Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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 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

Additional notes:

• 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.

Start a new discussion

---

Is BYU reliable for Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

Moved from Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Is BYU reliable for Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

I tried removing nonmainstream sources in an article about linguistics, but multiple editors contend that BYU is independent/reliable for this subject. 166.199.97.87 (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

You should list the sources provided with title, author's name and publication details. I assume you are referring to BYU Studies. It seems to be a reliable source. The real issue is weight: how accepted are the author's conclusions? TFD (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, BYU is not a reliable source for mainstream scholarship on topics that overlap with the Mormon historical claims. Feoffer (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the passage in question with the citation: [1] Simonm223 (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

BYU is not an independent source for LDS/Mormon topics since the university is owned and run by the church. Contested claims should be attributed so long as there is sufficient weight and consensus to include them. Left guide (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe that we need a RS describing the journal as being an overtly religious entity for sure, otherwise we are making that distinction by ourselves. Mormon studies is a legitimate field of research as Mormons have a history, culture, and influence in America and this is an academic field. I believe if they have a means of peer review, they should be allowed to engage in this field of study and have their research cited. I am agnostic as to whether it should be with or without attribution. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 11:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Related: is BYU reliable for Archaeology and the Book of Mormon? (See Talk:Archaeology and the Book of Mormon#Ancient fires). In both cases, I would say no. If BYU is saying one thing and nobody else is saying it, it should either be reported as "People at BYU believe..." or omitted entirely. _pbp 13:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

That appears to be the case here from a read of the article and talk page. The argument made on the older version of the page is essentially that writings may have been lost to fires so we can't know the true history of the Americas and, as such, its possible that the Mormon version of American history is correct. It's not a very cogent argument and has been reverted. In general, due to the natural POV of BYU when it comes to Mormonism and to th difference of opinion of different scholars at BYU, I would lean to writing something like "According to X at BYU..." --FeldBum (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability has to do with facts. Are the facts in the source true or not. It's independent of whether or not the conclusions the author makes are generally accepted.

BTW, per SELFPUB, the source is acceptable for the opinions of its author, even if it were not reliable for the facts presented. So again the issue is WEIGHT: have the opinions received sufficient coverage in mainstream sources for their inclusion. TFD (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I would attribute BYU related sources when discussing topics like this, but they are reliable if in a bit of an ABOUTSELF way given that the field within the Mormon tradition is largely of their own creation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this is the right approach. BYU is very much an institution controlled by the LDS church, but given that background they publish a surprising amount of genuine analysis that is critical of the church and its dogmas. Usage should come down to a case by case basis of individual articles and authors: FARMS Review, for instance, will publish scholarly criticism and analysis side-by-side with doctrinal apologia, and I wouldn’t want to issue a blanket assessment of even just that one imprint’s publications. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of The Straits Times must be rediscussed

Initial comments

As some of you may know, the debate on whether The Straits Times is reliable has been a hot subject these past couple of months. Several users have questioned the usage and reliability of The Straits Times in several Singapore FACs' reviews as well as other places such as DYK and GAR. The current community consensus listed on WP:RSP is that There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage... news related to Singapore politics, particularly for contentious claims, should be taken with a grain of salt.

However, I, along with several other editors, feel that this a very simplified consensus from the first RfC. What about The Straits Times before it came under more direct government control? What about coverage of past ministers and historical pioneering figures, especially the President of Singapore, which is a largely ceremonial position? Some editors may have even misunderstood the consensus and extended it to anything that's government owned, even if it's non-political such as rail infrastructure.

Anyways, before partaking in this discussion, I invite those who are interested to revisit similar discussions such as Singapore Rail Test Centre's FAC, DYK, and GAR review pages, Sengkang LRT's FAC review page, Actuall7, Aleain, and Thebiguglyalien's discussion on Yusof Ishak's FAC, and ZKang's comments regarding the usage of The Straits Times for FAC, as well as to read literature relevant to this discussion. The aim of this discussion is to determine what is a "political topic" for The Straits Times as well as if The Straits Times was reliable before government interference. Additionally, I, along with a few other editors, propose that its entry on RSP be changed to the following: The Straits Times is generally reliable, except for its coverage of national politics and its politicians, including those who did not win at an election from 1980 onwards. Please let me know your thoughts. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 14:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging active SG editors @Actuall7, @Robertsky, @Justanothersgwikieditor, @S5A-0043, @Aleain, and @Kingoflettuce. I invite those who expressed concern regarding the use of The Straits Times, mainly @Thebiguglyalien, @RoySmith, @Nick-D, @Launchballer, and @UndercoverClassicist as they have raised concerns regarding the ST's reliability. I also invite @Starship.paint, who conducted the GAN review for Singapore Rail Test Centre, @Narutolovehinata5, who said in Singapore Rail Test Centre's DYK review that the sourcing is "fine to [them]", @Brachy0008 as they have previously participated in a discussion regarding the reliability of Mothership (website). Courtesy pinging @Toadspike and @Epicgenius as well since they have shown interest in this discussion both on and off wiki. I know ZKang is on a wikibreak and may not participate at the moment, though he said that he will chime in later. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The issues I found were not so much with the ST's reliability (i.e. can we depend on the facts it publishes to be true), but the broader issue of the independence, neutrality, and breadth of coverage of the sources as a whole. It is misleading at best to say "RoySmith expressed concern regarding the ST's reliability". If you are using the various discussions cited here as input for a discussion about the ST's reliability, that's not going to go anywhere useful. RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

While yes, the main issues you cited were not specifically about ST but on the range of sources used, you did bring up ST as an issue. If this discussion can redetermine ST's status as reliable for non-political topics, this will directly affect your comments about the range of sources, as the 29 ST sources used would then be considered viable in the context of Sengkang LRT line's FAC. Thus I fail to see how the previous discussions could not be considered relevant here on a discussion of ST. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 01:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Paraphrasing from my earlier comments, I would like to restate that The Straits Times in the post-1980s period should be treated in a more balanced light, akin to how sources like WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are approached. While it is true that its domestic political coverage tends to be measured in tone, it would be inaccurate to equate it with state media in states like Qatar or Hong Kong. In those examples, restrictions are far more pronounced, with Qatar prohibiting any criticism of the royal family and lacking national elections altogether, and Hong Kong under direct Chinese Communist Party influence following the 2020 Hong Kong national security law.

What remains puzzling is how Singapore's media landscape is often subjected to greater scrutiny than the likes of Qatar or Hong Kong, despite the latter two ranking lower on most global freedom indices. According to the Democracy Index, Singapore is classified as a flawed democracy, while Hong Kong is a hybrid regime and Qatar fully authoritarian. Likewise, in the Freedom in the World ratings, Singapore scores 48 out of 100, ahead of Hong Kong at 40 and Qatar at 25. I do not claim that Singapore is a liberal democracy with a fully independent press, and I am myself critical of the state's more heavy-handed policies. However, it is important to recognise that Singapore is, quite simply, not as bad as is often claimed when it comes to general news reporting.

The Straits Times, and Singaporean media more broadly, maintains a high standard of journalism when reporting on international and non-political subjects. Its coverage is factual, structured and professionally presented. While it is fair to say the paper tends to avoid aggressive investigative work on sensitive political topics, it does not blindly follow a government script in the manner of media in places like China, Russia or Qatar. For this reason, I strongly believe that The Straits Times should be elevated to WP:GREL, to reflect its overall reliability, especially given the integrated role of the government in many aspects of Singaporean public life due to the country's small size. The entry might adopt wording similar to what Icepinner proposed, such as: The Straits Times is generally reliable on non-political topics, although coverage of local politics and politicians are often viewed as supportive of government views and framed in a pro-government context, particularly after the 1980 Singaporean general election. Articles on People's Action Party politicians may appear to promote them in ways that resemble advertorials. Aleain (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes. It's rather strange in my opinion that The Straits Times comes with more scrutiny considering the control of Hong Kong's press was tightened after 2020. Likewise with your comment, The Straits Times isn't churnalist, which is something I have previously mentioned in one of the above discussions. They go out of their way to interview relevant authorities and include relevant contextual information rather than just copy and pasting the press release supplied to them, changing a couple of words, and call it "news". I have no problems your proposal, though I must comment on the last bit. You said that post-WWII ST was seen as "pro-British" and often took "cautious or hostile" positions in its editorials commenting on emerging anti-British movements such as the PAP. I think it's particularly important and relevant to include this historical context on its RSP entry as well. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I think a large part of the issue is that Singapore is often misunderstood outside Asia, with many outdated or exaggerated ideas still circulating. Some people still believe Singapore canes people just for chewing gum. It is definitely odd that The Straits Times faces more criticism than SCMP, especially given how much press freedom has declined in Hong Kong since 2020. Meanwhile, The Straits Times has generally maintained a good level of professionalism, particularly in non-political and international reporting. It practices proper journalism and does not merely copy press releases and tweak a few words, as you mentioned. I also agree it is important to highlight the paper's earlier history about how it was pro-British and anti-PAP, often taking a cautious or even critical stance towards anti-colonial groups. Its editorials regularly supported continued British rule and portrayed nationalist leaders as too radical or unprepared for self-governance. That stance shifted in the 1980s when the paper came under SPH and S.R. Nathan became its executive chairman. Including this change in the RSP entry would provide valuable context especially since contributors like actuall7 (talk · contribs) rely heavily on The Straits Times as a source when improving historical articles, often from before 1980, towards GA or FA status. Aleain (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping. I would generally agree with the wording that Icepinner proposed - the issue is specifically with government-related or politics topics, where it may be biased or where it may show a tendency toward self-censorship. For other topic areas, it would be generally reliable, and there are plenty of instances where the ST doesn't follow the government's position for these topics, as ZKang123 has mentioned in the previous discussion. This is consistent with the previous consensuses about the ST's reliability (There is consensus that it is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage.)
  I agree with Aleain's comment above about Qatar and Hong Kong, and was actually going to mention SCMP as an example. Despite the SCMP being pro-mainland China, and despite being located in a territory that is further down on the World Press Freedom Index than Singapore is, the SCMP is still considered generally reliable. Therefore, it does seem inconsistent to treat the ST as only marginally reliable, when similar "additional considerations" apply to certain topics for both the SCMP and ST, and when these papers are both treated as generally reliable otherwise. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

personally, the straits times is mostly reliable, unless when it comes to politics, because of self-censorship and media laws. but take my statement with a grain of salt brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! However, for politics, I feel like it depends on which year you're talking about. As Aleain noted, The Straits Times was accused of having a pro-British stance before the 1970's. Actuall says that Yusof Ishak is not a politically controversial figure, along with the President of Singapore in general compared to the Prime Minister of Singapore. Would The Straits Times be reliable on their report of Operation Coldstore? These all weren't taken into account in the first RSN discussion, which gave the impression that the ST is pro-PAP, regardless of its era. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 08:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I think The Straits Times coverage of Operation Coldstore in 1963 is quite distinctive, as it was a coordinated effort involving multiple parties including the British government to counter the communist threat. The operation took place during a turbulent period in the middle of the Cold War, and the reporting at the time was certainly freer and more independent compared to the post-SPH era, as the PAP did not yet have full control over The Straits Times editorial decisions. However, when it comes to Operation Spectrum in 1987, it is advisable to refer to other sources other than The Straits Times to gain a broader and more balanced understanding of the event. Aleain (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmmmm I agree. For Operation Spectrum, I would try to find secondary sources by political commentators/historians with differing viewpoints. I think the usage of The Straits Times would be okay for Coldstore as they were independent enough to freely write opinions for such topics. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC).

