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)

Sports Business Journal

Created an article on a college sports technology and engineering company called WMT Digital. They have significant coverage in SBJ which is cited many times in Wikipedia and someone in the deletion discussion pointed out that WP:VGRS lists it as reliable. It is published by Advance Publications, a very well respected media publisher. Since it is acceptable for video games, it would make sense that a 500 or 1000 word article in their would quality as in depth coverage in the sports business field. Can it be added to the source list? Deletion discussion ~2026-55736-92 (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Reliable Sources - Perennial list, it doesn't need to be added. That's not a list of every reliable source that can be used, that's just the ones that there have been repeated discussions about. You can use it as a source; whether that is sufficient for notability is something that would only be judged in a deletion discussion. I see that you appear to be concerned with the outcome of such a discussion. Please note that for notability, we are generally for multiple sources ("there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability.") For such an evaluation, muliple articles in a single publication are counted as just one source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2026 (UTC) -- expanded Nat Gertler (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I would like some discussion on the source since it's heavily used, .listed as acceptable for video games and its being pushed that they don't count towards notability for sports business because they are WP:TRADES. They have published since 1998 and are one of the few sources that cover sports business. Does the listing in WP:VGRS suggest it is reliable? ~2026-55736-92 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

I believe it's a reliable trade publication. I don't think anyone has claimed that SBJ was unreliable, just insufficient for notability. (Also, I don't see Sports Business Journal listed on WP:VGRS; I only see The Esports Observer, which got folded into SBJ.) ARoseThorn (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2026 (UTC)

It is folded in with an ongoing publication date, seeming to more than suggest it was notable before being folded in. the SBJ esports editor is Jason Wilson, who used to be the managing editor for VentureBeat and GamesBeat, Josh Barnett is the Managing Director of Editorial and he previously was The Buffalo News: Former Executive Sports Editor from 2017 to 2024 and Served as Assistant Managing Editor for USA Today Sports Weekly. ~2026-56155-66 (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

The question is not whether SBJ was itself notable, but whether inclusion inside it is a source for notability. The telephone book is notable, but that doesn't mean being listed in it gets you anywhere. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

I apologize, I meant an established and approved source. To continue the conversation, usually the standard for an approved source is a real editorial team with substantial research in their editorial department. ... You can see by their masthead they have a significantly diverse editorial and research team, consisting of high level journalists that almost all have served as reporters at highly respected sources before joining SBJ. They are also both print and online, while being owned by Advanced Publications which also owns Conde Nast. ~2026-56155-66 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment on the BBC

Statement of fact or attributed opinion only? (NZZ Kommentar)

Hey, is this article usable for facts too, or only statements of opinion attributed to the author, when it comes to claims about BLP?

For usability: professional journalist, newspaper of record, scientific background in the field, the section I‘m looking to cite isn’t disputed as far as I know, just badly sourced in other places.

Against: PIA, BLP, writing style and it being called a Kommentar. FortunateSons (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Does this relate to a dispute here at the English Wikipedia or one over at the German Wikipedia? I ask because the two communities have different standards. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Not a dispute (yet), and en.wiki. It is about this section:

Gleichzeitig befinden sich die wichtigsten bürgerlichen Rechte wie etwa die Meinungsfreiheit weltweit auf dem Rückzug unter dem Druck von Extremisten und Diktaturen. Pillay hat sich dieser Entwicklung nicht entgegengestellt – im Gegenteil. Als vor der dänischen Botschaft in Pakistan 2008 eine Bombe explodierte, weil eine dänische Zeitung zwei Jahre zuvor Mohammed-Karikaturen veröffentlicht hatte, soll die dänische Regierung Pillay um Unterstützung gebeten haben. Laut der Aussage des damaligen dänischen Aussenministers soll sie den Dänen stattdessen empfohlen haben, die Zensur einzuführen, um solche Konflikte in Zukunft zu vermeiden. Ein Muster: Als 2012 bei islamistischen Protesten gegen einen Mohammed-Film und -Karikaturen in der französischen Satirezeitschrift «Charlie Hebdo» erneut Dutzende Menschen starben, verurteilte sie neben der Gewalt auch die Karikaturen als «bösartig und absichtlich provokativ». Sie zeigte kein Verständnis dafür, wie grundlegend die bürgerlichen Freiheiten für die Menschenrechte sind. (Emphasis mine, for the statement of fact)

