Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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


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

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
    460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
    470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479
    480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489
    490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499
    500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509
    510

    Additional notes:

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

    RfC: The Points Guy (TPG)

    [edit]

    What is the reliability of The Points Guy (TPG) as a source?

    — Newslinger talk 17:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    Previous discussions:

    --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (The Points Guy)

    [edit]
    • Option 3 or 4. The Points Guy (TPG) is a travel blog consisting of sponsored content that primarily focuses on the loyalty programs of credit cards, airlines, hotels, and other travel companies. As an affiliate marketing company, TPG is paid when a reader signs up for a credit card or other product that TPG promotes on the website. TPG is a questionable source because it has an "apparent conflict of interest" with the financial institutions that offer those products, and with the companies whose co-branded credit cards are marketed through TPG. The topics covered in TPG's content almost entirely overlaps with the companies and products associated with TPG's affiliate relationships.
      The 2007 contract "Chase Bank USA, N.A. Affiliate Program Agreement with Affiliate" that was publicly released in an SEC filing by a web property of Bankrate (which acquired TPG in 2012) includes the following clauses:
      • "Affiliate will only use credit card descriptions provided or approved in writing by Chase."
      • "Prior to using any of the Licensed Materials, Affiliate will submit to Chase for approval a draft of all proposed material that incorporates the Licensed Materials, together with a brief statement setting forth the proposed use of such materials and any other background or supporting material reasonably requested by Chase to allow Chase to make an informed judgment. All such materials shall be submitted to Chase at least seven (7) days prior to the date of first intended use. Chase will notify Affiliate of its approval or disapproval of such materials within five (5) business days of its receipt of all information required to be submitted. The approval or disapproval of such materials will be in Chase’s sole discretion."
      • "Affiliate agrees not to use the Licensed Materials in any manner that is disparaging or that otherwise portrays Chase in a negative light. Chase may revoke Affiliate’s license at any time."
      • Specifies a long list of "Restricted Trademark Terms", including airlines (e.g. British Air, United), hotel chains (e.g. Holiday Inn, InterContinental, Marriott), retailers (e.g. Amazon.com, Toys "R" Us), and other businesses (e.g. Disney, Starbucks) that have released co-branded products with Chase Bank
    • Two years after Bankrate acquired TPG and took over the management of "some affiliate links", Skift published "The Blurring Ethical Lines Between Credit Card Companies and Travel Writers", which stated: "As highlighted in this Mr. Money Moustache post, advertisers like Chase aren’t above nudging the editorial in a direction of their choice — and when bloggers don’t step in line they risk losing their revenue stream." That sentence linked to another sponsored credit card blog which reported that Chase Bank revoked their affiliate contract, with one of the reasons being the blog's use of the text "WTF!?" to describe one of Chase's rewards cards. As of today, TPG continues to advertise credit cards from Chase Bank and other financial institutions (which also require such affiliate contracts) on just about every one of its pages, which indicates that TPG is apparently complying with the content-related terms set in these affiliate contracts.
      In 2019, Red Ventures (RSP entry) acquired Bankrate, which included TPG in the purchase deal. A 2024 request for comment (RfC) on this noticeboard designated Red Ventures properties as generally unreliable, because "Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner" and "The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic." However, TPG was excluded from that RfC because TPG had already been placed on the spam blacklist at that time. I see absolutely no reason to consider TPG more reliable than other Red Ventures properties, including sponsored blogs (other than TPG) owned by Bankrate as well as CNET (2020–2024) and ZDNet (2020–2024), all of which are considered generally unreliable during their Red Ventures eras. — Newslinger talk 17:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC); edited to clarify attribution of contract 12:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 A travel blog reliant on sponsors should definately be considered non-RS. I don't think its that bad to need full depreciation as its not published false information. But since it is likely to be reliant on opinion related to sponsorship then just a straight option 3 would be best in my view. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 Editors need to be on the lookout for sponsored content or CoI, and it's generally not notable material anyway. That being said, in the few instances where the blog actually provides information useful for an encyclopedia, I don't see why not. NotBartEhrman (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 4 and Blacklist: From [ https://thepointsguy.com/about/ ]:
    "Our site may earn compensation when a customer clicks on a link, when an application is approved, or when an account is opened with our partners, and this may impact how or where these products appear."
    We know that thepointsguy can't be trusted on credit card rewards programs, because they're partners with the credit card companies, not an independent reviewer.
    How do we know that they are not also partners with airline rewards programs and hotel rewards programs?
    Looking at a recent article "I left my laptop on a flight. Here's how I got it back within 24 hours"[1] thepointsguy says some really nice things about Delta.
    Right in the middle of the article is this ad:
    "Earn up to 80,000 miles with our favorite Delta cards. To help you decide which Delta card is best for you, take a look at the details of the most popular Delta Amex cards from our partners" (they use the word "partner", but I am pretty sure that the money and the control only flows one way).
    That ad leads me to "Best Delta credit cards of February 2026" which in turn says "Most of the cards we feature here are from partners who compensate us when you approve through our site",
    So imagine if the author of that article (Clint Henderson / The Points Guy) had said something bad about Delta. Or even pointed out that even if Delta does everything right there is a high probability that someone will steal the laptop instead of turning it in to Delta lost and found. Do you think Clint's "partners" would be happy? Even if Delta had nothing to say, which kind of article would result in the most people clicking on that link, getting a Delta card, and putting money in Cliff's pocket? The Conflict of Interest cannot be surmounted give their current business model.
    In my considered opinion, thepointsguy.com should go back on the spam blacklist. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Guy Macon, the blacklist "is intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses". It's not for blocking unreliable sources absent other concerns. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'd be curious for people's opinions on this site's non-sponsored content. I don't really think there's any question that the sponsored material/really anything relating to loyalty programs is unreliable, but we should be looking at the entire site. When you do that, you can find a host of articles about things like altered airline routes, improved aircraft interiors, airline orders for new aircraft and airline policy changes. These pieces could, subject to editorial discretion, have encyclopedic information and are factual/reliable in the colloquial sense (Wikipedia reliability very much TBD).
      I'm personally leaning option 3 because that Red Ventures ownership is a flashing red warning light and Liam at TPG did not respond to my questions about their editorial practices. Still, there's more nuance to this question than the comments above have considered. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 It's not much better than a press release. But press releases do have their uses, so I don't see the need to deprecate or blacklist. Jumpytoo Talk 02:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. No case has been made why this site should no longer be blacklisted. The user who requested it is here to promote their business, not to build an encyclopedia. Cortador (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 per above. The Kip (contribs) 19:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 TPG is only marginally better than WP:Simple Flying which was depreciated in terms of accuracy, but much worse in terms of the amount of promotional content they publish. Anything important would have been covered by others, we should depreciate them. Avgeekamfot (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 The site's promotional and advertising is an excessive part of the content. There is zero (negative?) evidence of even an intent to maintain a solid editorial/revenue wall. I'm sure there's some journalistic effort and truth in there but the end product is tainted. The site barely rates a page in the encyclopedia. It's unfortunate that the revenue model is so tightly founded on the editorial subject. If they want to be considered a reliable source, they need to find advertisers that they don't need to write about and get on, and stay on, a neutral, non-transactional footing with the credit card companies and the travel venues. (invited randomly by a bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4. Grossly promotional. And blacklist again if there is the slightest effort to cite it anywhere by anyone who should know better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 Wikipedia:Reliable sources excludes any content that is either an aggregator, not verifiable, or produces sponsored content. It may barely meet Wikipedia:Acceptable sources guidelines, where articles list individual authors, but I would state that it is generally unreliable and should never be used. I don't recommend blacklist. Abs145 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 and blacklist again. This is sponsored content, the owner gets paid for landing on his site. It is utterly unreliable and the fact that the site owner (who is not here to contribute) to request unlinking is single proof that that request was made to (enable) spam again. This should first have been decided through a RSN RfC to be reliable and of significant use, and then delisted, not the other way around. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 For non-spon content I think there are certainly more reliable sources that go in-depth vs what TPG puts out. netstars22 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 or 4. Per Newslinger Coffeeurbanite (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 and blacklist again per Beetstra. the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4 I was going to say option 3 but Beetstra provides compelling additional reasoning. I think thread participants that voted before their response should reconsider.Czarking0 (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @The ed17 We do not blacklist on reliability, but we do by consensus or even by bold editing. This is one of the very few sites that are spam by nature (native advertising and such), and the very fact that the site owner is here is enough evidence that they want Wikipedia to be redirecting traffic to them, another reason to (covert) spam. And site owners come here knowing their site is blacklisted, knowing that they can't get traffic from here, which (likely) hurts their business.
      We blacklist sites that we do not want to be linked, it is the low-weight option to keep them out and either we blacklist them by community consensus (what we can do here) or by bold editing. We are not a bureaucracy, our policies are not set in stone. We revert bold edits soon, not long standing edits and not because of some bureaucratic reason, and especially not when you are unsure if the native advertising / spam website was spammed or not. What is not sponsored content and desperately needed can be whitelisted, something that does not seem very often for this site. There is no (or very little) loss in not being able to link, and a big gain in keeping it out. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      @Beetstra: Dirk, you are assuming an awful lot about the motivations of this website without any evidence. It's not fair to assume that wanting off of a blacklist = intention to spam. In this case, I can absolutely see it being an exercise in PR and/or a hopeful, if doomed, attempt at being ranked as a reliable source on Wikipedia.
      You're also not characterizing its content accurately; this is not one of a "very few sites that are spam by nature". First, I'm a little surprised at "very few sites" and assume you misspoke, as there are at minimum sixty metric tons of spam websites on the internet that should never be linked on Wikipedia. Second, when it comes to this particular website, I've shown above that it has a newsworthy non-spammy side. That editors agree that it's nevertheless not reliable for our purposes (I'm in option 3 myself!) is not the same thing as "spam by nature". To take that argument to its logical extreme, is The New York Times spamming because it is increasingly trying to supplement its revenue by steering people into its paid-for games and Wirecutter for kickbacks? (No.)
      Finally, we do indeed ignore policies/guidelines/bureaucracy when there is good reasoning, but we're still searching for good reasoning here. Ed [talk] [OMT] 18:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Most sites are not native advertising by nature, most websites exist to sell a product, to make a revenue. There is a distinct difference. These native advertising sites are a distinct problem, they appear 'good' information, but are not, it is paid content, 'hell no' type for referencing. That has not changed. A good part of the website is native advertising, we should never us it. If there is a relatively small part that can be used, then that part could be whitelisted wholesale, or through specific whitelisting. The same tactics as we apply with other material that is blacklisted and where we do have occasional need.
      And the comparison to The New York Times is not the same, a total red herring. We deem that a reliable source for most of the information, and the paid-for-games are not something that people would typically use for referencing (and if they do, that little part should be cut out). Nor was this often badly used material, let alone spammed.
      We are not looking for good reasoning, this site is native advertising, paid for content, utterly unreliable. Unlike most of the material on the blacklist, this (the native advertising material is spam), whereas other websites were spammed (and generally useless for Wikipedia) or badly abused. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And if nytimes.com/wirecutter is deemed depreciated on RSN and still gets added while every single addition needs to be cleaned up as it is just 'supporting' bad info on Wikipedia, then I would suggest to put a hard stop to that and stop wasting editors' time, as we do with a lot of material that is currently on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (The Points Guy)