• Thanks for the ping. That wording wouldn't quite work for me -- my concern was establishing WP:DUEWEIGHT when the subject matter is also owned/operated by the Singaporean government (specifically, public transport). Put another way, I don't have a massive problem with someone using The Straits Times for an uncontroversial fact like the number of people who used a certain Metro line, but I don't think we can say that an article largely based upon citations to it has shown Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable [i.e. independent] sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. It would be a similar situation if some event at Amazon were only sourced to the Washington Post (since both are owned by the same person), or (as I suggested in the relevant discussion) a story about Doctor Who were only cited to the BBC -- we wouldn't really be expecting either to get their facts wrong, but if they're the only people who care about the story and they have an obvious "family" connection to it, that would be a bad sign for me in terms of DUEWEIGHT and perhaps WP:GNG. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your concern but are you aware that The Straits Times isn't actually government owned? It's owned by SPH media, which is not government owned. Truthfully, it'd be almost impossible to produce any good Singapore article without using The Straits Times or other local sources according to your standards since the Singapore government is often involved in every major project. The topic of the ST's NPOV and GNG is best left for another discussion; this is focusing on its entry in RSP. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  @UndercoverClassicist a correction: The Straits Times isn't owned by the government since 2021. It was briefly owned by the government between 1984 to 2021. I still understand the concern for DUEWEIGHT, especially in the context of Sengkang LRT but what about before 1984, when it was independent? Many newspapers existed around that time, such as Singapore Free Press, Sunday Standard, and many, many more. Surely articles that use such sources will not have DUEWEIGHT issues, no? Anyways, that's enough ST–DUEWEIGHT discussion I touch upon, such discussions should take place at the appropriate venue. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 15:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  Right, but if we're saying that the ST is likely to promote a government line in regards to politics, it would be strange to treat it as completely neutral -- not only in the manner of coverage, but in what it chooses to report or doesn't -- in its handling of state-owned institutions, companies etc. Agreed that we're probably going to end up putting particular caveats on the period (nearly 40 years -- not "briefly" in my book) that it was actually in state ownership. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• For reliability, I don't have much to add here, so I'll just endorse the comments above by Aleain and Epicgenius and support an upgrade for ST's RSP entry to WP:GREL for non-political coverage. For independence, I've not fully thought out my opinion yet, but I feel like I need to ask this (because this impacts some non-Singapore related articles that I've written about as well), in the face of a place where the state media is considered the most authoritative, or is the only option available (not just Singapore, but others like China or Venezuela too), how do we gauge independence? Is it simply "Oh, this is state media, and this is a service offered by the government, no no, not independent", or is it worth a deeper look at the history of the publication to find out it has carried out independent reporting? (for example, this is a piece by state-owned Shanghai Observer which is fairly critical about a change to a bus service done by the relevant government agencies) If it's the first one, then we risk opening a can of worms where every article on a topic that's not covered by something other than foreign media is going to be thrown out, even ones without political implications. It is not reasonable to expect media like The Guardian or CNN to cover a service that only serves a local area in a foreign country, and in the face of only local (state-owned) media covering them, the metric of what is considered "independent" should really be more context-sensitive to account for the different situations not found elsewhere. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 07:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• I support Imbluey's rewording above, though I'd add a comma before "from 1980 onwards". The current wording is overly broad and has led well-meaning editors to cast aspersions against The Straits Times. The comparisons with Al Jazeera and the SCMP are pertinent – The Straits Times has a similar or stronger reputation than either and their entries in RSP should be at the same classification level. Whether this is "additional considerations apply" (which would be factually accurate, since the existing consensus on all three is that additional considerations do apply) or "generally reliable" (which would also be accurate, since outside of certain topics they are all generally reliable) I don't particularly care.

If, per UC, this is not a reliability issue but a due weight issue, I don't see any practical way to determine if The Straits Times lends undue weight to "local" or "government" issues. It would be ridiculous to dismiss all local news coverage from The Straits Times, but what level of local news is "more than expected" or "undue"? How can we quantifiably determine that, compared to other national newspapers of record, The Straits Times focuses too much on local government? The NYT focuses heavily on New York politics; the NZZ focuses heavily on Zurich issues; obviously the ST will focus on its local government. I personally think articles in The Straits Times are "significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable [i.e. independent] sources"; excluding them would create more of a due weight issue than including them, and I would oppose any FAC on a Singaporean topic that avoids the ST and other Singaporean media for not being comprehensive. Media bias or no, it is a fact that most Singaporeans are satisfied with their government, Rail Test Centres and all, and The Straits Times represents mainstream Singaporean views.

On the specifics: I disagree with UC's description of "the number of people who used a certain Metro line" as "an uncontroversial fact". Those are numbers that cannot be independently verified and the operator may have an incentive to fudge, so they should always be attributed inline ("According to the LTA, X Line had a ridership of 50,000 in 2024.") On the other hand, statistics like track length and power supply should be uncontroversial, even if not easily independently verified. I strongly disagree with the way Straits Times articles have been broadly treated as unreliable, biased, primary, or undue at FAC with very little evidence of actual issues. On the other hand, the concerns raised about actual primary sources, like transit operators and government ministers [2], are valid; I only wish that they were discussed with more nuance. I don't think it's unreasonable, for instance, to cite "according to communications minister Mah Bow Tan, the SKLRT was planned to be completed in 2002" to the archived speech by that minister and a news article, but instead of looking at individual sources, that discussion began and ended with polemical bickering. Toadspike [Talk] 08:47, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• It is worth handling the Straits Times with reasonable caution, especially with regards to politics, but that is not unique to this newspaper or to Singapore. It is as generally reliable as most newspapers, and its use should not be coming up as an issue on FACs. I wouldn't even say it is unreliable with regards to politics, just that you might want to complement it with other sources. CMD (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
• I don't exactly wish to revisit this discussion so soon, but I greatly appreciate some of the fresher perspectives offered here.

There seems to be at least three issues being discussed at once: the reliability of The Straits Times, the independence of ST, the bias and political slant of ST, and the use of primary sources in FACs.

First, let's tackle one issue at a time. And this topic thread is about Straits Times reliability. The issues of primary sources should be set aside for another time. Now, also I understand when discussing ST's reliability, further discussions are being raised about its independence and political bias. However, from my understanding of similar discussions on RSN, especially those of Al Jazerra and SCMP, biasedness doesn't necessarily correlate to its reliability.

This was perhaps one mistaken assumption in the first ST RfC, which resulted in no consensus of its reliability among SG editors (myself included) involved due to Singapore's lack of press freedoms and potential government interference. However, because of that, it seemed other editors assumed ST to be an inferior news source to be avoided like Fox News, although it was also established that it had been Singapore's newspaper of record and sufficiently reliable for local topics, which don't often receive as much coverage by foreign sources. Nor were there falsehoods or extraneous unverified claims published by ST to promote a political agenda, similar to Xinhua News Agency or Fox News.

As such, there also seems to be a grave misinterpretation regarding "political issues" and "government's involvement in its coverage" in the current entry. As Toadspike points out, it is unrealistic that we should avoid ST sources altogether and try to find more independent coverage for many topics in Singapore. This include major infrastructure projects such as the MRT system and Changi Airport Terminal 5, cultural and historical institutions such as National Museum of Singapore or 141 Neil Road, and even media programmes like books and television shows, which would all often involve the government (or an agency) in some way or another. This is particularly so in a small city-state like Singapore.

I agree nevertheless that there should definitely be some caution exercised with using ST sources, particularly for potentially controversial political topics concerning elections and coverage of the opposition and the incumbent. That said, even ST is shown not to completely shy away from some hot-button topics, as I shall raise again from here:

• Critical analysis of some government policies such as SimplyGo: [3] and [4]
• Opinion pieces showing that ST does not always toe the official government line: [5] and [6]

Ultimately, if we can agree that ST's reliability is on the same calibre as those of SCMP and Al Jazerra (i.e. GREL), then I think the way forward for this discussion is: what should we really define as a "political topic"? What are some topics which an editor should take greater caution for when using ST as a source?--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 13:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I do agree with your statement Zkang. I must admit, the organisation of this discussion is rather messy, which impedes the effectiveness of each user's points. I shall take it upon myself to organise this discussion into sections regarding the above issues. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 16:22, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• Having read through the FAC links, I'm still not 100% sure if the issue is with the use of this source in general or in featured articles. I've been trying to familiarize myself with the FA critera the past few days, and there's obviously a higher standard applied in that process. It would be helpful to understand what the desired outcome is here if that were clarified imo. CarringtonMist (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  @CarringtonMist I appreciate you taking interest in this discussion. The issue is The Straits Times' entry on RSP, which may seemed to influence others' opinions in the FAC review. I, along with a few editors, felt that its RSP entry is very simplified (honestly it seems like the first discussion only focused on the modern-day Straits Times, which would be post-1980s acquisition), especially considering its historical nuances, such as articles published whilst it was indepence, as well as the definition of a "political topic" within the context of the ST. We believe there may have been confusion regarding what is a "political topic"; some have interpreted to be anything that's government-owned or had major government involvement to the point of questioning DUEWEIGHT and NPOV. Regarding its use in featured articles, there seems to be de facto consensus that it doesn't meet the threshold for a "high quality source". However, such discussion should be done in the appropriate venue, as this discussion is focusing on its entry on RSP. I invite you to add your own thoughts regarding the ST's reliability, the exact meaning of "political topics" within the context of the ST's current RSP entry, my above proposal, etc. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 14:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  There's no doubt that FA applies a higher standard to sources (both individually and collectively) than GA does. In theory, WP:GVF describes the differences but to be honest I've always found that page frustrating because it describes things in relative terms which are vague and open to interpretation. GA requires "reliable sources" while FA requires "high-quality reliable sources". So, what exactly makes a source reliable, but not high-quality? That's a good question. I wish I had a good answer, but I think that is really the gist of the dilemma here. One camp is saying "ST is a reliable source" and the other camp is saying, "Yes, but that's not always enough". It's not always enough in the context of an individual source, and it's not always enough when evaluating the entirely of the sources used in an article. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

  So, what exactly makes a source reliable, but not high-quality?
  I would say that this actually depends on the topic matter and even on the context in which the source is used. For example, the NY Times is considered a generally reliable source, and it's usually a high-quality reliable source for NYC topics, being local to the area. But for topics not in its area of expertise (e.g. Singapore), it might not be as high-quality as sources that focus especially heavily on Singapore (and thus have a greater feel for the intricacies of Singaporean topics). This is even more relevant to scientific topic matters - especially medicine, where per WP:MEDRS the NYT wouldn't even be considered a high-quality source. But the point of this is to say that the less familiar a source is with a certain topic, the higher the likelihood that even a generally-reliable source would say something factually incorrect. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Icepinner: Thank you, that was a helpful response. I wrote about this below, but I wanted to also respond to you directly. Personally, I've found that figuring out what is or isn't a political topic can be a lot more complicated than people expect it to be. To be a little more blunt than I usually am: I don't think that people are going to stop arguing that public transportation is (or at least can be) a political topic, even if the RS entry is successfully changed. Like I said below, in the NYC area public transportation is hugely political. That's not to say that every single thing the MTA or Port Authority does is controversial or polarizing! But in my experience, when you're dealing with local-level government, seemingly mundane things can become political in unexpected ways. I can't speak for anyone else in this conversation, but if I were evaluating a source's independence, that perspective would definitely influence my thinking. CarringtonMist (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• I don't see much problem in treating it as GREL for non-political/government topics but I would not really change the RSP summary (and for instance even non-govt./political topics can breach into those territories). From what I can tell this conservative paper aligns closely with the conservative PAP in its editorial stance and there is also self-censorship on whatever topic the government deems sensitive (which is also why I see no point in delimiting what is meant by politics, it is whatever the PAP may deem it to be). Editorial judgment can decide whether a topic falls into that domain. Neither do I see any evidence that the paper is editorially independent now or was before direct government ownership during the LKY-era. And considering its sister newspaper Lianhe Zaobao has been under CCP influence operation in recent times (much like the KMT-aligned UDN and China Times in Taiwan), I would suspect its coverage of China-related topics as well. Gotitbro (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

"Political topics" definition?

