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:

Shortcuts

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

Start a new discussion

Newspaper essay as a source for population numbers

There is an essay written by professor of modern German literature Claudio Magris, first published in 1990 in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, that is used as a source in at least 8 articles. The essay claims "The Italians (...) were for centuries no less than fifty percent of the total Istrian population". The source for this number is not cited. This "for centuries" says little about "when": we don't know when it started, we don't know when it ended. We don't know who counted the people, how they arrived at their nationality (when nationalities may not have existed yet). It is known that the first official census was during the Austro-Hungarian period in 1857. Personally, I would consider Magris's article, at best, a primary source that has not undergone any academic review, but would like to hear your opinions on whether it should be used, and in what way. Ponor (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, please note that there is a page Claudio Magris. Now, the page for Istria has info on that subject and it may conflict with the statement by Magris. The Istria page is pretty much a translation of the Italian Wiki page. But the sources there seem WP:RS.

Now, please also note that Magris used to be a senator and has clout. So the Corriere people would think twice abut questioning his statements. That is how things work there. The Corriere is generally reliable and along with La Republica one of he best two papers in Italy. It is not what it used to be 20 years ago, but still generally good. However, the Magris statement is questionable and is best avoided. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magris had not yet been a senator when he wrote that article in 1990, so I wouldn't let the clout issue carry too much weight. On the other hand he was already a highly respected scholar so prima facie he'd be reliable but if better sources suggest otherwise go with them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He'd be reliable for what he does - German literature, no? Not history, not geography, not mathematics. Since some people find this issue very important, I think I'm gonna have to ask for a stronger, academic, secondary or tertiary source, with its own sources. If Magris knew the exact number, he'd have said it. "No less that 50%" sounds like guessing. Ponor (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't do German literature. He does the history and culture of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Habsburg heartlands. He's most known for his history of the Danube, and he's written about the Adriatic. So the ethnic history of Istria is well within his field. However, obviously an unsourced number in a column by him doesn't have the same status as a number in a scholarly book with a footnote, so if there are better sources use them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Visaches 37, you had some sources for Dalmatia. Is there anything similar for Istria? Where did Mr. Magris get his estimate from, any idea? Ponor (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the earliest Austrian census (1880), there were 178,381 persons recorded in Istria, of whom 79,155 (44%) spoke Italian. Every subsequent census shows a lower percentage, with of course a dramatic fall after WW2. So presumably Magris is referring to the Venetian period, when a majority of the population would have been Venetian-speaking. If pre-modern Venetian-speakers are "Italians", the claim is true. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1880 is still not "for centuries", and it's hard to guess where you got those numbers from. They don't seem to match the table at Istria#Austro-Hungarian_census. The source for that table argues that the Venetian authorities manipulated the numbers for 1880 (!), and that italianization of the Slavs was at its peak. Table 2 on page 649 in that source says: Croat(ian speakers) 106k (38%), Italian 112k (40%), Slovene 43k (16%). Now, this is a secondary, peer-reviewed academic source, by Vladimir Žerjavić, a demographer, based on Austro-Hungarian census data and other published literature, unlike Magris's. Ponor (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical Italian irredentist article. Magris and others probably think that if they repeat a lie 100 times, it will become the truth... There is no reliable data, nor a census, that would confirm that Italians have made up over 50% of the population of Istria for centuries. The text states that the coast from Koper to Pula accounted for over 50% of the population, which is not true. The text also states that Italians lived on the coast while Slavs lived in the rural hinterland. Apart from the fact that there were Slavs and even majority Slavic settlements on the western Istrian coast itself (Funtana, Peroj, Štinjan, Banjole), almost the entire coast from Medulin south of Pula all the way to Rijeka was predominantly Slavic. It also mentions 300,000 refugees from Istria, Rijeka and Dalmatia after WW2, although that number did not exceed 200,000. Such an article full of irredentist lies and half-truths should have no place on Wikipedia. Visaches 37 (talk) 06:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like it has some good material in it if you have access. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponor The 1880 census is missing from the table at Istria#Austro-Hungarian census. I don't read Croation but it seems that Table 2 on page 649 refers to population movement. The figures I quoted appear in a different chapter in the same issue of that journal: https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/52744 p. 623. The original census publication is here: https://sistory.si/media/legacy/publikacije/1-1000/834/Poseben_krajevni_imenik_za_Primorje_1885.pdf although it looks like you'd have to do some addition to replicate these numbers. In any case my point was that in 1880 it was less than 50%. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GordonGlottal: Table 2 on p649 shows data for "population trends" (population growth) over the years in "Croatian and Slovene Istria" ... "in thousands". GS means "annual population growth rate". Only the last two columns are relative numbers: there were 47,000 'Italians' less in 1945 than in 1910, and 59,000 'Croats' less in 1921 than in 1910 (for many different reasons). Nothing in these sources suggests Magris is right. Ponor (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're not disagreeing. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNET’s Reliability Status Should Be Reconsidered Ten Months After Ownership Change

As per the disclosure on my page, I'm the PR Manager for CNET. I have no intention to make any edits myself, just bringing this to the Wikipedia editors' attention for discussion. I'm starting this discussion to reevaluate CNET's reliability status. It has been ten months since the publication was acquired by Ziff Davis (October 1, 2024). Since its acquisition, CNET has maintained public editorial policies and standards to ensure its content is fair, credible and relevant.

