Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Booking engines - reliable for regularly scheduled airline routes?

This has gone round the houses multiple times over the last while, and for whatever reason I cannot locate the last discussion that was had on the topic - so best to re-discuss and get a final consensus on the matter.

There is a desire from some editors to use booking engines to verify regularly scheduled airline routes, such as what is listed on airport/airline articles - such as using the search engine on an airline's website (eg. ryanair.com) to locate a flight, or third party booking engines such as flightsfrom.com. There are a number of issues with this:

• You can't directly link to the search results, due to the dynamic nature of the URLs - forcing editors to link to the airline homepage instead... you may as well be telling a reader to "use Google.com to look it up and verify it yourself"
• You can only look up a single date at a time, or sometimes a week either side of the search. This means you can't verify the ongoing nature of the flight, the official start date, or whether the route is seasonal or year-round. Conducting multiple searches to identify this information is, to me, flying too close to WP:SYNTH - we're interpreting data presented to us to come to a conclusion not explicitly stated anywhere in the source.
• Forcing readers to conduct their own searches on these booking engines, to me, fails WP:OR, for similar reasons to the point above.

What do editors think on using these sources for airline routes?

I acknowledge that many editors (including myself) feel that the level of detail currently included in these lists fails WP:NOTTRAVEL or WP:NOTDIRECTORY... however as it stands, there is currently no consensus to remove such lists, so we have to work with the status quo while ensuring the lists are properly sourced. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 08:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

We always define sources as published information, I think information that can be retrieved from a company website's search tools really stretches that definition. Although primary sources can be used, this isn't information that has been placed on the record, it's dynamic data for the sole purpose of selling a product, just like a price list or catalogue. I feel these sources aren't good enough for WP:V. Orange sticker (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

This is a good point. If the information on such websites is dynamic, it can not be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Non-verifiable search results (which change dynamically) aren't citations of a published document in any meaningful sense. They only exist for the duration of the search, and even archiving one (which would be an abuse of an archive) would potentially be invalid from the next search - it's far from unknown for businesses to use frequency of searches as a means to adjust prices etc, and even to amend offered products. Merely searching may change the data. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:Published says that published means any source that is made available to the public in some form.. I think these sources are all "made available to the public in some form". Katzrockso (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:SOURCEACCESS says that the difficulty in retrieving a source doesn't effect it's reliability, but a source must exist. That's to say if the source is ephemeral it's not reliable, as the point of sourcing is for the purposes of verification and that can't happen if the source isn't available. Search results in general would be in this category, as search results change with time and the person doing the search.
In this case, even if the search results can be archived, I don't see how it verifies anything beyond the flights listed in the search results and not that regular scheduling exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

User:ActivelyDisinterested so does this mean that because uptodate.com is ephemeral, in that their are no archived versions, it is not reliable? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

If it is ephemeral I don't see how it can be, the point of references is verification. That's mean the source must exist at the point of verification. An editor saw it once does not count as verification. You may have to travel to another country and pay to get access to a source, but it must exist. Is it not possible to archive the site at the wayback machine? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

With respect to Uptodate.com, no it is not possible to archive as it is behind paywalls. There were CD versions at one time. Could booking engine searches be archived? Possible, and if they can be would folks be happy with their use? I would not be surprised if internet archives could do so on our request. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:01, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem I can see with archived search results is the specific use-case - how can a single search result verify that an airline is flying a route on a regular basis, it isn’t seasonal etc.? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we should be claiming any route is regular or seasonal without a source explicitly stating that. All we should say is that at the time of the source we are citing, there was a route from point A to point B. Katzrockso (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

Even that is a reach, it's been known for airlines to go bust after selling tickets but before a flight on a route has ever taken off. Orange sticker (talk) 07:31, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

That affects all sources that report about a route. Newspaper sources that report about a route being established become out of date when the airline no longer services that route. This has been WhatamIdoing's point for quite a while. Katzrockso (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If editors know that a route is out of date and no longer serviced, then they can just remove it. Included content needs to be verifiable, but content doesn't need to be included because a source exists for it. Especially if editors are aware that the source is out of date, this is a none issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:26, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's the issue - the way destination lists are currently structured, a route is implied as year round unless it's labelled as seasonal (then there's charter etc. but that's getting off topic). If you use one of these booking engines as a source, you're verifying that a route is either year round or seasonal... and that can simply not be done. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:36, 14 October 2026 (UTC)

We should fix that since we often don't have sources supporting whether a route is seasonal or year round. Katzrockso (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2026 (UTC)

They would be reliable for what they show, context would be important. If the result only should that a flight went from A to B on a particular date, then that would only support that. It is should regularly available flights of a period then it would be reliable that regular flights occured during that time frame. I don't think booking websites are the best of sources for this, but as I said sources only have to be of a quality to the content the are supporting. Flight schedules may need proper sourcing but it's not criminal accusations, or matter of someone's person live that would require high quality sourcing.
I was thinking of my previous reply, and I wanted to clarify. As long as a site like Uptodate.com shows the information it would pass verification, that's the point of reliability to allow verification, the problem comes when it doesn't. If the source is no longer available to anyone, anywhere, then it fails verification. If the site can't be archived or safed in some way that becomes a problem when it is no longer available . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Uptodate regularly changes their website (similar to other websites). So the version you ref is not the version currently available. Similar problem with search engines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

If it's similar to search engines, and can't be archived, then it's not reliable. That's the consensus on search engine results, if the are the same they should be treated the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:27, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

A source that can't be archived isn't automatically unreliable. There is no aspect of WP:RS that suggests this. Katzrockso (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

At the risk of bending this argument into a full circle, whether or not a source can be archived is not really relevant to that source's reliability in the Wikipedia sense of that word. It's therefore unsurprising that WP:RS doesn't cover it. It is however relevant to verifiability; [all] quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Thus ActivelyDisinterested's point stands: if the current version of a source ceases to directly support the material in the article, and there is no archive available of a version that did support the material, then the effect is not that that source becomes unreliable, but rather that it just stops being a source. XAM2175 ^(T) 01:02, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree that if the source no longer works and cannot be archived, it no longer satisfies WP:V. I would hope everyone here agrees with this banal statement of fact. Katzrockso (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The purpose of a reliable source is verification, if the source can never be verified (if it is truly ephemeral) it's not a reliable source for verification. Reliability doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's only for the purposes of verification and if it can't be verified it's of no use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

What does it mean to "verify a source"? I can understand verifying a statement/sentence/claim in an article, but not a source itself. Katzrockso (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry "can't be used for verification it's if no use" would have been a clearer way of stating it. To be clearer if a someone looking to verify the content can't verify the content because the source supplied is ephemeral, then the source is not reliable for verification because it fails verification and will always fail verification. The typical example is search results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

If at any given point in time, the source provided does in fact verify the claim it is being used for, it verifies the content, no?

Say a new FDA.gov webpage happens to just report today's date, but is only accessible after inputting your personal information (name, DoB, etc). The page would on every day verify the information it would be cited for, but the url would be ephemeral and require you to click and type things. I think this would be a reliable source, just like how the New Zealand census results require you to click through a bunch of things and are unarchivable. Katzrockso (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

No sources must exist at the time of verification, you may have to travel across the world and pay for access to source but it must be accessible - it must exist. Yes typing in details are fine, but it must result in a single target, but that's not what's being discussed that's accessing a database entry. If the source is not going to be the same (it has deviated and no longer verifies the content) and it can't be archived, then it fails verification and so is not a reliable source for the purposes of verification. If typing in details to access it means different results to different people on different days, that's not a reliable source as it can't provide verification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

If typing in details to access it means different results to different people on different days, that's not a reliable source as it can't provide verification.

The source in question would verify the statement on different days. I agree that once a source changes and no longer verifies the content, it can't be used for verification. News articles change all the time. A journal article or an academic book can be retracted or corrected. Once that happens, a statement that was previously verified just fine by the source should now be tagged with ^{[failed verification]}. I don't agree that we should say that sources that verify a statement don't verify a statement just because they might not verify anything in the future. Katzrockso (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• This website https://www.flightconnections.com/ has archive links that list all the destinations from all airports. Yes websites change over time, so sites with archival links are better. But it does not mean that websites without are not.
• AirCanada lists all their destinations on this page https://vacations.aircanada.com/en/plan-your-trip/travel-info/where-we-fly What do we do for airlines without similar pages? Agree booking engines are not the best, but disagree with banning them entirely.
• Knowingly creating incomplete lists is not appropriate per WP:NPOV just because the source supporting the information is not one a person "likes". There are errors of commission (when we include wrong stuff) and errors of omission (when we exclude correct stuff). Both are less than ideal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV first sentence is that NPOV is including all significant views found in reliable sources. If it's not in a reliable sources it's inclusion is against NPOV, editors don't decide sources do. Absolutely whether a source is suitable should be discussed, and we shouldn't be overly stringent (the quality of a source only needs to match what it's supports), but a source isn't reliable because we need it to be. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  FlightConnections seems to be a random website. The minimal amount of info about it on the Contact page just lists an incorporated company in the Netherlands with the exact name as the website. Why would this at all be considered a reliable source for anything in the first place? Silverseren^C 18:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yah, likely we need to go through the potentially sources one by one. Why would FlightConnections be a reliable source? Per WP:RS 1) they are published 2) they are indepedent 3) it is accurate for the material that it is covering 4) it is up to date Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't normally keep RSN discussions open, but given the mix of responses above I think it would be useful to get more input... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:14, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Keeping the archive bot at bay for a little longer... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:44, 13 October 2026 (UTC)

Taking a bit of a step back here, and going back to policy. WP:V explicitly states that citations must directly support the content in question. Sources verifying regularly scheduled airline routes must therefore be able to tell us, explicitly, that the route is regularly scheduled. This raises two problems - first, you can't link directly to booking engine search results (in most cases - certainly I can't link to a Ryanair.com search result); second, airline booking engines at most display 7 days (from what I've seen) of results either side of the date you're searching. And even then, you have to dig deeper to identify if it's that airline or a codeshare partner (which of course doesn't apply to all - Ryanair doesn't have partners for example). In order to verify that a route is regularly scheduled, you need to be able to see that it is flying on any given date... and you can only display 7 days at a time. A perfect example of this pitfall can be found at Los Angeles International Airport (discussion) where an editor spotted a flight on Google Flights, and half an hour later realised it was a one-off flight for a football game. The only way to reliably use these sources is to carry out multiple searches for multiple dates... which in my eyes falls foul of WP:SYNTH (and this is why I've been banging on about SYNTH in this context for a while). That's quite aside from the fact that if you're forcing readers to carry out their own searched (since we can't link to booking engine results), that in my eyes falls foul of WP:OR.

I do agree there may be exceptions to the rule here, and I think Doc James may well have found one with FlightConnections... but I think simply linking to an airline's page where you're presented with a "find flights" search box does not meet WP:RS. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:11, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

These are not sources for the subject in the first place. None of them actually state that there is a regularly scheduled flight from one location to another. Unless you have a primary or secondary source (secondary always preferred, primary highly discouraged) that states that an actual route between said two locations exists, then you don't have anything. A booking website for a flight is not a route and are not reliable sources anyways for basically anything. Any such source usage should be actively removed from all such lists. Silverseren^C 18:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. There is no requirement that sources be easy to access or that sources must be static pages. The airlines are reliable sources about where the airlines fly, as are websites that incorporate their data. There is no benefit to artificially restricting sources that verify content and making things harder for ourselves. There is no concern regarding bias or unreliability to these sources. Databases that do not have a URL specific to each item are still usable as reliable sources. Clicking a route pair is absolutely not original research. Let's not pretend this is particularly contentious or complicated information that needs a higher bar for sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

as are websites that incorporate their data This is just a blatant inaccuracy in regards to WP:RS. A website is not a reliable source just because it is copying data from another source that would be considered reliable. Not only is there copyright issues involved, but also problems of accuracy, reliability of a random website owner, due weight for the information itself, and a number of other factors. You can't just spin up your own website, copy data from an encyclopedia, and then state your website is a reliable source. Silverseren^C 19:51, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

An airline saying that they operate certain flights is not copyrighted, this is not a creative work. That may be an issue on other things, but it's not here. I've seen no evidence that websites that use the airlines' APIs have widespread accuracy issues, that is a purely hypothetical concern. — Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

So you are claiming then that if I made a website right now, copied said flight data onto it, that my website would be a reliable source for said information? Silverseren^C 21:42, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

Just bought a membership to www.flightconnections.com When you pay for it, it tells you which routes are seasonal and which are year round. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

• Support permitting the use of "booking engines", such as flightconnections.com and google.com/travel/explore, among others as reasonably reliable sources for this content. With some you can link to specific "search results" / "specific routes" and you can look up stretches of time for months in the future. While some airlines list their destinations clearly, like here https://www.mea.com.lb/english/about-mea/our-history, other airlines are less clear within human readable pages. As such why make our lives more difficult? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• I think they are reliable sources, though we should prefer to have an additional static source to go along with it as often as possible. I provided evidence of WP:USEBYOTHERS below and I think they are perfectly reliable in the context that they could be used in (WP:RSCONTEXT).
  

Addressing the claims of the original post here one-by-one:

1) I don't think that the fact that the source cannot be directly linked is relevant here - we cannot link particular results from many database sources. I have seen New Zealand census data used before, but it only brings you to the home page of some New Zealand government webpage and you have to navigate through the page to find the pertinent information. The WP:RS policy permits a source that an editor may have to travel via plane and physically visit in-person to be used as a source, so I don't know why the fact that there isn't an easily accessible URL to be relevant whatsoever (a museum sign, for example, might be an example of a source used in this fashion).

2) As I have elaborated on above, I don't think that we should be presenting any information about whether a route is "seasonal" or "regular" without a source explicitly stating it as such. We should simply report what sources say - if our sources simply report that as of a particular date, there are flights going from point A to point B, we should report that using the As of {{{1}}}^[update] template supported in one of the recent RfCs.

3) I don't see how clicking a few buttons on a website fails WP:OR. What is the material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published in question here? I don't understand how having to click or type things has anything to do with the WP:OR policy - perhaps a different policy was supposed to be linked here?Katzrockso (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Usable, but only if they support looking back or if they can be archived. If neither is true - for example, if you can't check whether there was a flight from London to New York on the 1st of October, and because the lack of direct links means that it is not archived - then you can't use it, because it doesn't actually verify anything. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

  FlightConnections is archived here, checking to see if IA will update the addition here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Quartz website reporting now appears to be almost entirely AI-generated

See this recent story in Press Gazette. The article states that almost all articles on the Quartz website are now written by Cris Tolomia, who appears to be a "marketing expert" from the Philippines, who uses AI to write 50+ articles a day, which are derivative of other news organisation's reporting. Since the last major ownership change was the purchase of Redbrick in April 2025, when the whole newsroom was laid off, I think that Quartz should be considered unreliable since 2025, rather than the "yellow" it is currently given at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources/X. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Support labeling as generally unreliable We did have a discussion on it back then and made it yellow while having a keep an eye on it notice. I think we have certainly reached the jumped the shark point to have it go all the way to unreliable red for post 2025 purchase. Another sad, lost piece of news media to the private equity vultures. Silverseren^C 23:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Also Support it being unreliable. I long had doubts about this site. But time is always the greatest revealer. CaribDigita (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

Likewise. This is an obvious slop factory now. Cortador (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

A generally unreliable label seems appropriate; even disregarding AI use, it's impossible to produce over 50 articles in a day with any sort of quality control. ARoseThorn (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Given the enshittification marking it as unreliable after 2025 seems appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:16, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2026 (UTC)

Support. Checking the guy's article list, it seems that just today he's written 30 articles. In solidarity, DollarStoreBa'al (Converse) 18:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment on the BBC

Occidental Dissent

@EncycloDeterminate is arguing that the neo-Nazi website Occidental Dissent is a reliable source on the white supremacist Alex Linder. They have reverted me tagging it as an unreliable source (claiming I cited a Nigerian news site when I didn't, oddly enough?). Discussions on their talk page have been unproductive. I think this is rather obviously an extremely unreliable source, especially on a WP:BLP, and one that has no tie whatsoever to Linder. Also, Tweets from Linder are being used to make broad, sweeping claims about his ideology not evidenced by his Tweets (that he is a regular critic of Christianity). I believe that all of these sources are not particularly reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

This characterization seems intentionally misleading. PARAKANYAA first reverted my edit on Mr. Linder’s death in August 2025, accusing me of violating WP:BLP. After I added a source linking to the announcement on Linder’s own website, he accused me of treating a “neo-Nazi website” as a reliable source, repeatedly talking past me. PARAKANYAA also claimed that I was making “broad sweeping claims about a [Linder’s] ideology” by citing his final Twitter posts before his death, when I had only written that he “regularly criticized Christianity.”