Inspired by Zkang's comment, I have decided to split this debate into three sections. As the title suggests, this is for the definition of "political topics" in The Straits Times's RSP entry (apologies for the kerning of the apostrophe with "the straits times"). Anyways, like Zkang mentioned, I think it's rather safe to assume that transport and the likes of it aren't a "political topic". The key thing is, what about elections? The President of Singapore before the 1990s? Etcetra, etcetra, etcetra. Such questions are to be discussed here. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 16:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

In summary, I support The Straits Times being elevated to WP:GREL, similar to how WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are treated, with the same caveats applied. Coverage related to transport (e.g. aviation, buses and trains), geography (e.g. parks, gardens, rivers and wildlife) and infrastructure (e.g. heritage buildings, skyscrapers and malls) is typically mundane and not politically sensitive. In these subject areas, The Straits Times maintains a consistent level of reliability suitable for use as a source.

However, additional considerations should be applied when assessing the paper's coverage of elections, political parties and government policies, particularly on sensitive topics such as capital punishment, corruption, military matters, foreign interference and issues of race and religion. This is especially relevant for content published after 1982, the year S.R. Nathan was appointed executive chairman. From that point until 2021, key leadership positions within the organisation were held by individuals with close ties to the government, which reasonably raises concerns about the paper's editorial independence during that period. The wording in the summary could subsequently be:

The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is generally considered reliable. However, its coverage of topics such as local politics, government policy and the People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with added considerations for the period between 1982 and 2021. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this period, given the close ties between the paper's leadership and the government during those years. Aleain (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I support the above new statement, though I would write: its coverage of politically-sensitive topics such as local politics, government policies and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP)....--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good to me too. Aleain (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with the above statement (with Zkang's addition). As the government was heavily involved during that time period, greater care should be taken if it's used in articles such as the Caning of Michael Fay. I believe it's also worth mentioning their pro-British stance before the government interfered in the ST's RSP entry. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 07:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Icepinner: and @ZKang123: The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is generally considered reliable. Founded in 1845 when the country was a British colony, the paper had predominantly focused on British and colonial-related events, reflecting a pro-colonial tone until Singapore's independence in 1965. Its coverage of politically sensitive topics such as local politics, government policies and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with additional considerations for the period between 1982 and 2021. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this timeframe, given the close ties between the paper's leadership and the government during those years. Aleain (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Support from me! Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 11:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly I have no opinions or consensus of its bias on british and colonial topics, and I don't think it's really relevant here to highlight its colonial past. What we are more concerned is the reliability of its present-day coverage of local topics. So maybe simply like: The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is considered generally considered reliable. However, its coverage of politically sensitive topics such as local politics, government policies and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with additional considerations especially for the period between 1982 and 2021. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this timeframe, given the close ties between the paper's leadership and the government during those years. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 01:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Its present-day coverage is certainly important, but the paper's colonial-era history is arguably just as relevant when editing articles on pre-independence Singapore under British rule. Such topics often rely heavily on The Straits Times for sourcing, as seen in entries like The Cenotaph, Singapore. Providing this context can be useful for editors who may not be familiar with Singapore's historical background. Aleain (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean, this discussion thus far have been mainly about ST's present-day coverage of SG topics. Maybe you can word and say that it was established during British colonial rule, but as far as I'm aware this discussion here has no clear consensus about its pro-colonial bias. Again, let's tackle one topic at a time and if there are more questions raised about its pro-colonial bias, then we can open another discussion.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 02:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Certainly. That can be discussed at another time. Aleain (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Building on this, I think the final sentence should be updated with corresponding edits as well; I have proposed additional changes in my comment below. Sunrise (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

One thing that stands out to me about this is that some of the examples of things that are typically mundane and not politically sensitive are also going to, in some situations, be related to local politics or government policies. Aviation and public transportation are areas where governments have significant influence. I live in New York City, and public transportation here is absolutely a political issue. This isn't an oppose !vote, I think people will be able to figure out edge cases through normal discussion. I just want to present a slightly different opinion on what counts as a "political topic" CarringtonMist (talk) 12:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe it all comes down to the situation in different places. While public transport may be seen as a political issue in NYC and across the USA in general, in Singapore efforts to improve the system generally receives universal support across the political landscape, and I should add that (this may be an over-generalisation but) the USA seems to be the only place I know where public transport is such a politically divisive issue. There's sometimes debate about certain aspects like fare hikes, train breakdowns, etc, but the system itself and future developments (such as new train lines) are far from what I would call a "political topic" in the Singapore context. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 13:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I also live in NYC, but I'd say that "it depends" with regards to topics like public transit. While our public transit (as with many public transit systems around the world) is operated by a government agency, it doesn't mean that everything related to public transit is politically related. Nor is public transit necessarily a politically divisive issue - many of our projects do receive broad political support. I think it's useful to make this distinction, because things such as new capital projects, system expansion, maintenance, etc. may not be necessarily political just because a government agency operates the system. The same thing goes for Singapore and other cities where a municipal, subnational, or national government operates the public transit system, or for other topics (e.g. hospitals or schools) that are controlled by said governments. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I support the above-mentioned wording proposed by Aleain. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree with others above that this will be an "it depends" call for any particular example. Transport has political aspects, but at the same time I don't think there's the suggestion that the Straits Times is misreporting electoral counts. CMD (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Support the The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is considered generally considered reliable. However, its coverage of politically sensitive topics such as local politics, government policies and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with additional considerations especially for the period between 1982 and 2021. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this timeframe, given the close ties between the paper's leadership and the government during those years. Icepinner 16:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• The proposal needs to avoid suggesting that the post-2021 period is entirely free of concern. In general, we first need to see evidence that the situation has changed, and a change of ownership does not necessarily translate into a change of practice. Furthermore, while I'm not familiar with this newspaper, sources clearly indicate that concerns still exist:

Sources

Communication Research and Practice (academic journal): [7] "The government pledged an annual S$180m budget to the new SPH Media Trust (SMT), raising concerns about the ability of the news entity to break away from government control, but these were dismissed with political assertions that editorial independence had ‘always existed’. This paper analyses the government-led public discourses surrounding SMT, highlighting a two-prong narrative approach: obfuscate the social role of the media in Singapore, and downplay the need for accountability over public funding for SMT." Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism: [8] "Singaporean media watchers and practitioners worry the uneasy act of balancing editorial and political pulls is becoming more difficult" (the need to "balance" political pulls implies non-independence) "existing areas of concern [include] increasing control from government communication teams" Media Compass: A Companion to International Media Landscapes (textbook published 2024): [9] pg. 390: "Singapore's media system is closely regulated by the state, which sees media regulation as crucial to preserving racial harmony and political stability...the news media is dominated by a duopoly [SMT and Mediacorp] with close links to the state" pg. 394, on the general circumstances of media: "Beyond these legislative and judicial boundaries, Singapore journalists are also aware of unwritten norms and rules that they need to follow..."

Given this, I would be more cautious with the wording. Building on the changes recommended above, I would make further adjustments to the description as follows:

The Straits Times is Singapore's English-language newspaper of record and is generally considered reliable. However, its coverage of politically sensitive topics such as local politics, government policy and the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) should be approached with additional considerations especially for the period between 1982 and 2021. Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this period source, given the close ties between the paper's leadership and the government during those years especially (but not limited to) the period between 1982 and 2021.

This version doesn't include the significance of 1982-2021, but a phrase like "when the paper was owned by the government" could also be added; "close ties" is less definitive and potentially an understatement. (I am not addressing the GREL/MREL classification either way in this comment.) Sunrise (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

No objections to the revised wording. While government involvement officially ended in 2021, The Straits Times journalists is likely to remain measured in their language, especially when covering sensitive political topics such as race and religion. Aleain (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Icepinner 07:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that I support this rewording, mainly because separating from government involvement doesn't a hundred percent confirm a difference in editorial or journalistic styles before or after 2021. Would also like to ask if the definition of "politically sensitive topics" could be expanded upon? In the discussion above, only local transport was discussed, but I would like to bring up other politically-related roles like the president of Singapore, which is an independent office and only the head of state, or Nominated Members of Parliament, which are filled by independents but have successfully passed laws and led to further involvement in partisan politics. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I think all of this generally already falls under "Editors are encouraged to critically assess material from this source, especially (but not limited to) the period between 1982 and 2021." Ultimately, it comes down to the editor's judgement on how independent The Straits Times is for the topic at hand within that time frame. Trying to define what counts as "politically sensitive" in every instance may lead to an unsatisfying and overly complicated outcome. Nevertheless, based on the examples you gave, I do not see any real controversy. The president of Singapore is largely a ceremonial role with no actual influence over the government, and the NMPs are private individuals contributing in a technocratic capacity. Aleain (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree to this. It's been mentioned a myriad of times before, but Singapore's record on freedom of the press is not as great as, say, Canada or Norway. Self-censorship regarding politically sensitive topics is still pretty commonplace country-wide, from what I can gather. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You're not wrong. While Singaporean journalists may not be as openly critical of the government as in some other countries, there is a clear difference between that and spreading disinformation. Singapore does not have anything resembling China's "Great Firewall", and alternative media remains widely accessible. In reality, state-linked outlets like The Straits Times are often the most consistent and verifiable sources for day-to-day developments. Their cautious tone does not equate to unreliability, or else we risk undermining coverage of Singapore-related topics altogether, especially given that many alternative sources tend to be less rigorous and factual by comparison. Aleain (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

How in-depth does a review mention need to be?

Hey, bringing this up because it's in question at an ongoing AfD. I am not asking anyone to participate there, but I would like some discussion since I'm worried about how this could impact other articles in the future.