    [edit]

    Forbes

    [edit]
    Moved from Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources § Forbes
     – Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

    Forbes and its publications are on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but not here. It really needs to be treated as deprecated. Reasons: (1) A few years ago, they let go most of their editorial staff. (2) They accept press releases. (3) They accept "contributors" who are basically bloggers. (4) It's basically a grifter's paradise. (5) It's indirect undisclosed paid eduting. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Any source can be deprecated through an RfC. I'd like to gauge the rest of RSN before starting it, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So far it seems that people presenting arguments for moving to GUNREL; nobody has presented arguments for deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Forbes (RfC)

    [edit]

    Is Forbes (the main site itself, not just Forbes sites meaning the whole site, not just the Forbes 'contributors' articles) a generally unreliable source, given recent criticisms outlined above? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses (Forbes)

    [edit]

    Discussion (Forbes)

    [edit]

    The two searches for "Forbes" and "Forbes sites link to 20+ discussions. It would be helpful to directly link a few discussions to back up: I seem to recall a rather strong consensus that the reliability of a Forbes.com link rests entirely upon the credited author, and that the Forbes name adds nothing in terms of reliability, since that is not what WP:FORBES says. The Nieman Lab article also deals with the contributor articles which are already dealt with in WP:FORBESCON (and maybe WP:FORBESADVISOR). It would be helpful to see the other claims (e.g. almost no editorial staff and publishing press releases) either backed up by citations or examples, especially since the latter isn't necessarily an issue if properly marked (e.g. Bloomberg, another businessy publication, does the same [3]).-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    "I seem to recall" is an operative phrase there. It means that I'm not staking my reputation on a couple of half-remembered discussions, just volunteering what I can recall of them off the top of my head. If my characterization is wrong, well, I provided 20+ pieces of evidence by which to confirm such. If you need confirmation, I'm afraid I have other matters on my plate, so you'll need to check those yourself. Here's a tip to speed things up: Search through my contributions in wikispace for the word 'Forbes'. Also, don't forget my former alt account, MPants at work.
    For some context about their recent troubles, see [4] and [5], in which they've lost a significant number of both editors and writers in the past year or so. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with just volunteering a recollection, but you've used it as part of the basis for starting an RFC. If you didn't have time to verify it, then you probably should've waited until you had more time instead of now suggesting that other people research your arguments for you.
    Your first link is about a labour action, which happens all the time and literally does not mention a single editorial staffer being removed (though obviously conditions are not great). The second link is about dozens of Forbes Contributors, who produce the unreliable content on the site, being removed, which is a good thing. Forbes appears to still have editorial staff, including an editorial counsel so that hasn't been completely cut. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't really care what you think of my reasoning.
    The RfC ball is rolling, and I'm content to let the community decide where it lands. Please don't ping me, even if you really want to keep arguing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this is not a battle, I think PatarK was just trying to understand your position. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is true, then asking for clarification rather than whining about me not digging up years-old discussions just to refresh my memory on exactly what was said would have been a more useful tact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A year ago, one of the discussions on this noticeboard (Forbes.com authors who change roles), which I participated in, noted that when an author on Forbes.com changes their role (e.g. by being promoted from a contributor to a staff writer), their bylines on all of their previous articles are retroactively changed to reflect their current role. To confirm the level of editorial oversight that a Forbes.com article was subject to, you would need to check the byline of an archived copy of the article (ideally archived on the date of publication). A couple of editors believed that the amount of effort required to adequately distinguish staff articles from contributor articles on Forbes.com is enough of an "additional consideration" to justify a reclassification of Forbes on the perennial sources list.
    Looking back at the history of WP:RSP, Forbes was the very first source on the list to be split into separate entries covering different aspects of the publication's content: the entry for contributor-written articles (WP:FORBESCON) was added on 29 July 2018, and the entry for staff-written articles (WP:FORBES) was added one day later. A third entry for Forbes Advisor (WP:FORBESADVISOR), a sponsored content section that the publication later introduced, was added after a 2021 RfC.
    Even though most Forbes.com content is contributor-authored with little to no editorial oversight, public awareness of the staff–contributor distinction on Forbes.com is very low; many readers see the Forbes logo on an article and associate it with the century-old magazine. Forbes.com contributor articles are also rampantly misused in Wikipedia articles, with many of those uses violating the WP:BLPSPS policy. If there were a technical way to distinguish Forbes.com's staff articles from their contributor articles, I would have supported deprecating the contributor articles years ago. Unfortunately, Forbes decided to make that difficult, so their articles continue to be a problem on Wikipedia to the extent that we are now questioning all Forbes content. — Newslinger talk 20:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel regardless of the outcome of the RFC, noting that this switching of roles is an issue if the date of the article is somewhat removed from the present is worth noting on the listing. As for trying to discourage Forbes contributor content, maybe an edit filter based on the URL that then warns users about the staff vs. contributor distinction before they can save the edit? -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That edit filter warning would help. Ideally, we would track the names (and URL "usernames") all of the Forbes staff writers, as well as the date ranges of their tenures as staff writers, which would allow the edit filter to activate only for contributor articles. However, this would be a high-maintenance endeavor. — Newslinger talk 06:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support an edit filter of this type. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    @MjolnirPants: While Forbes originally reserved URLs beginning with forbes.com/sites/ exclusively for contributor-authored articles, at some point many years ago, Forbes also moved all of its staff-authored articles under forbes.com/sites/, which prevented readers from discerning whether an article is staff-authored or contributor-authored by examining the URL without prior knowledge of the author's byline. Since then, all articles from Forbes (aside from the sponsored Forbes Advisor content) have been "Forbes sites" articles. In light of this, would you like to amend the RfC statement (specifically, the text "the main site itself, not just Forbes sites") to explicitly refer to Forbes's staff-authored and contributor-authored articles? — Newslinger talk 18:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur with Newslinger that the RfC opening question is confusing needs to be changed. It's really unclear what this RfC is trying to accomplish currently, given that Forbes contributors are already considered generally unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newslinger and @Hemiauchenia, I was actually vaguely aware of that, but not having used Forbes for a long time, I thought it went the other way (they pulled all of their contributor articles into the top-level folder). Yes, I'll adjust my wording. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    After some further research, I found that Forbes launched its contributor network on 5 August 2010, although some of the contributor articles available at launch were dated a couple of days earlier. During this period, Forbes started commingling articles written by staff and by contributors under the subdomain blogs.forbes.com and did not provide bylines to allow readers to distinguish staff from contributors on the article pages themselves. For example, compare this staff article (current link) to this contributor article (current version), and note the use of the text "Contributor Since" on both articles. All Forbes articles were migrated to forbes.com/sites/ on 10 August 2011, which is when the "Forbes Staff" and "Contributor" bylines were introduced. As far as I can tell, there was no point in time during which Forbes.com contributor articles were under forbes.com/sites/ while Forbes staff articles were not. I've corrected my previous comment to reflect this.​​ — Newslinger talk 22:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that info. I had been under much the same misapprehension. It's looking more and more like we might have overstated the differences between the contributors and staff articles in some of the previous discussions. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    We need to establish a cutoff date, before which Forbes was generally reliable. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    July 2014? That's when Integrated Whale Media Investments acquired a 51 percent majority.[6]
    Sometime before November 2013? According to[7] "Never before have knowledgeable voices, reporters and topic experts alike, been able to connect and engage one-on-one with audiences equally empowered to share what they know... We've supplemented our full-time reporting staff with 1,200 qualified contributors... Many participate in a novel incentive plan that makes them accountable for their success."
    The Nieman Foundation[8] has a history of Forbes, saying
    "Forbes’ staff of journalists could produce great work, sure. But there were only so many of them, and they cost a lot of money. Why not open the doors to Forbes.com to a swarm of outside 'contributors' — barely vetted, unedited, expected to produce at quantity, and only occasionally paid? (Some contributors received a monthly flat fee — a few hundred bucks — if they wrote a minimum number of pieces per month, with money above that possible for exceeding traffic targets. Others received nothing but the glory.) As of 2019, almost 3,000 people were “contributors” — or as they told people at parties, 'I'm a columnist for Forbes.' Let’s think about incentives for a moment. Only a very small number of these contributors can make a living at it — so it’s a side gig for most. The two things that determine your pay are how many articles you write and how many clicks you can harvest — a model that encourages a lot of low-grade clickbait, hot takes, and deceptive headlines. And many of these contributors are writing about the subject of their main job — that’s where their expertise is, after all — which raises all sorts of conflict-of-interest questions. And their work was published completely unedited — unless a piece went viral, in which case a web producer might 'check it more carefully.' All of that meant that Forbes suddenly became the easiest way for a marketer to get their message onto a brand-name site. And since this strategy did build up a ton of new traffic for Forbes — publishing an extra 8,000 pieces a month will do that! — lots of other publications followed suit in various ways."
    --Guy Macon (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be a lot later. Forbes staff was still reliable and separable from contributors for quite a while, and their reporting was trusted. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe something worth implementing is an edit filter, reminding editors citing Forbes to make sure that that what they're citing is a staff article and not a contributor article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Forbes always make the distinction clear? Did they make it clear from the start back when they added those 3,000 people who were allowed to add anything they wanted with nobody checking them? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears so. The byline either says "Staff" or "Contributor". With the two (current-version) links Newslin sent above it's "By Halah Touryalai, Former Staff." and "By Olga Khazan, Contributor." Aaron Liu (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Should Shlomo Sand be considered FRINGE?