CNET Public AI Policy (Updated December 2024 and July 18, after Ziff Davis acquisition): In the past nine months, CNET has publicly affirmed that it does not use generative AI to write content for the site or platforms while adhering to high and transparent standards of editorial integrity. In fact, under Ziff Davis ownership, CNET updated its public AI policy:

CNET does not use generative AI to write content for our site or its platforms. Our words are human-written.
As a team, we may use AI tools to help us with tasks like transcription or note-taking, but never to generate advice, reporting or recommendations.
In all cases, we have rules in place to ensure high editorial standards, trustworthy recommendations and proper sourcing.

CNET's Sponsored, Affiliate and Testing Standards: In a Feb. discussion, Wikipedia editors reviewed CNET's reliability rating. The forum included a few misunderstandings around CNET's sponsored and review content that I'd like to clarify. Sponsored and affiliate content practices are common media practices in place at most publishers.

Affiliate Content: In the Feb discussion, Wikipedia editors said that content such as "Best Teeth Whitening Kits in 2025" and "Best Nanny Cams" is "sponsored" and "irrelevant" content. This is editorial content, written by an expert reviewer in that particular topic, that includes affiliate links, a standard media practice at most publishers. Those affiliate links are disclosed in a trust statement. Many publishers categorized as 'generally reliable' have similar affiliate-linked content on the same topics. Wikipedia editors can reference the Wikipedia definition of sponsored content to re-evaluate this discussion.
Sponsored Content Standards: CNET is transparent about paid and sponsored content. As stated on its public editorial guidelines page, "sponsored" content on CNET is clearly labeled. From time to time, CNET publishes paid content that is creatively directed by a partner. This is always labeled prominently as "paid content" across all platforms.
CNET Testing Standards: CNET tests over 1,000 products annually, exceeding 10,000 hours of testing in a variety of categories. These tests are done by experts in that given field. See here for CNET’s Hands-On Testing Standards. More info:
1. Independence: The products, services and deals we recommend are independently, editorially chosen for evaluation, review and recommendation. When links generate revenue the page is labeled to explain this. The links are available for all products we review and are a service to the reader so that they can act on an independent recommendation; they are not chosen by an advertiser.
2. Expertise: Our team of experts has decades of combined experience in their specialties. They write about products and services they know well, and their work is subject to discussion and editorial review by other expert editors for accuracy and relevance.
3. Hands-on tests: We unbox, touch and test the products we cover whenever possible. For services, we subscribe, test and use them ourselves. This hands-on approach applies whether the review appears by itself (standalone), part of a best list or both.
4. Research: When we can't test a product or service hands-on, we make recommendations based on reporting and research. We also consider experiences from industry experts and customers.
5. Value: We take pricing into account and focus on finding the best option at the most affordable cost.
6. Lab Testing: For many product categories, we capture performance data in a lab using standardized tests. For example, in our New York lab we test battery life and screen brightness for laptops and measure color and gaming lag for TVs. And in our Louisville facility, we created a specialized testing platform lab to compare how much dirt a vacuum picks up -- up to and including tracking the cleaning trails for robot vacuums, too. But whether that testing happens in Manhattan, Kentucky or at myriad off-site locations, we store our data for future comparisons to other products. We also use that data to better identify long-term trends within categories.
Reviews
1. See here for the full repository of CNET’s Reviews
2. In the February discussion, Wikipedia editors said "No detailed reviews linked" as a strike against CNET. This basis should be re-evaluated. Many of CNET’s best lists include this hands-on evaluation within the list itself, rather than as a separate standalone review, but the information is still available (and often extensive). This approach provides readers extra context to make comparisons and evaluate use cases without having to click back and forth to a separate review. And there are also many examples, such as Best iPhone Cases, where a full review for each isn't editorially appropriate and doesn’t serve the consumer. CNET still publishes numerous standalone reviews as well.

Thanks for your consideration,

Ioneal123 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really disagree Ivey, but abstractly, it's much easier to ruin a reputation then it is to rebuild one, and even then it took 3 years after Red Ventures acquired CNET before there was enough consensus to downgrade the source. It's great if ZD is taking the publication in the right direction, but it's most likely going to be a while before people start treating it the same again. Maybe not a whole 3 years, the fact that it has already been discussed twice (Archive 453, October 2024 as well as the Feb. one in 471 linked already) shows that editors want to give the publications another chance, but it would probably take quite a bit more time before we can find consensus for anything beyond the note In August 2024 CNET was purchased by Ziff Davis, which may mean that the reasons for considering it unreliable may no longer apply. already added to the box.