The article in question is Meghan Andrews. It was in an absolute garbage state at one point and was brought to AfD. During my searches I found multiple reviews of her stage performances in RS. Some of the reviews go into some detail about her, while some give 1-3 lines of commentary on her performance. Schazjmd has stated that these reviews should not count towards notability because the mention is too brief. In contrast, I believe that the reviews should count as long as the following criteria have generally been met: the review is overall in-depth, the review was put out by a RS, and the mention gives some input on the character and/or actor. So in other words, we cannot use capsule reviews or anything where they're only included in the cast listings that can be somewhat routine for articles.

I'm just concerned that this could have a negative impact on actors whose career has been kind of based on being "That Guy/Girl" in films, where they're mentioned in reviews but never with the depth of the main characters. To be specific, I'm a little concerned on how this would impact niche genre productions, since it's not unusual for those to never mention actor names and instead go solely by character names. This review by Bloody Disgusting is a good example, as it has a lot to say about the film and performances but is low on specific cast name mentions. Again, I'm not arguing for capsule reviews or cast lists to count towards notability, just that we not disregard mentions in reviews because they're not in-depth. This just has the potential for, over time, to limit Wikipedia's ability to cover other areas.

What is everyone's take on this? I've opened up a discussion on the AfD talk page and I've also opened a discussion at WP:THEATER since it involves them. Again, not asking anyone to argue for or against deletion. I purely want a discussion on the review concerns. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there were two reviews brought up, neither of those went "into some detail about her", and I stated that I did not think either of those contributed to notability. Saying there are "some" that "go into some detail about her" and that I stated all of those should not count is not an accurate representation of what I said. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Since we are clarifying, you are referring to this Variety article and this Chicago Tribune article, correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a matter of notability rather than reliability, unfortunately there's no dedicated notability noticeboard. I'd note that NACTOR is for 'having had significant roles in notable works' (paraphrasing), or having made "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I don't think either is applicable in this situation, so the question is more one WP:SIGCOV and general notability. Cast listings aren't going to add notability, as they aren't "in depth" and are indiscriminate. The rest would be covered by SIGCOVs "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Whether a particular review provides significant coverage or is a passing mention will be specific to each case, AfDs exist to discuss such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

For me, a trivial or passing mention would be like you said, something like the cast list or something like "Also starring John Smith as Character A, Jane Smith as Character B...". If they're reviewing the person, that elevates it as more than a passing mention (the reviews I'm basing notability on actively mention her and the quality of her performance). A lot of times the coverage tends to focus on the ensemble rather than the individual, so something that might seem trivial elsewhere really isn't with a theater review. You see this with some film reviews as well.

This review by The Guardian is an excellent example of how even very major characters can receive a smaller amount of attention in a review. The actor portraying a central (or arguably main) character is mentioned only twice, with the main focus centering on the production as a whole. Same thing is more or less featured in this review as well.

Like you said, this isn't exactly reliability, but we don't have a noticeboard for that and I wanted some feedback on this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the first article it doesn't appear to show notability for any of it's actors other than Prior. Other than Prior it focuses on the production of the play, rather than the acting. The other article focuses entirely on the production, mentioning the actors only as a role call. I don't see how it would add any notability to them.
The first article has "Prior slouches around Kimberly’s house, melts into the beanbags at the school library and absentmindedly chews on a candy necklace. Her voice is rich and pure and sure, her characterisation intelligent. Prior’s performance is never condescending or cynical about teenagers; it is all heart, and she folds neatly into the bright young ensemble." this addresses Prior and her acting directly (I would consider this SIGCOV, others may disagree), the second article lacks any such discussion of the actors. A cast list or simply stating who played which roles wouldn't be enough.
That's not to say they wouldn't be reliable, but reliability doesn't mean inclusion (WP:VNOT). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

• If we're talking about for WP:GNG purposes, passing mentions generally don't count. GNG requires WP:SIGCOV. The fact that this means that we'll sometimes have no article on actors whose career has been kind of based on being "That Guy/Girl" in films, where they're mentioned in reviews but never with the depth of the main characters is the entire point of WP:SIGCOV; we cannot write a meaningful article based solely on a few passing mentions in reviews. Note that WP:ENT might allow exceptions for people whose roles are manifestly significant or who have manifestly made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment, but you'll usually have a hard time convincing people that an actor falls under that description if there's not enough coverage of those facts to meet the GNG. (However, note that if the GNG is met in other ways, you could potentially include such reviews - personally I'd argue against it but GNG / SIGCOV is for determining notability of the article as a whole, not for what's included in an article otherwise, so inclusion / exclusion is a more complex case-by-case WP:DUE question.) --Aquillion (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Helicopter misuse claim unsupported, based on Somali outlets quoting a self-published Twitter post

I want to bring attention to a recurring issue regarding false claims that Somali government helicopters are being misused for private purposes. These allegations lack any independent or credible verification and rely solely on Somali media echoing a single self-published tweet by a clearly biased individual. No neutral or authoritative sources have confirmed this, which undermines factual discussion and unfairly casts doubt on official state operations.

The confusion appears to arise from two facts: the helicopters have civilian registrations, and some government pilots wear civilian clothing. In reality, the Bell 412 SB and Agusta Bell 412 helicopters registered as 6O-AAG and 6O-AAH are exclusively used to transport the President and Defense Minister to frontline areas. These helicopters have civilian registrations because they are part of a controlled government aviation training program that also serves direct military purposes.

Somalia opened a state-affiliated aviation academy in Mogadishu that trains both Somali Airlines(training for relaunch) and Somali Air Force pilots. Air Force trainees train on the Bell helicopters, while government-sponsored civil aviation students wearing civilian clothing train on aircraft such as the Cessna 172RG (6O-AAK) and Cessna FR172J (6O-AAJ), operated by Gamtecs Aviation Academy. This program is highly restricted to select government personnel and is not open to the public.[10]

While some Somali media outlets repeat these misuse claims, they typically present them as unproven rumors or allegations without providing any verifiable evidence like photos, documents, or independent investigation. No internationally recognized sources support these accusations. Meanwhile, the helicopters have documented and traceable official use. Claims of misuse remain purely speculative and lack factual basis.

Additionally, I must raise concern about a user on Wikipedia who repeatedly accuses me of vandalism and reverts my edits that remove these unverified and sensitive claims. Despite his accusations, a review of my editing history shows no vandalism or violations of Wikipedia policy. My contributions have been focused on improving article accuracy and removing misleading content. This user’s conduct is obstructing factual updates and discouraging legitimate correction of misinformation. I request that this behavior be reviewed as it affects the quality and neutrality of Somalia-related pages.

Thank you for your attention to these issues. Majid8097 (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Courtesy ping to the other involved editor. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 12:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for advice on the reliability of sources, it can't help you with a general topic area. If you have specific sources, or a particular piece of an article, you'd like advice on them just provide some detail and links.
This noticeboard specifically does not deal with user behaviour. For that you need WP:ANI, make sure to read the instructions before posting there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the clarification. I’ll look into ANI for the user behavior part. Majid8097 (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The only link you've provided in your post is about spectrum licencing in Somalia, it's entirely unrelated to your comments -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the crux of the matter, and why it is reported here, is whether TikTok videos, pictures and social media posts (presumably official accounts of the Somali airforce) can be used to say that certain helicopters are operated by the Somali airforce and not a private firm. Videos in question: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. The discussion can be found here. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Then that would be a wp:or issue. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to go through all of them, but the last one shows the Somali military using a helicopter - that doesn't preclude that they hired the helicopter rather than own it. It couldn't be used to say that they definitely own and operate the helicopter, that would require a source that directly says that they own and operate the helicopter - rather than a video that just shows them using it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand the distinction you're making. While the visual evidence shows active use, I also have Somali government itself directly reporting these helicopters as being acquired by and operated under the Somali Air Force. If necessary, I can provide those specific sources which meet reliability standards. The question is not whether the helicopters are owned by the Somali Air Force, for that, there are overwhelming independent sources. Majid8097 (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The TikTok videos and photos are just raw visual evidence, not the core of my argument. If stronger sources are preferred, I can provide official Somali government media that clearly report these helicopters as operated by the Somali Air Force. Majid8097 (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I only shared that one link to show the registration of the two helicopters. But if you're looking for another source confirming the same registrations (6O-AAG and 6O-AAH), here it is: https://www.rotorspot.nl/current/6o.php Majid8097 (talk) 11:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Well this might not be an RS, and even if it was "civil rotorcraft register for Somalia", as it not operated by the military. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The National Communications Authority of Somalia confirms the same registration data, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore.[17] As for its military use, the helicopter is in service for utility and pilot training. I can provide raw evidence if needed. Keep in mind, Somalia doesn't have the same level of detailed media coverage on military assets like Western countries do. Much of the confirmation comes from local or official visuals or formal acquisitions. Majid8097 (talk) 11:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"GAMTECS HOLDINGS" does not read like the military. So this still seems to support they are privately owned, and leased by the military. 12:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)

As I said the link you originally shared (and have shared again) is for Spectrum licencing, it has nothing to do with helicopters. The Rotorspot link doesn't say they belong to the Somali military. You need a reliable source that directly says that the Somali military is operating those helicopters. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

The purpose of linking the spectrum license document is to show the specific aircraft types associated with GAMTECS, which are military-use helicopters. That’s the context not the spectrum itself. Gamtecs Aviation Academy is a government-affiliated training institution working with the Somali Air Force. The helicopters are operated within a military framework, regardless of how the name "GAMTECS" may appear. You're focusing on the label instead of the operational reality. Thanks for the discussion. Transparency and accuracy are what we all aim for. Majid8097 (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That they hold some spectrum licences doesn't even show they fly the helicopters, only that they have aircraft radio station licenses for them. What you've provided isn't enough to support what you want to add, as I said references must directly support the content. You need a source that says the Somali military owns these helicopter, with no interpretation or ambiguity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I want to clarify something that I think may have gotten lost earlier in the discussion and I hope you’ll hear me out just this once.

My point wasn’t to discredit the citation or argue that the claim doesn’t exist. I understand it was reported by Somali outlets.

What I was saying is that this specific claim coming from a politically affiliated figure, repeated only in domestic outlets without independent verification probably shouldn't be treated as if it’s a confirmed or major fact. It’s not about ownership or suppression, it’s about how much weight this deserves.

I and that user want balance and accuracy, and maybe you all just saw my words from different angles. I'm just reopening this briefly to see if you'd reconsider that framing not to argue, but to get it right together. Majid8097 (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Understood. My intention wasn’t to use the spectrum licensing page to assert ownership, but rather to illustrate the aircraft types, variants, and their registrations. The goal was to clarify the specific models, not to interpret ownership claims from that source. I agree that direct attribution of military ownership requires clear and explicit sourcing, and I’ll ensure that distinction remains clear in future edits. Appreciate your feedback. Majid8097 (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Majid8097 I am not 100% sure you understand the process here. If you wish to contest the reliability of Garowe Online and https://www.garoweonline.com/en/news/somalia/villa-somalia-under-fire-over-alleged-misuse-of-donated-military-helicopters - the story in question, you need to bring evidence to show that Garowe Online is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE. Also when bringing things to noticeboards it always works better if you provide exact diffs of the issue in question. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

We've been going back and forth on this for a while now, and at some point, we need to start listening to each other and valuing what’s being said, otherwise, we're just going to keep exhausting ourselves. The issue is less about whether Garowe Online is a reliable source in general. The issue here is that their article doesn’t provide anything concrete. It’s full of vague terms like 'allegedly' and rests entirely on one person's claim (Abdisalam Guled) with no additional verification or evidence. That makes it shaky ground to base such a serious statement on, especially in an encyclopedic context. We owe it to the quality of the article to demand more solid sourcing. Majid8097 (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please note this noticeboard about whether a source is an RS, or (being generous) about whether a claim is sourced to an RS. WP:undue is a wholly different issue, and should not be discussed on this notice board. Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Majid8097, should you wish to advance claims to have the Garoweonline source removed from the article, you need to bring evidence that Garoweonline is *not* an RS. That's what this noticeboard is for. To put it around another way, many of the articles you have added to the Somali Air Force article, say, for example, on the basis of one soldier's or official's claim, that so-and-so numbers of Al Shabaab have been killed. Do we believe that one official? That's a question, as Slatersteven said, of UNDUE. Go elsewhere to discuss that. But removing the Garoweonline article entirely? Make your claims here that Garoweonline is unreliable. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

StratNews Global on 2023 Taiwanese anti-Indian migrant worker protest - is it reliable?