    [edit]

    Should Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, and especially his 2008 book The Invention of the Jewish People (19 weeks a bestseller and cited 895 times), be considered WP:FRINGE in articles such as Ashkenazi Jews, where statements such as Like other Jewish ethnic groups, the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah are made in Wikivoice, and in the article Indigeneity in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, where coverage of his scholarship has been removed altogether? إيان (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be a question better suited to WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis of what? إيان (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    On the basis of WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard being the right place to discuss whether something is fringe. Free clue: it's in the name. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you question is whether he should be considered fringe, rather than a question about reliability. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of a source not it's nature. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sand is a reliable source for his own opinions (where he is the article subject or where independent, reliable secondary sources show he is due mention) but his scholarship is so controversial that he’s not a reliable source for facts. The question of whether he’s fringe isn’t proper for this noticeboard but for me the answer is yes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconded -- his theories (to put it generously) on, e.g., the Khazar origin of Ashkenazi Jews have been debunked many, many, many times--to the point that there's one scholarly paper that says, I believe, "No evidence from genome-wide data of a Khazar origin for the Ashkenazi Jews" in the title. While the question of how poor scholarship (or lying, or ignorance) in one area reflects on other areas is certainly a large discussion, I think that in subjects related to Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry at the very least (both of the articles you listed, in my opinion) he should be treated as highly dubious if not dismissed outright. Ceratarges-etc (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear that Ceratarges-etc is an extended confirmed user. إيان (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is about his general reliability that doesn’t matter BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This would depend on the claim you wished to cite to him. His views on the Khazars simply don't have widespread support or much evidence for them, it's a rehash of older stuff that's no good either. There are other parts of the book that are better supported.--Boynamedsue (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, many of his critics are fixated on the Khazar hypothesis, which is not his central claim, nor is it a claim I raised for discussion here. إيان (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I don't think RSN is the right place for this discussion, the individual claims should be discussed where they are challenged.--Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this not the right place to assess the general reliability of a source? What is needed is a discussion of the book with input wider than the local discussions on article talk pages where this source might be cited, as those tend to attract editors with a POV that might not reflect broader community consensus. The heading of this section was mostly facetious; the author is a respected and widely cited historian whose work draws the ire of people with allegiances to a particular nationalist ideology. Seems like an absurd demotion to put him in with the flat Earthers at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. To be honest, I was anticipating a resounding rebuke of the attempts to discredit the source, which is cited by experts such as David Abulafia without qualification or reservation. إيان (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't assess 'general reliability' for somebody who's published views on one aspect of his scholarship are seen as fringe, while other aspects aren't, which seems to be what you are suggesting here. If that is actually the case, we can only look at individual citations, in context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if there is a particular discussion that is ongoing in which a non-Khazar question arises, then giving that context is better than trying to get a blanket decision.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    'Blanket decisions' are almost always inappropriate for academics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is precisely what I'm trying to challenge locally, the blanket discrediting of the substance of Sand's scholarship by picking at the Khazar hypothesis stuff. إيان (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at the discussions linked below. You'll see what I'm talking about. إيان (talk) 06:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really ideal to just signpost discussions here. The best way would be "Is Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People reliable for the statement '_______________________'"?Boynamedsue (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions underway on talk pages of articles mentioned above, at Talk:Indigeneity in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict#Sand and Abu El Haj and Talk:Ashkenazi Jews#NPOV and DUE weight. إيان (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We aren't going to pronounce Sand as 'reliable for everything but the Khazar hypothesis', if that's what you are asking. And nor are we going to pronounce him as 'unreliable for everything'. Accordingly, the only appropriate topic on this noticeboard is whether Sand is reliable for specific text - and we don't judge that on the basis of what other people have written on talk pages elsewhere. Poor arguments elsewhere aren't a consideration. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, can you show me Sand being cited by David Abulafia without qualification or reservation? I saw Abulafia at the top of the 896 citations on Google Scholar but wondered if it was a classic Google Scholar false positive as I couldn’t see it when I clicked BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobfrombrockley (pardon the ping but went to my copy to scan the text for you so I want to make sure you see it):
    This proved to be a sensible decision. While Cyrenaica and the province of Africa remained under Byzantine rule, there was always the danger that they would serve as bases for a war of recovery aimed at Egypt. To prevent this, the Arabs needed to gain control of the coastlines and harbours of the North African coast, and this was possible only with the help of large contingents newly arrived from Yemen, and of the Berbers themselves, the native population of North Africa who consisted of a combination of Romanized town-dwellers and rural tribesmen of several religious allegiances. The Arabs also required a feet, and an 'Arab' naval victory against the Byzantines off Rhodes as early as 654 can only mean that they were successful in hiring local Christian crews: the sea battle probably consisted of a tussle between Greeks on one side and Greeks, Syrians and Copts on the other. Relations with the Berbers were not always easy: pagan Berber tribes converted to Islam, and then slid back to their own beliefs once the Arabs had disappeared over the horizon; one tribe is said to have converted to Islam twelve times. There were also large numbers of Christian and Jewish Berbers, and Queen Kahina, possibly a Jewish Berber, was remembered as a doughty warrior.7 The Islamization of Berber North Africa in the seventh century was rapid, light and impermanent, but it was sufficient to carry along Berber troops in search of booty, as the Islamic armies began to face their real targets around the Byzantine city of Carthage. From the 66os onwards, they gained control of the lesser towns of the old Roman province of Africa, Or, as they called it, Ifriqiya, and they established a garrison city of their own, set back from the Mediterranean, at Qaywaran; they were more interested in its proximity to land where they could graze their camels than in exploiting the sea. In 698, hemmed in by land, and without adequate support from Constantinople, Carthage was besieged by an Arab army of 40,000 troops brought from Syria and elsewhere; they were joined by perhaps I2,000 Berbers. It was the Arab capture of Carthage, rather than the Roman conquest nearly 750 years earlier, that marked the end of its extraordinary history as a centre of trade and empire. The Arabs had no use for it and built a new city close by, at Tunis. Byzantium had lost another of its richest territories; the sliver of Spain conquered by Justinian had already been absorbed by the Visigoths in the 63os, leaving little more than loose authority over Ceuta, Majorca and Sardinia. Byzantine power in the western Mediterranean had to all intents vanished.
    pp 245–6 of his magisterial The Great Sea Part Three: The Third Mediterranean, 600–1350: I. Mediterranean Troughs, 600–900
    Note 7 after "warrior"
    citation on p. 677: "7. S. Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People (London, 2009), pp. 202–7" إيان (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably fringe. At the very least undue. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything bordering on the khazar theory is ridiculous, and claims about exact genetic lineage probably have a very high standard of evidence to reach when generalizing about a whole people User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Also it does not matter if the book is a bestseller. We don’t care about pophistory books User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:09, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, what about the rather remarkable 895 citations?
    FYI Khazar discussion is not central to the book. It is only addressed pp 218-238, representing a fraction of a chapter of the book. If you actually read it, you'll see that it's largely a summary of relevant recent scholarship and explicitly addresses it as a possibility before going on to discuss how the question of the ancestry of Eastern European Jews still represents an enigma. I won't further respond here to criticisms of the book that obviate the valid central thrust of the book, which is a critique of nationalist historiography and ideas built and received since the 19th century, to pick at mentions of the Khazars to discredit the whole work. إيان (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    You have to take each claim individually. Linus Pauling is a reliable source on quantum chemistry and molecular biology. Megadosing vitamin C for cancer and the common cold, not so much. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do forgive my nitpicking regarding the fact that Puling was a great source in his prime. But the fields have changed. Now to what extent is Sand outdated or not? Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. Pauling was publishing about "Orthomolecular psychiatry" (pseudoscience) in 1968 and published "Vitamin C and the Common Cold" (psuedoscience) in 1970, but was still doing real science. For example his paper "Transition from one revolving cluster to two revolving clusters in the ground-state rotational bands of nuclei in the lanthanon region" (real science) was published in 1991. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What can I say? 1991 was how long ago? For the record I do like Pauling and feel that Watson did him disservice but that is beside the point. Anyway, is Sand outdated? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy, I later thought that I should mention that the fact that some of an author's works may hold 15 years later, does not mean that they all do. The issue is Universal quantification vs Existential quantification of course. Obviously some of Pauling's works were pre-DNA. Scientific knowledge is time sensitive, needless to say. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you take it to one of your talk pages? WP:notaforum إيان (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not needed, I will have no further comment. End of discussion Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Shlomo Sand espouses the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry which we politely call "largely abandoned". In any case, there is little point in using a book about the origins of the Jewish (or any other people) that was published in 2008, before the modern large scale DNA studies of historic populations became available (WP:AGEMATTERS). Alaexis¿question? 11:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Fascinated with these opinions on the validity of the book that demonstrate not having read the book or even its introduction. إيان (talk) 11:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly you do not agree with? This is what the last sections of the Realms of Silence chapter are about and it's also not just my opinion.
    You've failed to engage with the second part of my argument. Alaexis¿question? 12:09, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What argument? You don’t appear to have read the book at all or understood its central claims. إيان (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment is not helpful IMHO. Alaexis’s reading habits are not a proper topic for discussion. His observations on large-scale DNA studies are germane, and the Khazar hypothesis Sands espoused is now held chiefly by an antisemitic eliminationist fringe. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (Hint: the book is not a history of the origins of a people; it’s a critical historiography of nationalism and nationalist myth-making.) إيان (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked about using Sand in the in articles such as Ashkenazi Jews, where statements such as "Like other Jewish ethnic groups, the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah are made in Wikivoice". Now you're saying that this book isn't about the "origins of a people". Why do you want to use it then? Alaexis¿question? 16:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s right, because any discourse about ‘the origins of a people’ is nationalist mythology predicated on all kinds of false assumptions. إيان (talk) 18:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This page says at the top "Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." What do you want to use Sand for? Alaexis¿question? 20:15, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    what about Gypsies/Romani? It is not nationalistic (in the modern sense of the word) question. We are able to know more about the romani as our understanding of languages improved. The same apply here in Regarding to where is proto-Yiddish from Avy42 (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Alaexis, this has been addressed here previously.
    Avy42, it’s not clear what this is meant to contribute to our discussion of the source. إيان (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unreliable for the specific parts that are up for discussion here, and overwhelmingly fringe for anything related to the Khazar theory and indigenous status. Most of this other scholarship may or may not be fine, but I would strongly encourage caution for anything contentious. FortunateSons (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you say so? إيان (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Also because the preponderance of other scholars say so. 02:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC) MarkBernstein (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You have written 16 responses to people here. In my opinion, this is getting pretty close to WP:1AM. FortunateSons (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Largely going to echo FortunateSons' vote. Sand is 100% fringe for anything on the Khazar theory given its general debunking by the wider academic world and its modern adoption by extremists, and for most other things (especially what's been discussed here), he's controversial/contentious enough to be attribution-only at best and not used entirely at worst (though I'll leave that distinction up to more specific talk page discussions). The Kip (contribs) 20:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Primary sources for the True Lesbian Flag Creator