My interlocutor, I believe, has been operating mostly in poor faith. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

You inserted the death with no source . That is a BLP violation. Then you added it with a neo-Nazi website. Occidental Dissident is a neo-Nazi website.

You did make broad, sweeping claims about his ideology cited exclusively to tweets . You cannot say that someone regularly did something cited to passing mentions in social media posts they made. That is an inappropriate use of primary source and also simply not what the sources say. These are not independent or reliable sources and do not back up the claims made.

I stand by these statements.

Are you arguing that Occidental Dissent is a reliable source? If not, why did you cite it on a BLP, and revert the addition of a tag identifying it as an unreliable source? Currently this unreliably cited material is still in the article, and you removed all maintenance tags identifying it as such. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m pretty suspicious of your continued repetition of incorrect claims about my own comments that I’ve refuted. No, I have not asserted that this far-right blog is a reliable source for politics. And no, I did not make “broad, sweeping claims” about his “ideology,” only that he repeatedly criticized Christianity. It is strange that you are seemingly defending the integrity of the white nationalist’s views while falsely implying that I’m giving credence to white nationalist ideology. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

My comments are correct and you have not refuted them. You did make broad sweeping claims about his ideology - where, in any of those sources, does it say he is a frequent critic of Christianity? It is strange that you are seemingly defending the integrity of the white nationalist’s views oh, how am I doing that?

If you don't think the neo-Nazi blog is a reliable source, why did you use it as a source for contentious information on a WP:BLP, and then continuously revert the tagging of it as an unreliable source? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Your comments continually misdirect, and a death is not “contentious information.” You denied that three social media posts in four days from Mr. Linder himself constituted “repeated” criticism of Christianity, which is rather ridiculous. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

His death is obviously contentious information.

"three social media posts in four days" is not worth noting if no reliable source does. It also is not being a "regular critic". PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

And for what is worth, this is the guy who runs Occidental Dissent: / (search Griffin).

And again, what did you mean by the thing about me citing a Nigerian website? Could you point out me citing that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

@Parakanyaa @EncycloDeterminate - this is the wrong forum for you to be going over this dispute in great detail. Occidental Dissent is a self-published blog and therefor clearly not a reliable source and shouldn't be used, before we bring in questions of bias into it (it is also clearly heavily biased and shouldn't be used). I think that's all that needs to be said on this. Poketama (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

They are arguing it is a reliable source, which they still maintain. I am arguing that it is not, the issue is not bias and I never mentioned bias. The content is still in the article. This is a question of whether the sources in question are reliable - what other board am I supposed to take it to, if not the reliable sources noticeboard? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

It appears the dispute got somewhat tangled between an accidental note at the very top of the page regarding the Nigerian newspaper Vanguard, and the actual substance of the maintenance tags concerning sourcing.

Occidental Dissent is a self-published partisan blog and does not meet our standards for a reliable source under WP:RS or WP:BLP, regardless of whether the fact itself is accurate. It should be replaced with a proper secondary source or removed.

Using Twitter to synthesize claims about the subject's ideology venture is original research (WP:NOR) and primary-source interpretation.

A gentle suggestion to both parties: let's set aside the procedural frustration, remove the blog citation and Twitter content, and ensure any remaining biographical details rely strictly on independent, reliable secondary sources.

Thank you both for your continued dedication.

For any first disputes please use the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Poketama (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Even if Occidental Dissent wasn't a selfpublished source it wouldn't be a 'high quality ' source for BLP information. As it is BLP applies even for the recently deceased, so a selfpublished source is unusable (as are tweets from third parties). Per WP:BLPREMOVE these shouldn't be let in the article.
Outside of the documented issues with promotional articles Vanguard is as reliable as any other newspapers per WP:NEWSORG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:43, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

If someone's died and no notable source confirms it, is this person even notable at all? All of the coverage seems basically confined to 2007. I'd rather delete an article than have it say they're alive indefinitely when they're not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia There's a lot more academic sourcing discussing him from the 2000s to the 2020s. He is very notable.

This happens a lot with racists. Roger Pearson (anthropologist) has been dead for like 4 years - he is one of the most notorious racists ever and only the racists covered it.

So yes. WP:NTEMP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, from personal experience, this happens most of the time when a notable racist dies. Even the most notable racists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Happened with Richard Lynn, too, who was notable enough that it surprised me a bit. For a long time the only sources that noted his death were white supremacist cites like VDARE. --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The same material has been re-added, now sourced to a different white supremacist website. . This is still entirely unreliable sourcing. We cannot cite his beliefs to white supremacist tweets and podcasts, this is violative of WP:PRIMARY. There is plenty of discussion of his views in secondary sources, we cannot cherrypick tweets and neo-Nazi podcasts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Can we have flourit dates then? Pretending that people are alive indefinitely when they're not is just bad form. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah I see there is an RIP notice with the date of death on the subject's own website. The issue seems resolved then. BLP clearly does not apply a year on from their death. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, he didn't write that, so I don't see why that would be a reliable source either? It's a tribute site devoted to him. Those are wrong all the time. For our purposes he is a BLP until we have RS confirming he died. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, is there any reason to think he's alive? If he's dead, BLP doesn't apply to him and normally unreliable sources can be used to source his death. Whether or not the sources stating his death are "reliable" or not doesn't matter, because he's dead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

We assume people are living until they hit 115 per WP:BLP policy, unless we have sourcing indicating they are dead. Until then, BLP applies. Normally unreliable sources do not become reliable just because he died - an official death record is a reliable source, so yeah, that would work, but we don't have that, we only have neo-Nazi blogs. Not even ones from people he has a business relationship with (which I have previously argued might be usable in the cases of Jim Goad and Nick Bougas, both very notable people who have the same issue (there are so many examples of this) but I lost that argument to @Grayfell in both cases) PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

For an example of how annoying this can be, there is one article I worked on recently where the subject died in 1995 and not a single source ever reported it (they just say they don't know what happened to him after 1995). There are multiple academic journal articles published into the 2020s that discuss him at length. There is an entire encyclopedia entry about him from years after he died. In the past 3 years there have been 4 different reputable PhD theses that devote 5-20 pages to him. None of them mention that he died. The only source that mentions that he died is The Barnes Review.

Thankfully I found an official state death record so that was usable. But sourcing death can be very, very painful, especially those who are "fringe". PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

These are the exact sort of situations WP:IAR is made for. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think citing neo-Nazi websites is improving Wikipedia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Pretending that people are alive when it is obvious to any reasonable person they are dead is far, far worse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Not per WP:BLP policy. We've litigated this before, on the article of that Canadian aerospace guy who died a decade ago but who made his family tell people to never report it, Roger Pearson (anthropologist), etc. If we have 0 reliable sources saying someone is dead, we cannot say they are dead, because well, we think they are, right? Why couldn't we assert that anyone is dead with no proof with that logic? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Forgot his name. James C. Floyd. See Talk:James C. Floyd. There are dozens of cases like this. We still need reliable sourcing to source material. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I know quite a number of editors disagree with my perspective and I think they're wrong. I've been involved with arguments about this before, even nominating articles for deletion to avoid it. This is an unreasonable standard for low profile individuals. The vast majority of people die with no "reliable source" evidence that they've died. This will continue to be a growing problem for Wikipedia over the long term, hosting an increasing number of zombie biographies of marginally notable people who've actually died but Wikipedia says are still alive, and then because Wikipedia says they're still alive reliable sources will assume they are in fact still alive and won't mention their death, thereby exacerbating the problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

This isn't really a problem for "low profile" individuals per se - Pearson was not low profile by any means. It's a problem with certain sourcing ecosystems and the elderly; simply the nature of how coverage, whether academic, newsy, or journalistic, works. Plenty of people who were high profile for years and years, well, the coverage falls off, when they are old and retired and maybe they don't have the family to contact the journalists, or they don't want to.

I don't think it's a problem. It's just how coverage is sometimes - it's as annoying as when we don't have citations for a birthdate. It's much worse that we say someone is dead with no source and that gets picked up by secondary sources - WP:CITOGENESIS. Alive is the assumed state. We can't just guess people are dead or say they are without good sourcing; this would get us fake death reports just as often as we are right. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

For an example of this in the topic area, there was, for several months, a similar caliber of sourcing on Thom Robb allegedly dying.

Except he wasn't! He's still alive! Doing YouTube interviews and everything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that "once high profile, always high profile". For example Bambi Woods was undoubtedly once a public figure, but today is as low profile as one can be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Depends on how we define it, but sure, that's a fair dispute. If that is the case though I don't think low vs high profile is really the metric we should be analyzing this by, as all but the 0.0001% of the most famous will retreat to low profile status by their deaths, then. Vanishingly few of the already small pool of notable people maintain a notable output all the way until their death. We cannot expect ourselves to delete the vast majority of biographies because the sources might not cover one fact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@EncycloDeterminate There is agreement above from multiple editors that this sourcing is not appropriate and that Using Twitter to synthesize claims about the subject's ideology venture is original research (WP:NOR) and primary-source interpretation. (Poketama) and Per WP:BLPREMOVE these shouldn't be let in the article (ActivelyDisinterested). Can you revert yourself? Thanks. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

You’ve cherry-picked comments from different editors saying different things to claim that each of your stances have been endorsed by them both, which isn’t true. What is true, however, is that you are engaged in a circuitous argument with Hemiauch over the refusal to acknowledge the death of the subject. You even made the inexplicable contention that Mr. Linder not recording his own death meant it was not reliable. Finally, the site is attributed to “Alex Linder”; as it was his blog prior to his death. EncycloDeterminate (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Which of those comments do you dispute is an accurate characterization of the commenter?

Why would it be reliable if it is no longer maintained by him? If someone else takes over your website, it is no longer your website. He did not author the claim of his own death. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia I wouldn't be opposed to that in theory but in this case it doesn't make much sense. If we applied this widely wouldn't we do this for everybody, e.g. say fl. 2025 and then have to update that when they make the news again in 2026? Unless we have sourcing, how else would we apply it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Concerns about the accuracy of statistics from a source on the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus page

2 weeks ago, i raised concerns on the talk page of the Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus article regarding a source used for death toll statistics on the infobox of the article. An editor suggested i bring my concern to RS/N. The source in question is Settler/colonialism in Kashmir: Sovereignty, catastrophe, indigeneity by sociologist Goldie Osuri. While i do not dispute the general reliability or legitimacy of the book, i believe it's representation and sourcing of Kashmiri Pandit fatalities during the conflict is problematic and has discrepancies from its cited sources.

My concerns are as follows: The article currently uses Osuri (2026) for this claim

A Right to Information (RTI) application to India's Home Ministry in 2013 disclosed 219 civilian Pandit fatalities from violence. It further revealed 1,724 civilian fatalities between 1984 and 2013; of these, 1,600 were Kashmiri Muslims.[19]

This is cited from:

Osuri 2026, p. 120 "A Right to Information (RTI) application in 2013 to the Indian Home Ministry revealed the figures to be 219 Pandits. The RTI revelation lists 1,724 civilians killed in the three decades before 2013; 1,600 of those civilians were Muslims."

There is a problem with the numbers first off, as it is statistically impossible for a report to claim 219 Pandits were killed, while simultaneously stating that 1,600 muslims died out of 1,724 people. Looking deeper two issues emerge, first the 2013 RTI by the Indian Home Ministry can be found on government websites and does mention 219 Pandit deaths but neither mentions 1,724 civilians killed nor 1,600 specifically muslim deaths.

Secondly the book attributes this claim to this article: Numbers Behind Narratives: RTI Revelation on KP Killings, December 21, 2021, Raja Muzaffar Bhat, Kashmir Observer.

This has two issues, the article, which can be found online, does not mention a 2013 RTI from the home ministry, it specifies that the RTI is from 2021 and filed with the Jammu and Kashmir Police. It mentions the police stating that 89 Pandits and 1,600 muslims had died out of 1,724 people.

In response to a query raised by RTI activist PP Kapoor from Haryana’s Samalkha, a Jammu and Kashmir Police officer posted in Srinagar informed that as many as “89 Kashmiri Pandits were killed in attacks since inception of militancy in 1990.”

The RTI has further revealed that 1724 civilians were killed by militants in Kashmir in the past three decades. Out of these, more than 1600 were Muslims. Kapoor said that KPs comprise nearly 5% of those killed by militants in Kashmir.

Osuri appears to have conflated the 2021 RTI by the state police, and the 2013 RTI by the Indian Home Ministry. Given the mismatch with the primary records cited by her, i propose either qualifying this text with a note, or removing it, especially because the government estimated death tolls of 217 and 219 are already found on the infobox from other sources.

my second concern on Osuri is this According to Kashmir Pandit Sangarsh Samiti (KPSS), an organisation representing those Pandits who have remained in the Valley, 399 Pandits had been killed between 1990 and 2022.[20]

Which is based on this:

Osuri 2026, p. 120 "Kashmiri Pandit organisation formed of those who did not migrate in the 1990s, have corrected this statistic. Their record shows that 399 Pandits have been killed since 1990 (Sabrang India, 2022). KPSS President, Sanjay Tickoo, categorically refutes the claims of 3,000–4,000 Pandit deaths since 1990 as propaganda (Sabrang India, 2022)."

The Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti figure was an incomplete lower end survey from 2011, This is closer to the 2011 data provided by the state government that estimated 219 deaths, which the organisation expected to rise to 650. Since then newspapers and academic sources have consistently reported a figure of 650 from the organisation.

The source used by Osuri, Kashmir Files: Agnihotri cites exaggerated figures of 4,000 Kashmiri Pandit deaths, March 19, 2022, Sabrang India, was referring to the survey from 2011, and explicitly stated that it was a lower end figure which was expected to rise.

This is closer to the 2011 data provided by the state government that estimated 219 deaths.

Similarly, a Kashmiri Pandit organisation Kashmir Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS) stated in the same year that at least 399 Pandits have been killed since 1990, with 75 percent of the people killed in the first year alone. The then incomplete survey estimated the deaths to rise to 650 deaths.

I have two academic sources I wish to replace the 399 figure with: Braithwaite and D'Costa (Cacades of violence:War, Crime and Peacebuilding Across South Asia, 2018, page 210)

Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti (KPSS), a civil society group in Kashmir that looks after the affairs of the remaining Pandits, notes that there are currently 3,400 Pandits in Kashmir. Others have placed the number at around 2,700. Rejecting estimates of the death of between 3,000 and 4,000 Pandits as propaganda, the KPSS believes that 650 Pandits were killed in the Kashmir Valley over the past 20 years. Many of these were on a JKLF hit list for assassination of pro-India leaders and Pandits believed to be intelligence agents.

Balcerowicz and Kuszewska (Kashmir in India and Pakistan Policies, 2022, page 52)

Sanjay Tickoo, the head of the Srinagar-based Kashmiri Pandit organisation and Kashmiri Pandit Sangharsh Samiti ( ... , KPSS) estimates there are currently around 3,000 Pandits in Kashmir whereas in 1989 there were 140,000. According to his data, around 650 were killed in Kashmir between 1989 and 2008.