• Source: India-Taiwan Bridging The Labour Gap by Team StratNews
• Article: 2023 Taiwanese anti-Indian migrant worker protest
• Statement: "In fact, pro-China media reports have warned that Indian workers could pose law and order issues. The reports have also highlighted attacks on women in India to reinforce the view that Indian workers cannot be trusted." in the news, for "Some media outlets have also noted that Pro-China media [zh] emphasised violence against women in India to create a negative impression of Indian workers." in the article.

I am currently working on getting the 2023 Taiwanese anti-Indian migrant worker protest to GA status, both in Chinese (for a test to implement a new GAN precedure) and in English. During the Chinese GAN, a reviewer questioned the reliability on StratNews Global. I am confident on the site after reading their introduction and how English Wikipedia used the source, but that still can't convince the reviewer, so I come here to ask the site's reliability. Saimmx (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

My personal doubt is that they lack an "editorial policy." But I don't know if the Indian media sites have such practices. SuperGrey (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Just a note about "how English Wikipedia used the source", StratNews is only used 12 times on enwiki[18]. Also not even all 12 relate to startnewsglobal.com, as there are uses of stratnews.com a completely different organisation.
As to the specific question you would need to ask at whatever venue zhwiki has for discussing the reliability of sources. How enwiki judges a sources has no hold on how zhwiki wants to use it, each project is run separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually, zhwiki editors generally respect the enwiki concensus on the reliability evaluations. Plus, this article is also a GA candidate on enwiki. Therefore, it's fair that the evaluation is (also) hosted here, to gather opinions from the English speakers. SuperGrey (talk) 14:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

If it's being used in an enwiki article it can be judged here, but otherwise I'm unsure of a couple of editors speaking for a while editing community. I can't find the enwiki GAN, do you have a link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Talk:2023_Taiwanese_anti-Indian_migrant_worker_protest. No one has started reviewing though. SuperGrey (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about reliability, but I do worry about tone in the enwiki article. Currently the enwiki article states "Some media outlets have also noted that Pro-China media [zh] emphasised violence against women in India to create a negative impression of Indian workers", based on StratNewsGlobal stating "The reports have also highlighted attacks on women in India to reinforce the view that Indian workers cannot be trusted." They both ultimately mean the same thing, but the enwiki content has a much more aggressive tone.
As to reliability in general it would be useful to find WP:USEBYOTHERS, but I can't find much. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting idea of "WP:USEBYOTHERS". I haven't considered that. Saimmx (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Pulling two example headlines (one on first page of Google for "StratNews", the other in the first page of their most popular Youtube videos):

• Sengupta, Ramananda (2024-08-15). "Pakistan Marks Its I-Day With Bullets, Kashmir, Rape And A Viral Snore". StratNews Global. Retrieved 2025-07-26.
• StratNewsGlobal (2020-08-01). Xi-Tler? Xi Jinping Emulating Adolf Hitler!. Retrieved 2025-07-26 – via YouTube.

The headlines seem overly inflammatory which is a big red flag in terms of reliability. Also, the source does not provide any examples of such pro-China outlets expressing the views claimed in the article, which makes it impossible to verify the claims. It would be better for this content not to be in the article unless a more reliable source is found that provides examples (and I've removed this line from the en article). Jumpytoo Talk 07:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Do you think that the Sriparna Pathak column can support Some media outlets have also noted that Pro-China media emphasised violence against women in India to create a negative impression of Indian workers based on ::One of the first articles pushing out racist and malicious stereotypes against the possible arrival of Indian labourers in Taiwan was from China Times of Taipei...? For your reference, the China Times entry is the newspaper Pathak refers to. Saimmx (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:RSEDITORIAL opinion articles generally cannot be used to support statements of fact. You would need multiple reliable non-opinion outlets that both are discussing the protests and claim Pro-China media emphasised violence against women in India to create a negative impression of Indian workers for the statement to work as is. Anything less and the most that's possible would be in-text attribution like how it is currently with how Pathak's opinion is covered. Jumpytoo Talk 09:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

channelnewsasia.com  

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

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

Survey (CNA)

• Option 1: Given some growing consensus to elevate The Straits Times to WP:GREL similar to how WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are treated, I will consider it a reliable source, though with considerations similarly applied for The Straits Times given Singapore's limited press freedoms. In fact, CNA, being a mediacorp news outlet, could be considered a state-owned news outlet given Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings - the investment arm of the Government of Singapore. However, compared to The Straits Times, it's considered more reputable particularly due to its documentaries. It was considered broadcaster of the year at Berlin World Media Festivals and New York Festivals, global gold for Best News Website at Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022 and having outstanding reporting on climate change at Asiavision Awards. A Reuters survey in 2024 also showed that CNA remains the most trusted brand among Singaporeans. Also from accessing its usage across Wikipedia, it seems CNA has been used for various topics. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: CNA should be WP:GREL. While owned by Mediacorp, CNA has demonstrated a greater degree of journalistic independence than The Straits Times. It has positioned itself more as an international news outlet rather than a local one, similar to NHK World-Japan, BBC News, France 24 and Deutsche Welle (DW). Its international coverage is widely regarded as reliable, balanced and professional. While some caution may still be advisable when evaluating CNA's domestic political coverage as with any national outlet, its international reporting is fully reliable and on par with established sources with international recognition for its credibility. Aleain (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: Per above. I have personally always found CNA more neutral than ST, especially with their international reporting. By extension, I have also found Today to have similar levels of neutrality to CNA. For some context on Today, it is also owned by Mediacorp and was merged into CNA in 2024. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 I still have doubts about this RFC, but will add a comment anyway. The situation in Singapore remains the same, as noted by Reporters Without Borders[19], and especially given the passing of the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill[20]. CNA is a trusted and respected news organisation[21], but editors need to take into account the local situation when dealing with anything related to the government or ruling party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

  Singapore's media landscape may not mirror that of countries with a freer press, but that does not make CNA unreliable. Option 2 suggests that CNA spreads false statements like fake vote counts or baseless attacks on opposition figures, which is simply untrue. CNA has earned international recognition for a reason, and there is no evidence of it engaging in outright disinformation. While CNA is highly cautious on local politics, it does not cross into the kind of state propaganda seen in fully authoritarian countries where reliable sources such as SCMP and Al Jazeera are based in. Aleain (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  Option 2 doesn't suggest they spread false statements or anything such, it states that additional considerations apply which is the case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  WP:MREL, which Option 2 refers to, alludes to a grey area between sources that are generally reliable and those that are not. Has CNA engaged in consistent patterns of poor fact checking, inaccuracies or widespread errors in its areas of expertise that would exclude it from meeting the standard of a generally reliable source under WP:GREL? Aleain (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  There is a grey area when it comes to the situation in Singapore, and shown by the sources linked. In those areas additional considerations apply as per my comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Bad RfC. Rather than how should we consider its reliability, we should consider the reliability of a source (which is not just the publisher), in a context, for a Wikipedia article, if disputed, with no check-one-of-four forms. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
• RfC Close/Withdraw No WP:RFCBEFORE here. Adding the comment that I doubt the GREL status of this for anything to do with the govt. Mediacorp is a monopolistic broadcaster directly owned, controlled and funded by the sovereign fund Temasek itself mired in controversy around appointments of close relatives of the top Singaporean political brass. Gotitbro (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

  It seems you may not be fully informed on the topic and are making a quick remark without engaging meaningfully with the discussion. While Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings, a government-linked investment firm, that alone does not compromise CNA's editorial integrity. CNA has its own editorial team and regularly produces journalism that is regionally and internationally recognised. It covers a wide range of issues, including those critical of government policy. Dismissing it purely based on ownership reflects a shallow understanding of media ecosystems and ignores CNA's track record of factual and balanced reporting. Aleain (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  My vote for this was mainly a procedural one to close neither in affirmation nor in disagreement on the basis that RfCs need a prior infructuous discussion which isn't the case here. A remark/comment was appened, and labelled as such, but neither was it rash, shallow nor made on mere analysis of ownership. Your assumption in that regard is incorrect. I am well aware of the Singaporean media environment, its self-censorship, PAP presurres and intransgencies [I lay the same in the Straits Times discussion above]. Neither the CNA nor the Mediacorp are alien to these.

  Politics and Change in Singapore and Hong Kong: Containing Contention by Stephan Ortmann (2009, Routledge):

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

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

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

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

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

  Broadcast media is also generally less reliable than print media. Even if we were to rate CNA GREL, I don't see why we should anyhow, that would come with a giant caveat of exempting that status for any local or political coverage.