    [edit]

    There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Lesbian flags § Emily Gwen did not create the orange-pink or sunset flag regarding the Sunset Flag, the de facto lesbian pride flag. Published secondary sources on the topic, including several scholarly articles, routinely describe this flag as having been created in 2018 by Tumblr user Emily Gwen (@sadlesbeandisaster). However, there is currently an online backlash against Gwen alleging that she stole the flag from another user, Olivia B (@shapeshifter-of-constellation) who in 2017 published the same design using the same colors in the opposite order. Olivia B accuses Gwen of appropriating the flag from her,[9] though Gwen herself denies having been aware of it when publishing her design.[10] Currently, the article reads Though an otherwise identical, inverted flag was created in 2017,[1] this version of the flag is attributed to Tumblr blogger Emily Gwen in 2018., with a citation to Olivia B's post predating Gwen's. My initial impression was that we needed to let the potential error stand, given that WP:TUMBLR is generally not considered a reliable source. However other users disagree, citing WP:WSAW. Is this an acceptable use of primary sources? Pinging involved editors @Gromithead, Elli, Peachyratio, Purplelighter, and Pyxis Solitary: –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 02:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The Google Doc (and Tumblr posts) about Emily Gwen are obviously not reliable to cite in an article; however, it's fine for us to analyze them to realize that reliable sources are indeed wrong about Gwen having created the flag. Given that we know the information is inaccurate, we should exclude it. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Published secondary sources on the topic, including several scholarly articles, routinely describe this flag as having been created in 2018 by Tumblr user Emily Gwen (@sadlesbeandisaster). – Because if we were to follow the bouncing ball, I'll bet we would find that most are relying on what Wikipedia has published about the flag. If we take a close look at the information about this and other lesbian flags you find scattered around the web, you can tell that much of it is a WP:MAF of Wikipedia (many images of lesbian flags in them are even credited to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons). In any event, we should not give this article a pass in using Tumblr as a "reliable source". And if it's true that Emily Gwen co-opted the design of the flag and merely flipped it upside down (which appears to be the case), then Wikipedia absolutely cannot be complicit in giving legitimacy to the design theft. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 08:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this a compelling line. More compelling would be evidence that none of the sources describing Gwen as the creator were published before the wikipedia content Czarking0 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that the flag is apparently a merger of two existing flags, and that B's design isn't the same as Gwen's, this is absolutely not a strong enough source to label B as the "true creator" of this flag. Cortador (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the flag design published by Olivia B (shapeshifter-of-constellation) on "July 3, 2017": https://web.archive.org/web/20211005160125im_/https://64.media.tumblr.com/260d9a27669b19fded505920bfd153e3/tumblr_osjihfhKoT1t1vpezo1_500.png
    This is the flag design published by Emily Gwen (sadlesbeandisaster) on "3 June 2018": https://64.media.tumblr.com/6553c95c564edcf43f34f8c76b0daf16/tumblr_inline_p9q1wjbEaG1vreghm_500.png
    They're the same flag design. The only difference is the second one (Emily Gwen/2018) is upside down. (The Olivia B flag, published separatedly on July 3, 2017 is seen here.) Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 21:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked, and the colors have the exact same RGB values.
    D72D00 dark orange red
    F07328 medium orange red
    FF9B55 light orange red
    D264A5 light purple
    B95591 medium purple
    A50064 dark purple
    --Guy Macon (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    But see:
    --Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The above comment about matching RGB values is correct, it should be noted that while both Olivia B and Emily Gwen claim to splice together the lipstick lesbian flag and the butch pride flag, neither flag's RGB values perfectly match either of the original RGB values. What are the odds that they would both independently decide to splice together the two flags, while both modifying the RGB values to the same exact degree?
    Both of the remixed sunset flags match each other, but not the originals they're supposed to draw from. In my opinion it's highly improbable that Emily would have remixed the flag to the exact same degree as Olivia - it's far more probable that the flag was stolen and rotated, as claimed. Gromithead (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    By my calculations, the chances of getting the same RGB values on all seven stripes by random chance is roughly 1 in 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's arguing for us putting that in mainspace, though. The issue is us writing in wikivoice that Gwen created the flag, when we know that she didn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m personally all for just wiping Emily Gwen from the article entirely rather than leaving her in to spread more misinformation and cause upset in the community. Gromithead (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't do it. See WP:OR. We can use our original research on talk pages and noticeboards and we can use it in articles to decide whether to say "Kermit the Frog is green"[11] or "According to Jim Henson, Kermit the Frog is green"[12] (wikivoice vs attributed) but we cannot change any actual article content based solely on our original research. We have to say what the sources say, with attribution. The only policy-based reason that I can think of that would allow us to ignore what the sources say is if we are pretty sure this is a case of WP:CITOGENESIS. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh okay noted! I would argue a case of citogenesis and/or for adding more information regarding Olivia, But for now will revert to the article mentioning Emily until someone else adds input :•) Gromithead (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What? We can certainly remove content from articles based on our own research, if we determine that the sources clearly got it wrong (and it's pretty obvious they did here). That's within our editorial discretion; we're under no obligation to repeat a falsehood just because it's been published in something typically reliable. It's adding content to articles based on OR that is prohibited. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not correct. WP:VNOT means that verifiable information does not have to be included on Wikipedia and if we have (even on the basis of original research) concluded that information is erroneous, we have editorial discretion to exclude it. WP:When sources are wrong explains it well. Katzrockso (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Kiiiinda. I think in this specific case it's fine to say nothing, and BLP cases in general can push us over the edge to exclusion if we're unsure, but there are absolutely cases where it's inappropriate to use WP:OR to remove something from an article - there are situations where choosing to omit something is itself a clear statement, especially if it's widely-covered and therefore well-known. More generally, our ultimate obligation is to follow the sources; we can omit something for WP:DUE reasons, or just arbitrarily decide not to include it, but there's not actually a policy provision for "let's exclude this source because it's wrong" (for good reason.) It's effectively a handwave or IAR argument - it says "well, this may be wrong, and it so happens that the coverage doesn't pass the threshold where we'd be required to include it, so based on that I say we exclude it." This is valid but I think it's important to underline what a weak argument it is and how little grounding it has in policy, because we don't want to turn talk pages into research pushes where the conclusions of various sources are challenged by editors. None of that is appropriate. Especially when it comes to BLP-sensitive stuff, we can apply a degree of skepticism when the sourcing is weak, and can intensify that skepticism if something seems obviously off, but only up to a point; and the real policy-based part of the argument is "the sourcing is weak", not "here's a bunch of red threads on an evidence board showing how all the sources are wrong." --Aquillion (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to what Aquillion said, WP:When sources are wrong explicitly notes the possibility of having to include information in an article that everyone on the talk page thinks is false. It's very rare, because usually if editors are skeptical it's possible to find at least one source that also is, but it does happen. Loki (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Another comment: there were also claims that this flag was created in 2016. archive[.]is/BvUWE, but the poster later ratified saying the flags are quite different. [13]. While Olivia (shapeshifter-of-constellation) is a bi woman and claims to be just a co-creator of the flag. [14] (together with butchspace.) There is also drama/discourse about donations [15] However, her flag was named initially as a butch-femme solidarity/combination rather than a general/specific lesbian flag for everyone.
    Some secondary sources I found:
    1. https://nerdykeppie.com/blogs/news/the-inclusive-lesbian-sapphic-flag-what-is-it-why-do-we-use-it WP:BLOG.
    2. https://pride.daena.me/flags/lesbian-pride/ WP:SELFPUB.
    3. https://web.archive.org/web/20190608151937/https://majesticmess.com/encyclopedia/lesbian-flag-sadlesbeandisaster (archived blog, static source)
    4. https://catsnco.com/prideflags.html (WP:WEBHOST?).
    Abesca (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    References

    1. ^ "shapeshifter-of-constellation". Tumblr. 2017-07-13. Archived from the original on 2021-10-05. Retrieved 2026-03-01.

    Is adirondackdailyenterprise RS for controversial BLP claims?