I'd appreciate some feedback on how to deal with these statistical issues regarding Osuri. NooreRaaz (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

It is possible for 219 Pandits to have been killed, and for 1,724 civilian casualties between 1983 and 2013 (of which 1,600 were Muslim). The figure of 213 isn't given a date range while (1,734 - 1,600) is given a date range. From the text you've presented it's not possible to say the two figure are directly comparable. E.g. both could be true under different circumstances. It sounds instead that the 89 Pandits killed in attacked are being counted separately from the (1,724 -1,600) figure, as 89+(1,724-1600) is 219. That in turn is very similar to the 217/219 figure given by the government. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:59, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, i should have added the full context regarding the RTIs.

The 2013 RTI by the Indian Home Ministry states

As per information furnished by the govt of J&K which is available in our records, a total of 219 Kashmiri Pandits were killed during the turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir since 1989.

Whereas the 2021 RTI states this

In response to a query raised by RTI activist PP Kapoor from Haryana’s Samalkha, a Jammu and Kashmir Police officer posted in Srinagar informed that as many as “89 Kashmiri Pandits were killed in attacks since inception of militancy in 1990”.

Regarding the gap between the state government 219 death toll, and the Jammu and Kashmir Police's 89 death toll, Osuri's source itself highlights the discrepancy in the numbers:

Numbers Behind Narratives: RTI Revelation on KP Killings, December 21, 2021, Raja Muzaffar Bhat, Kashmir Observer:

Back in the day when Sagar was a prominent minister in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, the Omar Abdullah government had revealed that 219 Kashmiri Pandits were killed by militants since 1989 while 24,202 families were among the total 38,119 families which migrated out of the Valley due to turmoil.

Even if the KP killings are 219 than 89, the activist accused of killing thousands of KPs during his train trip said, people across the country should be made aware of it, “so that Kashmiri Muslims won’t be targetted”.

According to scholarly sources, the insurgency in the region began in 1988, no Pandit was killed until September 1989, with the vast majority killed within 1990, a further four massacres also took place between 1997 and 2003. Neither RTI places the killings as being prior to 1989

The issue with Osuri's data is that it either mixes, or misattributes these distinct figures to the 2013 Indian Home Ministry RTI, even though the article she cites explicitly pointed out the discrepancy between the 219 figure (which the 2013 RTI took from the state government) and the 89 figure of the 2021 RTI. NooreRaaz (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I think WP:WSAW is a useful reference in this scenario. I think the article would be best served if we mention that osuri says death counts disagree, and that one said x and the other said y. (If there is sourcing saying other sources are inconsistent, we can mention in article space) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 09:31, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

i agree but Osuri did not say the death count disagreed, she simply conflated both together with no context. It's her primary source which actually says the death counts disagree. That's my concern, because she presents these 2 contradictory death tolls as a fact from the same source (when it is two separate sources) which leads to a strange and confusing number. NooreRaaz (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Bluethricecreamman: I think it better to find a source that mentions the RTI figures without conflating the 2013 and 2021 RTIs, and use that source instead. @NooreRaaz: does such a source exist? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

sources juxtapose the 2021 RTI with the numbers of the state government, but not specifically to the 2013 RTI itself i believe. NooreRaaz (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Had the OP of this thread asked me, or told me that they had opened a thread here, I would have explained to them that Osuri (a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick) is making the point that the government's own figures contradict each other. She doesn't have to come out and say this explicitly. I immediately understood that this was parenthetically a sardonic remark—that on the one hand the government office tells us 219 Pandits died, but on the other hand no more than 124 did. It doesn't make Osuri unreliable; it only discredits the Indian government Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it is also a nod to the 800 pound gorilla in the room: for every Kashmiri Hindu killed in the violence, there are 1600/124= approximately 13 Muslims killed by the state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:54, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Firstly the Kashmir Observer article cited by Osuri explicitly states that the 1724 is only civilians killed by militants, not the state.

The RTI has further revealed that 1724 civilians were killed by militants in Kashmir in the past three decades.

Secondly, the toll the police gave, which is an extreme underestimate compared to every other source on both Kashmiri Pandit and Kashmiri Muslim deaths, is over a 3 decade period, but as almost every scholarly source agrees, the vast majority of Pandit deaths were in the year 1990. This is not including that Kashmiri Hindus only made up 3% of Kashmir's population prior to the exodus. NooreRaaz (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Your interpretation would be WP:SYNTH, you cannot imply what the text doesn't.

A Right to Information (RTI) application in 2013 to the Indian Home Ministry revealed the figures to be 219 Pandits (Bhat, 2021). The RTI revelation lists 1,724 civilians killed in the three decades before 2013; 1,600 of those civilians were Muslims (Bhat, 2021).

This statement does not give any actual meaning or interpretation to the numbers, besides her wrongly claiming that the article she sourced from mentions the 2013 RTI and conflating it with the 2021 RTI, she does not actually explain why she included both numbers, nor does she mention they are separate RTIs. As the 2021 RTI numbers are from the Jammu and Kashmir police rather than the Indian government, I do not see the governmental contradiction. We can't imply that she might have meant that the numbers are the Indian government's contradictions. The police accounts for deaths differently than the Indian government, so they cannot be used in parallel; the article states it was based on the number of FIRs filed at police stations. Scholars and human rights organisations on the Kashmir conflict often make it clear that militant killings were frequently not reported to the police due to a lack of justice or fear of retaliation. NooreRaaz (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Folks can synth all they want in talk page to discuss what to include or exclude per WP:DUE, i think article space its forbidden. I think the contradiction is worth the mention, but would be against ascribing a motive without someone else having said it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

That's completely fair, i was meaning the reason there's a contradiction is that Osuri was the one who made a contradiction, as she had incorrectly conflated an RTI by the Indian Home Ministry in 2013, to a Jammu and Kashmir Police RTI from 2021, and listed them as the same RTI. She had improperly cited her source to do so. NooreRaaz (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I dont think we can state in article space ofc that Indian government is unreliable, only that osuri states there is a contradiction in the government data User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:45, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Osuri did not state that there was a contradiction in Indian government data

A Right to Information (RTI) application in 2013 to the Indian Home Ministry revealed the figures to be 219 Pandits (Bhat, 2021). The RTI revelation lists 1,724 civilians killed in the three decades before 2013; 1,600 of those civilians were Muslims (Bhat, 2021).

This was all she said, it is Fowler&fowler's interpretation that she had meant to imply that there was a contradiction. NooreRaaz (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

I apologize. I wasn't able to read Bhat (2021) earlier, which I just did. I'm dismayed that Osuri used such a poorly-written source as that newspaper article of Bhat. She should have used the actual RTI. Anyway, I apologize to all, and as I was the editor who added Osuri's estimate of 219 Hindu deaths, I'm happy to remove that citation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:21, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

That Osuri has conflated two separate RTIs, from 2013 and 2021 respectively, does make Osuri's figures unreliable. Even the most capable of scholars make mistakes. Our job is to determine when an error has been committed (which is the case here given the clear mismatch between what Osuri says and what the sources she cites say), and use a better source which does not contain that error. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Is the website "Logically Fallacious" a reliable source?

Bo Bennett's website "Logically fallacious" is frequently cited in Wikipedia pages, such as Appeal to the law and Argument to moderation, (The former of which being described on the website as an "Original fallacy named by the author", which probably makes this not an independent source as well.) yet the website seems very blog-like and frequently invents terminology. ~2026-56111-21 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

They say the fallacy articles are written by "site staff" on their FAQ, but yeah, it seems pretty blog-like. It's only cited 26 times on Wikipedia though, which doesn't really count as "frequently cited", no? ARoseThorn (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

A lot of those citations are used to provide sources for original or non-academic terminology from the site. Another instance of a citation like this is in the page for Appeal to probability. The website has two notes for such terminology. The first being "This is an original logical fallacy named by the author." and the second being "This a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found." the website's page for "Appeal to the law" has the first note, and the pages for "Argument to moderation" and "Appeal to possibility" have the second note. ~2026-56111-21 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

As you've implied, I wouldn't use it for the names or terminology of fallacies; either the name hasn't been adopted by other sources, in which case it's not worth including, or it is used by other sources, in which case those sources should be cited. ARoseThorn (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

• It is a fallacious source, for sure. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Not very reliable or independent, its more like a primary source. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

News24

How reliable is News24? It's been a while since it was mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F0malhaut42 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Why would a change in the political landscape affect their reliability? The WP:RSP entry lists specific issues, do you think some of them are no longer true? Alaexis_¿question? 22:15, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

The main issue here is that the rise of One Nation has caused Islamophobia to become acceptable within Australian society, and News24 are one of the main pushers of that. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:17, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

So in effect, with regards to News24, nothing has changed. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I thought we already had Sky News Australia catted as GUNREL, but I see it's MREL. While I hold the opinion that nothing has really changed in their output, I hold that that output should be considered GUNREL (see TarnishedPath's comment below for evidence). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The changed political landscape in Australia has nothing to do with any policy or guideline. If there has been a change in the reliability of News24 it would be best shown by other sourcing reporting on issue with there reliability, or by showing examples of them having poor fact checking or accuracy. As it is as the the header and edit notice RFCs shouldn't be opened without prior discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I thought that previous RfCs counted as prior discussion. Sorry. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 23:52, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, we judge a source on its reliability, not its politics. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

My problem is that the political landscape is giving it cover to say unreliable things without being criticised. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 09:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Either way, looks like consensus is against me, so I'll withdraw the RfC. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 09:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

The problem is the question is wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Slatersteven above. The political leanings of a source are irrelevant. The Guardian is a politically-biased source. It does not mean it should be subject to a blanket ban. AusLondonder (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the question. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

You should not have done that now people have replied. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

This is why I can't be trusted with anything. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:34, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable: Sky have be known for pushing climate change and Covid-19 misinformation. Additionally they've been known to lie about political parties which are not right-wing, such as the Australian Greens. They're close to on par with the American Fox News when it comes to politics and science, which is not at all surprising given the editorial control that their owner (Rupert Murdoch) exercises over these outlets. See the following reports from reliable sources on Sky being banned from YouTube for a week for pushing Covid misinformation. I'd hope editors are aware of some of the cranks that YouTube allows to keep pushing Covid misinformation, without any penalty, so for them to take this step against a major Australian TV channel is not a small thing. See the following story from the Australian ABC's Media Watch, which reported on Sky having being found by an Australian government department to have breached industry codes four time because of them failing to present news accurately or to separate news from opinion.. TarnishedPath^talk 10:27, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Did not know about the MediaWatch report. Nevermind, the RfC is staying up. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:28, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  @F0malhaut42, editors can have a general discussion about it without the need for an RFC. General practice on this noticeboard seems to be that a source should have had at least 3 separate discussions about its reliability prior to any RFC and if there has been any prior RFCs that there should have been at least 3 separate discussions since the last RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 10:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Did not know about the 3 separate discussions thing. I'm removing the RfC tag now. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Ps, since the last RFC in 2022 there's been a discussion dedicated to Sky at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 448#Sky News Australia and the Women's boxing controversy and now this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Having a discussion before the RFC would have allowed things like this to be highlighted, which in turn would have given reason to have the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:01, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm trying to turn this into a discussion right now. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:03, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  @TarnishedPath The ABC has been found by ACMA to have breached the Code of Practice on the basis of accuracy and impartiality on multiple occasions this year alone. News24 have been subject to zero breaches. Of course, only a few months ago the ABC was forced to apologise to a female supporter of One Nation for broadcasting a segment fantasising about the rape, torture, murder and cannibalisation of her. Do you suggest we start a discussion to ban the ABC? AusLondonder (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  The Australian ABC is obviously WP:GREL. Nice whataboutisms though. TarnishedPath^talk 22:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  So the ABC is "obviously" reliable because you said so, despite the two accuracy and impartiality breaches this year alone and the rape and torture fantasy but News24 should be totally blacklisted because of breaches three years ago? AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Not just breaches 3 years ago. Repeated breaches over the course of at least seven years, and probably more that I haven't found yet. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:36, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Also, there's this. The analysis they're referring to is a deadlink now though. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:41, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  The ACMA breaches were not all I detailed above. You're conviently ignoring that they were taken down from YouTube for posting COVID misinformation. TarnishedPath^talk 22:42, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Again, that predates the previous RfC. Nothing has changed. We don't just come back for a second go because we don't like the political leanings of the source and think the previous RfC should have come to a different conclusion. AusLondonder (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  The ACMA breaches were not mentioned in the previous RfC. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 23:08, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  If you want to start a discussion on the reliability of the ABC, then you're welcome to. It's GREL right now though, so it can be used without scrutiny. I do believe that the ABC has a slight bias towards the left though. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, I think all media sources in Australia have their own political leanings. That's why I don't support blanket bans, particularly based on ACMA breach findings. If we are relying on ACMA breach findings then the ABC would have to be out. AusLondonder (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'd argue that at least SBS, Nine News, and the Sydney Morning Herald are politically neutral sources. Pretty much every other source (that I know of, I don't know much about the media landscape in SA, TAS, NT, or QLD) is at least slightly biased though. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:43, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Also, because SMH and the Age are sister publications, I thought that it would be important to include my reasoning for not having the Age on the previous comment while having SMH. The reason here is that I've noticed a pretty heavy bias towards the Teals in the Age where I haven't in the SMH. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:56, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with the Sydney Morning Herald but I'd still regard it as having a political leaning. The Conversation published a piece from a media academic ahead of the election last year describing the SMH as a "slightly left-leaning newspaper". The rise of One Nation is relevant too, because some right-leaning outlets such as The Australian have been highly, highly critical of One Nation whereas the Daily Telegraph in Sydney has been more supportive. AusLondonder (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  That is actually probably a fair description. I don't think that SMH has any bias towards or against any political parties though. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 23:16, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Didn't their investigative journalism program also recently have to withdraw three of their episodes because of made up anonymous sources? Eigenbra (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

  That withdrawal, I believe, came with an explanation. We expect reliable sources to correct issues that arise and to be transparent about it. Sky's removal of the 30-odd videos came with zero explanation. TarnishedPath^talk 01:00, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I'm inclined to go with option 3 per TarnishedPath, and also adding onto that their role in the pileup Safe Schools controversy in 2016. Also per their tendency to claim that Sharia Law is being enforced or promoted by organisations with any connections to anyone Muslim. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:40, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• Generally very unreliable. The fact is that some misinformation comes in bundles: climate change, pandemic, you name it. They cater to a specific audience who wants to hear that type of view,so they will push that to remain in business. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
• Comment It should be noted that this discussion is motivated by Talk:Helen Haines#Inclusion of half a sentence of Pauline Hanson's reaction where two editors above have argued that despite what the listing at WP:RSP says based on a previous RfC that News24 "should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims", News24 should instead not even be permitted to source comments made by a politician on their channel. This is clearly not in accordance with the RfC. TarnishedPath forum-shopped to WP:AN3 in which the closer described their behaviour as "questionable" and their position "weak". So I don't think this discussion is a good use of editors time. AusLondonder (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yet more disgusting WP:ASPERSIONS. TarnishedPath^talk 22:26, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  "On Wikipedia, casting aspersions is a situation where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence." I have provided the evidence. The closer at AN3 said your behaviour is questionable and your position weak. Not quite sure what's "disgusting" about that. AusLondonder (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Both of you were warned. You don't have a trump card over TarnishedPath here. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:35, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I accept I did edit three times to restore the version supported by the majority of editors which I shouldn't have done due to my involvement. But I think the broader concerns about long-standing battleground behaviour and lack of collaboration from TarnishedPath is pretty problematic. It's not aspersions if there's evidence from a closer of a discussion TarnishedPath literally started. AusLondonder (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  What's problematic and leads to a lack of collaboration is editors who think that our policies don't apply to them because they think that they are right. The closer explicitly stated that you edit wared in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS. Go look in a mirror mate. TarnishedPath^talk 23:22, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  I accept what the closer said and recognise I should have waited before restoring it, despite the numerical majority of editors favouring inclusion. In contrast, despite you promising ArbCom in May that "Going forward, I will exercise greater restraint in conduct and article talk discussions" the battleground behaviour and misuse of policy to further your view has shifted from Zionism to One Nation (whose leader is a Zionist). You really need to step away from editing related to One Nation or Pauline Hanson. AusLondonder (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  This is a discussion in which having and defending the last word can lead to an interaction ban; not because I'd place it but because anyone running to ANI pointing to this discussion and the one preceding it would have a good argument for proposing one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, I was already in the middle of writing one. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 00:05, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  QED; whether you proceed with that or not is your decision but the two warriors should in my eyes silently take that as a final warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  I've been caught in the middle of this dispute on three out of the four places it's happened, and I don't really see any other way that this could end, so I'm going through with it. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 00:08, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that comments made by a politican on their channel are a primary source and should not be subject to RSP. In general, their news program is unreliable. But based on what you're saying here, I think I misunderstood what you were saying about the source a few times on Talk:Helen Haines. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:29, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that their night-time commentary shows would be fairly unreliable but a daytime interview with a politician should be perfectly acceptable to source what that politician said. I think the existing guidance at RSP that News24 "should not be used to substantiate any exceptional claims" is perfectly sufficient. That means it should not be excluded from the use suggested at Helen Haines. AusLondonder (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yep, sounds like I did misinterpret what you said. I thought that they quoted Hanson and she wasn't directly interviewed on the channel. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 22:46, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, yeah the source was actually a video of Hanson making the comments during an interview with Kieran Gilbert who hosts daily news coverage not nightly opinion shows. Gilbert is pretty well-regarded and interviewed Anthony Albanese the following day about Haines. AusLondonder (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

  do feel free to ping me when talking about me :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2026 (UTC)

• In addition to the links I posted above about Sky being taken down of YouTube for a week for Covid misinformation, another Guardian story details that when the ban was lifted that Sky deleted at least 31 of their videos, which questioned the Australian government's Covid response, without explanation. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to presume the deletion was part of the terms for their ban being lifted. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Now the goalposts have shifted; after a lot of people have replied, this should be procedurally closed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven, to be honest a lot of the discussion prior to the question changing was regarding whether the discussion should be an RFC or not. I think (I could be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time) that I was the first editor to substantively address the question on whether Sky (or News24 as they are now known) are reliable or not. TarnishedPath^talk 10:59, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I checked and yes, you were the first. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:39, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

• Comment regardless of politics of the subject, Wikipedia article says it's the largest subscription news website in Africa based in South Africa. This discussion appears to be about something other than the subject of the Wikipedia article.