There are RS for both separate sections (including attributing the statement made by her spokesperson in 2012 to her), but I’m having a hard time finding one that turns it into one pattern without synth. FortunateSons (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

So if there is no dispute, why are we discussing it? Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I was worried that this might not meet the sourcing requirements for BLP in a CTOP, and wanted to be extra cautious before putting it straight into the article. As I couldn’t find an applicable prior discussion, I had to ask. FortunateSons (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

If YOU are unsure, you shoudl nt even be thinking about using it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. If I think there are good policy based reasons for both positions, it’s too source-specific for the talk page and too advanced for the Teahouse, RSN is generally the place to go, no? FortunateSons (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

No, if I am unsure about a source, I will not use it, if I am sure about it I will and wait and see if I am reverted (see wp:brd). Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

That’s reasonable, but I prefer to ask. FortunateSons (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

If I am understanding correctly, the question is whether this source should be considered opinion (thus requiring in-text attribution) or strait factual news coverage. My answer is that it is likely a bit of both.

Therefore, my advice is to give attribution regardless. It isn’t wrong to attribute, even in situations where that may not be required. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you very much! FortunateSons (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Kommentar is is NZZ's equivalent of "Opinion" pieces in English language papers. The author is very strange on the profiles he puts out, as one profile he presents himself as someone who completed a PhD and Masters in history, and has since graduation worked as a journalist specialising in reporting on the horn of Africa and southern Africa, while in some profiles he maintains on academic sites, he details various post-doc research positions, including at Ben-Gurion University investigating the Bedouin in Mandatory Palestine, while having previous research positions at the Concordia Institute for Canadian Jewish Studies and the Swiss Military Academy. I would assume both are true, and that there has been some period of overlap between his early journalism while doing the post-docs.

Considering the bombastic framing he provides for his article, it is would seem very much opinion, in the derogatory sense. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Looking at some of his other opinion pieces in NZZ, this may be his best, which isn't great. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Seconding what Cdjp1 says, this is an opinion piece first and foremost and should not be used to make statements of fact in wikivoice (WP:OPINION). Even if NZZ a newspaper of record and perhaps the german-language Swiss newspaper with excellent quality articles in general, I tend to avoid "Kommentar" and "Feuilleton" pieces from NZZ entirely. See also related discussion from roughly a year ago YuniToumei (talk) 09:20, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both, I’ll use it as a opinion piece only, and source the facts separately! FortunateSons (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Does RS showing relevance of a set of media mean notable pieces belonging to that set are relevant?

Hi, I wanted to get consensus (after a talk page discussion which didn't lead to resolution) on whether "John Wayne Gacy, Jr." by Sufjan Stevens, which has 27M spotify listens and has received significant critical attention (the album on which it appears has also been turned into an on-Broadway musical, Illinoise), meets the criteria for inclusion in the "Films and media" tab of the John Wayne Gacy page. The issue is whether the lack of coverage in John Wayne Gacy-centric reliable sources makes adding it a violation of MOS:IPC. I would argue that, if a scholarly consensus is shown to exist (happy to pull sources on this) that pop cultural references are important to a full treatment of the subject of serial killers, then pop culture references independently meeting the standards for Wikipedia notability should be relevant to the serial killers they address. This is especially true as the slow rate of RS output on this subject matter (most sources being pretty salacious and true crime-y) means recent material on the subject would necessarily go un-covered even when significant. Sorry the title is hard to parse, couldn't figure out how to put it otherwise. Kaspar Hauser (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion is a NPOV matter, so should normally go to the NPOV noticeboard. But to stop from making you run around, MOS:IPC says that the subject ("John Wayne Gacy, Jr." by Sufjan Stevens) should only be included if there are sources that discuss it's "cultural impact in some depth". That would appear to say that just being played often isn't enough, it's the discussion of it's impact not it's impact as shown by numbers that's important. Are there articles reviewing the song or the musical that explains it's cultural impact, or even better it's cultural impact and John Wayne Gacy together? If there are it would be those that show 'discussion of it's cultural impact", and would possible show it's WP:DUE inclusion.
On its own that something can be reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean it should be included (WP:VNOT), it's NPOV that determines what should be included and anything included must then be verifiable to a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! There's a good deal of coverage, though I'm not entirely certain about how to determine RS status for music journalism, I tried to find stuff focusing on the song itself rather than the album more broadly.