    [edit]

    On Flock Safety I have made the claim "Flock has made secret agreements with U.S. Border Patrol to give its agents backdoor access to ALPR data from its cameras around the country — including cities like Syracuse, which had not agreed to share data with the federal agency."[1] CEO Garrett Langley "falsely claimed" Flock did not have an agreement with Border Patrol to hide that the agency was able to search these records.[1] This was reverted citing BLP policy. I posit that it is a reliable news source suitable for controversial BLP claims. Czarking0 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The source looks like user summitted news. I don't think it has much editorial oversight. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I'd call it user-submitted. According to their Contact Us page, the author is their "Reporter for Saranac Lake, Politics". I can't find the editor's name, however, which does raise questions about their editorial oversight.
    That being said, controversial or negative content about living persons should really be supported by multiple top-tier reliable, secondary sources. The Adirondack Daily Enterprise could potentially be reliable for some purposes, but not this. So this isn't an RS issue as much as a BLP issue, which multiple editors have mentioned in their reverts. Woodroar (talk) 03:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "multiple" - where is this indicated in BLP policy? Either way regarding the reverts I added a second source that is off topic here.
    " top-tier reliable, secondary sources" - that is what I am asking here. I think this source is a top-tier reliable secondary source. I do not think there is anything in WP:RS that would indicate otherwise. Czarking0 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A local paper that doesn't even name its editor is anything but top-tier. Requiring multiple, top-tier sources for claims like this is pretty common at BLPN, as it suggests a lasting, geographically broad importance, and a viewpoint that likely meets DUE. All of these things go hand in hand. Woodroar (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your concept of "top-tier" is not policy based. Furthermore, you clearly didn't read this thread or the article carefully before responding as the journalist contact is included. Czarking0 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a local paper with an unnamed editor a top-tier source? BTW, the relevant policy is WP:BLPRS.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The second paragraph of the BLP policy also calls for "the use of high-quality, reliable sources" in BLPs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    You also have clearly not read the source or the thread here. The way one person can have a misunderstanding and then several editors pile on based on that misunderstanding is a problem on WP. Czarking0 (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing about this is user submitted. The staff reporter's email is included in the side column. Czarking0 (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]


    References

    1. ^ a b "Saranac Lake halts controversial police cam installation". Adirondack Daily Enterprise. Archived from the original on February 28, 2026.

    Canadian Paediatric Society / Paediatrics & Child Health

    [edit]

    "A Canadian journal has issued corrections on 138 case reports it published over the last 25 years to add a disclaimer: The cases described are fictional. Paediatrics & Child Health, the journal of the Canadian Paediatric Society, has published the cases since 2000 in articles for a series for its Canadian Paediatric Surveillance Program. The articles usually start with a case description followed by “learning points” that include statistics, clinical observations and data from CPSP. The peer-reviewed articles don’t state anywhere the cases described are fictional."

    Source: https://retractionwatch.com/2026/03/03/canadian-pediatric-society-journal-correction-case-reports-fictional-paediatrics-child-health/

    --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Well that's a bit alarming. I'll have to give that article a read. Simonm223 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, having now read the article I guess my question is whether Wikipedia cites any of these papers. We probably should not. That's a concerning scandal. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the journal seems to be framing this as a "these articles were always meant to be fictional cases". There are so many thoughts and words that can only be expressed in very colourful language.
    As to actions, we have 169 articles that use journal articles flagging with the doi "10.1093/pch". So these will need to be checked to see if any are vignettes in the immediacy. A discussion on the journal's overall reliability considering this may also be necessary. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    1819 News

    [edit]

    While the conservative focus of the site isn't disqualifying, I came across this citation to 1819 News which seemed adequate at first but found this to be pretty inappropriate for a news article:

    The need for stronger punishment of child predators in Alabama was evidenced in 2025...

    Further found the use of quotes without actually quoting/citing to anything:

    A nationwide initiative to “repel the invasion of illegal immigration” netted three arrests in Birmingham.[16]

    Their about page begins with:

    From statewide tax cuts and school choice to drag-queen teachers no longer indoctrinating Alabama middle school students, the reporting of 1819 News arms the people of Alabama with the information they need to help make Alabama a free, virtuous, and flourishing society. And we are nowhere near finished.[17]

    – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 18:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither of the reports you mentioned appear to be used on Wikipedia. Is there a disagreement about their use? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:28, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across the addition of the first citation in this edit and just made me question the validity of the source as a whole. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the article and context, the 1819 News article[18] is a barely touched up version of the original press release from the Office of the Governor of Alabama[19]. The original press release also includes the "The need for stronger punishment of child predators in Alabama was evidenced in 2025" language. That makes it political opinion dressed up as reporting. The article about a nationwide initiative[20] is similarly just a touch up of this press release[21].
    Bias doesn't necessarily make a source unreliable (WP:RSBIAS), they're accurately repeating the press releases they base their articles on. However I would be cautious with using their reports, secondary sources are ones that contain analysis and interpretation by so closely following those press releases these are very close to being primary sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of The Telegraph for “13 children” claim about King Salman

    [edit]

    Hi everyone. I’m looking for guidance on whether The Telegraph is reliable enough to support a specific genealogical claim in the article on King Salman of Saudi Arabia.

    The Telegraph profile being used as a source states that King Salman has 13 children, but when comparing this against higher-quality sources, the situation seems more uncertain. For example:

    • CNN describes the number simply as “unknown,” noting that “King Salman has had an unspecified number of children, but only a handful are publicly known.” • Washington Institute similarly avoids giving any confirmed total and emphasizes the opacity surrounding the family. • EBSCO Research Starters states that estimates “range widely, from around 13 to more than 50,” reinforcing that no consistent verified number exists. • Encyclopaedia Britannica (adult + kids/student versions) gives no number at all for King Salman’s children, which seems intentional given their usually precise biographical style. • Reuters profiles also refrain from giving any confirmed count, and even contain DOB inconsistencies from period reporting (e.g., listing his birth year as 1936), which highlights how opaque this topic was even for major outlets.

    Meanwhile, the same Telegraph article also states that Mohammed bin Salman is the youngest son of King Salman, which directly contradicts all other reliable sources and the known birth order. This makes me a little cautious about relying on the piece for precise family structure.

    Given that stronger RS avoid stating a confirmed minimum, I’m unsure whether The Telegraph alone is strong enough to justify wording in Wikipedia that implies a verified lower bound (“at least 13 children”).

    My question: Does The Telegraph meet the reliability threshold to establish a minimum confirmed number of children for King Salman, or should the article instead reflect the uncertainty expressed in higher-quality sources (e.g., that the exact total is not publicly known)?

    Any guidance would be really appreciated. Thank you. ~2026-11015-01 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    The Telegraph is a reliable source, but this is a BLP and as you have established there is significant disagreement among sources. In this case, no single source could be used to give a definitive number. A section summarising the various sources' estimates with attribution might be better here.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If whatever The Telegraph writes is contradicted my multiple other RS, the article should not take its numbers as accurate, and instead state that the number of children is unknown, but that multiple sources have reported there to be at least 13. Cortador (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 13 children listed in the "Marriages and Issue" section, so that should be enough if the sources for the existence of each child are strong enough. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are exactly 13 listed in the Wikipedia article, that's pretty good circumstantial evidence that someone at the Telegraph just counted the names in our article. --JBL (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, I like our current language "at least 13 children". GordonGlottal (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Boynamedsue, we should err on side of caution, and attribute to CNN that number is unknown, and that telegram claims at least 13 children. BLP concerns trumps all. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Warfare History Network / Eric Niderost

    [edit]

    I would like to bring the following Warfare History Network article Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse by Eric Niderost into question.

    This article and many others on Warfare History Network are completely devoid of citations or a bibliography section. Not only is what Niderost writes of unverifiable, many details such as the involvement of the Imperial Japanese Army's 3rd Division, are contradicted by other sources. Further concerning is that Niderost seems to have plagiarized [citogensis'd?] Wikipedia for the article in question:

    07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:
    The Japanese 3rd Division (one of the most elite IJA divisions at the time)..." "...enjoyed air and naval superiority, as well as access to armoured vehicles, likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, and also Type 89 mortars."
    Niderost, Dec 2007:
    "The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes."

    The above claim of the 3rd Division's involvement from the Wiki article did not include a citation and searching the web for mentions of the ["3rd division" "sihang warehouse" before:2007-08-09"] does not bring any earlier information aside from the Wikipedia article.

    The issue now is that Niderost's article is being used by an editor to repeatedly re-add the incorrect claim of the 3rd Division's involvement in the Battle, see: Imperial Japanese Forces on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article. They have since added a number of additional sources to try to prop up this claim, all are published after Niderost's article, and of those which are properly cited, they either cite Niderost or Wikipedia.

    I would like to hear what others have to say about this source and my assessment of it. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I would not consider that source sufficient to contradict prior academic sources on the matter. The sources citing it don't seem like they should be included either; Three Months of Bloodshed: Strategy and Combat During the Battle of Shanghai appears to be a random student paper. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:48, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Several issues:
    1) That a source does not include a bibliography or in-text citations does not make it Wikipedia:Glossary#unverifiable, it makes it Wikipedia:Glossary#uncited. We typically do not require that reliable sources have any particular way of providing citations or support for their statements.
    2) That is not plagiarism and you should strike or modify your comment as a BLP violation. Now it may be an example of WP:Citogenesis, but it is not plagiarism as the sentences are not substantially similar.
    3) What other sources "contradict' the Niderost article? Katzrockso (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused about these first two points.
    1. The page for WP:Unverifiable states:

    Unverifiable information may be § cited (e.g., to an unreliable source or to a source that doesn't support the material) or § uncited.