More concretely, while I can't see anyone actually mention relevance in the linked discussion, that is something completely different from reliability. A specific article can be one of both relevant and reliable or irrelevant and unreliable, but also relevant but unreliable (in which case a better source would be needed) or irrelevant but reliable (which means we wouldn't use that kind of content on Wikipedia even if we can be 100% sure of its factual accuracy). If you were referring to Newslinger's comments on unusable or otherwise unsuitable content, I would consider the suitability of content to be reliability and relevance (as well as any other factors) jointly considered.
We are always going to find listicles, for example, less relevant as actual content references even if they're very well written and even if we were writing our own list article. A feature article would likely be preferred even if they are written by the same person, with the same level of care. Some of the content from any news publication is going to be unsuitable for Wikipedia, even in generally reliable publications, because we're not actually a news site, and reviews and editorials are probably going to be harder for us to use than ordinary news content. Hands on tests are no doubt very useful for CNET's readers, but we're going to have a hard time putting it in Wikipedia articles.

As for affiliate links, that should probably be a broader discussion and nothing to do with any CNET specific practices. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ioneal123, I'd like to clarify the timeline. A well-attended 2023 noticeboard discussion found consensus that CNET's pre–October 2020 content is generally reliable, no consensus regarding CNET's content from October 2020–October 2022, and consensus that CNET's post–November 2022 content is generally unreliable. These designations are recorded in CNET's entries on the perennial sources list (RSP). The February 2025 request for comment (RfC) that you are referring to was closed without any change to the designations, due to insufficient editor participation in the RfC. In the February 2025 RfC, I argued that CNET should be reclassified with the "additional considerations apply" designation for its post–October 2024 content, as CNET has separated from Red Ventures (RSP entry), which is partially in line with some of what you are requesting now.

Sponsored content is considered generally unreliable, even when published by sources that are otherwise generally reliable. Although you don't label pages such as "Best Teeth Whitening Kits You Should Check Out In 2025" as sponsored content, such pages contain highly promotional content and are designed to strongly encourage the reader to buy the listed products through affiliate links, which "may earn a commission" for CNET. These low-quality review pages (which I also consider sponsored content) are substantially more promotional and less informative than CNET's full reviews, such as "Samsung Galaxy A35 Review". I understand that there may not be much to say about a specific product (e.g. a phone case model), but in those situations, there is little reason for a Wikipedia article to cite a sponsored review about it. When you check the perennial sources list, there are a number of publications whose sponsored content is similarly designated as generally unreliable, including that of your competitors Mashable (RSP entry) and Forbes (Forbes Advisor) (RSP entry).

(I do want to make a correction to a comment I made in the discussion directly above the February 2025 RfC: because the earlier March 2024 RfC on Red Ventures specifically excluded CNET from its scope, CNET is still currently considered marginally reliable for the time period of October 2020–October 2022. The current entries on RSP are accurate and up-to-date.) — Newslinger talk 16:03, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. @Newslinger, to support your argument of reclassifying CNET post-October 2024, I'd like to re-emphasize some dates in the timeline.

CNET has maintained its public policy and has not used generative AI assists for the site since 2023.
This commitment continued following its acquisition in October 2024.
Externally, CNET’s journalism continues to be widely regarded -- CNET has received over 50 awards for its journalism, storytelling and reviews (LA Press Club, Folio, Webby, Telly, and more) since 2022.

I hope you take this into consideration. Thank you. Ioneal123 (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two claims to consider here:

That CNET is no longer owned by Red Ventures and has been owned by Ziff Davis since August 2024, so a new entry on Perennial sources for CNET for after August 2024 makes sense. The November 2022-Present listing is primarily about AI-generated content and, at least according to @Ioneal123 and the pages on the CNET site, AI is not being used anymore.
Whether or not affiliate links in content should be considered sponsored content or not. That's basically standard practice now for most publishers, even ones doing lab (or human) testing, like RTINGS.com, Wirecutter (website), The Strategist and Consumer Reports. I think it makes more sense to separate out lab/human testing vs review aggregating (or just random lists or products to push affiliate links)

I think it makes to consider CNET's reliability anew in light of #1, and two separate discussions need to be had about affiliate links and AI-generated content. --FeldBum (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BizJournals