https://www.treblezine.com/sufjan-stevens-john-wayne-gacy-jr-blood-tracks/

https://consequence.net/2009/05/rock-history-101-sufjan-stevens-john-wayne-gacy-jr/

https://honisoit.com/2025/04/i-am-really-just-like-him-sufjan-stevens-on-john-wayne-gacy/

In the talk page discussion I was mainly focusing on the passage below, from a review of the play, talking about the song's significance in interpreting the baggage John Wayne Gacy carries for the queer community... wondering if this meets reqs despite the article not being primarily about John Wayne Gacy himself. Would appreciate input given that the discussion ended at an impasse.

https://www.them.us/story/sufjan-stevens-illinoise-musical-interviews

Another major song on the album, “John Wayne Gacy, Jr.,” holds particular weight in Illinoise’s overarching treatment of queerness. The track tells the story of the infamous serial killer, who raped and murdered at least 33 teenage boys and young men in the 1970s. Stevens closes the song by shifting to the audience’s own capacity for sinful secrets with the admission, “And in my best behavior, I am really just like him / Look beneath the floorboards for the secrets I have hid.”

While Stevens’ song largely opts for a straightforward narrative structure rather than sensationalizing the Gacy story, the Illinoise team faced the task of bringing it to the stage in a way that both pertained to Henry’s character and avoided conflating the serial killer with the larger queer community in dangerous ways. Together, the team decided the best way to approach the song was to have the characters confront the cultural ramifications of Gacy’s legacy head-on.

“There’s this idea of gay men being accused of being pedophiles all the time by evangelical, right-wing people,” Pierce says. “It’s a very real fear and a very real threat that would have triggered something for Henry, because he came from this small town where that fear was ingrained into him.”

Ultimately, Illinoise chooses to end “John Wayne Gacy, Jr.” with the song’s storyteller in “an intimate moment of support with other gay men,” as Peck describes it, showing that “he’s not alone in this experience, and he’s not on his own to grapple with this.”

“With the staging of that song, we wanted to be very careful and conscientious, to set it in a way that maintains the point of the view of the storyteller,” he says. “But also [to show] how the queer community has grappled with this real-life character and how he’s been weaponized.” Kaspar Hauser (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Evaluating Books

I am tracking down a source someone suggested might be of use anchoring a biography. The book is The Pied Pipers of Rock 'N' Roll: Radio Deejays of the 50s and 60s by one Wes Smith, ISBN 9780929264691.

The book has about five pages dedicated to a career biography of the the subject of the proposed article (George "Hound Dog" Lorenz). The information is fairly thorough, the author is real, the press is real and seems fairly reputable (if now defunct). So I am inclined to think that it is trustworthy for the purposes of an article about this guy.