    While a source is cited on Wikipedia itself, said source is unreliable.
    2. WP:Plagariasm states:

    Summarizing a source in your own words, without citing the source in any way, may also be a form of plagiarism

    From my understanding, even rewriting one's own work without acknowledging it in a citation constitutes plagariasm. Even in 2008, others were already pointing out this author has been copying off of Wikipedia.[22]
    3. "Senshi Sosho - China Area Naval Operations I (Until Match 1938)"(防衛庁防衛研修所戦史室 編 (1974). 中国方面海軍作戦〈1〉昭和十三年三月まで. 朝雲新聞社) pp. 401, 402 states (English translation):

    On the evening of October 26, our naval landing forces, wanting to maintain contact with the enemy, particularly on the left wing of the Suzhou Creek area, continued their vicious battle. Using the moonlight at 0430 hours on October 27, the right flank launched an attack on critical points as planned. At 0505 hours the entire force began their advance and with an initial breakthrough of the frontline on Baoxing Road, each unit attacked with their all of their might. The Rightward Force was the first to succeed in breaking the frontline at 0700 hours and advanced to the west edge of Zhabei, later moving to the southern area and working to cut off the enemy's escape routes. At the same time the Leftward Force captured the North Station and Railway Bureau, followed by the Central and Leftward Forces sweeping enemies in the west and southern areas and moving to clear out enemies of the eastern pocket area. By around 1800 hours some 100 stragglers retreating from our advance had held up in the Sihang Warehouse. The other remaining stragglers were mopped up in the evening. Some troops also advanced west and captured Zhenru Station (真如駅). Our naval landing forces captured all of Zhabei, the Continental Rail Factory, the Central Weapons Arsenal, and Zhenru Station, with the enemy losses amounting to some 630 dead and a number of captured weapons. Our casualties amounted to 3 heavily wounded and another 24 wounded. The stragglers in the Sihang Warehouse were later encircled and told to surrender, but after ignoring the offer, on October 31 at 0145 hours they were suppressed with artillery and at 0300 hours our forces broke through and completely swept up what was left of the enemy.

    Adachi1939 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Continued:
    Xu Zhigeng (1995). 浴血淞沪 “八·一三”大上海保卫战 [The Bloody Battle of Songhu: The "August 13" Defense of Great Shanghai]. Chinese People's Liberation Army Press. p. 404, and Guo Rugui, Huang Yuzhang (2002). 中国抗日战争正面战场作战记 [China's Anti-Japanese War Combat Operations]. Jiangsu People's Press. pp. 567–569 both cover the fierce battle of the IJA 3rd Division to cross the Suzhou River at the end of October to early November 1937.
    The notion that the 3rd Division fought at Sihang Warehouse was birthed on Wikipedia and promoted by Niderost's article. The above military histories show the 3rd Division was crossing the Suzhou River at the time and Senshi Sosho notes the fighting for Sihang Warehouse was fought by Japanese Naval Landing Forces.
    Niderost's article is equivalent to someone writing the US marines were the main force landing at D Day in 1944. It is totally wrong but able to persist due to the language barrier. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been more clear. Unverifability is Wikipedia jargon. It doesn't really apply to sources themselves, but a claim, statement, or sentence in a Wikipedia article. If the Warfare History Network article is unreliable and there are no other sources for the claim, you would be able to say that the statement in the Wikipedia article is unverifiable, but it isn't coherent to apply the concept of WP:V to sources' contents. Indeed, if you open up the New York Times there are hardly any citations at all for the claims in their articles, yet we obviously wouldn't refer to their reporting as "unverifiable".
    You have no evidence that Niderost engaged in Summarizing a source in your own words, without citing the source in any way. Moreover, this is the concept of plagiarism on Wikipedia, which once again is specific to article content and not source content. You still have no reliable source to claim that Niderost engaged in plagiarism, and a forum post is not evidence whatsoever. Katzrockso (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If Niderost was just a random pop historian, maybe I would be more lenient—but he's a professor professor working in academia. The burden is on him as a writer to cite his sources in order to prove he has not commited plagariasm. I'm not even an academic and would expect others to hold me to the same standard. Adachi1939 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Some more suspicious things about the Wiki vs later published Article.
    No web results other than the Wiki when searching "mint godown" before:2007-12-31:
    07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:
    "known also as the Chinese Mint Godown by those from the concessions"
    Niderost, Dec 2007:
    "Westerners knew the place as the Chinese Mint Godown."
    Strange small detail for both to include:
    07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:
    "the defenders did not have a flag pole in the warehouse. Therefore, the flag was hoisted on a makeshift pole made of two bamboo culms tied together."
    Niderost, Dec 2007:
    "Because there was no flagpole, two bamboo poles were lashed together for the purpose."
    These two paragraphs are nearly identical in their content:
    07:17, 9 August 2007 revision of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article:
    "Attacking from all directions with cannon fire and tankettes, they pushed the 3rd Company out of their defensive line at the base of the warehouse and forced the 3rd into the warehouse itself. The west side of the warehouse originally lacked windows (as can be seen from the photos above), but the Japanese attacks conveniently opened up firing holes for the defenders. A group of Japanese soldiers tried to scale the walls to the second floor with ladders, and Xie just happened to be at the window they appeared from. He grabbed the first Japanese soldier's rifle, choked him with the other hand, pushed him off, and finally shot another Japanese soldier on the ladder before pushing the ladder off.
    Niderost, Dec 2007:
    "The west side of the building lacked windows, but Japanese shell hits had punched enough gaps into the wall to provide the defenders with loopholes. The Japanese, acting in concert with infantry, then brought forward tankettes. The fighting grew so heavy the Chinese Third Company was pushed back from its position and forced into the warehouse. Japanese infantry came forward with scaling ladders, a curious throwback in an age of mechanized war. The Chinese simply pushed the ladders off or peppered the advancing enemy with rifle and machine-gun fire. Xie personally lent a hand, fighting alongside his men.
    If we break down the Wiki article's sentences it's essentially the following: [Concept 1 - Japanese attack with tankettes → push back Chinese 3rd Company] → [Concept 2 - West side attacked by Japanese → loopholes made for Chinese Defenders], → [Concept 3 - Japanese try to scale walls with ladders → Chinese resist → Xie personally stops them]
    Looking at Niderost's paragraph, we can see the same content just paraphrased and rearranged, his is just constructed as [Concept 2] → [Concept 1] → [Concept 3].
    The tankette assault is particularly interesting as like the 3rd Division concept, it also originated on Wikipedia and further mentions of it either cite Niderost or Wikipedia itself. For example Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Exisle Publishing. p. 544 reads "At midday Japanese light tanks , most likely Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes, joined the siege in support of the infantry." and cites "Niderost, 'Chinese Alamo'". Adachi1939 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    While the concerns and input presented by User:Katzrockso appear to be in good faith and are appreciated, I strongly reject their assertions of myself violating WP:BLP.
    The definition of plagiarism as per Chabot College—where the author in question is a faculty member—is the following:[36]

    The term "plagiarism" includes, but is not limited to, the use, by paraphrase or direct quotation, of the published or unpublished work or another person without full and clear acknowledgement

    Plagiarism includes the deliberate misrepresentation of someone else's works and ideas, as one's own, as well as paraphrasing without footnoting the source.

    Regardless of whether or not the un-cited information originated from Wikipedia, per the above definition, the author Eric Niderost has engaged in plagiarism by paraphrasing without without footnoting the source material. Furthermore, the number of comparisons exhibited above demonstrates their much of paraphrased material did originate from Wikipedia. This at the very least needs to be removed due to Citogensis.
    As an encyclopedic website, editors and readers like myself must be allowed to voice legitimate concerns with the academic integrity and work to remedy the issues. Unfortunately this discussion has largely been hijacked over perceived violations of WP:BLP that do nothing but shield this improper source from criticism. Adachi1939 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Wien Geschichte Wiki

    [edit]

    Wien Geschichte Wiki (https://www.geschichtewiki.wien.gv.at/Wien_Geschichte_Wiki) is an encyclopedia about the history of Vienna, run by the city government. Is it a suitable source for wikipedia? It is strictly moderated, and as far an I can tell mostly edited by city employees. EulersNumberIsGreat (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Depends on the claim being made with the source. But it also looks like WP:USERGENERATED content even if by city employees. We don't know their level of expertise.. Ramos1990 (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on reliability as yet, but we have an article on it at Vienna History Wiki, and there is some information in English at [23]. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Per our article on it “ It is written by Municipal and Provincial Archives of Vienna and Vienna City Library staff as well as external experts, and all content is subject to an editorial process and approved before publication.” Editorial approval is nearly the most important criteria for source reliability. This is not user generated at all; it is written exclusively by qualified employees of a reputable organization and then reviewed for accuracy by that organization. They even involve external experts. This is definitely reliable. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit of a strange one. It is user generated, but all edits are subject to Pending changes and subject to editorial control by a team from the Vienna city council and partner institutions (museums, research institutes, etc). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear I don't believe this is completely written by the council and partner institutions, but it is fully under their control. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    See this guide on how you can start editing the encyclopedia[24]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:18, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is a "so so source" not fully reliable but probably better than what there is beyond it in many cases. The Vienese crowd love their city more than one would guess, so they will do their best, but they are not all experts and their love may result in over affection in their edits. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    What Is Polandball?

    [edit]

    I want to discuss the potential use of a video I have produced on the subject of Countryballs. To my understanding, this video may qualify as a Secondary source because it comments on and analyzes Primary sources related to the topic, but I am curious how well it holds up to Wikipedia standards for Secondary sources. I also intend to discuss potential COIN regarding future edits I would like to contribute to this article, but before I do that, I would like input on this question about research I have conducted on the topic as a deeply invested/involved member of the community. ChickenScuttleMonkey (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, unfortunately you can't add a source you have written to an article, even if it were reliable. The video is reliable for your opinion as it is a self-published source. Unless you have been published repeatedly on the topic of Countryballs by some reliable source, and therefore are classified as a subject matter expert, your video is unlikely to be a reliable source for our purposes.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. The majority of reliable sources on this subject unfortunately very rarely refer to specific comic creators, although I have contributed many comics and r/Polandball policies that have influenced the medium as it exists today. Due to my history with the medium, I am definitely interested in pursuing classification as a subject matter expert, but I do not wish to circumvent the established Wikipedia procedures/policies.
    Thank you for the insight! ChickenScuttleMonkey (talk) 19:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And please see our policy on original research. I'm rather surprised that this article is still here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This is helpful information, thank you. To my understanding, the article as it exists refers to reliable sources and meets the criteria for notability, however it's possible that the article also contains elements of original research that would need to be edited in order to adhere to Wikipedia's standards. I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I am trying to position myself to contribute to this article in a way that fully aligns with Wikipedia's goals. ChickenScuttleMonkey (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Trainee Digital Reporter at the Lancashire Telegraph

    [edit]

    This question concerns an article by a "Trainee Digital Reporter" at the Lancashire Telegraph.