I’d like to suggest that Business Journals (BizJournals.com) get added to the list to help add creditability to notable topics in American markets. It is a network of local business news publications with a strong track record of fact-based reporting. It seems to already be a commonly used source across articles, particularly those related to company profiles, and executive biographies. They cover 40 different American markets and each operates with a local newsroom and professional editorial staff. They appear to follow standard journalistic practices, including source verification and editorial oversight. Their articles are widely cited by universities, law firms, government agencies, and other media outlets for business intelligence and regional economic reporting. Seems odd to me that they’re not already in the list? They should be added as Generally Reliable. JazzyOxygen (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can just add a source to RSP just like that. Discussion of why this is being put on this noticboard would be a good start. Is this source disputed by an editor on an article? Or is a claim disputed by another editor? Ramos1990 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Perennial_sources#What_if_a_source_is_not_here?. If it's not been under discussion, there's no reason to add it to RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are previous discussions:

Archive 474 § bizjournals.com / fastcompany.com (April 2025)
Archive 422 § Bell Bank: a tale of churnalism using InForum.com and bizjournals.com. (December 2023)
Archive 288 § Business Journals / bizjournals.com (March 2020)
Archive 271 § BizJournals in the Bitcoin Cash article (August 2019)

Overall it's a mid NEWSORG mostly used in prospective articles as a source of churnalism to pad things out, and if it's added to RSP should probably have the same caveats as WP:TECHCRUNCH (IMO anyway). While these publications are generalist rather than industry specific, the content is rather similar to trade press and the same COISOURCE analysis should be carried out for claims that are self-serving or exceptional. Prospective article reviewers should probably already be familiar with them though, given how common they are. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good digging! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with your assessment that BizJournals fits within the mid-level NEWSORG category and should be treated accordingly. That said, it’s worth noting that BizJournals is somewhat unique in that it focuses on market-specific reporting across many major U.S. cities. In that sense, it's no more of a “generalist” outlet than others already included in the list, and it doesn’t quite align with what we typically define as trade press.

As I’ve read through the other discussions listed above I've noticed a broader concern with some reviewers who may too quickly label content as “churnalism” when they see advertising, don't actually read the articles, and don't fully consider the context or nuances of the market or industry being covered.

“Churnalism” is broadly defined as a form of “journalism” in which press releases, wire service stories, or other pre-packaged material are used to create articles with little or no original reporting or fact-checking.

That is not happening with this publication. They seem to be labeling their sponsored articles as such, and each story has a real person attaching their name to it with their reputation on the line. What more could we ask for?

There are 4 users from previous discussions who say BizJournals is generally reliable, and now I’m the fifth.

GreenC
Atlantic306
SamHolt6
CherryPie94
JazzyOxygen

According to WP:RSPCRITERIA it meets all the criteria for inclusion. Seems like it should be added to the list. JazzyOxygen (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using Business Journals as a source for a long time. Support adding to them as Generally Reliable to the list per above comments and previous discussions. Timur9008 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes six of us. JazzyOxygen (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not how it works, but okay. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding of how it works according to WP:RSPCRITERIA. What am I missing? JazzyOxygen (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that per linked discussions + this one, criteria is reasonably met for inclusion. What to include is not that clear atm. However, starting RSN-discussions for the purpose of "achieving" RSPCRITERIA is a bad idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"What more could we ask for?" beyond an outlet labeling sponsored stories and including bylines on stories? At WP:NORG we ask for independent reporting based on a reporter's investigation and fact-checking, not on press releases. Looking at the previous discussions that were linked:

Archive 271, three of four participants state that the specific article under discussion is a recycled press release; no rebuttal on that point from the fourth
Archive 288 suggests that it's factually accurate but not an indicator of notability: Bizjournals is likely well-known to most WP:NPR and WP:AFC participants as it (for pay) churns out press releases and propagates native advertising for companies, but I have not seen anything indicating the information published by Business Journals is unreliable
Archive 422, only one person says they are familiar with bizjournals and they say I perceive it as mostly a place for real estate developers to name drop and amplify their press releases. I agree it's churnalism, not independent of the subject, and shouldn't be used for determining due weight or notability.
Archive 474 doesn't seem to reach a consensus around bizjournals; one person says it raised red flags for them as potential churnalism, and the reply doesn't address the churnalism aspect but does note that it publishes labeled paid advertising.

I'm pretty new to RSN, but to my eye, there have been multiple discussions of bizjournals but they have all taken the general stance that the information is likely to be factually correct but not independent and therefore not an indicator of notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d respectfully push back and ask for a more nuanced discussion on those claims. My overall stance is that it is independent, and generally reliable. But it could also go in the list under “marginally reliable” depending on context.

From my perspective, there seems to be a consistent skepticism (and at times a blanket dismissal) of business-related coverage that borders on an anti-business bias within parts of this community. While it’s true that business topics often attract spam and low-quality submissions, that doesn’t mean every business-related article or source is inherently unreliable or based on a press release. There are many notable subjects covered in outlets like BizJournals that are independently reported and entirely unrelated to any promotional content.

It’s important not to let anecdotal impressions or assumptions override a case-by-case evaluation of sources and articles.

Archive 271 - I’d like to point out that the comments again are saying “these are from press releases” but are not pointing to the actual press release as proof? They’re making assumptions.

