014), then these articles can be considered for use even though they are in Russian. However, for consistency with the policy on foreign names and anglicization (WP:UE), please romanize the authors' names in the citations, i.e. Ushnitsky for the 2011 article and Zolkhoev for the 2014 article. Wikipedia:Romanization (WP:ROMAN) is a list of conventions we use for this, and the relevant one for these sources is Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian (WP:RUS).
    The guideline on the age of sources (WP:RSAGE) establishes age as one of the criteria we use to evaluate the reliability and due weight of sources, but it is not the only criterion. Source age is particularly important in topic areas such as biomedicine, in which new findings can quickly reshape the scientific consensus. The history of the Keraites from the 11th to 13th century, on the other hand, is not a field of research that is time-sensitive enough for a three-year publication age difference to be significant. I would not exclude or reduce the weight of Ushnitsky (2011) solely for being three years older than Zolkhoev (2014). — Newslinger talk 10:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Waymarking.com

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    If someone fancies a cleanup task... We have more than 3000 links[44] in articles to waymarking.com, a wiki for monuments or interesting spots. Some will be external links, but many are references. Is it worth listing it on the blacklist or at WP:RSNP? Fram (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Although I'm not sure about how appropriate Waymarking is as an external link, because it primarily consists of user-generated content, I support adding waymarking.com to User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, which would allow XLinkBot to automatically revert citations of waymarking.com when they are added by new or unregistered users (under certain conditions explained on the list page). If there is consensus that Waymarking should not be added as an external link, then waymarking.com should also be added to User:XLinkBot/RevertList (which targets external link additions outside of citations). — Newslinger talk 22:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Changes to Victor Vescovo page

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 hours ago9 comments4 people in discussion

    I made a change to the Victor Vescovo page which can be seen in the history on that page concerning a lawsuit he was in.

    I then had that change taken down because I used court documents on the publicly available legal websites as a reference (ok, that's against a policy I wasn't aware of, sorry).

    But I found an article saying the very same thing about those court cases. However, another editor keeps removing it as he doesn't see that website as reliable. However, the website and the court documents agree.

    The history can be seen at :

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Vescovo&action=history

    And the wikipedia page on that news outlet that covered the court cases seems (according to the wikipedia page about that outlet) to be a reasonable source.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legit.ng

    So, is this a reliable source and can the edit stay? TimothyImholt (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    The actual source, which I don't consider to be adequate for a BLP: Victor Vescovo's net worth, age, family, what is he doing now? Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    First off the source doesn't verify the content you want to add. It never mentions the girlfriend taking his name at all, or that the jury decision was unanimous. Because of that I've reverted your addition.
    Beyond that I don't think the Legal.ng article is a good source for these details. Like many sources in Nigeria they publish undisclosed advertorials, see their page about native advertising[45]. WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA gives some general advice about the situation. Legal.ng may be reliable in general, but articles about individuals that are overly selfserving should be avoided. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Ok, I will update the article again, but only with things that are backed up by that reference. Thus making sure it stays in line with this guidance. TimothyImholt (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    You got two replies indicating that this did not appear to be a good source, yet you reinserted it? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The second person had an issue with what I said, not the source, so yes I put it back.
    Here are three other articles citing that website
    1) Abbimbola Jayeola
    2) Chidi Nwaogu
    3) Aliko Dangote
    Should those be stricken as well? TimothyImholt (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No, the second person said "I don't think the Legal.ng article is a good source for these details". That's another no. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Sure, but the details I included today, were included in that article.
    Some of them I originally had were not. What you are rendering here is an interpretation or opinion not supported by his statement. TimothyImholt (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    The source isn't a "high quality" source, which is what is required for all articles about living people. As I explained it appears to be an undisclosed advertorial, and so isn't reliable. Also your addition again added that it was a unanimous decision, something that's not even mentioned in the source. Sources need to directly support what you want to add, and you need a better source to than this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    List of Ugandans by net worth - Ugandan sources issues

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    I came across List of Ugandans by net worth due to a LTA user repeatedly spamming their "Nyanzi Martin Luther" hoax info. Then 5 days ago I actually looked at the rest and realised the state it was in this was unsourced and extremely dubious.