That said if we're talking about yet another attempt to ban a news source that isn't left-of-center or further, because individuals don't like what they publish, that's not great in that if the reliable sources available to political articles trend to predominately left-of-center or further then what is considered neutral will move left of where it is currently.

If this discussion is about News24 (Australian TV channel), then I would say usage of verification of political opinion stated on it, it should be attributed to the person stating it. As News24 is the old Sky News Australia, Mediabiasfactcheck says MBFC Credibility Rating as "Medium Credibility". Based on that I would utilize it with attribution. "According to News24 ..."--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:11, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

The discussion is about the Australian channel. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:54, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Danny Schechter

How reliable is Schechter for his claims regarding Falun Gong? I am specifically concerned about the following statement, which an editor has reproduced in multiple Falun Gong-related articles:

Schechter... reported that Falun Gong practitioners told him that

Li has always discouraged theories predicting dooms-day scenarios

of the kind found in many religious communities.

My concern is that this statement could mislead readers into believing that Falun Gong rejects apocalyptic ideas, despite substantial evidence (listed collapsed below) that such ideas are propagated in their leader Li's teachings.

Given all the evidence listed above, how much weight should be given to Schechter's account in light of this? I don't think it can be accepted as an Encyclopedic fact as it violates accuracy. It's important to note Schechter is not performing an academic scholarly analysis of Li Hongzhi's writings himself but rather is merely acting as a megaphone for unnamed practitioners. But many top scholars on the topic acknowledge Li teaches an impending apocalypse so it's either Schechter is sloppy or it's the large collective majority of scholars/media stating that Li is teaching the apocalypse is mistaken, and I really doubt it's the latter that's the issue.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to Danny Schechter's 2001 book Falun Gong's Challenge to China: Spiritual Practice or "Evil Cult"?. The book was published by a reputable publisher. Danny Schechter was an award-winning journalist. On the book's Amazon page, it received good reviews from AP, Noam Chomsky, etc. It is a reliable source.

In religious contexts, apocalypse doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world or doomsday. As the wikipedia article Apocalypse explains: "In popular use apocalypse often means such a catastrophic end-times event, but in scholarly use the term is restricted to the visionary or revelatory event." So there is no contradiction for an NRM to have both apocalyptic teachings but not predict the end of the world.

In his book, Schechter also quoted Li Hongzhi, founder of Falun Gong, saying in one lecture "I can proclaim here to everyone in all earnestness that all of those so-called catastrophes of the earth or of the universe and things of this kind in the year 1999 simply do not exist." I found a 1998 lecture by Li that did say that, with slight differences probably due to translation. And Li's words don't seem to be only limited to 1999. :

There are also some cults that are spreading. All of them teach about the end of the world, they talk about such things. Of course, I have said that [ordained] catastrophes do exist. Buddhism also believes this to be the case, and Christianity, Catholicism, and Daoism share in this view. It is the law of the cosmos’s evolution. However, it is nothing at all like what the cults profess. Also, I have observed that while such an event might indeed happen during a certain time, it is not inevitable. I can solemnly proclaim here to everyone that all of that alleged end of the world, doom of the universe, and so on in the year 1999 simply does not exist. [...] Why do those alleged “catastrophes” no longer exist, then? I indicated that there are now 100 million people in China studying our Dafa. And we have many disciples throughout the world studying it. The number has become quite sizable. If all of them are striving to be kindhearted, are cultivating, and are behaving as good people, then what would happen to all of these good people if the universe or Earth were destroyed? You see the logic, right? Destruction is only carried out when the planet is no longer good. With so many good people around, how could it be destroyed? In other words, such danger no longer exists.

Scholar David Ownby said similar things in his 2008 OUP book Falun Gong and the Future of China to what Schechter said:

"My reading of Li's teachings acknowledges the existence of apocalyptic elements, but I do not find that such themes were highlighted prior to the stresses brought about by the crackdown. In fact, even practitioners to whom I spoke after the crackdown rarely mentioned apocalyptic themes."

Schechter's production of a Falun Gong promo video in 1999 was before he wrote the book. I don't see evidence that he had any COI when he worked on the book. In fact, his documentary based on the book won the Society of Professional Journalists' Sigma Delta Chi Awards for Excellence in Journalism . MrGerLib (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Don't insult my intelligence. I am aware how certain editors want to conflate and keep claiming he is right by misusing Li's statements where Li SPECIFICALLY denies apocalypse only for the year 1999. And then wrongfully overgeneralise that quote to mean he always denies apocalypse, not just 1999 but always, despite that's not what was said.

Li: I can proclaim here to everyone in all earnestness that all of those so-called catastrophes of the earth or of the universe and things of this kind in the year 1999 simply do not exist.

All that quote means is that Li said apocalypse won't happen for the very specific year of 1999. It doesn't mean he claimed it will never happen beyond 1999. I find this pattern constantly in Falun Gong articles. An editor take a more moderate quote from Li where he says he denied apocalypse for the year 1999. And then misuse it to claim he has always denied making any in his entire life when that is easily proven false. I had to fix that constantly to show li only meant year 1999.

We have David Ownby stating:

Another aspect of Li’s teachings concerns the apocalypse—world destruction and renewal. On a number of occasions Li has stated that the world has been destroyed and recreated eighty-one times, and he has claimed that certain signs lead him to believe that another such cycle is imminent.

That above is solid enough to show that Li indeed predicts a coming apocalypse rather than never. It's silly to keep denying it.

And that's just one element of concern. If Danny's video was made before the book, he was already compromised where he was already involved with their promotion process by the time he got to the book. The bigger concern is that he is relying on the words of unnamed practitioners. Unless we can verify those practitioners are reliable, it's a shoddy claim especially when it's easily debunked by primary sources and many scholars. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

@MrGerLib Also I reached out to RS noticeboard for preferably uninvolved editors. Or more specifically opinions that are not from the always present FG defense group. We already discussed this in length and none of your arguments are remotely applicable. Don't repeat them here when they don't even disprove anything. I am only going to tell you this once to not give verbal gymnastics.

• Rejecting a specific prediction about 1999 doesn't establish that Li has also never taught that humanity faced destruction at another time. These are separate claims.
• Li indeed predicted an impending large-scale elimination of humanity. It means he made predictions of humanity's destruction (with believers to be spared if they follow him) which in ordinary English - reasonably falls within the meaning of an apocalyptic or doomsday scenario, or the end of the world as we know it.

More importantly, it is misleading to claim that Li NEVER taught apocalyptic ideas or warned of humanity's destruction. That's the issue with Danny.

Danny is proven wrong to push a shoddy statement by unnamed practitioners when Li himself would give lectures and say stuff like;

Li - Everything that Dafa disciples do at the present is resisting the persecution of Dafa and its disciples. In the future, several billion people are to obtain the Fa, and if people's minds contain thoughts that resist Dafa, once this evil drama is over a large-scale elimination of humankind will commence. You cannot skip Fa study. This is what can best ensure your reaching consummation.

That above is Li himself making a theory of doomsday scenario of humanity (non-believers be wiped out). You can no longer claim he discourage them when he is predicting that this large-scale elimination of humankind will come. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Please keep comments to content not other editors, if you have a problem with another editors behaviour take it to WP:ANI.
As to comments by Li and secondary sources about Li, secondary sources are preferred. Wikipedia is more interested in what sources say about a subject, rather than what that subject says about themselves. Li's comments attributed comments and denials should be included, but should be balanced against what is found in secondary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:12, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I am actually curious exactly what Danny said in exact quotes. I can't read it as it's paywalled but it doesn't smell right. Either he is mistaken or is being misquoted. As his claim is fringe as there is many sources confirming Li teaches this rather than discourage this.

A large number of secondary - scholars and media - that has gone into this subject have talked about Li teaching about that coming Apocalypse in detail.

There is only just Danny who is the odd fish who seemed to call everyone else a liar that such teachings were not being made. And it's not even his secondary interpretation of Li or his teachings. He is quoting unnamed suss practitioners.

Yet here's Li teaching in 1998 speech in Switzerland about how in the coming apocalypse, the gods will come first for the homosexuals.

In the coming “apocalypse” (jienan), good people will be protected. Some people, however, are not “redeemable” and will have to be “destroyed” (xiaohui) and “eliminated” (taotai) “in a big plague” or an “explosion.” The gods will first destroy homosexuals for violating “the rules that were given to humankind.” Other “evil people” will also be destroyed “in a horrific manner”: Not only will they suffer great pain, their suffering will be prolonged. Human beings, in general, will be “obliterated.

Zhuan Falun is the main book of Falun Gong that stresses apocalyptic themes. Followers are made to read it everyday and it talks about how the degeneration of humanity provokes the gods to set the apocalypse in motion. Li goes further to claim he made a careful assessment once and believed world was destroyed 81 times and there is archeological proof of these ancient advanced civilizations that been ended by apocalypses. And claims another destruction of civilization is coming.

And you have named Shen Yun dancers, who were raised as Falun Gong practitioners, being told that their entire existence is dedicated to saving people from a coming apocalypse.

Our entire existence was dedicated to this mission – saving sentient beings,” Li Zhuxing said. “The message for us as children was that the apocalypse was coming.”

So when you have so many media and scholar who touches the topic and confirms Li predicts a doomsday scenario is coming for us in the future. It is dubious to see one statement say he ALWAYS discourage this. You can't simultaneously ALWAYS discourage this when you are literally teaching it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

Also you and I both know how it's misleading to omit things.

You unreasonably omitted final half of Ownby's sentence.

My impression is that Li did not stress apocalyptic themes in the period prior to the Chinese government's suppression of Falun Gong, although he certainly made more than passing reference to such themes.

Even with that phrase, it doesn't by itself disprove that he would teach these things.

It's worse when that very sentence (that you trimmed) was also embedded in a 5 sentence paragraph where its first 2 sentences had started off with -

Another aspect of Li’s teachings concerns the apocalypse—world destruction and renewal. On a number of occasions Li has stated that the world has been destroyed and recreated eighty-one times, and he has claimed that certain signs lead him to believe that another such cycle is imminent.

So it's confirmed by Ownby that he indeed claims this doomsday/apocalypse will occur and you are undoubtedly aware that Ownby said this.

Its not just Ownby. The absolute claim that Li is ALWAYS against doomsday predictions is ridiculous when there is a wealth of sources that shows that is false. Danny was the one guy who was foolish enough to believe the group doesn't predict doomsday scenarios.

Meanwhile as I told you before but you ignore - RS confirms after the crackdown, Li's apocalyptic claims got significantly more advanced where he refers to the persecution as a "final trial" and that after he finishes Fa-rectification, anyone who is with Communist gov or doesn't stand against the gov is going to be destroyed. Those who oppose gov and believe in the goodness of Falun Gong will be saved and be able to pass to the next universe. And he also adds in aliens to his Apocalyptic theory.

But while qigong foresaw a blissful future for humanity in this world, Li Hongzhi predicted the apocalyptic end of the universe21 and situated salvation in another dimension.

You have reputable NYT reporting it and they have no reason to make this up.

Mr. Li has said that people who believe in the goodness of Falun Gong, and reject the Chinese Communist Party, will be saved from a coming apocalypse and enter a new universe.

I told you before that Li instructs adherents to avoid sharing details of his higher teachings with outsiders including journalists.(Page6) Tho that was never going to work well given the scale and impossible to keep this completely quiet. Nowadays journalism is not shy at all to often talk about how Li abused apocalyptic teachings to get adherents working like a dog for him -JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I was quoting from Ownby's 2008 book. That was the exact quote. I didn't omit anything. You quoted a similar remark from another article by Ownby. As I mentioned above, an NRM can have apocalyptic teachings without predicting the end of the world, as Apocalypse means revelatory event in religious contexts.

Based on the NYT source you cited, Li said that people who believe in the goodness of Falun Gong and reject CCP will be spared from the coming apocalypse. Another source you cited above quoted Li saying "In the future, several billion people are to obtain the Fa." In a lecture excerpt another editor cited earlier, Li said a powerful disease could happen in the future, but good people would be spared. I think these sources are consistent that this NRM believes there will be an apocalyptic event, but it won't be the end of the world. It is just that some sources emphasize the apocalyptic aspect, while Schechter's book emphasizes the no end of the world aspect. I don't see a contradiction.

Religious teachings are complex and nuanced. It is normal for different sources to have different interpretations. Just because one source's interpretation differs from those of other sources, that doesn't make the source unreliable. Including these different sources helps to ensure WP:NPOV. MrGerLib (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

@MrGerLib You know that an absolute statement that Li ALWAYS discourage doomsday scenarios theories cannot be true. Maybe at certain times, he discouraged certain theories and for specific years, but you cannot say ALWAYS. It is not complex as you make it out to be.

The statement in question is an ABSOLUTE statement that Li ALWAYS discourage doomsday theories of our future. It mislead readers as if no doomsday scenario is ever being taught by Li.

At best, it's a shallow research that is wrong. At worst, it is blatant intentional disinfo that simply cannot reasonably co-exist with the many RS-supported claims stating in detail how Li teaches the end times will arrive.

It is also well documented that Li doesn't want the public to be aware of what he teaches. His doctrine is basically for his followers to never question him or "don't think" too much and allow him to think for them. And he does indeed teaches end times are arriving. Even in 2020s, he hasn't stopped and one can easily find his essays talking about the end times that will arrive.

However Li goes to willful lengths to tell followers not to mention his higher teachings to outsiders. Hence any curated follower that don't really think for themselves, but follow Li's instructions will be pressured to omit Li's teachings to outsiders.

The Western media get most of their information about Falun Gong from press releases disseminated by the Rachlin media group. This group is essentially a Public Relations firm for Falun Gong, managed by Gail Rachlin, who is one of Li’s inner circle...Journalists also get their stories from interviewing participants. However, Li forbids practitioners from talking about what he calls “high level things” to ordinary people, and instructs them to lie to those uninterested in spiritual matters (“tell them that we’re just doing exercises” [Li, 2002, p. 21]). Therefore spokespeople tend to be evasive about their beliefs.