”These appear to be based on press releases.” ”Both seem to be written by a PR agency.”

Where is the proof? Perhaps I’m missing something, but it appears like assumptions are being made here.

Archive 288 - Comments claim “they churn out press releases for pay” but still looking for someone to prove it?

Archive 422 - Again, prove it. Show me the churnalism. The Wikipedia definition of churnalism is: “Journalism that is based on press releases or news agency wire copy, rather than the reporter's own investigation or reporting.”

It is not churnalism if a journalist receives a press release but then conducts independent investigation, fact-checking, interviews, or analysis before writing the article. If a journalist uses a press release as a starting point but adds original reporting, multiple sources, or critical context, the result is considered independent journalism, not churnalism. So, the key distinction is whether the journalist simply echoes the press release or does some sort of meaningful work beyond it.

Archive 474 - Agree, no consensus.

My overall stance is that it is independent, and generally reliable and needs to be evaluated for notability on a case by case basis. It could go in the list under “marginally reliable” depending on context. JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the WP:TECHCRUNCH treatment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put me down for unreliable. I may be an exception here, but I've never read a business journal that I would trust, including bizjournals.com. Every biographical or company profile I've read was a puff piece, often verging on hagiographic, filled with company talking points and cribbed from interviews and press releases—essentially a laundered primary source. They're suitable for display in the executive suite, but that's about it. Woodroar (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. I’d suggest we evaluate BizJournals based on Wikipedia's standards for reliability, not personal impressions or generalizations. The BizJournals network is owned by American City Business Journals, which operates dozens of local business publications with professional editorial staff. While some content is indeed promotional or opinion-based, the site also publishes routine business reporting, executive changes, earnings reports, and regulatory coverage. All falling within WP:NEWSORG and WP:RS guidelines when properly attributed.

Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, many mainstream publications (including Forbes, TechCrunch, and local news outlets) have content that ranges in quality. But that doesn't render the entire publication unreliable. The key is to assess individual articles based on context, editorial oversight, and whether they are being used for uncontroversial factual claims.

If specific BizJournals articles are too close to press releases or violate WP:CHURNALISM, that should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. But labeling the entire network unreliable based on anecdotal experience risks overgeneralization and contradicts how we handle other regionally focused outlets. JazzyOxygen (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is one thing, but if these sources are being used to argue WP:N, independence also matters. Articles that are essentially press-releases/written by subject (if that is sometimes the case here) aren't independent, and in such cases there is also WP:ABOUTSELF to consider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you asked for general impressions of the source, and I gave one—after reading a dozen or so articles. I don't see it as any different from any other business journal I've read. It's nothing I would even consider citing on Wikipedia.

If you want to discuss an individual article in context, as the banner at the top of this board suggests, then supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. I would be pleased to see a business journal publish actual, legitimate secondary journalism. Woodroar (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your argument is that the source is broadly unreliable, that claim needs to be supported with examples that demonstrate a consistent pattern of editorial failure. Show the proof of churnalism, along with the press release. Without that, it’s difficult to justify dismissing the entire outlet outright, especially when it’s widely used for routine business reporting in U.S. markets and ACBJ has a good reputation for regional business reporting. Happy to discuss specific articles if/when they’re cited. JazzyOxygen (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Independent I've subscribed to one of the local bizjournals at various times in the past, and had the impression it was there to republish press releases from quasi-notable local businesspeople who had just bought commercial real estate and wanted to be in the news for it. I don't recall there ever being any investigative reporting or negative coverage of anyone, which would be expected in an independent newspaper. Geogene (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate you sharing your “impression”.

If BizJournals systematically fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for fact-checking or editorial oversight, that needs to be demonstrated with concrete examples. JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - There are countless negative coverage articles and investigative reporting happening. And they are not hard to find. Here's just a few samples for you:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/07/23/hunter-could-be-out-of-jail-in-two-months-if-she.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/news/2018/01/31/nashville-mayor-meganbarry-admits-to-affair.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2020/06/22/ting-says-ab5-legislation-not-influenced-by-affair.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2024/08/30/jason-billingsley-tech-pava-lapere-murder-guilty.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2024/12/15/brian-thompson-spurs-executive-security-demand.html JazzyOxygen (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're welcome. Since I've been subscribed, I think I know more about it than most here. Maybe not as much as you, because the way you're WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion with a brand new account looks like an undisclosed WP:COI. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I’ve made me point. JazzyOxygen (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving some examples of what you consider independent reporting. These are paywalled so I can't read much, but the first two immediately identify that that they are based on statements (i.e., press releases). The third is a broken link, but given the "ting says" in the URL, probably also based on a statement. The last two could plausibly have original reporting -- the Pava LaPere one actually has an original photograph. All of these look to me like crime stories, though, rather than the kind of thing that could contribute to notability for WP:NORG. So I don't see an issue with an assessment like "factually reliable for basic information but not useful for notability."