  PS: Comparisons between Singaporean government controlled media and other outlets such as Al Jazeera and SCMP have been made in the Straits Times discussion above. But I ask those making such comparisons to read Al Jazeera Media Network#Editorial independence. Though I also believe there is evidence for a revisit of SCMP's status at RSP. Gotitbro (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1 CNA fits into the "soft approach" broadcasters Martelanc et al identified [22] in the typology of state-backed external services built for their UNESCO study in the 1970s. The state affiliation, therefore, shouldn't be questioned in its reporting on matters external to the home country and we should default to simply determining if it crests some basic standard of USEBYOTHERS which, as far as I can tell, it does. Insofar as its reporting on the home country goes, the state affiliation itself shouldn't be questioned unless there's evidence (beyond ownership) to support such questions which, as far as I can tell, there is not. It may incorporate or exhibit unique framing in its reporting but that, by itself, is insufficient to question the veracity of the underlying claims. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (CNA)

• Is there any WP:RFCBEFORE for this? It appears to have been opened out of nowhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:34, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• In truth, I thought RSNs/RfCs are for discussions for all widely-used sources being used, and I opened this RfC more to also add CNA on the RSP list following the re-evaluation of Straits Times reliability. But an admin off-wiki pointed out to me, if there hadn't been issues, please don't bring them up. So, honestly, I apologise if this is out of process or anything. Let's say I misunderstood the assignment.--ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 11:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Both the noticeboard header and the edit notice explicitly ask you not to do this. Unless there has been prior disagreement and discussion this should proby be closed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think this should be closed. The discussion about The Straits Times and CNA is closely linked since they are part of the same country and media environment. CNA is widely used in articles relating to Singapore and the greater Southeast Asian region, and its reliability was already raised on this noticeboard here. If we don't deal with this now, when will we? The same debates are bound to come up again soon so it's better to get everything cleared up. Aleain (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  The issue is that noone who may object to CNA's use can know to comment in this RFC, because they have yet to raise any objection. This feels uncomfortably like pre-approval. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  I had previously attempted to ascertain CNA's reliability more than a month ago on WikiProject Singapore, but unfortunately there was little response. I believe there had been sufficient visibility on both the WikiProject and this noticeboard for a reasonable amount of time to allow for a range of perspectives on CNA. Aleain (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Blood Tribe disagreement about meaning of a source

[23] I thought the source, [24] justifie Russophobia. I’m not sure though, I could easily be wrong Doug Weller talk 17:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Russophobia might be to strong, the article is after all about Blood Tribe working alongside a rebel Russian group. I think you would need a source that specifically states Russophobia to support the label. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Russophobia isn’t even the same as anti Russian. I just wanted a sanity check. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "Russophobia" is a thing. It looks like a neologism. Ramos1990 (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It's a thing. See [25] , the the UK has accused of Russophobia, an official of the Russian government has called for an International Day against Russophobia, etc. Doug Weller talk 09:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not able to read the article (paywall), but if the term "Russophobia" is in it, it may be relveant. Otherwise, a clearer source would be good. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

It isn't. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The Russian government is hardly a reliable narrator in that regard. !!!! 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:5119:290D:92C1:B441 (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Russophobia is definitely a thing, and the word isn't that new as it dates back to the time of the Russian Empire. But it's not in the source and labels usually require direct support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

TheMuslim500.com

• themuslim500.com  
• The 500 Most Influential Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) associated article for the domain
• Mohammed Hijab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Recently recreated article where I removed it as unreliableas self-published promotion
• Call for 2025 nominations

I'm not sure what this is, but it doesn't look reliable. There are no authors, dates, or copyright notices listed on the individual profiles, which appears to be almost entirely how it's being used in Wikipedia articles. Each yearly book has an open nomination process, but selection criteria seems opaque and the profiles read like submissions rather than independently written. - Hipal (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Appears to be affiliated with Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre, is part of soft power apparatus for king of Jordan. Better sourcing exists, it’s an ngo with biases, and it may be most reliable as citation to say someone is in the 500.

questionable dueness tho in articles? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Good as a starting point to gauge notability, inclusion in the list definitely adds to it. And perhaps some basic facts can be extracted off of it for the personalities. But as with other award sites, would need independent RS coverage for anything substantial or doubtable. Gotitbro (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

PetaPixel.com as a source for photography related topics?

How do we feel about the reliability of PetaPixel.com as a source for photography-related topics? It is widely read within the photography community and frequently covers industry news, trends, product launches, and notable figures. Can we consider it reliable enough to add to the list and cite in Wikipedia articles related to photography? Thank you! 24.160.164.62 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

There's not really any need to add anything to "the list" unless there is a reason to treat it differently from the broad categories given in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, most often WP:NEWSORG and its associated caveats, or if people keep complaining about it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you! JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Sources don't need to be on the list to be considered reliable, it's just a log of prior discussions, and aren't added to it unless they are have been discussed many times.
PetaPixel should be reliable for the topic area it covers, so good for photography and such but it would be odd to use it for the politics of Ghana. It has a editorial team[26] and fully discloses sponsored content[27] (obviously such sponsored content wouldn't be reliable so it's something to keep an eye on). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

BizAsiaLive.com

This website is used on a few articles about India and Pakistan entertainment topics (about 60) but looking at their main page, every article is written by the same "correspondent", Johar Deep so I am thinking this is not a reliable source but wanted to get other opinions. According to their about us page it is owned by a couple brothers. S0091 (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

My first impression is that they mostly report on social media posts being made or press releases being released. One thing I did notice was that Sangat TV includes a reference to Ofcom upholds complaint of guest on Sangat TV - BizAsiaLive.com which is creditted to Raj Baddhan (senior editor), not Johar Deep (correspondent); now that page seems to be enitirely text that is copypasted from OfCom Broadcast bulletin 17 August 2015 (page 166) extremely truncated, but not paraphrased at all - to the point where it may be a copyvio. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Raj Baddhan is one of the owners so not a good look. S0091 (talk) 16:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking through cited articles that cover about a decade, I see articles written by Raj Baddhan (owner), Lakh Baddhan (owner), Amrita Tanna (was a director/senior editor but left in 2023 and describes themselves now as a blogger), unnamed correspondent and Johar Deep. S0091 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable. Despite it showing editors on the "about us" page, there is no editorial standards listed. It is related to Zee TV so not independent from a lot of what it prints. Finally, its "correspondent" Johar Deep is credited with a dozen or more articles posted in the last two days. This is commons with WP:NEWSORGINDIA media that is just churnalising content from other places (social media, press releases, etc.). --CNMall41 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Another note, it has "correspondents based around the world" according to its about us page, but Johar Deep seems to the one and only publishing content as of late. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And...I see it is hosted on the same exact server as Ventsmagazine which has been discussed here, here, and here. Both domains were purchased the same year (2012).

@CNMall41 lol, ok, Raj Baddhan is also the CEO of Lyca Radio which has a partnership with Zee TV and seeing Facebook posts titled "Lyca Drive with Raj Baddhan - Sponsored by ZEE TV". S0091 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

And now I see it connected to this based on being owned by the "TodayToday Network." Clear content farms for the television and radio studios. I would classify as NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

In the event there is consensus this isn't reliable, do you know of a way to mass remove the 572 times it is listed?--CNMall41 (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

No. Even for deprecated sources like Daily Mail they are not 'automatically' removed. Each use requires a human review. AWB might be able to tag them with 'better source needed', though. S0091 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Independence of Art Galleries

Hello, I'm not really asking about reliability per se here - but I think this noticeboard is the best fit. My question is, if an art gallery that hangs an artwork has also published a book which covers that artwork - could that book be considered independent for the purposes of meeting WP:42? Case in point: Portrait of Hope Grant is cited entirely to a book and a website published by the National Galleries of Scotland who own said portrait - can their own publications be used to establish notability? -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings. As owner of the work, the museum has a financial and legal relationship with the work, but in terms of WP's concern that the source "will give more importance to advancing their own interests (personal, financial, legal, etc.) in the topic than to advancing knowledge about the topic," that's generally not a worry with museums. Another way of thinking about that: instead of the financial and legal relationships being in opposition to advancing knowledge, the financial and legal relationships are aligned with advancing knowledge. In this particular case, though, it looks to me like the question is moot, as the third reference does not address the work at all (it addresses a different work by the same artist with the same subject), so as of right now, there aren't 3 sources providing significant coverage. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the general question could have a lot of factors, whether the gallery is a commercial or public institution, who the author of the work, and what exactly the work was about. In the case of High Society: The Life and Art of Sir Francis Grant, 1803–1878, that's being used in Portrait of Hope Grant, the author was Catherine Wills, an art historian who's doctoral thesis was on Francis Grant[28]. However the topic of the work is not about Francis Grant, but specifically a review of the exhibition of the same name that the National Galleries of Scotland put on in 2003. Because of that I don't think it should be considered independent of gallery. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

This sounds like it at least meets the criteria for WP:SELFPUBLISHED and probably exceeds them. We would take into account whether the content of the source is unduly self serving. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it fits WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no agreement among editors about what "self-published" means. Everyone agrees that things like social media posts, wikis, preprints, reader comments on websites, vanity press books, patents, unscripted podcasts published by the podcaster, individual Substacks, Forbes.com "contributors" material, Kindle Direct Publishing books, user reviews, etc. are self-published. Editors generally agree that things like newspapers, magazines, TV broadcasts, non-vanity books, and peer-reviewed journals are not self-published. But for the large set of things that don't fall in either group (e.g., publications from governments, advocacy groups, universities, learned societies, think tanks, corporations, international non-governmental organizations, intergovernmental bodies, museums, foundations, charities, labor unions), there is no agreement.

The exhibition was of artworks by Grant (a portraitist), celebrating the 200th anniversary of his birth. Wills curated the exhibit. She was an art historian, and apparently the book is "the key reference work for the artist" (presumably about both Grant as an artist and the various society portraits he created). The National Galleries of Scotland is the book publisher and owns the painting in question (a work in the exhibit). It sounds like Wills was well-off (managed her family's estates, foundations, charitable trusts, a descendant of W.D. & H.O. Wills), so although I'd normally think that the museum would have paid her to curate the exhibit and to write the book, maybe not in this case. I don't know whether there's much text in the book that wasn't in the exhibit. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Do we feel good about "at least as reliable as a self-published source," "≥ SPS"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The OP asked, if an art gallery that hangs an artwork has also published a book which covers that artwork - could that book be considered independent for the purposes of meeting WP:42, no, that would be a connected source, not an independent source. Even though it's a National Gallery (which is very much like a museum), the gallery owns the work, and thus has a vested interest in it. I'd suggest seeking a fully independent source which may be available via a search on JSTOR or other WP:LIB resources. Netherzone (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say that it would not count as independent coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Ukrainian inventions

Should the Great Soviet Encyclopedia be used as a source for matters involving Ukrainian inventors and inventions, including the name by which we link to a BIO (using a redirect so as to present their name in Russian, despite the canon form at the article being Ukrainian) ?

• Arc welding

• Melk
• Mellk again

• also renaming Mykola Benardos

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, most of the edits coming from this IP range are vandalism. They removed the references with no explanation. Secondly, the page Nikolay Benardos was moved by another problematic editor without any discussion. Lastly, GSE is being cited for the statement about Vasily Petrov. You also removed multiple other sources, including a journal article, and called them "unreliable". Mellk (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Your POV here is already obvious, with your continued attempts to impose Russian spellings on Ukrainian bios. The point here is whether a Soviet encyclopedia, already criticised many times on this page, can be cited as sourcing to do so. Your description of an IP range as 'vandalising' doesn't make it so. Especially not when other editors see those edits and support them, against your reversions. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe take a look at the page history before making such accusations. GSE is not even being cited for the statement you are referring to so it is obvious you did not bother to look at this properly. You also did not explain why you removed multiple sources and called them "unreliable". That is purely disruptive. Mellk (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Also this is your removal in question. Apparently this is all unreliable to you. Mellk (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just which WP:RS was it that said Petrov used his arc for welding? He had his arc machine, he put it forward potentially (but never used it) for smelting the platinum group refractory metals, but he never had any recorded thought (AFAIK) about its application to welding. But Soviet era sources found him convenient, as a Russian, to be claimed as an inspiration behind Benardos' actual development of arc welding. When Benardos was one of those inconvenient 'cousins' from a non-Russian SSR it was close enough to celebrate as a Great Soviet Achievement, but it still needed to be backed up by the ethnic purity of claiming that a proper Russian Russian did it first. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Another straw man. There were five sources (including GSE) that you removed which were cited for the following statement: Independently, a Russian physicist named Vasily Petrov discovered the continuous electric arc in 1802. Mellk (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between an arc and arc welding? Where is the source that describes Petrov's arc welding (which he didn't do)? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The statement itself is not about arc welding. Are you saying that all the sources are lying about this statement? I should also note you did not remove or alter this statement whatsoever, you only removed the sources. Therefore, this discussion is moot. Mellk (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This is an article on arc welding, not on arcs. You are inserting a mention of a Russian, a century before any welding, that is just not relevant here. But he's Russian, so you want to push him in rather than a Ukrainian, and are using the biased unreliable source of the Soviet Encyclopedia to try and justify this. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Issues with WP:NATIONALITY and WP:OR do not belong here. This was already in the article before I edited it and you did not remove it, but of course, the only thing you have left is aspersions and straw men because you cannot admit being wrong. Thanks for this waste of time. Mellk (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep re-inserting Petrov into an article on arc welding? He had nothing to do with arc welding and was working a century earlier. Where is any WP:RS that serves to WP:Verify this? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking at arc welding article, it does seem like there may have been some questionable interpretation of sources going on, as source used for claim that Petrov suggested welding as practical application for electric arc, doesn't actually appear to mention welding.--Staberinde (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I have read quite a few entries from the English translation of this work. Reliable for basic facts and scientific articles but certainly biased for history-related ones [consider where/when it was published]. It can serve as a useful guide for topics but we should not be really be citing 50 year old sources. Gotitbro (talk) 10:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, GSE shouldn't be used for anything historical or political, with only possible exception would be using it with attribution to explicitly demonstrate how the topic was viewed in Soviet historiography. In other areas it could be reasonably reliable, but also probably quite outdated at this point.--Staberinde (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• The Great Soviet Encyclopedia should not in general be used as a source. Even for the topics it might have been reliable for at the time its now hopelessly outdated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• As all but one here seem opposed to the use of the Soviet Encyclopedia as a source, and no-one can source Petrov's involvement with welding, I intend to revert the article to the 8 July version. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