If we rely on certain compromised practitioners alone, we would be made to believe it's not even a religion at all which is ridiculous. However, it seems Li's tactics to keep the public be aware of his teachings are no longer effective. It's already out there with many practitioners acknowledging Li teaches them about the coming apocalypse.

And I did my best to address the questionable statement. However, if this discussion continues with nobody participating beyond you, me, and the usual Falun Gong hovering group, I will follow WP:DROPTHESTICK or consider a rFc. I see no productive way forward if we cannot agree on the basic distinction that an absolute statement that Li ALWAYS discourages predicting doomsday scenarios, cannot be true, when it's well documented by scholars and followers and ex-followers (no longer pressured to be quiet) that he indeed teaches a coming apocalypse.

Former practitioners of Falun Gong told NBC News that believers think the world is headed toward a judgment day, where those labeled “communists” will be sent to a kind of hell, and those sympathetic to the spiritual community will be spared.

JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Airline timetable as a source for an airport destination table

Is an airline timetable listing a flight from Airport_A to City_X sufficient to say in wikivoice that City_X is a destination of Airport_A via said airline?

The specific context for assessing reliability is airport articles containing a destination table. An example of a destination table is that for Heathrow. Whether destination tables merit inclusion has already been discussed extensively and is outside the scope of this question. --Uhoj (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

No. This information changes all the time, and fluctuating sources should not be used for wikivoice statements.Cortador (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

That's incorrect. We use statements like {{as of}} a particular date when information may become outdated, and there is no requirement that sources be static as services like the internet archive can record snapshots if an online sources changes. Thryduulf (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

The example mentioned by OP (Heathrow) only gives information for a single day, even if archived. That is entirely too short a time frame. Cortador (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

That's not relevant here. The sole question is whether it is reliable for the information it presents (yes), not whether it is a useful for an article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

If it's that unstable, it's not a RS for the same reason we don't use news tickers as RS. Cortador (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Once again that's not relevant here. If the source is archived showing there was a flight from A to B on 22 October 2021 then it's reliable for the statement there was a flight from A to B on 22 October 2021. Whether that is useful for the article is an entirely different question and one that is not relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I’m going to disagree on one very specific point here - it absolutely is relevant here, given that the context of this discussion as opened by the OP is using this source in airport destination tables - therefore it absolutely is relevant if a source that can only verify whether a flight flew on a single day is sufficient for that purpose. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:47, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

What's not relevant here are individual flights; the topic is about sourcing for destination tables (as per OP). If all we can use a source for is that it confirms one flight to one destination, it isn't useful for that. Cortador (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

@Danners430 @Cortador once again the sole question here is reliability, not usefulness. An airline timetable is a reliable source for the information it shows, regardless of whether it is useful or not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand what RSN is about - the OP is asking whether this source is reliable in context - ie is it reliable for this specific task, that task being verifying these lists. Nobody is disputing that these sites are reliable in the basic sense - however the question remains if they are reliable in this specific context, as valid sources for this specific content. At the very top of this page is the text Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. Asking such questions is the purpose of RSN, and that is the question the OP has asked. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

If a source no longer verifies the content, and there is no archive available or possible then it {{fails verification}}. This is a separate matter to reliability, the usual process is to either replace the source if possible or rewrite/replace the content with a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Didn't this just come up twice in the past few months? Did you check archives? — VPP (t/c) 19:17, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

The related discussions of which I'm aware are listed below in rough order of decreasing relevance. None appears to directly answer this question. If you're aware of a discussion of this particular question, or if you believe that one of the listed discussions answers it, please provide a link.

• Booking_engines_-_reliable_for_regularly_scheduled_airline_routes? (open)
• Airports/airlines_as_a_source?
• Airline_website_for_fleet_figures
• Airlines_and_destinations
• Airline_and_flight-tracking_websites
• Is_FlightConnections.com_a_reliable_source_for_destinations_from_an_airport?
• RFC:_RoutesOnline.com
• WP:AEROROUTES
• Flightconnections,_Flightradar24_and_FlightsFrom_-_reliable_to_verify_airline_routes?
• FlightRadar24_-_use_for_referencing_the_existence_of_airline_routes
• Old_airport_ceased_operations_to_shift_to_new_airport_-_destinations_sourcing
• AeroRoutes_and_Airlineroute
• Real_Time_Trains_revisited_due_to_change_in_data_history
• United_Airlines_Fleet_website

Uhoj (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

Answering the original question. If there is no doubt that the timetable is published by the airline then yes it's reliable. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

They will be reliable for what they show without any interpretation, as they're a primary source. So if they show that flights will go from A to B at 4:00PM every Tuesday then they would be reliable to show there is a regulat weekly flight from A to B, and if they say that a flight will go from A to B next Tuesday then they're reliable for a flight going from A to B on that date. No comment on inclusion or anything else, it's outside the scope of this noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested is correct. You have to look at what the source actually says, without interpretation. Some airline websites will verify regularly scheduled flights, while others will just verify flights on a specific date. Blueboar (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

This. If it says there is a flight from London to New York on November 2 at 3pm, then it can only be used as to say that there is a flight from London to New York on November at 3pm - and it cannot be used to say that there is a regular flight from London to New York, as that requires WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Yes reliable If they say they fly from Airport A to City B, City B is a destination of Airport A. This builds on the consensus to use primary sources for this material. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I imagine we are discussing something like this. To verify if there is still a flight by AC from Heathrow to Calgary one puts in a couple of terms and a date, hits search, and you see that the claim is still true for the future date you entered. Verified. Heathrow.com has a history of accuracy and thus is a WP:RS. Sure would be nice to have a static page that says this which we have here and supports the claim for the next 12 months. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

• Generally yes, no reason why such sources wouldn’t be reliable - however as with other broad discussions like this it depends on context and the individual source. Do you have a few examples we can look at? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:04, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

  I don't have examples because I don't generally edit in this area. I get the sense that there are several cross-cutting questions related to reliability of sources (this discussion), verifiability of content (ephemerality of timetables), and due weight analysis ("regularly" etc). I'll probably open separate discussions about the latter two in the future. Uhoj (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Concern about quality of China Media Project as source

See discussion at Talk:Hostile foreign forces. The secondary source in question, CMP, is the only source given for large parts of the Hostile foreign forces article with much of the article's wording being directly copy-pasted. The secondary source contains a very obvious error in one of the few claims it makes that cites a primary source, namely the Mao Zedong essay reproduced here which it claims uses a Chinese phrase 敌对阶级 (translated as "hostile class") 'repeatedly'; in fact Mao's essay does not use this phrase at all.

As mentioned most other statements made by this CMP source do not cite any primary source. I would argue the error identified casts serious doubt on these claims, and suggests that CMP in general is not reliable.

With regard to the primary source, I am aware of objections to Marxists Internet Archive as politically biased (it would seem foolish to dispute this) but I have seen no claim that its reproductions of primary sources are not faithful.

The erroneous passage presently remains in the article owing to disagreement between editors. Minister of Rabbits (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean it's pretty damning to have an entire section of an article built around a single source that mistranslates its own key primary source. I will note that it's absolutely the case that reliable sources don't need to cite their sources but the key part of that statement is the word reliable. If a source is shown to be unreliable in its citations it does rather cast that reliability into doubt. I'd support removal of the source but would recommend waiting for additional feedback before acting on my recommendation alone. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Radio Times

Radio Times is a profissional editorial platform, but how much is he trustworthy? SamukaBoom2 (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

Are you referring to Radio Times? The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source (e.g. individual article), the Wikipedia article it is used in, and the claim it supports. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

No, the website radiotimes.com SamukaBoom2 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

That's what they were referring to. PixelsRCool (talk • contribs) 23:37, 25 October 2026 (UTC)

I would say generally reliable for television and radio programs, started as an offshoot of BBC https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/research/radio-times

That being said, it depends on the context as others have pointed out Ar1201u1 (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

For TV, Radio and such it's possibly reliable, I probably wouldn't use it outside of those areas. Only the vaguest of answer is possible without the context of how it's going to be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

VGMdb is reliable?

VGMdb is reliable? EduardBS22 (talk) 11:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

VGMdb accepts user submissions and while those have to be approved by a moderator to avoid vandalism, I don't think this is full editorial oversight. I'd say no. Cortador (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. EduardBS22 (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

FilmAffinity is reliable?

FilmAffinity is reliable? EduardBS22 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

It's listed on the Perennial sources list as "generally unreliable". In the future, please check that list before asking about a source here. (Also, please provide the context in which you want to use the source.) ARoseThorn (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. EduardBS22 (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Use of playthegame.org for claims about sports betting sponsorships and pornography advertising

Source: https://www.playthegame.org/news/new-research-cricket-flooded-with-betting-sponsorships-after-pandemic/

Article: 1win

Claim: Branding from 1win was reported as widespread on pornographic tube sites such as Pornhub in 2025, ranging from superficial watermarks and promotional codes, to production-level insertions of branded clothing and plot lines. Such promotional strategies have been compared to similar schemes by companies such as 1xBet and Stake.com.

Context: This claim was added to the 1win article space, and was reverted due to concerns of the reliability of the source. That edit history can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1win&diff=prev&oldid=1368093152. The discussion can be read here: Talk:1win#Request consensus on latest source addition.

Request: Is playthegame.org a reliable source for claims on sports, promotions, sports betting, etc? Additionally opinions on the source are requested.

Thank you! Puddlesofmilk (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe the source is reliable; as you mentioned, they are a independent research and journalism institute funded by the Danish government, and appear well regarded. Their research is cited as a reliable source by government reports and well regarded news agencies. MitYehor said the authority is quite questionable. It is too niche of an agency, and their opinion is more of a blog website rather then notable news service, but I don't see any evidence for this. (They are "niche" in the sense that they focus on a specific topic, but that's not an argument against their reliability.) The argument primarily seems to be about whether the inclusion is WP:DUE, which should be discussed on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. ARoseThorn (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

"Too niche" is a meaningless argument. There's plenty of scientific journals that have a specific niche (like, say, gastrointestinal cancer), and we don't dismiss them because of that. If anything, it's a good thing that they have a focus. Also, a source doesn't need to be a "notable news source" to be a reliable source. Lots of sources we use don't fulfil notability criteria and are RSs till, whereas others do fulfil them, but are unreliable (like tabloid newspapers). Cortador (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Ofcom

The ofcom website that i puted on Draft:List of Sky UK Channels in the United Kingdom is a reliable source? SamukaBoom2 (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Its a primary soruce. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Okay SamukaBoom2 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

As such, it might not be useful, so what do you wish to use it for? Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

I used on the part "these channels are licensed by Ofcom" SamukaBoom2 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Then it is usable, as they are talking about their work. Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks ❤️ SamukaBoom2 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

"Daily Mirror" source in Thomas Markle biography

On 23 October 2026, I removed a sentence from the Thomas Markle biography, with the edit summary of "WP:DAILYMIRROR is a tabloid and not classed as reliable source for a WP:BLP as per WP:BLPSOURCES."

The sentence I removed from the article was below from the "Personal life" section of Markle's biography.

In a 2019 interview with the Daily Mirror Loveless accused Markle of having extramarital affairs during their marriage, allegations which he denied.

The following day the content was restored with the Daily Mirror reference. I don't want to edit war, but my understanding is that as the Daily Mirror publishes tabloid journalism it shouldn't be used for a BLP. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:24, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

It's currently used for the sentence In a 2019 interview with Daily Mirror Loveless accused Markle of having extramarital affairs during their marriage, allegations which he denied. As far as I know the Daily Mirror has existed for a while without getting a reputation for faking quotes or interviews like the Daily Mail, so an attributed quote seems fine. ARoseThorn (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, while The Mirrior is not classed as generally reliable, it is also not classed as generally unreliable. Cortador (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using tabloids for BLPs (or really for anything). -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree; however, some coverage is only done by tabloids (unfortunately) and could be context-specific, seems to be the case here. I don't see much of a problem if it is used with attribution. I would likely even mention that it is a tabloid, something like ... In an interview to the Daily Mirror, a British tabloid newspaper, Mr. X alleged ABC. Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that the size of paper a newspaper is printed on affects its reliability. The Mirror has a far better reputation than most other UK tabloids. If there is a specific reason not to use this newspaper that can be presented, but the paper format alone is not a cause to avoid it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:53, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

As the original comment points out its tabloid journalism, not tabloid format that is the tabloid in discussion. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "tabloid journalism" is a meaningful category then, or if it is it doesn't really apply to the Mirror. What is the evidence it is unreliable? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Iranian AI op eds followup and Middle East Monitor

It's been approximately two weeks since this incident, in which OpenAI disclosed that Iranian operatives had used AI-generated articles and authors to plant op-eds in several publications. The vast majority of those publications have since formally retracted and/or simply removed the articles, but two have not: LAProgressive (1, 2) and Middle East Monitor (1). The fact it's been this long and they haven't so much as pulled the articles is concerning at best and journalistic malpractice at worst.

That said, I am not particularly worried with the usage of LAProgressive on enwiki; a source search reveals only 93 total uses, and the one time when they were previously brought up here a while back, there was a firm consensus that they're a highly questionable outlet. In effect, they've already been dealt with, and this incident just served to entrench the existing consensus here.

What I am more concerned with, however, is Middle East Monitor. It's been discussed multiple times over the years at RSN, and is currently listed as MREL at RSP. In tandem with that more frequent discussion is more frequent usage; a source search brings up over 1,800 hits on enwiki. The current descriptor at RSN is the fairly mundane:

There is no consensus over the reliability of Middle East Monitor (MEMO). Previously consensus was established that it is a partisan think tank, with opinions ranging from "sometimes usable with attribution" to "unreliable".

Now, going by that, they're already mostly covered by WP:NEWSOPED, given the status as a partisan think tank. That said, there's a sizable gap between simply being partisan in output and failing to retract AI-generated propaganda pieces. When the original OpenAI report came out, MEMO initially stated that they, "will look into the articles OpenAI flagged and 'take the appropriate action'", later claiming that the articles had been taken down; however, they actually haven't been at the time of this post. There's no disclaimers on those two articles or the "author's" page either.

I'm not quite of the mindset that this one (very bad) incident is enough to drop them to GUNREL outright, given they're already under caution usage-wise as a think tank rather than a news outlet. However, I am of the belief the RSP blurb should be altered to mention this incident and their lack of retraction, and I'm curious how others here feel. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Not too concerned. It is marked as Opinion and the author won't have a bio showing that they are a notable expert so it is very unlikely to be used in a Wiki-article. Not a great look for MEMO and has found its way into a Criticism section in its wiki-bio but all outlets have these lapses. According to the sources on that page, MEMO did say it would take action so perhaps we have not given it enough time. Burrobert (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it may be a sign not to use their opeds in any case if there is no real supervision User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Burrobert MEMO did say it would take action so perhaps we have not given it enough time.

It has been two weeks. All but one other outlet that published the articles had them retracted or deleted within a few days of the OpenAI report. Not sure why we should be giving them this level of benefit of the doubt - it’s hardly “jumping at shadows.” The Kip ^(contribs) 14:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

My comments about "jumping at shadows" and "perhaps we have not given it enough time" are unrelated. Burrobert (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Disregard that, then. I'm still not sure why we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt on "taking action" when all but one other outlet known to have published them had no issues doing so within a day or two of the report. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:15, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it might be worthwhile splitting the discussion. Taking op-eds from MEMO with an even larger than pinch of salt than WP:RSEDITORIAL seems warranted, but I don't think this alone is enough to change the past consensus. Op-eds are reliable for the opinions of the author, but LLMs have no opinions. I don't think the output of a LLM should ever be considered due for inclusion outside of content discussing the output of that LLM.
LAProgessive is more concerning. As per the past discussion they don't appear to be a news organisation, but rather a group blog of some kind. Nothing is labelled opinion upfront but seemingly ever article has "The opinions expressed here are solely the author's and do not reflect the opinions or beliefs of the LA Progressive" at the end, even posts by one of the founders. They also seem to lack, or not care about, control over what's posted as shown by the AI posting. The one in the last discussion is still up 4 years later. All of the posts should be considered selfpublished, and only reliable based on the author under WP:SPS, which would also show whether the author's opinion is due inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested I agree that any existing uses of LAProgressive onwiki should probably be scrubbed/replaced, just not sure they merit further discussion or an RSP entry. Nobody's challenged that they're anything but bad across two discussions, and they're not used often anyways.