    I found this watchdoguganda.com that claimed it was based on the "The 2025 Forbes Africa Billionaires List" so updated the article based on that. The same was also published on nkonagroup.com under different author. However I have subsequently accessed the "Forbes Billionaires: Africa's Richest People 2025" (as it was blocked on the UK!) and it mentions no Ugandans. 129.205.21.157 then pointed to this omarosaomarosa.com source with very different names and net-worth's.

    Doing some digging I found billionaires.africa that claims Sudhir Ruparelia again as No.1 but at $250 million rather than $1.6 billion, but Forbes had him at $800M in 2015.

    I'm lost and frankly not sure if any of these are reliable sources especially as the LTA was able to create this and get it published easily based on the current source adding three names including their own.

    So are there any sources we can trust out of these (as much as you can trust any of these estimated net worth lists)? I'm leaning to think it's all untrustworthy and taking it to AfD. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Breitbart Business Digest (Breitbart News) for Cook v. Trump article

    edit
    Latest comment: 12 hours ago6 comments6 people in discussion

    Is the article "The Clause That Vanished—and the Senators Who Found It" (newsletter URL: https://link.breitbart.com/view/5d13d7effc942d626ccbb158oljao.58oi/38f79b09; main site URL: https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2025/08/27/breitbart-business-digest-when-congress-wrote-the-fed-rules-courts-werent-invited/) from the Breitbart Business Digest newsletter published by Breitbart News a reliable source for the edit Special:Diff/1308379938 in the article Cook v. Trump?

    I am starting this discussion to ask the community to evaluate a request by Wtmitchell to add the page to the spam whitelist at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist § Breitbart Business Digest article. For context, Breitbart News is currently on the spam blacklist, and was deprecated in a 2018 request for comment. — Newslinger talk 15:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    No. It's Breitbart. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Obviously not. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 15:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Is there anything special about this link? Some major conservative law expert is asserting it and as such it is worth attributing? Otherwise not really worth it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    I'd expect that if only Breitbart is covering it, it's some off-the-wall claim that a right-wing legal expert is using to try to audition for SCOTUS. We can wait to see if real news sources pick it up. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
    No, over than for the purpose of ABOUTSELF statements Breitpart shouldn't be used. If they're the only source reporting something than it is not due inclusion in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Pravda network sites

    edit
    Latest comment: 1 hour ago5 comments5 people in discussion

    There is a discussion on the village pump about a report[46] from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab[47] into uses of Pravda network sites on Wikipedia. It's not exactly clear what they're looking at, as I can't match up their figures with uses in article space. They're using an API to access Wikipedia, so it's possible they are seeing talk pages and other non-article space pages.
    However they do have a table listing at least a subset of the domains they are discussing. I've searched all the one's they list, and although most are unused, there are 11 that are currently used as sources. All of these sources are already listed in List of political disinformation website campaigns in Russia.

    • "chelyabinsk-news[.]net"[48] (1 use)
    • "dnr-news[.]ru"[49] (4 uses)
    • "kazan-news[.]net"[50] (1 use)
    • "krasnodar-news[.]net"[51] (3 uses)
    • "piter-news[.]net"[52] (4 uses)
    • "pravda-en[.]com"[53] (7 uses)
    • "pravda-fr[.]com"[54] (3 uses)
    • "topnews.odessa[.]ua"[55] (7 uses)
    • "topnews.zt[.]ua"[56] (1 use)
    • "uanews.dp[.]ua"[57] (5 uses)
    • "ufa-news[.]net"[58] (1 use)

    Should these sources be cleared down and, if they haven't already, be blacklisted? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Add topic
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1308584435"