  The top of this page says: "Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.". You made up a situation that doesn't exist. Now you say you intend to revert to the version where five sources were removed but the statement about Petrov remains unchanged. I suppose encyclopedia.com is fine, though? Mellk (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• Absolutely right. I'd best remove all mention of Petrov then. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

OK! Magazine

I come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Helm to ask if OK! Magazine https://okmagazine.com is a reliable source, and looking at this article for contributing to notability. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

For some reason I get auto-redirected to radaronline, here's an archive for anyone with the same problem. Reading the article it seems highly promotional, it appears to be an undisclosed advertorial and so wouldn't be independent of the subject for notability purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but I don't think a website which contains at the top of its homepage "Do You Have Juicy Info? Click Here!" and "Sign Up For Your Daily Dose of Dope" is going to be anything other than tabloid gossip. I don't know if it's related to the UK version ([29]) which is also clickbait rubbish. Black Kite (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Both the US and UK publications are owned by Reach plc, but I don't think there the same exact thing - they appear to publish separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with ActivelyDisinterested and Black Kite: everything about that article screams promotional advertorial. I'm not convinced that it's either independent or reliable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That's indicative of what I mostly see from OK! based on reviewing drafts and participation at AfDs. It certainly should not be used in BLPs and I doubt anything else. S0091 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The Loop by ECPR

The Loop is a blog published by the European Consortium for Political Research, self-described as "ECPR's Political Science Blog". Would this be considered SPS or is it reliable? Can it be used to wikivoice statements (especially contentious ones)?

From what I gather through the recent SPLC Hatewatch RfC, blogs even if considered to be reliable need to attributed in-text.

I am specifically coming here from this discussion [30] involving this article at the site [31]. Where I argue that we need not resort to blogs when extensive academic sources already exist for the topic. Gotitbro (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Not everything with blog in it's title is a blog for Wikipedie's purposes, WP:BLOG is about selfpublished sources and given their editorial controls[32] I don't believe this should be considered selfpublished. This might be better thought of as opinions pieces in the way of WP:RSEDITORIAL, and so probably reliable but may require attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

That is what I thought, that such pieces would need attribution. Also WP:ACADEMICBIAS and all that is what I leaned on. Gotitbro (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion I think the two of you got hung up on whether it was selfpublished, which was the wrong argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I moved the discussion here when I felt the discussion was getting sidetracked (even for this source). My bigger concern though was that we needn't treat op-eds for [unattributed] wikivoiced statements. Gotitbro (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Tweets containing satellite imagery as sources

Hi all,

I'd like to ask the community to consider a narrow exception regarding tweets as sources — specifically, when a tweet contains verifiable satellite imagery that can stand on its own as a reliable piece of evidence.

The current default is that tweets are generally considered user-generated content and therefore unreliable. That makes sense in most cases — but when the content of the tweet includes direct, objective evidence like high-resolution satellite imagery (e.g., from Planet Labs, Sentinel, Maxar), the situation seems different.

This is not about taking someone’s word for it, or relying on speculation or anonymous claims. This is about citing the imagery itself — which can be independently verified, cross-referenced with publicly available tools such as Sentinel Hub, NASA FIRMS, or EO Browser, and interpreted in a factual, non-controversial way (e.g., showing the presence or destruction of infrastructure).

For example, if a tweet shows satellite imagery of a collapsed bridge with clear geolocation and timestamp, does the fact that the image was first shared on Twitter/X make it inherently unreliable? Especially when no mainstream media outlet has yet published it, but the visual evidence is clear and traceable?

This comes up frequently with OSINT accounts that document things like changes in territorial control, new military construction, or significant damage to a site — all through satellite imagery that can be corroborated. In such cases, the tweet is just the delivery method for material that is factual and publicly verifiable.

I understand the concerns about opening the floodgates to unverifiable or speculative material. But this wouldn’t be that. I’m suggesting an extremely limited exception — only when the tweet includes satellite imagery that is:

• From a reputable satellite source (e.g., Maxar, Planet, Sentinel)
• Not altered or editorialized beyond basic labeling (e.g., date, coordinates, highlighting)
• Clearly depicts an observable event (e.g., construction, destruction, vehicle buildup)
• Verifiable independently by any editor using public tools

If we allow citations from platforms like Bellingcat or NYT that base their conclusions on this same imagery, should the primary imagery itself — even if first posted in a tweet — be inadmissible?

I’d really appreciate the community’s thoughts on whether this kind of narrowly defined use of satellite imagery from a tweet can be treated as a source of fact, not opinion — just like a photograph in a news article.

Thanks, President Loki (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

No, as such things can be faked. Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

• the satellite source is a WP:PRIMARY sourcing. dueness and fair-use policy matter, but if something survives that, it is ok to use a satellite source to say a pic was taken over an area and this was the pic.

• even if the sat pic is useful, by itself we can't comment on it with just a primary source. So if there is a conflict area where sat pics show devastation, we really can't say there was devastation ourselves based on the photo, as thats probably WP:OR.

• tweets are usually not useful, they are usually WP:SPS with no real editorial controls. dueness matters here. maybe an expert could be quoted, but even then there is question about whether better sourcing exists.
• if nytimes says something about the pic, then NYTimes is reliable and WP:SECONDARY. any commentary from that can be used to provide context about the photo. Twitter does not gain reliability/dueness because NYTimes uses the same photo as twitter.

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows Bellingcat or NYT because secondary sources are always preferred over primary source such as an image. Per WP:PRIMARY interpretation of primary source should be done by secondary sources not editors. So using an image would as a source would only allow the most uncontroversial details that didn't require interpretation of any kind. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If the image can be independently verified and Twitter is just the discovery method, why not just cite the image directly via whatever means you used to independently verify it? As others have said, images can be easily faked, so a twitter account's claim that an image is from Maxar is no more or less reliable than any of their other claims. -- LWG ^talk 16:44, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

• Generally speaking, it's not usable. People are talking about WP:PRIMARY above but it's important to understand that PRIMARY isn't an exception to the general WP:RS rules; to use an image, even as a primary source, it must be published by a source that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Note that we have a specific definition of published, too; the simple fact that it is available on a satellite company is not sufficient. The only case where it might qualify is if it were tweeted by the verified account of a subject-matter expert or a WP:RS (eg. a news organization's verified twitter account), but note that Twitter verification is not reliable now outside of a few organizations. Even then, that would still be primary, which means we could not perform any interpretation or analysis. In particular interpreted in a factual, non-controversial way (e.g., showing the presence or destruction of infrastructure) - absolutely not, no, never; this would be a remove-on-sight level of clearly-inappropriate misuse of a primary source. Under absolutely no circumstances whatsoever could we cite an image on a tweet to say eg. "military strike XYZ caused the following damage...", which would be both WP:EXCEPTIONAL and would be the sort of interpretation and analysis that requires a secondary source. Note that the image itself couldn't be used in an article to imply such a thing, either (it would be WP:SYNTH / WP:OR to take a random satellite image from Twitter and use it to imply something like that.) Now, if we allow citations from platforms like Bellingcat or NYT that base their conclusions on this same imagery - that obviously changes things; if a specific image is reposted in a RS, then we can report what that RS says. But that only applies to the specific images that RSes pick up on; it doesn't allow us to go digging for additional images and then use them to WP:OR / WP:SYNTH up our own conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Saving Country Music, again

Per consensus, savingcountrymusic.com has been placed on WP:A/S as unreliable for quite some time. Despite this, I am still finding users adding citations to it, and there are several drafts and talk pages where it's linked. This recently created an issue on Helen Cornelius where, for a day or two, the site was the only one reporting on her death. I still haven't found a reliable source reporting on Randy Barlow's death and had to resort to citing his fan club's Facebook page because Saving Country Music was the only other source mentioning him at all.

I don't think anyone adding it is doing so in bad faith, but it's still a site that keeps popping up a lot. The site has a history of publishing polemic content and has no journalistic credibility or editorial oversight. I've been removing links to it for years, especially in the case of biographical information.

I think there's a good case for adding it to the site blacklist, or at least formally deprecating it. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:33, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a perennial problem, there is no "this source is rubbish please stop adding it" filter. Blacklisting is only meant to be used for spam or sites that shouldn't be linked with (copyvio for instance). Deprecation requires a formal RFC and is meant to be just for the worst of sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

So then what's the solution, other than endlessly playing whack-a-mole for the rest of time? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia antivandalism is endlessly playing whack-a-mole for all time, so I suspect in this case it is the same. Comes with the territory. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I still haven't found a reliable source reporting on Randy Barlow's death and had to resort to citing his fan club's Facebook page because Saving Country Music was the only other source mentioning him at all. What makes the Facebook fan club page a reliable source for his death? Left guide (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

California Business Journal reliable for notability in profiles?

Recently I was in two discussions involving the California Business Journal:

• A profile of Sam Mangel for notability in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Mangel
• A profile of Ron Bauer for notability in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Bauer

This does not seem to be independent based on their testimonials page. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Their about pages just scream "we're a PR/marketing company, pay us to do a puff piece on you" so yeah, I would say that's an accurate assessment of them and all the other publications under Firebrand Media as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that these do not seem independent, particularly due to the testimonials page linked, it very much seems like they are pay-to-play, which obviously tarnishes their ability to call themselves an independent source for notability purposes. Also, one of the articles you linked demonstrates that it lacks objectivity, it's even called "The Federal Prison Fixer" and the content has a similar level of bias. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that California Business Journal is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Clear reliability concerns here. - Amigao (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Does Essentially Sports suck at reliability?