As for MEMO, agreed it's not quite enough to drop them to GUNREL; I'm just seeking out input on whether their existing RSP entry should note their failure to retract the articles. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:44, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think LAProgessive needs a RSP entry, it's hardly used anyway. It would be worth noting that MEMO opinion piece should be used only after checking on the author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Worth mentioning it in the RSP entry. The concerning part here is that we don't know how many other articles like these have been published there. Alaexis_¿question? 18:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Or anywhere. But we should not jump at shadows. Burrobert (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I support adding a note to the MEMO RSP entry. I actually think it might be a GUNREL source but if it is designated MREL then we want to make it clear it’s at the less reliable end of the yellow flag spectrum. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of a Japanese TCG Market source

Hi, I was having a dispute about the reliability of a source and I wanted to ask here.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B1%A0%E7%94%B0%E8%8A%B3%E6%AD%A3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Create

I posted a twitter source, of the above TCG designer/card shop owner/businessman, compiling the data from MediaCreate, a Japanese company that collects data on the revenue of things like vidya and TCGs. I wanted to know if this source would still be reliable since the page on Reliable Sources even makes the explicit exception on social media sources if the author came from a recognized expert, and the source is from an expert in the TCG market writing a report using data from a company specialized in collecting market data on fields like Video Games and Trading Caed Games. ~2026-57234-94 (talk) 13:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Selfpublished sources are reliable if the author has been previously published in the field by independent reliable sources (WP:SPS). So if the expert has written books about the TCG Market, or is regularly published as an expert in journals or news articles, then they might be considered reliable, but they must be published by sources completely independent of them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:25, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I would say try getting a secondary source so that you do not have issues in the future. It can be contested by other editors time and time again who are unaware if you have weaker, though possibly acceptable, sources. I would not cite another Wikipedia page as a ref on the English wikipedia though... Ramos1990 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Newspaper Column by Cleveland Kent Evans for speculative name etymology on “Annika”

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. — Newslinger talk 07:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Article:** Annika Content in question:** Claiming the name *Annika* "might" have origins in an unknown African language or served as a shorthand for "Angelica" among Black American women in the 1800s based on U.S. Census data. Source cited:** A local newspaper column by Cleveland Kent Evans (*Omaha World-Herald*). Description of the dispute:** There is an ongoing talk page discussion regarding the origin/etymology section of Annika. Established academic consensus and reference sources (such as standard etymological dictionaries) trace *Annika* as a Scandinavian and Low German diminutive of *Anna*. An editor has repeatedly added text citing an *Omaha World-Herald* newspaper column written by Dr. Cleveland Kent Evans. The column discusses U.S. Census listings of the name and speculates that the name "might" have African origins or developed as a shorthand for *Angelica*. Questions for the noticeboard:** 1. **Reliability for Etymology (WP:RS / WP:MEDRS-style rigour for etymology):** Does a general local newspaper column carry sufficient editorial control and academic weight to support etymological origin claims, especially when framed as speculative ("might have")? 2. **Original Research / Synthesis (WP:SYNTH / WP:PRIMARY):** Is referencing raw 1800s U.S. Census occurrences within a newspaper column sufficient to assert linguistic *origin* or intentional name derivation on Wikipedia, or does this constitute original research/synthesis without peer-reviewed secondary etymological backing? As Dr. Evans has credentials as an onomastician, under WP:SPS, his commentary as a recognized expert can be considered. However, because this claim comes from a newspaper column and is explicitly framed as speculative ("might"), Wikipedia policy on Due Weight (WP:DUE) and In-Text Attribution (WP:ATTRIBUTE) applies: 1. Stating this speculative origin as a plain fact in the main infobox or as an established etymology is not supported by peer-reviewed literature. 2. If included, it must be explicitly attributed in the text to Dr. Evans (e.g., "Onomastician Cleveland Kent Evans notes that..."), framed as a hypothesis, and placed in a historical usage/notes context (the name being adopted by a group centuries after its origin) rather than presented as the primary etymological origin. Would you support rephrasing the section to attribute the claim directly to Dr. Evans while keeping the main etymology focused on established consensus sources? We would appreciate neutral community input on whether this source meets Wikipedia's reliability standard for etymological claims on this page.

Beepbeeps (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Do not use AI per WP:LLMTALK User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:03, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hi Beepbeeps, I have collapsed your comment per the WP:AITALK guideline, because it is LLM-generated. You are welcome to write another comment in your own words. — Newslinger talk 07:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is about biomedical information it has nothing to do with etymology, SYNTH and PRIMARY are about the content of Wikipedia articles and are irrelevant to the content of sources. There is no infobox in that article, and the African origin isn't presented as the primary origin. If you're using an LLM to help you make posts you should be aware that LLMs don't understand Wikipedia policy, even if they can litter there responses with references to them and regularly hallucinate details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:57, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Professor Evans, a former president of the American Name Society, is a recognized expert on names, and his columns should be RS on that subject. I have revised the article to better reflect his views. Since his statements are in part opinion, I have also provided in-text attribution. John M Baker (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

mindmatters.ai

Mind Matters is published by the Discovery Institute's Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. WP:FRINGE applies to what it says about science. It is linked from 17 articles (LinkSearch), many on science, AI or policy, such as Gray mouse lemur, Machine ethics and Debt-trap diplomacy.

It has not been discussed here before. Should it be regarded as WP:GUNREL?

pony in a strange land (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Support GUNREL per "There is compelling evidence from Mike Williams’s podcasts that The Beatles were a psy-op group that were manufactured and did not write most of the great songs attributed to them, nor played musical instruments on their records or albums." --Uhoj (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Generally unreliable: Contains discredited Creationist Talking points. makes the classic creationist bullshit argument of applying the second law of Thermodynamics (which only applies to closed systems) to organizms (with are open systems with energy input from outside the system. makes the classic bullshit bullshit arguments of showing that scientists disagree about some detail of biology and pretending that they disagree about the theory of evolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

• Can we just deprecate it? I mean it's definitely generally unreliable but I cannot think of a single policy-appropriate application of explicitly WP:PROFRINGE AI slop. Simonm223 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

  Deprecation seems like a waste of time, given nobody has opposed a GUNREL label and they're cited a total of 17 times on Wikipedia. (Surprisingly, after reading a few of their articles I didn't detect any obvious indicators of LLM-written text, despite the .ai domain and obvious pro-AI-use perspective.) ARoseThorn (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

  Simonm223, Please read WP:DEPRECATE before suggesting that a source be deprecated. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

  I kind of thought this was in keeping with Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances. No big deal. I certainly don't disagree this source is generally unreliable.Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  The problem with that logic is that there are other classes of sources that are "highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles". They are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable and self-published sources. Editors are also discouraged from citing generally unreliable sources in articles

WP:RSDEPRECATED says that "Deprecation happens through a request for comment, usually at the reliable sources noticeboard. It is reserved for sources that have a substantial history of fabrication or other serious factual accuracy issues (e.g. promoting unfounded conspiracy theories), usually when there are large numbers of references to the source giving rise to concerns about the integrity of information in the encyclopedia." That doesn't describe mindmatters.ai. Look at all of the entries at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Look at how many are generally unreliable without being deprecated.

Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 247#zapatopi.net. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

IGI Global

IGI Global has been discussed here five times (2016, 2019, 2021, 2024-09, 2024-11). Each time it was described as a vanity or predatory publisher. It is listed in WP:UPSD. It has no entry at WP:RSP. About 166 articles cite its DOIs (10.4018). Should it be regarded as WP:GUNREL?

pony in a strange land (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I went through each of the old discussions that you linked and am not seeing a smoking gun. Does solid evidence exist that publications of IGI Global are generally unreliable? Uhoj (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Eriksson and Helgesson, "The false academy" (Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 2017, peer-reviewed), lists IGI Global under "Rogue book publishers", a vanity press for "large edited collections". See also Headbomb's reply below. pony in a strange land (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Headbomb any thoughts? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

The book-side of IGI has been discussed externally and was generally of the opinon that this is a vanity press. The journal side has had very little external discussion.

It's, IMO, at best a bottom tier publisher. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Futurism

Futurism (futurism.com) is tabloid journalism. Most of its reports are of the form of single source + optional sources to pad up the piece + paraphrase and quotation + writer's spin. Its occasional real reporting is still interspersed with a generous amount of spin pushing a highly consistent anti-tech POV. The pattern is the same under all 3 owners since 2017 (its founders, Singularity University, Recurrent Ventures). Some illustrative examples:

1. "Elon Musk Says He Longs to Get Pregnant…" (2025-01-10). Musk replied "1000%" and two laughing emoji to another user's joke. Snopes rated the quote misattributed and traced the wording to "the Futurism article's headline". The body repeats it as fact ("the billionaire has admitted he wishes he could get pregnant"). The article is unchanged, with no correction note.
2. "Americans Are Officially More Scared of AI Than a Loved One Getting Cancer". The body says "a terminal diagnosis". The Chapman survey it cites has 51.9% against 51.8% (margin ±3.79 points), and it also never mentions cancer.
3. "A Prominent OpenAI Investor Appears to Be Suffering a ChatGPT-Related Mental Health Crisis, His Peers Say" (2025-07-18) rests on one video posted to X by a named venture capitalist. AI-induced psychosis cites it for the sentence that he "was described by his peers in a Futurism article as appearing to suffer from AI psychosis" even though the said article is just a linkpost. That puts a claim about a living person's mental health on Wikipedia, sourced to speculation about one post. WP:BLPSOURCES requires high-quality sources for such a claim, and WP:BLPGOSSIP excludes it.
4. "Wolves Descend on Finnish Villages After Google Hacked Down 1,300 Acres…". Its only source, the Guardian, gives 815 acres for one site, no figure for the other. The headline and the body present the wolves as fact supported by one resident's statement quoted by the Guardian, in the context of a far more extensive report that has very little to do with wolves.
5. "CERN Scientist on What Physicists Have Left to Discover After Higgs Boson" (2017-10-24) is one talk by one speaker, set against a New York Times piece. It is cited at Brain Bar and Gergely Böszörményi Nagy.
6. On the front page as fetched on 2026-10-27 (nearest archive), 11 of 30 thumbnails are symbols (as visible by looking at the alt-text in the source code): a finger popping a soap bubble, a burning dollar bill, "the silhouette of a robot with guns", "the silhouette of a lonely man using his phone". 5 more are stock emotions: "an older doctor looking thoughtful", "an older man looking at a credit card and his phone in confusion", "a ferocious dog", "wolves in a wintry environment", "a dirty mattress in a state of disrepair".

Its use on Wikipedia:

• futurism.com is linked across Wikipedia from 457 articles.
• 81 of them are biographies of living people, where WP:BLPSOURCES requires high-quality sources for contentious material.
• 114 links go to "The Byte", its section of short rewrites of other outlets' stories. Per the Inquisitr precedent, the original sources should be cited instead.
• High-traffic pages cite it: AI slop (78,786 views in the last 30 days), AI bubble (47,911), Artificial general intelligence (46,367), AI-induced psychosis (29,069).
• AI bubble cites "Asset Manager Warns That OpenAI Is Likely Headed for Financial Disaster" for the claim that OpenAI is "burning US$15 million per day on Sora alone". The article rests on 3 posts on X by one former fund manager. The figure comes from those posts alone. Futurism repeats it without checking it, which does not make it a secondary source for the claim. The same page cites "OpenAI Is Suddenly in Major Trouble" (2025-12-05) for a Deutsche Bank estimate of $140 billion in losses. That article is a rewrite of one Washington Post story. Its facts are marked "told WaPo", "as quoted by WaPo" and "reviewed by WaPo", around lines such as "the company is lighting billions of dollars on fire". The Post should be cited directly.
• AI slop cites several pieces from Futurism. 3 are the typical type of single-source rephrasal, so the source should have been cited directly, if at all: "Microslop" (2026-01-07) rests on one post on X which is of doubtful quality. YouTube AI slop for children (2026-03-10) rests on one New York Times investigation which should be cited directly. "Educational" slop (2026-03-19) rests on one report by The 74 which should be cited directly.
• Artificial general intelligence cites 2 Futurism pieces, both of the typical type: "Sparks of AGI" (2023-03-23) rewrites one arXiv paper. The Byte item "OpenAI Chief Scientist Says Advanced AI May Already Be Conscious" (2022-02-10) rests on one tweet saying networks "may be … slightly conscious". The same Futurism piece is also cited in the biography Ilya Sutskever.

Futurism has done original reporting of value, such as the 2023 Sports Illustrated AI-author story. Such work is the exception from my above survey. WP:HEADLINES does not apply since the examples show the problem is in the body text. Futurism was last discussed here in 2022, about one sponsored post.

Should Futurism be considered generally unreliable? If there is support, I will open an RfC. pony in a strange land (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Futurism's recent reporting on the AI powered content farm Brown Brothers Media was high quality, serious journalism. I would oppose making it "generally unreliable". I agree that outside its investigations its headlines can be quite clickbaity, and that there are better sources for general tech news that should probably be cited in preference to it. Rewriting other people's news reporting, as well as basing reporting on random tweets, happens even in high quality serious journalism organisations, so I don't really consider that to be a black mark against it. We should consider whether or not using an article is appropriate in context on a case by case basis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you're saying WP:HEADLINES does not apply. For example, you talk about the Chapman survey never mentioning cancer... but neither does the article, it only appears in the headline. Your concern about the Musk story seems similar, not debating the content of the story (which does include that he was responding to a "jape".) These seem like headline problems, not body text problems. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:HEADLINES does not cover these cases.

The body of "Americans Are Officially More Scared of AI Than a Loved One Getting Cancer" says "people are more scared of AI than a loved one getting a terminal diagnosis". The survey has "AI harming the political process" at 51.9%, "people I love becoming seriously ill" at 51.8%, and "people I love dying" at 50.6%. This is in a survey with "The margin error is ±3.79" and cannot support the sweeping claim "Perhaps the most extraordinary context: anxieties about AI are scaring Americans more than the fear of a loved one “becoming seriously ill,” or “people I love dying.”"

The body of "Elon Musk Says He Longs to Get Pregnant So He Can Produce as Many Children as Possible" says "the billionaire has admitted he wishes he could get pregnant".