I also looked at the home page of the Cincinnati biz journal, and I am not impressed. The main headline, "Charleston-born chain Vicious Biscuit to open first Tri-State location", doesn't explicitly says it's based on a press release but it sure looks like a business announcement. The next two state in the headline that they're just repeating things from the businesses: "Fischer Homes CEO talks Covington headquarters move" and "Bengals owner talks stadium lease, player contracts, Super Bowl chances". My opinion is not changed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that bizjournals.com is definitely reliable for uncontroversial points of information, such as who is the CEO of a company at a particular time. I would not use it for a controverted statement, such as whether a company is innocent of wrongdoing in a scandal, or whether an asserted new product is independently notable. BD2412 T 23:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Viewing Guide to the Pandemic: Depictions of Plague and Pandemic on Film and TV

Is this from Headpress Books a reliable source to use for identifying works in a list I am working on? I have not heard of Headpress and am unsure how to determine the reliability of a publisher I have not seen before. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve heard of Headpress, and I consider them a legitimate publisher on niche/countercultural topics. For an article about pandemics I’d expect there to be scholarly sources too (it feels like Routledge would have an edited collection on this) but Headpress would probably still be useful to make sure the list thoroughly covers pop cultural subjects. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've been editing List of popular culture works on biological warfare. When the question is as simple as "Is the James Bond movie On Her Majesty's Secret Service about biowarfare?", then you don't need scholarly sources. Even a coffee table book would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you! I saw that it called itself an "independent" publisher, so that's why I had some qualms about using it. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I can see that, but in this case it's independent like indie rock -- i.e., they're not Random House :) ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independent means bad, fringe, and untrustworthy when I don't like what a source says, but good, noble, and boldly speaking truth to power when I like what it says. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reliable Brazilian sources

Hi,

I am reviewing a draft AfC and I wanted to check if anyone who has more experience with Brazilian coverage can confirm that the following are reliable?

1. The Brazil Journal (article)

2. GQ Globo (article) - AFAICT this is a subsidiary of GQ so looks reliable, no questions on this one.

3. Valor Economico (article) - according to the AfC submitter, "Valor is the biggest publication in Brazil for finance pretty reputable."

The submitter's analysis below looks decent to me, so just looking for a confirmation before accepting this. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Brazil Journal (Brazil Journal: Chris Meyn, um dos pioneiros do private equity no Brasil) appears to be a good reputable source, in depth article about the subject. Content seems to be biographical mentions how he died, his deals, personal interviews with Industry leaders, details his career and accomplishments better. Obituary/biography so I rank this one as the highest source for Meyn.
2. GQ Brazil (Maconha legal: mercado bilionário conquista investidores): Non contentious, GQ Brazil is pretty reputable, specifically addresses subject, includes biographical details about his career in Oregon cannabis and Gavea, mentions him as an investor. Although article is not specifically about him (it's about the wider emerging cannabis market in Brasil) he is featured prominently. I believe it adds credence to his cannabis career and Investment pedigree
3.Valor Economico (Sócio da área de private equity deixa Gávea), Valor is the biggest publication in Brazil for finance pretty reputable, specifically about the subject (Meyn) and his departure from Gavea a bit more direct than institutional investor. Corroborates his position.

Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tentatively accepted the article based on my preliminary analysis of the sources above and in particular the GQ Globo article. Please let me know if anyone has comments on the above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this one, all of these sources look generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the reply! Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reliability of The Economic Times for Box Office

I am raising a concern about the reliability of The Economic Times as a source for box office figures on Wikipedia, proposing that it be treated as unreliable, similar to Wikipedia's own content under WP:CIRCULAR. For example, an article in The Economic Times states:

"Though critics gave the film generally favorable reviews, praising the performances and technical finesse, pacing issues were noted. Nevertheless, it pulled in ₹97 crore globally against a ₹65 crore budget, securing a spot among the year’s top Tamil hits and becoming one of Suriya’s most successful films to date." [10]

The corresponding Wikipedia article claims:

The film received generally positive reviews from critics, who praised Suriya and Hegde's performances and technical aspects, but some noted issues with the pacing. Despite this, it emerged as a major commercial success and has grossed ₹97–200 crore worldwide against a budget of ₹65 crore, becoming one of the highest-grossing Tamil films of 2025 and Suriya's highest-grossing film in his career." [11]

The Economic Times report appears to mirror content from Wikipedia, including details about critical reviews, praise for performances and technical aspects, pacing issues, the ₹97 crore box office figure, the ₹65 crore budget, the film's status as a top Tamil film of the year, and its significance as one of Suriya’s most successful films. This suggests a potential circular referencing issue, as per WP:CIRCULAR.