    List of people named in the Epstein files has an entry for Nicole Junkermann that says:

    "Nicole Junkermann is a German entrepreneur and investor. Documents released as part of the files show that after his 2008 conviction Junkermann was in close friendship, and in repeated email correspondence with the financier and convicted sex offender over several years from the early 2010s."

    The sole source provided is the Lancashire Telegraph, which appears to be a normal local paper and thus presumed to be generally reliable.

    The page cited is Exclusive:Lancaster University visiting professor named in Jeffrey Epstein files

    Is this source a WP:BLPRS for this claim?

    The author is "a trainee digital reporter covering North and West Lancashire for the Lancashire Telegraph, predominantly covering Blackpool, Lytham St Annes, Lancaster and Morecambe"[25]

    It occurred to me that possibly more experienced editors might have checked the trainee's work. Am I allowed to presume that, or do I need evidence that it is true?

    Note: every time anyone focuses in on a particular entry on the list an army of editors starts scouring the Internet for additional sources, and they often find them. To my way of thinking, this is backwards. Our BLP policy requires that this sort of thing be properly sourced at the time the information is added to the encyclopedia, not later when someone complains.

    Background: List of people named in the Epstein files currently requires one reliable source mentioning (in any context, even in passing) someone being in the 3.5 million Epstien files. Despite there being an edit notice saying that "all statements in this article must be supported by citations according to the biography of living persons policy" and "people listed in this article should pass the general notability guidelines" there are people named on that page who lack a Wikipedia article or any evidence of notability.

    Related discussions:

    --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    You haven't given any reason why the Lancashire Telegraph should be considered unreliable. As you say, we tend to presume reliability for such sources because they have editorial standards. Having editors mitigates the relative inexperience of the reporter. If no one besides the Lancashire Telegraph is reporting this information then that would raise a question of dueness, but not of reliability. Mackensen (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue here is less to do with WP:RS style reliability and more WP:BLP policy. The Lancashire Telegraph is likely a generally reliable source, but is it a 'high quality' source that BLP calls for ("Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources.").
    If it is then "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article, even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." per WP:BLPPUBLIC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Free clue: I have to actually claim that the Lancashire Telegraph is unreliable before I give a reason why the Lancashire Telegraph should be considered unreliable. I made no such claim. You ignored my actual question (question, not claim), which was whether this particular trainee digital reporter is reliable for this specific BLP claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean this as a reply to Mackensen? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's a reply to me then I think I did address it and I regard the whole proposition as strange. Why would we evaluate the reporter's credibility independently from the publication who published him? This is an inverse of WP:SPS; the reporter's credibility comes from the fact that the Lancashire Telegraph published him. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course I was responding to Mackensen. And I should have been more clear. Sorry about that. For most things I am fine with assuming that someone is looking over the shoulder of the trainee digital reporter and vetting the stories -- even though we all know about the layoffs and overworked editors at local papers. But even if the fellow checking the trainee exists, think about our basic reasoning. We find that person A is findable in a search of the Epstein files, but no reliable source covered it, so person A is off the list. We find that person B is findable in a search of the Epstein files, and this time a reliable source did cover it, so person B is on the list. But what would our possibly imaginary editor check in the trainee's work? Would he just check to see that the facts are correct, or would he also substitute his judgement as to what is notable enough to print? Maybe they had space to fill that day. I am still left with a strong suspicion that we are choosing to include someone in our Epstein files list solely because of a decision by a trainee digital reporter. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems pretty clear why that publication covered it as news: he was a visiting professor at the university in the publication's coverage area. So, it seems like that's an editorial decision not made by the reporter. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't say much for the publication's editorial oversight if it allowed a new reporter to publish such a piece, linking a semi-public figure to the world's most prominent sex offender, without the editors giving him the go-ahead. You've provided no evidence that this is the case, though. Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Mackensen, please stop telling me that I have provided no evidence for something I never claimed to be true. If I had evidence, I would not have used a phrase like "I have a suspicion" (saying that I suspect that it might be true but I don't know) or "It occurred to me that possibly more experienced editors might have checked the trainee's work. Am I allowed to presume that, or do I need evidence that it is true?" (saying that I suspect that it might be false but I don't know). --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Free clue: the source is not the reporter. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Go away, Selbstporträt. Stop following me around Wikipedia and commenting on everything I write. I do not wish to have any interactions with you. Leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers might like to confer to WP:FORUMSHOP. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Report me at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any policies or guidelines. I never respond to you other than asking you to leave me alone. Your constant accusations of wrongdoing everywhere I post is WP:HOUNDING. Report me or shut the fuck up about my many alleged crimes. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Was going to contribute to this discussion but with the level of anger and aggression here I don't think I'll bother. AusLondonder (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the LT is generally reliable as a local paper of record, I don't see why we'd make an exception here. Doesn't feel like an absurd assumption to make that said trainee's work would be overseen and approved by more senior newsroom staff. The Kip (contribs) 05:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • A passing comment. A Google search h provides many other sources so this may be much ado about nothing. Not for me to edit that page but sche resigned from charity etc.
    Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any reason why TLT shouldn't be reliable in this case, or in general. Someone appearing in the Epstein files isn't a particularly controversial claim since 1) the files mention like a million people and 2) we can even check for ourselves whether the claim is accurate. The wording in the article ("appear to reveal a close friendship") also seems fine and isn't particularly accusatory. Cortador (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed. i think question of BLP matters, as is question of dueness though. Even if reliable coverage, WP:PUBLICFIGURES asks for multiple sources for saying someone appears in the epstein files. and a single paper commenting on it really does not suggest dueness either. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    We are dancing around the more important question: Is being on the Epstein list worth mentioning without context as to why and how the person is mentioned?I don’t think so. There is a huge difference between, say, someone who was mentioned in passing vs someone who regularly communicated and visited his island. Blueboar (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The article already states why Junkermann is mentioned. Cortador (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding extortion claims through Controversy Section on The British College

    [edit]

    Hello all,

    I'm drawing your attention towards a concern regarding the Controversy section of The British College wiki page. Particularly, I have concerns regarding the use of Vanity Stardom as a source in the contractual dispute section. Vanity Stardom has a shared ownership with the consultancy involved in the dispute mentioned in this article. The shared ownership of the two entities can be inferred from this. According to the source, both organizations are associated with a single individual, who has been identified as the founder of Vanity Stardom and the CEO of IDigitalAKKI Media.

    Additionally, this article reports allegations that the firm claimed it could edit or remove Wikipedia pages in exchange for payment. This raises questions about independence under WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT, particularly given that the coverage relates directly to that dispute, and could potentially fall under WP:PAID if the coverage is promotional.

    If the source is not independent, it may not be suitable for supporting content in this section of the article. Evidencehunter096 (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    • So what is the big deal. It looks like there were unfulfilled promises, as usual, and the college cronies are trying to keep that out of Wiki. And they have been reverted. It happens with a lot of colleges that take advantage of gullible students. Sigh ...Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify, my concern is not about whether the dispute itself should be mentioned on the page, nor about defending any party involved. My concern is specifically about the reliability and independence of the source currently being used.
      The article from Vanity Stardom appears to be published by an entity that shares ownership or leadership with the consultancy involved in the dispute. Because of that relationship, the source may not meet the independence requirements outlined. Using a source connected to one side of the dispute could introduce a conflict of interest and may not be appropriate for supporting contentious claims.
      My intention here is simply to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia’s sourcing policies. Evidencehunter096 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Eh, eh, eh. Now that I have stopped laughing, let us all WP:AGF and assume that Hunter is not a WP:SPA although that is the only page he has ever edited. But he seems to know Wiki so he is not new. And we will AGF and assume that he is independent of all of this. Sorry, I have to stop due to my own laughter... Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that you have stopped laughing, I would prefer to keep the discussion focused on the source and the content in the article rather than on individual editors. My editing history or motivations are not really relevant to whether a source meets Wikipedia’s sourcing standards.
      The concern I raised is simply that the Vanity Stardom article appears to be connected to the same individual associated with the consultancy involved in the dispute. The source does not qualify as independent coverage under Wikipedia’s reliable sourcing guidelines. Evidencehunter096 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:Assume good faith isn't optional, even if you have personal doubts about an editor. Could you keep comments to the article and source, if you have other concerns there are other noticeboards. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I think there is a problem here beyond normal public image management. That Vanity Stardom is owned by the same person as IDigitalAKKI, and is being used to support statements about a third party in disagreement with IDigitalAKKI is a conflict of interest. This doesn't seem to be reporting that is independent of IDigitalAKKI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      For the moment I've cut the details back to just that the dispute exists and the denial by the college, I've also added a link to this discussion in the edit summary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Lumen Learning

    [edit]

    I am concerned about this site: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/

    It's used in a number of pages as a citation, (see), but it seems to be at least partially a copy of wikipedia. For example, see this page, which copies wording that has existed on wikipedia since at least 2008 [26]

    (Also, it managed to copy a bit of wikivandalism along with the rest of the page: cyanobacteria occur in tyour momhe Great Salt Lake, which is a bit of a giveaway)

    I didnt check the history of each page, but every one i checked had at least some laguage identical to the wikipedia page: for example, Morocco#French_and_Spanish_protectorates vs https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-worldhistory/chapter/33-1-3-moroccan-independence/. Another example: Open-hearth_furnace#History vs. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/steel-production/#:~:text=action%2E-,After%201890

    (Well, I suppose it is possible we are just copying them extensively, but i dont think so)

    Is this the right place to report this? is there any way this site can be blacklisted or something, not sure how that works

    thanks, /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly unreliable, Tioseafj. The sources at the bottom of these pages are Wikipedia. They've just scraped content that itself may not be accurate, and then people are citing it again on WP to verify said statements. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ok, thanks. i am removing them. is there any kind of list it can be added to so people dont add it as a source in the future? when i tried to make a page with a kickstarter link (to source how much the kickstarter raised), i was blocked from doing so-- can we do that with this one?
    thanks, /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That warning is only for particularly troublesome sources, unfortunately there's isn't a technical solution for minor sources such as this one. Editors have to manually ensure the quality of sources used in articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. ill just keep an eye on it then. Im removing the existing ones /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 12:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think it is a useless source. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks, i appreciate the confirmation :) i didnt want to remove hundreds of citations without confirming that my judegement was accurate /ˌtiːoʊseɪˈæf.dʒə/ (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries Just do it as they say. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BEBOLD is a guideline, and you need no ones approval to edit. Only if someone objects do you need to stop and discuss, personally I think best practice is to follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Defence Security Asia

    [edit]

    How reliable is Defence Security Asia as a source?