Furthermore, both of these pieces also are of the aggregator pattern, and per WP:NEWSAGG ("reliability should be judged based on the original source"), WP:PRSOURCE ("simply recycling a press release (a practice called 'churnalism')") and the Inquisitr precedent, the original should be cited instead of these.

pony in a strange land (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

GUNREL is extreme for a publication that mostly reports accurately and has a real editorial team. A GUNREL designation would put it on par with Facebook, CounterPunch and the Daily Wire. I would maybe support an MREL designation where the varying quality of Futurism articles is acknowledged. They publish a lot of fluff articles, and care must be taken to avoid giving too much weight to flimsy claims like the AGI stuff from 2022 and 2023. That being said, establishment media is not immune to dubious X citations either, especially on this topic. BLP citations are already supposed to be held to a higher standard, so the need to check their claims does not change based on their reliability designation. Some of their reporting is pretty valuable and I would hate to see a source like this be branded automatically suspect. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I fully concur with this. ARoseThorn (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, HansVonStuttgart, and ARoseThorn: I now agree that it is not GUNREL but rather MREL, as follows:

• Many pieces are quote-rephrase-spin. For these, wiki should cite original source rather than this, per WP:NEWSAGG ("reliability should be judged based on the original source"), WP:PRSOURCE ("simply recycling a press release (a practice called 'churnalism')") and the Inquisitr precedent. Read the original. Cite the original. Futurism adds nothing citable.
  • Examples include Americans Are Officially More Scared of AI (one Chapman University press release), Asset Manager Warns (3 posts on X: 1, 2, 3), OpenAI Is Suddenly in Major Trouble (one Washington Post story), YouTube AI slop for children (one New York Times investigation), Sparks of AGI (one arXiv paper), Stanford therapist chatbots (one paper, that even the report itself said was "yet-to-be-peer-reviewed", and since peer-reviewed and published at FAccT 2025).
  • All 114 links to The Byte fit the aggregator pattern. The Byte is a series of tweet-sized news, which Futurism itself calls "the market-moving news digest of The Byte".
• Even in its pieces that contain original content (not a rephrase-quote-spin article), there is much spin, so an editor citing these pieces is advised to carefully separate the spin from the factual and descriptive content. The pattern is that many descriptive sentences are marked with highly valence-loaded terms, without clear separation of description and value judgment. This makes the use of these sources a delicate matter.
  • Some spins are easier to see and filter out, as they are marked with highly valence-loaded terms. For example, from the Brown Brothers Media piece:
    • "What BBM has accomplished would be impressive if it wasn't so dark."
    • "Any remotely credible media company would feel immediately compelled to explain such a titanic expunging of content and entire authors, but BBM issued no such justification as the material vanished."
  • Some spins are less clear. For example, the Meta AI glasses piece is one long case report, interspersed with spin, such as Meta's "race for AI dominance", which is irrelevant to the case. Furthermore, that particular piece of sentence links to a Futurism piece, which is another rephrase-quote-spin of one source, a Financial Times interview with Yann LeCun.

pony in a strange land (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

For better or worse "spin" doesn't matter, factual reliability does. I don't think anyone would disagree that the coverage of WP:TELEGRAPH is full of political spin, but yet it's still considered "generally reliable". Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Your case for Futurism being generally unreliable is (amongst other things) that there's one half-sentence about "AI dominance" that in your opinion should not be in the article? You're reaching. Cortador (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Mind Matters

Halloween

There is an ongoing discussion about the reliability of several sources in the Halloween article's History section. Input from other editors would be very helpful. Thanks. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 00:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? the discussion is on several sources and the history section has dozens of things cited. Also, if the talk page discussion is ongoing and fruitful, it might be better to have a discussion there. I generally agree that publications by subject matter experts are preferred; however, it depends on the claim/context that is cited Ar1201u1 (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

To note, Asarlai has posted a neutral notice per APPNOTE in order to draw more users to potentially read the discussion at Talk:Halloween#Source review, which has multiple sub-sections. So you would need to go there to review what is going on. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The Anti-Defamation League implied that they've been stalking Wikipedia editors in a recent post to X...

...And per the precedent established here, we should probably be discussing our options now.

The post where they announced it (you should be able to access it without an account).

                             ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 08:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

From the video, Greenblatt is blatantly casting aspersions by saying groups of coordinated editors are "poisoning articles". Do you think they might be going after the people who decided that the ADL was unreliable on the Israel-Palestine conflict? GarethBaloney (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I have no doubt that this is their intention and who their primary target is. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 08:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Now that I'm writing this down, it seems like it would be best to notify everyone who participated in the prior discussion that is still active. I'll start on that now. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 08:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

On second thought, it would be best to contact a mass message sender. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 08:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Update: I don't understand how the mass message sender contact form works. Looks like I'm typing these out by hand. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 09:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Done. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I assume you mean this RfC on the ADL? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League GarethBaloney (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I could have sworn I linked that. Thanks. And yes, that is the discussion. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 09:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Also, I want to clarify here since I know that someone is inevitably going to ask it, yes, I know that this isn't what RSN is used for, but there isn't a noticeboard called "Deprecating sources for safety reasons noticeboard". This is probably the best venue for this discussion. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 08:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so? I assume it would have to just go through the normal motions of deprecation. GarethBaloney (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

We blacklisted the Heritage Foundation for safety concerns, and right now the information surrounding their statement is vague enough and threatening enough that we should be concerned about editors' safety. From what I know, the Heritage Foundation had already had three discussions prior to the RfC, so there isn't a precedent for this. My personal interpretation is that this is covered by IAR and we should be able to open an RfC immediately if need be, and so right now I want to focus this discussion on whether an RfC is necessary and/or allowed. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 09:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I have opened a post at meta:Wikimedia Forum#WMF approach to ADL, given their responsibility regarding editor safety.

Note the connection with the August 2025 US Government request for “Records showing identifying and unique characteristics of accounts (such as names, IP addresses, registration dates, user activity logs) for editors subject to actions by ArbCom”. That letter was written by two AIPAC-connected US Representatives, and quoted the ADL as its primary source. The ADL and AIPAC are two of the four organisations at the “core of the lobby”, per Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States#Formal. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

That makes this even more concerning and transitions from implied stalking into implied blackmail. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there's MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions, which per WP:ELNO is the place to report Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. But it doesn't seem to be set up for the kind of discussion that will come up around this.

I forget where WP:ATODAY was posted; wasn't it on a village pump? I think the existing discussion for this was probably at the right place. (I continue to think the Heritage Foundation RfC process was a misguided mashup of reliability and safety concerns, I think it was bad precedent, and I worry this will be similar) Placeholderer (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

So far, a situation like this has only happened once, so there's every chance that we could use this to reverse the precedent. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Well, I think for precedent one can look at either HF or ATODAY. I think ATODAY had better execution, and focused largely on proof of malicious scripts that ran for anyone using the site. Reliability discussion there was in opposition to the idea that ATODAY was too important to blacklist.

The HF case was about vague doxing threats, which are more of a problem Wiki-side than what ATODAY was doing, but we didn't have any real evidence that blacklisting their website would be in any way related to their doxing methodology (though, admittedly, it's better to block a domain before it's successfully used for doxing rather than waiting for us to be doxed).

So far we're in the latter territory here, except it's not clear (to me, from what's been posted here/at VPW) that ADL has even threatened "doxing", just "tracking", with "software", which could very well just be an overengineered spreadsheet of people's contributions (and unrelated to clicking their website) Placeholderer (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The relevant quote in response to your spreadsheet hypothesis is, "we've implemented AI in really incredible ways". Greenblatt talks about this as a specific step taken because his "45 full-time intelligence analysts" could not keep up. (same link as top post) ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

If AI were a magic doxing wand, preventing links from Wikipedia to the ADL probably wouldn't help Placeholderer (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's doxing, this is more stalking and harassment. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Which is gross, but it's not clearly something a blacklist would address Placeholderer (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

We blocked the heritage foundation because of (from my understanding) concerns about cookies targeting editors who visit the website. There's every chance the ADL could do the same, as they have definitely not put themselves above harassment. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not browser cookies, but it's entirely possible for a website's owner to get IPs and other data of Wikipedia editors when they add a link to their website. sapphaline (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It is still the same issue though. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Which, to be revealing, would require sending tracking links to specific targets that the target and only that target accesses within a conspicuous timeframe, which is a risk with email phishing scams because an email gets a unique link, but makes no sense to try on a public forum where anyone could click a link.

And there's a big jump from "we built software to track Wikipedia editors" to "we are launching an on-wiki phishing campaign that conspicuously uses our main web domain". The jump was a bit smaller for HF with the sort of stuff they were proposing (see the Forward article which raised that) Placeholderer (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

No, it's way less complicated than that. Won't spill the beans here, though. sapphaline (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Why dont we blacklist this source ADL? They absolutely have no credibility left at this stage. Zalaraz (talk) 10:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• I watched the full clip. As usual, absolutely cringeworthy of Greenblatt and another footnote in his crusade to take a once-respectable organization down the tubes.

That said, also not encouraged by the source here - he brags in his bio about being published in Drudge Report, Infowars (itself blacklisted), and ZeroHedge (itself deprecated), and a lot of his tweets cross the line from mere criticism of Israel into outright antisemitic conspiracies alleging shadowy "Zionist"/Jewish control of and/or spying on America (See 1, 2, 3, 4), or even just outright antisemitism without any relation to Israel (see here and here). Upon scrolling further, I think this guy might just be an outright white nationalist. His blog, which I won't link, also seems to traffic pretty heavily in white nationalism and borderline-if-not-often-outright antisemitic conspiracy theories.

Anyways, source concerns aside:

• If this is just software to centralize tracking of contribs of certain editors they don't like (ex. how editors with IP viewer perms can view all contribs from an IP across multiple TAs), it's unethical but not illegal.
• If it's a software to track personal data of those editors and properly stalk them, it's 100% illegal and they should be blacklisted.

Best bet now is probably just let the request to WMF go through the processes and have them demand clarification, then if the ADL confirms it's cyberstalking or stonewalls an answer we move on to blacklisting. If they confirm it's the first one (just centralizing already-public contribs), there's not really much to be done. The Kip ^(contribs) 10:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Given what you have said about the source, I do believe that there is a possibility that this may be AI-generated. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Rewatching it, the fact that they are giving the interview in tallises in front of a bimah is highly suspicious for a so-called press release. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 10:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

AI video generators cannot generate consistent scenes for more than 5 seconds, while the clip itself is 1 minute, and there are no signs of splices/typical errors present in AI-generated videos, so that's definitely not the case. sapphaline (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind. This is legitimate then. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline I don't think it's AI-generated, but I think utilizing a white nationalist as a primary source for anything, let alone an extremely controversial claim with potentially massive implications, isn't exactly good practice. The Kip ^(contribs) 11:12, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it matters who created the post, as it's just a verbatim quotation of what they said, along with a proof that they indeed said what's quoted. sapphaline (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should be utilizing an open white nationalist's tweets for anything onwiki, especially anything related to Jews. The Kip ^(contribs) 11:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Sapphaline That's absolutely not true any more. Most top-of-the-line AI video models can do up to 30 seconds these days, and many such as OpenAI and Sora support clip extension that can go up to 2 minuntes. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems that this may have happened, as there's a IBTimes article, but nothing is all that clear. (Now that I think about it, maybe I should try searching with a better search engine than bing) ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 14:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

How does this affect their reliability? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Read this. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

So no its not, and deprecating them will not protect anyone, as they can still look at who says what. And the place to discuss conduct is wp:ani or maybe wp:arbcom (as this may be a safety issue). Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The Heritage foundation can still look at who says what and we deprecated them anyway. The reason I brought it up here is due to the precedent. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but not for reasons of user security, but for reasons of unreliability. Deprecation does not (and cannot) protect users. That needs a user ban, and that needs ANI. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I was talking about when they were blacklisted and got the two discussions confused. My bad. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

A bit of checking at wp:arbcom deflected me to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, which I couldn't find a contact for. (They had an email address listed on the page but it appeared to be made to deal with copyright concerns). This has already been moved away from ANI, so this is probably the best place to put it. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

When was this issue raised at ani? Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Here. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:40, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

This is not village pump. Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

There is also a discussion there currently. Once again, I am discussing this here due to precedent. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:43, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

There is no precedent for discussing the blacklisting of a site for editor safety or here, this is the wrong place for that. Only reliability should be discussed here. The Heritage Foundation discussion was a shit show because these issues weren't handled separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:27, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Is this seriously what we have become? Deriding Greenblatt as "cringeworthy" etc. because the ADL may be "monitoring" certain editors who choose to publish edits publicly and who should have nothing to be concerned with if they are indeed editing in a neutral manner? Basing all of this on a tweet from Chris Menahan, who brags about his connection to white supremacists, posts openly antisemitic and xenophobic content, and reuses content (who knows when this video was from or if it is real)? aesurias (she/her) (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias read Sapphaline's comment above. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

This is based off what Greenblatt said rather than something Chris Menahan said. Salmon Of Ignorance (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I was linked to this article by an editor outside of this talk page. It contains at least some of the people that they're targeting. @The Kip, I don't think we have to rely on the white nationalist any longer. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

That article's basically the same whining the ADL's done about Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors for years now, it doesn't contain anything on the stalking/tracking/what-have-you alleged by said white supremacist. The Kip ^(contribs) 11:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Read finding 4. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Which is based off tracking publically-accessible contribs. Anyone on the internet can go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_Kip and see every edit I've ever made.

Again, the only real danger here is if they're using some sort of spyware/etc to track private user data, which is why I'd prefer to see how that WMF request plays out. The Kip ^(contribs) 11:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The concern here is that they're actively stalking these users and publicly posting personal attacks against them. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

They and many others have attacked users by name over their edits many times. It sucks, but it's not illegal or worthy of blacklisting, because again, it's not stalking when contribs are publically accessible to anyone with an internet connection.

By comparison, Heritage Foundation was blacklisted because they were openly attempting to doxx editors via tracking IPs that accessed their site from Wikipedia domains, iirc. The Kip ^(contribs) 11:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Targeting specific editors and publicly shaming them is either harassment, defamation, or libel. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

If we blocked every source that criticized Wikipedia editors by name, we'd have a list a mile long. We can't control stuff offsite. At best, we can block specific accounts if they're connected to offwiki harassment, but blacklisting for it is pointless; they can still see editors' contribs either way.

Hell, Wikipediocracy has massive crossover in its userbase between here and there. I lurk on it, but I don't have an account, and searching my own username revealed I've been called some not-so-nice things there once or twice because of things I've said or done on here. The Kip ^(contribs) 11:51, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It's persistent, targeted, and accusatory. Tolerating harassment of our community members sends the signal that harassing our community members is okay and that we will not do anything about it. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 11:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I mean this in the most conciliatory way when I say I really think you need to read Criticism of Wikipedia for a little while.

Literally all we can do is ignore it unless they start to dox editors or harass them onwiki. The Kip ^(contribs) 11:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I read it and I could only find one case of offsite harassment mentioned in the entire article. This case was from more than 10 years ago. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:03, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Three years ago and academic wrote an entire journal article on a network of accounts distorting the Holocaust which included identifying one of them as a university professor. Our response was to topic ban the accused after a sui generis arbcom case examining the allegations. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland --~2026-53221-51 (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

How would this be defamatory or libelous? Aren't those whenever you make false statements to damage someone's public image? GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Targeting these specific editors damages their image. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I think the point is that truthful statements aren't defamatory or libelous, even if they do happen to damage someone's image. MrOllie (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

These statements aren't truthful. For example, I am not a Hamas operative or a Qatari agent, nor antisemitic, nor have I engaged in any coordinated editing, and I consider suggestions of such to be pretty defamatory. I'd sue them if it didn't require me to out myself. As a consolation prize, I'd appreciate it if my fellow volunteers took this shit seriously, but too often editors' reactions are "well maybe they're onto something here." Levivich (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

For the record I do take this shit seriously, even if others consider it a nothingburger. I don't consider you "editing for hate" as described which is a loaded concept to say the absolute least. Maybe you edit with a chip on your shoulder, but that's ok :) CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

That is correct. Now, if someone can demonstrate that the ADL is lying here (which I suppose is a reasonable possibility), then there would be a libel problem. But merely delivering information that is not intentionally falsified isn't really libelous. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether actual malice would apply here. So whether the ADL would need to have been actively lying or just negligent would depend on your state (and if we are considered public figures). ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 16:48, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

True. I doubt most of us would count as public figures though (not a lawyer obviously). GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The fine point here might be that outing you might turn you into a public figure. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I dunno... I don't usually get ADL outings in my news feed and I can't recall the names (pseudonyms or otherwise) of anyone who's been outed in this manner, so if the named editors are in fact public figures, they're certainly not too well-known of ones. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The account referred to was in fact named (well, the account name was) the press. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't think press coverage determines that. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 17:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

it can. The US has historically recognized, up to and including the Supreme Court, the concept of an Involuntary Public Figure, who do not become a public figure on their own volition/actions but become one because of things outside their control. The rules are kinda intermediate between a real public figure and a rando. It's also relatively rare doctrine in the modern age, but not functionally extinct a la fighting words. --~2026-53221-51 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Even if we suppose that their statements are libelous, I doubt it would be worth the expenses to sue in the U.S. Maybe someone could conduct some clever libel tourism to get a favorable outcome, but I know little about American law, let alone foreign law. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Reminder that BLP still applies to talk pages and when discussing things happening outside of Wikipedia. I see a few labels above being thrown around very much inappropriately. Might be fine for reddit or discord, but not WP. Masem (t) 11:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by this news and is now contributing to an article on something I've never cared about. Somebody didn't read the Streisand effect. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 11:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