I propose that The Economic Times may not meet WP:RS standards for box office figures due to its lack of transparency in sourcing and the risk of circular reporting. Can editors provide feedback on the reliability of The Economic Times for box office data? 2607:740:20:9:4B0C:473:8B1C:46DA (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the information in the Wikipedia article originate? BD2412 T 01:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: ₹97 crore box office was reported by WP:PINKVILLA, which is unreliable source now. On 26 May 2025, The Economic Times published an article that reproduced content from Wikipedia's revision on that date, including the questionable figure and contents mentioned above. 2607:740:20:9:4B0C:473:8B1C:46DA (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinepunx

I am currently working on getting It (character) to GA status (see Talk:It (character)/GA1) and saw a source from Cinepunx that I'd like to use under It (character)#Concept. A review of Andy Muschietti's It (2017) was used to say that a critic observed that Pennywise was a "jittering, twitching mess of a monster" whose form was unpredictable due to his shapeshifting abilities. The sentence currently has a {{Better source needed}} next to it, but I'm unsure what I should do about this that. Is Cinepunx reliable in this context? Gommeh 🎮 15:45, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is the source reliable for:

"a critic described Pennywise as a "jittering, twitching mess of a monster" whose form was unpredictable due to his shapeshifting abilities"?

Yes, it's extremely likely that's what he said.

Is it reliable for:

"a critic observed that Pennywise was a "jittering, twitching mess of a monster" whose form was unpredictable due to his shapeshifting abilities"

Probably. It doesn't seem like he's lying about the film.

Is the opinion WP:DUE (a significant viewpoint)? Probably not. The review (as far as I can see) wasn't used by Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. There doesn't seem much written by independent, secondary sources on Cinepunx, or on the review critic Justin Long as an individual critic. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 16:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Source for the Belarusian flag carrier's fleet

I want to add information to Belavia article on its current and past fleet. The source I have is [12], excerpts from it were published at a conference in a Belarusian University in 2021(p. 12), author is a Belavia employee and works at an aircraft museum that is promoted by the Belarusian government (link to a government-owned newspaper)

Does this satisfy WP:RS, particularly with respect to WP:SPS? Kelob2678 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The aviation museum would be expected to be knowledgeable about aircraft, but I'm not sure how far that would extend into operational matters of an airline. The authors of the work are an engineer who works at Belavia, and someone who is either the administrator of the museum or the administrator of the museums website (I can't find anything clear this up). It should probably be ok, but I've left a notification at the WikiProject Airlines talk page to see if anyone has any other thoughts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SMNI

See WP:SMNI. Should we upgrade that status of political section of SMNI to Deprecated? The reliability of this source seems to be fully unreliable because it propagates a globally sanctioned individual who owns the network. I'm talking about the political section mostly, because non-politcal sections are still at "additional considerations apply" stage. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between unreliable, and deprecation is a filter that warms based on the URL used. Deprecation for a subject or topic area is therefore not something that's currently possible. Given how likely such a system would be to false positives I would also oppose it. It appears that SMNI is considered unreliable for politics already on WP:TAMBAY/RS as they seperate WP:SMNI and WP:SMNIPOL. I've left notification of this discussion on WT:Tambayan Philippines/Sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

martincid.com

Could anyone offer an opinion on martincid.com as a source for media reviews: e.g. this one [13]. I'm having trouble convincing myself it isn't bot-generated, though that may be the result of reading too much else that quite obviously is. And from reading their 'Collaborate with Us' page, [14] it appears as if they may be accepting content from more or less anywhere. Which may account for what appears to be a house style that precludes writing anything that isn't gushing praise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article does read as very AI-generated. Based on both the "Collaborate with Us" page that you linked and their rather light "Editorial Principles," I'd say they're not reliable. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 23:06, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. McDermott (The Serbian Revolution: 1804-1835)

McDermott, Robert A. (2021). The Serbian Revolution: 1804-1835. Chicago: History Nerds.

Robert A. McDermott appears to be a professor of philosophy and religion, and doesn't appear to have any specialization in the field of Balkan history, Serbian history, or Ottoman history. The publisher, History Nerds, doesn't appear to be reliable either.

His book was used in at least 3 different articles, all concerning Serbian battles:

Battle of Mišar
Battle of Ivankovac
Battle of Deligrad

Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the citation is messed up somewhere. McDermott isn't listed as the author of that book. [15] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at other books listed on their website, two things are immediately obvious: (a) they don't seem to name an author at all. I suspect it is Dr Chat Gee Pee Tee, or one of his esteemed colleagues. (b) the books are complete and utter drek. About as useful as sources as graffiti on an outhouse wall. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A 2021 book wouldn't be Doc Tee, as ChatGPT wasn't available until late 2022. But the citation also claims publication in Chicago, and History Nerds are based in Northern Ireland. McDermott is listed as translator on French Italian, German, Portugese, and Hindi History Nerds books.... which makes it particularly possible that those are machine-translated, either prompted by a real McDermott or a house name. In either case, Robert McDermott does not seem essentially to be Robert A McDermott. So this is beginning to have the scent of a citation that may have been LLM generated. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier listing of the work has the authors as Aleksa Vučković and History Nerds, and the publisher as Amazon Digital Services LLC.[16] From searching I think Aleksa Vučković is the author of all the books by History Nerds, and that they're selfpublished. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that answers my question. My sincerest thanks to you all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.[17]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. The discussion can be found here. TurboSuperA+_(talk) 10:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The National Communications Authority of Somalia confirms the same registration data, so that shouldn't be an issue anymore.[24] 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just a note about "how English Wikipedia used the source", StratNews is only used 12 times on enwiki[25]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are any of these sources real?