    A lot of claims related to the 2026 Iran war are only being reported by this site. See [27] and [28] for example. It doesn't seem to have been discussed here before, but some Reddit users are saying it's unreliable. [29] [30]

    If it's indeed an unreliable source, then the approximately 130 citations that use this source should probably be replaced or removed. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an unreliable WP:BLOG. The site has no masthead, and numerous stories are written by "admin". Ixfd64, you are justified remove any instance of it. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    White genocide - use of primary with attribution

    [edit]

    I was patroling some edits by PARAKANYAA on the White genocide article here, and noticed they had removed an entire paragraph which included sources such as NYT, ADL and a WP:PRIMARY source because (edit summary): "not one of these sources mentions the word "white genocide". absent a reliable source connecting this to the term this is OR"

    I looked at the very first page (third paragraph - second to last sentence) of the source which states...

    "The United States and it's 'New World Order' has as one of it's foremost purposes, the eradication of the White race and its culture" (emphasis mine)

    Since "eradication of white race" and "white genocide" are basically synonymous I felt it was a red flag and best to revert the edit and discuss it on the talk page, but we are having some difficulty communicating productively, as they have now moved on to arguing it is UNDUE, and copywrite protected etc...which it may be.

    Due to the awkwardness of our interaction, I felt it best to see if anyone here is willing to take a look and offer some opinions.

    (The context in question)

    Shortly after Lane's Manifesto, the Aryan Nations published their 1996 Declaration of Independence stating that the Zionist Occupation Government sought "the eradication of the white race and its culture" as "one of its foremost purposes". It accused such Jews of subverting the constitutional rule of law; responsibility for post-Civil War Reconstruction; subverting the monetary system with the Federal Reserve System, confiscating land and property; limiting freedoms of speech, religion, and gun ownership; murdering, kidnapping and imprisoning patriots; abdicating national sovereignty to the United Nations; political repression; wasteful bureaucracy; loosening restrictions on immigration and drug trafficking; raising taxes; polluting the environment; commandeering the military, mercenaries, and police; denying Aryan cultural heritage; and inciting immigrant insurrections.[1][unreliable source?][2][failed verification][3][failed verification]

    References

    1. ^ Aryan Nations (12 March 1996). "The Declaration of Independence". Retrieved 18 August 2019 – via Internet Archive.
    2. ^ Verhovek, Sam Howe (8 September 2000). "Leaders of Aryan Nations Found Negligent in Attack". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 3 July 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2019.
    3. ^ "Aryan Nations/Church of Jesus Christ–Christian". Anti-Defamation League. Archived from the original on 20 June 2017. Retrieved 20 August 2019.

    They also mentioned a possible WP:COPY violation with this source, if anyone cares to comment on that as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This probably belongs at WP:NPOVN, not here. TarnishedPathtalk 07:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There were three sources. The two reliable sources say nothing about the subject (the first doesn't mention the memorandum at all, the second does but quotes it talking about other, unrelated topics) and the third is a primary source that is WP:UNDUE, OR here, and also neo-Nazi propaganda. This is indicated by the fact I said "absent a reliable source connecting this to the term this is OR".
    Why are we citing an entire paragraph in this article to a primary source by a white supremacist group that no secondary source connects to the subject of the article? How is that due weight, and not OR?
    Also yes the link is a copyright violation. Copyright doesn't cease to exist for the extremely racist. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest reinserting a shortened form of the content indicating this racist group engages in this racist conspiracy theory but with care to copyright. And less detail is required. the eradication of the white race and its culture obviously refers to "white genocide" and we should avoid the "source using an obvious synonym doesn't count" thing. Furthermore the racist group is reliable for saying it believes in this hogwash. We should absolutely not lend credence to racist conspiracy theories using such sources but we can use them to document that these people hold these beliefs. Simonm223 (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    PRIMARY SOURCE: I am not a fan of using Nazi or terrorist primary sources, but they are not unreliable for ABOUTSELF claims and this is indeed an obvious synonym. I would flag a primary source like this with a secondary source needed tag.
    ADL SECONDARY SOURCE: ADL is a reliable source for this sort of thing, as extensively discussed in an RFC with a huge amount of participation. ADL supports the para because it mentions the Declaration and that it quotes Lane's manifesto, and specifically its 13 Words (which is an encapsulation of white genocide theory). ADL also mention some of the things in the Declaration per the removed para, but I agree that's overly detailed in the removed para.
    NYT SECONDARY SOURCE: Obviously reliable. However, I agree it fails to verify the para.
    Support Simonnm223 proposal to reinsert shortened version. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a secondary source. Will edit a proposed version.
    BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a judiciary hearing ever a secondary source? Legal hearings are quite universally considered primary sources. Also, how is this due weight? PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a primary source for this claim. It's the testimony of a researcher, from the ADL, to Congress. The fact it was published by Congress makes me feel it's due, but open to other views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A primary source interview with someone quoting another primary source does not become a secondary source. That is not what a secondary source is.
    Anything said in a proceeding like this is in the log, it is indiscriminate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources are documents, recordings, or works that analyze, interpret, synthesize, or evaluate information from primary sources rather than providing direct, first-hand evidence. They offer second-hand accounts, commentary, and scholarly interpretation. The ADL expert's written testimony about the Declaration is a secondary source. The Declaration is the primary source. Please take this to the original source noticeboard if you have concerns about the use of primary sources that can't be dealt with at the article's own talk page. The community has strongly established that the ADL is reliable for precisely this kind of thing.
    Re Anything said in a proceeding like this is in the log, it is indiscriminate.: I have no idea what that means but I'm pretty sure it's wrong. The ADL did the research and analysis, thought about it, and prepared written testimony to present to Congress, so I think they discriminated pretty carefully in deciding what information to emphasise and what not to. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it due weight to include this when no secondary sources connect it to the topic of the article? PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it feels right, sourcing be damned. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As with other recent removals by PARAKANYAA of long-standing content on similar topics I watchlist that I've noticed lately, these are cases where a better source tag would be a more constructive first step rather than removing large amounts of semi-decent sourcing, and then if consensus emerges that there are no good sources the material can go, while editors have the chance to improve the articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree, the content is correct, by their own words they believe in "white genocide", but the sourcing could be better. {{better source needed}} would be appropriate, although editors are allowed to remove content if they believe it shouldn't be included. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have fixed the issues, removing the primary source and failed verification source and using reliable secondary sources. Checking welcome. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Those changes are an excellent improvement IMO, thank you. Hopefully PARAKANYAA finds them acceptable as well. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncited/poorly cited material should be removed. I did check for a good source that says this, there isn't one. Of the two sources there now, one still does not say what we are citing it for, the other is a primary source from a court hearing. Neither of these evidence due weight. There are hundreds of white supremacist articles that reference the idea of white extinction - barring secondary sources, why is this any more due weight than any of those hundreds? PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The verification question ("one still does not say what we are citing it for") is best dealt with at the article's talk page as not an RS issue, will reply there. Congressional evidence (not court hearing) is not a primary source for this. Due weight also not a question for this noticeboard. Do any reliability issues remain? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Congressional materials are of course primary sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a basic misunderstanding. They are primary for some things and secondary for others. This document is a primary source for what the ADL testified, but a secondary source for what Aryan Nations said.
    At any rate, this is not something that need concern this noticeboard, if you're no longer arguing for unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Poorly or uncited material can be removed, which is why I said that in the last sentence of my comment (and I strongly support the right of editors to do so), but the only material that must be removed in that case is BLP information. I don't think it's in doubt that they support the idea of 'white genocide', it is verifiable to their own words. Whether that source, or other sources, supports inclusion isn't a matter of verification but NPOV. Can I suggest editors try to form a consensus on the matter on the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why DN brought this to RSN. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be restored. This isn't exact wording "white genocide", but so close that the term is appropriate. The article also lists several closely related terms i.e. sources aren't required to always use the exact term "white genocide" and only that. Cortador (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

    [edit]

    I was wondering if Proceedings of the Indian History Congress would be considered as a WP:HISTRS compliant source and if it can be used generally on South Asian history articles. WareWolf665 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, if it's made it to JSTOR I'd think it's reliable and not predatory.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 12:52, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be generally reliable, is there a particular article you were planning using? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I cited them on the Origins section of the Lawik dynasty page. Just wanted to clarify since it got removed by someone earlier for not being WP:HISTRS compliant. WareWolf665 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be a case of more sources making the situation worse. A single good source is all that's required, additional sources of poor quality can make other editors more suspicious of content.
    For anyone else's reference the article at question is:
    Devra, G.S.L.; Arora, Shashi (2012). "Hindu Commanders in the Army of Sultans of Ghazna: A Case Study of Vijaypal of Bayana". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 73: 205–211. JSTOR 44156207.
    This period of Indian history isn't something I know a lot about, but the journal seems respectable and G.S.L. Devra appears to have had an academic career in history. There could be specific concerns that the other editor has about the source, generally reliable sources can still be unreliable in a specific WP:RSCONTEXT, but I can't see a reason for it to be rejected without good explanation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1342831488"