See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Jack Massey Welsh and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417 § Reliability of EssentiallySports

Here's a list of sentences about JackSucksAtLife that this source would be cited for:

• He has also purchased PewDiePie's and MrBeast's Red Diamond Creator Awards.

• In 2020, fellow YouTuber James Stephen "MrBeast" Donaldson created a YouTube channel for Welsh, titled "Don't Subscribe". Donaldson gave Welsh a challenge, in which he would give Welsh US$0.10 (£0.07) for each subscriber the channel received, up to 1 million subscribers, ultimately worth US$100,000 (£73,000). Welsh managed to get the 1 million subscribers, and received his US$100,000.

• Additionally, Massey owns PewDiePie’s ruby play button, awarded for reaching 50 million subscribers. He acquired this prestigious item as part of his growing collection, and in September 2022, Essentially Sports quoted Massey stating he would return it to PewDiePie if requested, reflecting his respect for fellow creators.

• In November 2022, Massey and MrBeast collaborated on a “Don’t Subscribe” campaign, a playful challenge encouraging viewers to resist subscribing. As part of this, they sent MrBeast’s 100 million subscriber play button into the stratosphere using a weather balloon equipped with an AirTag for tracking.

How reliable could Essentially Sports be considered for this? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Generally unreliable, according to community consensus. This was more recently discussed at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 471#EssentiallySports which also includes links to two past video game project discussions at the bottom. The WP:USEBYOTHERS claim in one of the video game project comments is exaggerated since post-2019 Sports Illustrated (WP:RSPSI) and ClutchPoints (1, 2) aren't high-quality reliable sources. Left guide (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

historic-structures.com

I got bamboozled by historic-structures.com. Leaving a record for the RSN archives. The About Us says "Researching the history of old structures has been a hobby for a long time, so I decided to share a little bit of my research with you." Awesome! This unnamed hobbyist is talented. See their lengthy write-up of Bankard-Gunther Mansion (for Bankard-Gunther Mansion).

But there is a problem. The text was copied from the National Register of Historic Places Registration, done in 1980! It is Public Domain I believe. Nowhere at historic-structures.com is this mentioned. They even give a date for the text of 2023 - yet it says things like "the mansion is now undergoing renovation" .. which was true, in 1980.

The site is an example of WP:USURPSOURCE. Content copied from a legitimate source, without attribution, taking credit for the content, misrepresenting the author and date. Why would they do this? Because they sell it in self-published books.

107 pages -- GreenC 15:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I see some issues with the source since it looks like user generated content. Where is this source used on? What claims and what wiki article? Ramos1990 (talk) 02:36, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Simple Flying

Is Simple Flying [33] from 2024 and later ...

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

Is Simple Flying prior to 2024 ...

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

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

Survey (Simple Flying)

• Option 2 (2024+), Option 3 (2023-) ... Recent reporting seems to be fine for non-BLP content on aviation-related matters that doesn't make extraordinary claims or assert information inconsistent with other sources; older reporting may be problematic. Simple Flying passes WP:USEBYOTHERS as it's widely cited by, for example, The Kansas City Star, [34] the Miami Herald, [35] WBOY-TV, [36] USA Today, [37] CNN, [38] WJLA-TV, [39] Fortune, [40] The Week, [41] and scores of others. It has multiple reporters, indicating a gatekeeping process, and it hasn't been negatively checked by fact-checking websites like PolitiFact, Snopes, etc. On the other hand, their reporters all seem to be generalists without specific expertise in aviation journalism, almost all of the USEBYOTHERS has occurred in the last two years, and some basic factual errors were noticed in the years immediately after it went online (2019-2022). Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Simple Flying)

• This site has been the subject of two previous discussions here and is frequently added (and removed) from articles. Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  For reference those discussions were:
  WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421#SimpleFlying.com
  and
  WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#SimpleFlying revisit.
  Simple Flying is a Valnet publication[42]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Why is this RfC distinguishing between '2024 and later' and 'prior to 2024'? Has something of significance changed? If so, we need to be told what it is, and be given evidence that it matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I have the same question. I am unaware of any changes after 2024 that would impact their reliability (which, for the record, is not exactly stellar). nf utvol (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Same here. What changed in 2024 that might change its reliability? - ZLEA _T\^C 17:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, virtually every example of WP:UBO I can find is 2024 or later. Why that is I can't say, but it probably doesn't matter. Wikipedians generally don't have the capacity to engage in correct evaluation of the veracity of online sources; a best practice would require evaluation of at least two constructed weeks of content for every six months evaluated. In the absence of this individualized ability, we do (or should) rely on on what RS do to ascertain the reliability of any given source. RS, in this case and as far as I can tell, seem to have adopted an observable pattern of use that preferences 2024 and later. (Perhaps others will notice a different pattern or no pattern at all, though, in which case they can normalize their opinions between the two time periods.) Chetsford (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

As has been explained below, UBO isn't enough to evaluate the reliability of a source. In addition to the factual reporting problem, WP:Simple Flying states that the source has engaging in plagiarism and churnalism. Therefore, I'm going to have to oppose any change in its reliability rating unless and until it can be shown that all of its issues have improved. - ZLEA _T\^C 23:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a look at what content Simple Flying currently has on its website. An article entitled How Many P‑47 Thunderbolts Were Built? [43] has just been published, and since I know a little about the P-47, that seemed worth further inspection. And I have to say, I'm far from impressed. The article is repetitive and badly written (e.g. "Thunderbolts destroyed upwards of 7,000 Axis aircraft, with around half of that number being on the ground and more than half being in air-to-air combat." which requires rather unorthodox mathematics) and gives a distinctly unfinished impression - assuming that an LLM wasn't involved somewhere, which seems at least possible. If this is at all typical of Simple Flying's output, I'd have to query why we'd want to cite it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Another example of sloppy writing, from February this year: "Supermarine built a number of seaplanes, including the Seafire (a naval version of the Spitfire)" [44] Either the writer doesn't understand what a seaplane is - a float-equipped aeroplane operating from water rather than land - or he has done zero research into the Seafire, which most definitely wasn't equipped with floats, being instead a modification of the Spitfire design, equipped with a tailhook etc for operation from aircraft carriers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I should probably nominate this bit of insightful writing for the annual internet stating-the-obvious prize (I assume there is one. If not, there should be.), From Why The Boeing 747 Has Four Engines (published 4 days ago) .[45] "The Boeing 747 has four engines because that is what it was designed with. It was designed with four engines because, in the 1960s, four engines were considered optimal given the engines available, the need for power, and the range requirements." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't have much familiarity with aviation but I have to agree with Andy here. This site to an outsider looks like a bit of a content farm, even if it isn't necessarily written entirely by AI. The sheer volume of articles being put out per day by the same contributors, as well as the SEO-bait content Andy highlighted is cause for concern. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't presuppose any knowledge or ability to judge what sources are reliable. I can only go by what reliable sources indicate are reliable. Chetsford (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Evaluation of the reliability of sources (in general, or for specific content) by Wikipedia contributors is a routine process - it is the purpose of this noticeboard. One does not require any particular specialist skill to recognise bad writing, and only minimal knowledge to recognise the sort of obvious error that a legitimate aviation journalist shouldn't be making. And no, WP:UBO isn't some sort of trump card for negating such assessment. It is evidence to take into consideration, alongside other considerations, that is all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

New York Post exclusives

Hello everyone! I have a bit of a dilemma to discuss.

I have been writing about the current administration in the United States, and about political and economic figures related to that topic. For some topics, the New York Post is the only outlet that has the inside scoop, as far as I can tell. For example, they seem to be one of the only news outlets that has access to certain information related to 1789 Capital and the Executive Branch club in D.C.

I believe it would be beneficial to include some of this information in these articles, and possibly others as time goes on, mostly because the state of media access to political and economic leaders in the U.S. is changing rapidly and it is becoming much more difficult for reputable outlets to obtain direct quotes on matters like this. However, on Wikipedia the New York Post is regarded as generally unreliable–and honestly, I think that's a fair designation. I do think a good thing that it isn't normally allowed as a source, because it is unreliable for a lot of topics...and I'm not sure that it's appropriate to suggest removal of the automatic ban which disallows people from saving their edit if they have added a citation to the New York Post.

How should we handle this?

Personally, what I'd like to do is quote the New York Post directly, with careful attribution in the text. (For an example, see the 1789 Capital article–it's the paragraph that is commented out.) I would only want to do this with topics that are not covered in the same capacity by any other source. But is this the right approach? If we do decide to allow quotes from them, how would we ensure that we're maintaining NPOV and only permitting credible claims?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Doomhope (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Generally unreliable doesn't mean unusable, but you would need to convince editors that is specific usage is required. The common argument against such usage is: Are there other sources for the same information (other news organisations reporting on the NYP report)? If they are other sources then why not use them, it would be less controversial, and if they're not other sources then is something that only the NYP is reporting on due for inclusion.
These are probably questions better suited to the article's talk page, as there is no general answer only one for specific details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the official stance on static.wixstatic.com as a reliable source?

I came across this page from wixstatic.com used as in inline citation in the article on Walter Edward Gaskin Sr to document an accusation of stolen valor. The images have no attributions as to where they came from. According to Wixstatic's website: "Static.wixstatic.com/media is the server where Wix hosts all its images." So, it seems anyone using Wix to host their website can upload images. Seems that this site should be deemed as unreliable. — ERcheck (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Wix is a website hosting company, so the content has to be judged on the reliability of who published the content. If a known expect in a field published it, it may be fair, but I'd suspect the bulk of material published through Wix should be treated as unreliable if the identity is not known Masem (t) 21:19, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be a primary source with allegations added by an unknown person, regardless of other questions about reliability it has no place in an article about a living person. Sourcing in BLPs is stricter than elsewhere, and this falls far short of being a "high quality" source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I already deleted it from the article. — ERcheck (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

baronage.com

Hi, I'm new to the discussion and I've read the thread on the archive page about baronage.com.

Having reviewed baronage.com and roll.baronage.com it's not immediately clear to me what specific policies it's alleged to be violating.

What may not have been reflected in earlier comments is that there is a feature on the Roll that makes it radically transparent: each entry is time-stamped and clearly attributed to authoritative sources.It appears that verified entries have to submit their credentials from authoritative bodies; Scottish Barony Register, Gazetted Lord Lyon King of Arms recognition (official public record representing the crown in Scotland), or original letters patent. This is viewable via the ifo icon beside each listing.

In respect, it functions not as a primary source, but as a structured and verifiable conduit secondary source- a clearing house on confirmed valid titles in one of the above authoritative sources. Unless there is evidence of false information (none has beeen presented so far), then surely this source can help Wikipedia with 152 verified barons validated. I'd suggest this may meet the bar for WP:SPS and WP:RS, and particularly for non-contentious or easily corroborated claims.Craftcandy (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

For anyone interested the archived discussion is here, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 483#baronage.com. I've nothing to add that wasn't said in that discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Craftcandy could you fill us in on how you became interested in this topic. You made about a dozen edits to Mahendra Jayasekera and then jumped to this. You've never edited an article about a baron? Or Scotland? And it looks like your account was created after the previous discussion wrapped up? Jahaza (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)