However it occurs to me that I'm not really sure what standard I ought to be holding this to. It is a real book that was notable enough that my library had it available, but that isn't a high bar. It does contain quotes from the would-be subject and his family. It's not any more based on those statements than I think is appropriate for a historical biography, but it is clearly based significantly on the statements of people who have an incentive to paint this person in a positive light. I looked up the writer and I noticed he has "ghostwriter" on his LinkedIn. Should I be considering the possibility that the family had some sort of undue influence on this book? I expect that insinuation would be a bit insulting so I don't really want to ask the person who suggested the source, but I'm sure they would not be the first to pay someone to write a hagiography of their dad.

Any tips on evaluating a source like this? Packrat3860 (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Here's a review mentioning strengths and weaknesses of the book, and it doesn't make i sound like a hagiography. I wouldn't ascribe any negative to the fact that he has also worked as a ghostwriter; I could see that argument if it was an authorized biography of a single person, but trying to charge the families of old DJs doesn't sound like much of a business model, and ghostwriting is often the paying source for legit writers. The book does appear to be cited in other books, which is the most positive sign. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

Why do you have any reason to NOT trust this source?

I looked up the writer and I noticed he has "ghostwriter" on his LinkedIn.

People gotta earn a living. We'd be idiots if we dinged people as WP:RS for otherwise normal mundane legitimate professional employment reasons. Ghost writing isn't remarkable or controversial.

Should I be considering the possibility that the family had some sort of undue influence on this book?

5 pages out of 300?

it is clearly based significantly on the statements of people who have an incentive to paint this person in a positive light.

And? I mean... some people are just simply nice basic people that are well liked and all that.

Why are we being this worried about something low... impact? You make it sound like you're actively searching for a reason to disqualify it as a source. — VPP (t/c) 16:31, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be diligent about vetting sources that were suggested by an editor with a disclosed conflict of interest. Not my intention to disparage this guy or ghostwriters in general. I asked because I'm just not very familiar with the standards for using books as a reliable source (most of the books I have cited before are "obviously" reliable sources in that they're academic publishers printing the work of expert researchers). Knowing only that I don't know what to look for, I figured I would come here and lay out what I've found and then ask what is relevant and what I should generally be looking for.

Thank you for clarifying. I would request gently that you assume good faith about my queries as to what makes a reliable source. I'm trying to learn. Packrat3860 (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2026 (UTC)

All good, just trying to let you know that diligence is good but your own description... most of us would have just gone with it.

Not everything really has a hard academic option. We take what we get. — VPP (t/c) 17:01, 21 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)

Wedgewood Polls / SoCal Strategies

It appears that all uses of this as source have been removed, but I wanted this to be findable if someone searches the RSN archives.

• An alleged national pollster says it faked its data as a 'social experiment.' Here's what to know --PBS

"A national polling organization revealed on Tuesday that the vast majority of its data had been fabricated, saying it was an 'experimental project to demonstrate the vulnerabilities' of the modern political polling industry.

Wedgewood Polling, whose polls had been cited by national news outlets, released the statement after FiftyPlusOne, a polling and election analysis site, questioned the veracity of its results.

'We wanted to test a simple hypothesis: How easy is it for an entirely fabricated polling firm to gain traction, be taken seriously, and expose how little scrutinization exists in media and public commentary?' Wedgewood Polling said on X. 'The short answer: Far too easy.'

FiftyPlusOne and The New York Times had included Wedgewood Polling data in their databases aggregating results from various polls. The organizations have since removed the data. MS NOW, Newsweek, Decision Desk HQ and Mediaite had also cited Wedgewood's polls.

'The ease with which unverified figures were absorbed into mainstream political narratives highlights a systemic breakdown in media vetting and data aggregation,' Wedgewood said in its statement.

Andrew Gelman, a professor of statistics and political science at Columbia University questioned Wedgewood Polling's statement that it had always been intended to be an experiment.

'Maybe so, but it's kind of suspicious that they happened to release this statement on the very day that they got caught' Gelman wrote in a blog post."

Also see:

• FiftyPlusOne#Wedgewood Polls
• Talk:2026 Wisconsin gubernatorial election#Wedgewood fake polls

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 23 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)

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)

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)

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)