We don't know what the software they're talking about is or does so there's no reason to get up in arms right now. There's no problem tracking the public edits of editors using publicly available contributions and history pages. We do know that there is a recent history of off-wiki coordination to influence content on both sides ^{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Arbitration motion regarding PIA Canvassing Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 14#Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area II}. After years and years of this, and now with LLMs being heavily influenced by Wikipedia content, does anyone actually believe there is less effort to sway Wikipedia content on contentious issues? Do we expect interested parties not to look into the possible extent of these efforts when Wikipedia is built on a framework that allows everything everyone writes to easily be tracked and analyzed? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish per my post above, they've been targeting specific editors in a way that, if it doesn't amount to libel, toes the line. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

We disagree with the content these editors write and think they are editing in a way that is antisemitic and anti-Israel isn't anywhere close to libel. There's no attempt at doxing that I see, just a discussion about on-wiki activity. One can think the ADL is wrong and silly and wrong and still recognize they're no where close to libel. Advocacy organizations gonna advocate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

"editing with hate". I want an explanation of how that isn't a baseless accusation that causes reputational damage. Also I just realised I got libel and defamation confused. ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե (Any pronouns)ᵀᵃˡᵏ 12:24, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

+1 CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Defamation requires a false statement. A statement of opinion based on disclosed information can not be defamation because it can not be adjudicated as true or false. Whether someone's edits are driven by hate is not a statement that can be proved or disproved. It is purely a statement of opinion, and they openly disclose the basis of those opinions (the edits). This is textbook protected speech. --~2026-53221-51 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

“Protected speech” has nothing to do with this. A private organization like Wikipedia has the right to enforce a code of conduct that discourages harassment of editors, for example by sanctioning an editor for personal aspersions against other editors’ motives or for attempts to doxx other editors. And it can deprecate use of sources that spread slurs about the motives of editors or that try to doxx them. NightHeron (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

The person I was replying to was asking how its not defamation. I was responding to that. It has everything to do with whether something is defamation or libel. --~2026-51667-44 (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't want to get bogged down in this but in the UK at least, the Defamation Act 2013 works quite differently than US based freedom of speech. "Editing for hate" would certainly require justifying as a truth, ie editing with hateful intent (very clear legal framework for that), on the priviso it has caused serious damage to the reputation of UK editor(s). Given the publications were published globally, and regurgitated by UK media thus read by UK citizens, it could certainly cross the threshold of defamation. Being an American org would not provide immunity here, nor does using scare quotes when referencing it, especially when one image failed to use such quotations. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

a reminder from the last time the ADL complained about these edits you had Congressppl calling for editor identies to be exposed . Masem (t) 12:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Believe me, I don't need a reminder, but I don't think that the answer to that is "actively attack any advocacy organization that expresses opinions about bias on Wikipedia." I think there's actually an organization that's caught a lot of flak recently for trying to shutdown any criticism of a particular entity as harassment or racism. The name of that organization is on the tip of my tongue... ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I expect to be able to edit without being doxxed. Crazy, I know. This take is really rich considering how personally responsible you are for causing this. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps instead of the Wikimedia Forum on Meta, as noted above, the proper place to seek further clarification would be Trust and Safety at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation/Legal/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability/Trust_and_Safety … Jusdafax (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Only partially related, but here's a snippet from one of their pages where they publicly humiliated an editor by name:

"This is not the record of an occasional contributor. According to ArbCom’s public proceedings, the site ban was imposed because [the user] continued editing on Palestine/Israel-adjacent topics even after the original topic ban took effect, specifically on articles such as “Hellenistic Palestine” and “Yahweh,” where ArbCom found that adjustments to ancient historical language constituted proxy engagement in the modern conflict. A topic ban alone could not close that workaround. Only the site ban could."

From this snippet alone, it's fairly obvious that they're using LLMs to write this stuff. "X/Y-adjacent" is exactly what an LLM would say, and "ArbCom found that adjustments to ancient historical language constituted proxy engagement in the modern conflict. A topic ban alone could not close that workaround. Only the site ban could." screams LLM use in a way that I can't really describe.

Because of this, I think we should probably look into moving away from the ADL as a source. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I have to say that I mostly think we're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. It's been sad seeing the ADL de-emphasize those parts of its mission that made it a useful resource while playing into the parts of its mission that put it into direct conflict with things like neutrally written encyclopedias. SFR said Advocacy organizations gonna advocate. and I think this is very true. However I'd add that, when an advocacy group ceases to be useful as a tool for presenting knowledge about the topic they advocate and becomes, instead, merely a tool for advancing grievance, the time comes for an encyclopedia to cut ties with them.

I supported a limited approach to restricting the ADL before, saying they were GREL for their work on white supremacist groups but GUNREL for other topics (IE: PIA). However if they are bringing AI into their workflows and as they definitely are leaning harder into being just a lobby group for Israel rather than continuing their other former good works on white supremacism and antisemitism, I do think the time has come to Simplify our treatment of the ADL to just a GUNREL source without qualifiers. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to retroactively declare all ADL material from some time back as unreliable though. They were once very much a credible and useful source concerning subject matter in accord with their original mission. We don't want to encourage people to start removing ADL-sourced content blindly, as I've seen happen in similar contexts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point. Perhaps periodize it to ADL being GUNREL starting in 2014 with the start of Greenblatt's tenure? Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a reasonable approach considering it used to be a reliable source. GarethBaloney (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

That would be way too early. They obviously didn’t start using AI then, and their vendetta against Wikipedia began much later. During Trump 1.0 Greenblatt was criticised by conservatives for exposing antisemitism around Trump and it produced lots of useful work. The issue with its content seems to me located in the hyper-polarised period since 2023 when (like many other sources) it took an increasingly partisan turn on issues relating to the war. We should limit any proscriptions to that context if we’re focusing on reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:13, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Agree since 2023 would be more appropriate as a discussion. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

True we don't want to overreact to ADL's overreaction. The WP:RSP sections on the ADL already parse reliability well. But as Simon suggests, if this attitude continues, at some point we may need to pull a WP:NEWSWEEK, reliable before xxx. And perhaps that some point has already arrived. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you and I are of a very similar mind on this. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

If this had been started for that reason (the use of Ai) I might agree, but we have a one-line example that may be AI-generated. Not any great evidance they do it often. Rather, it looks more like a fishing expedition, trying to lump as many bad things as possible together; in a "seee Seee" trope argument. I am still not seeing enough to say they're generally unreliable (heck, even the example of AI with (mihgt) have seen is in the area that is already not an RS for). Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

It's not just AI even if we disregard threats to WP editors as being oversauced. The issue is that the quality of the ADL as a source is quite clearly degrading because their mission is less information and more political proselyting. I don't think we can really trust the ADL to be a reliable source of information anymore. Which is really too bad. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Quite possibly, and they are already not an RS in that area; we need to see examples of their other coverage being just as bad. Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

While RS does not yet contain a specific mandate on what to do if a publication has only been detected as sometimes using ML to generate content, it does say, "It may not be known or detectable that ML was used to produce a given piece of text." ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Given their previous reports on wikipedia, its not clear they have the technical skills they are necessarily bragging about. Agree that any threat to out editors needs to be taken seriously, but its not clear that the same old advice around having safe internet User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

If they are now using AI for tracking as they claim, that software likely came off someone else's shelf, not their own. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Meh. I also think it is probably a mole-hill. The way I look at it is that the ADL is quite an expensive operation and they need a story to tell people for funding reasons. The executive compensation alone will be a couple of million USD. They need a good story, a nefarious conspiracy where the listeners/donors can be the victims and the heroes. It's a good time to exploit credulous people for attention and/or money by telling them lies about Wikipedia and its editors. Many people seem to like the "Wikipedia is being poisoned" story. It's been doing great across the media and social media for while now, unintentionally thanks in part to ArbCom actions, and most people can't be bothered with due diligence, so it seems like a good way to get attention and raise funds. Obviously, a pro-Israel organization that describes itself as Anti-Defamation will be Pro-Defamation and if the ADL are okay with supporting an extremely violent expansionist ethnonationalist settler-colonial aparthied state that has killed and injured tens of thousands of civilians (that's what the lead of the Israel article says, right?) why wouldn't they build a system to track enemies on their imagined battlefield? Maybe they should talk about integrating it with Trump's detention camp network. Could be a winner. Meanwhile, in the real world, outside the pro-Israel bubble, at least my part, there is a kind of visceral disgust towards Israeli violence from normal people who can read (factual reporting about the consequences of Israeli violence) and are not willfully blind (can look at photographs of the consequences of Israeli violence) the likes of which I have never seen before. So, maybe the ADL will need to hire more analysts. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Declared revenue for 2025: $135 million. Zero^talk 06:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Rhetoric like this serves to do nothing other than prove their point - and I voted to deprecate them in the 2024 RfC. AusLondonder (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

I hope so. I hope they read it and experience a happy and comforting feeling that they are on a righteous mission because changing their minds is not an option. They don't need to prove their point and I (or Wikipedia) don't need to falsify their claims. It's not about proof or what is true. These 'poisoning' stories are, in my view, functionally a search for individuals with an elevated susceptibity to these kinds of antisemitic-like conspiracy theories whose fears and indignation can be exploited. There is nothing new to this and there are plenty of credulous people out there who prefer simple stories over complicated and ugly realities. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Let's have a proper RFC, with the right (and one) question being asked, and evidance provided. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

• I'll say what I said when the Heritage Foundation turned up here "This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources." If a source should be blacklisted due to concerns about editors safety then the discussion should happen at the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  If there are separate issues with the reliability of a source those should be discussed here, but the discussion on the Heritage Foundation turn into a mess by conflating the two separate concerns. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  +1 -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I see the wisdom in sending a fully-fledged thread to yet another venue, especially one that already simultaneously exists at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Software_to_track_wikipedia_editors, that was previously discussed at ANI, and has been suggested to also be discussed at meta. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  Correction, is already being discussed at meta: meta:Wikimedia_Forum#WMF_approach_to_ADL. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

  Because this is the wrong venue, as the header quite clearly statez. If you start a discussion about the Portugal article on the talk page of the Potato article then you should move that discussion, whether it's fully fledged (which this isn't) or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Can we hold fire for a moment? This thread has been open for all of half a day, time zones exist, and personally I'd like to see more analysis on their AI use, among other things. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

As I said reliability discussions belong here, but a source isn't unreliable because it might be tracking editors. Editor safety should be discussed separately at the village pump. Consensus for a source being unreliable doesn't mean it should be blacklisted for editors safety, and being blacklisted for editors safety doesn't make a source unreliable.
I share concerns about the recent reliability of the ADL, it's just those issues and editor safety aren't the same thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:21, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

This is the diff that alleges LLM use in their published material. ~2026-55913-20 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Presumably a premature RfC would be precisely about reliability, which is why I am suggesting to at minimum delay until further analysis of source reliability is conducted, along with allowing editors of different time zones to participate in the discussion first. Minimum 24 hour delay, ideally 48-72 with mirco workshop. Another RfC about ADL will draw lots of participants, we should remain considerate to the closer(s) of such a discussion by not rushing to create a badly constructed RfC. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

The RFC would be a chance to present the evidence≠, in a way that is not drowned out by all the unrelated issues of user safety or attacks on defamation. This thread is discussing multiple issues, and it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff. Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I've closed enough RfCs to see the shitshow that occurs when they are started on a whim, based on more or less a single passing comment. Your suggested question below is wholly insufficient. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Then explain there, create a talk page, let's not clutter RSN anymore. Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Could be done over here: Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. CNC^{in solidarity} (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Fine, then start a workshop there. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The Heritage Foundation RFC was a complete mess and we don't won't to do that again, any similar RFC should be well thought out before it's launched. I would suggest any interest editors gather their sources and workshop the question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Here []? Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest working on it. The only evidence for it so far that I've seen is this and an editor suspicion of LLM use based on the wording in a report isn't much to go on. A RFC about the ADL is going to be a major discussion and attract a lot of attention, several novels worth of editors arguing about what is or isn't LLM generated will be a nightmare to close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that≈ is the idea, that this is a workshop, but if users would rather do it on the RS talk page, fine, let's have it there. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

My 2-cents: Pro-Israeli groups have been trying to out not pro-Israeli wp-editors for years. The new thing is that they are using LLM to do so. There is at least one X-account that post their findings/outings of wp-editors. (And no: I am not posting the name, email me if need be).

Outing in the IP area can be nasty, one x-account (reportedly run by User:Icewhiz) harassed wp-editors elderly parents, outed their spouses and under-age children, contacted the University where wp-editors worked, etc, etc.)

But the thing is: to use LLM, they need writing to compare it with, and that writing has to be done in your RN (=real name). So the ones they claim to have outed (so far) have been academics (outside the STEM-field), writers and journalists.

Otherwise, they can only out you if you are "indiscreet", typically when you start editing (When I started editing wp over 20 years ago: Not in my wildest nightmares would I have imagined that editing wp could lead to death threats or rape threats).

I don't think there is solution to this, except perhaps to give people a warning before they start edit IP-area? We cannot stop people using LLM. Yes, we can "punish" those we know (like ADL), but what about anon sources?

In the end it will punish themselves. I have lost count over how many times people on X have said I am being paid by Qatar, being paid is apparently the only reason why you can post anything negative about Israel. But if it was my job to make Israel look bad, and I was given the choice between using $ 10 mil., and a 10 second film with, say one of Ben-Gvir's latest statement, or of youthful male settlers kicking an elderly woman or man lying on the ground, (there is a new one every other day), I would have chosen the film any day. $ 10 mil. cannot create as much anger and dislike of Israel, as a 10 second film can. So in the end it is all in vain; the millions they are using on Hasbara every year now, the $$$$$ ADL is using.

In the meantime, perhaps a warning to people who start editing the IP -area? Especially those who have published a lot in English? Huldra (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the enwiki has temporary accounts now, which improve privacy for anonymous editors significantly. GrinningIodize (you just lost the game) (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

You still need 500 edits to edit in the IP area, which limit the usefulness of temporary accounts. And no: I definitely don't want to get rid of that rule, the IP area is sock-infested enough as it is. Huldra (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

Rebranding 'Sockpuppet' as 'Poisoner' might be an interesting experiment. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

As ScottishFinnishRadish, TheKip, ActivelyDisinterested and others have already said, the ADL's psuedo-investigations against Wikipedia is not a reliability. It may be a safety issue, if (as seems unlikely) they are talking potentially tracking users off-wiki based on links from Wikipedia to their site, but that would need to be dealt with technically and is unlikely to be helped by deprecation or blacklisting. If they are using AI in illegitimate ways for generating content, that might be a reliability issue, but we'd need a lot more evidence than has been presented here. The only thing raised on this page so far which we can legitimately discuss at this point is Simonm223's point that the intensity of their bias and advocacy is such that deprecating them on the topics where it is displayed (as we already do now) might now be insufficent protection such that we consider them generally unreliable for areas where they don't display that bias. Personally, I think that's unnecessary and might undermine our articles on e.g. far right topics. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

Is Collider a reliable source for child abuse allegations?

Specifically, "This Forgotten Fleetwood Mac Member Disappeared Overnight and Never Returned for a Reason No One Saw Coming" in the article Jeremy Spencer. The linked article has a byline (the author worked at Marie Claire before), and Collider has a page with their editorial team, and the parent company Valnet appears to have legal and editorial staff. I can't imagine a publication with editorial and legal staff would approve this without reviewing it – I assume publishing child abuse allegations about well-resourced defendants isn't done lightly – but the article Valnet suggests quality issues. There's other discussion on Talk:Jeremy Spencer.-Ich (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2026 (UTC)

WP:VALNET helps here. Articles from these sites should not be used to support biographical material on living persons. So, no, for a BLP article Collider is situationally unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2026 (UTC)