A user created an article at Azizul Haque (Indian Revolutionary). The version I originally came upon was Special:Permalink/1301739317. I discovered that of the 26 sources provided, all but two of the ones that were linked were bogus. That made me suspicious of the ones that weren't linked, so I searched for all of them and couldn't find any of them. I realize that this doesn't mean they don't exist, but, as I said, my suspicions were already raised.

I detailed my concerns and findings at Talk:Azizul Haque (Indian Revolutionary)#Draftifying and draftified the article. The creator made a bunch of edits and has now republished it to main space (Special:Permalink/1302255350). I found that while 16 sources had been removed, including all the links that had led to "Page Not Found" or "Site Not Found" messages, three of the bogus links remained (a phony ISBN number, a GoodReads page about a novel written in the 19th century by Sir Walter Scott, and a news article about a football match), while another irrelevant reference had been added (as well as included as an external link) that is an article about a cricket player's visit to the Miami GrandPrix. I've removed those, and am now left mostly with unlinked sources that I still can't find. You can find my commentary on this on the user's talk page at User talk:Ei to ami akash#Terrible sourcing.

So I'm trying to decide what action, if any is warranted, whether this amounts to vandalism by a user inventing an article based on mostly nonexistent sources and irrelevant ones, or whether the subject might be considered for deletion on notability grounds or because, perhaps, it was AI-generated, but before that I figure I should square away whether the sources that are given are any good. Do any of you want to review them and see what you think? For extra credit (unless this is off-topic here), are there real sources that could be used to support a claim of notability for the subject? Largoplazo (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources appear not to exist. Simonm223 (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair bit of news coverage of his death from Indian newspapers. I am looking for what else I can find. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the Hindustan Times reference, the sole reference that has a link in the current state of the article: "This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text." There is no indication of what this automated feed is or where it came from. I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. I wasn't able to find any evidence that the other sources exist either. I would suggest clearly explaining to the original editor that it is totally unacceptable to cite any source that they have not personally read. AI can be useful in identifying possible sources, but editors have a responsibility to read those sources themselves and use their reading, not AI, to inform the writing of actual article text. With that said, a google search for the article subject (who apparently just died) does produce a fair few results, so it might be possible to find appropriate sources and save the article from deletion. But the current status ain't it. -- LWG ^talk 16:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Library returns 6 results, one peer-reviewed about prison conditions in the 1970s. No WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple people (even just on WP) named Azizul Haque, which also makes it harder to winnow the results. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one supposedly by Bupesh Gupta (1980). Memoirs of a Marxist. People's Publishing House doesn't seem to exist according to google and the OpenLibrary section of the Communist Party of India (they have other books/essays by him, he's a real person). MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed one of the references as a hallucination. While trying to verify "Collected Works of Haque to be archived" - Ei Samay (I don't believe it exists) I found some useful obituaries that I've added to the articles talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

poetryfoundation.org/poets biographies?

The Poetry Foundation does publish a magazine that is editorially controlled, so they do have an editorial staff listed on their website, but the biographies of poets at poetryfoundation.org/poets don't seem to have bylines and don't read like they are editorially controlled. Anyone know how those get written and whether they are fact-checked or even edited? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their bios of long-dead poets are fairly in depth and look reasonably accurate, but for someone like William Shakespeare there are surely plenty of reliable sources where we don't need to rely on an anonymously-written and uncited biography. It's probably fine – good enough that I wouldn't go out of my way to remove it purely on the basis of being a Poetry Foundation bio – but nor would I use it as a source.

Their bios of living poets look like they are probably submitted by the poets themselves to me. Compare e.g. the Poetry Foundation bio of Mark Pohlad (chosen at random; he's not someone I'm familiar with at all) with the biography given for this talk he gave. Probably these are trustworthy for basic biographical information. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Option 1: CNA should be WP:GREL. While owned by Mediacorp, CNA has demonstrated a greater degree of journalistic independence than The Straits Times. It has positioned itself more as an international news outlet rather than a local one, similar to NHK World-Japan, BBC News, France 24 and Deutsche Welle (DW). Its international coverage is widely regarded as reliable, balanced and professional. While some caution may still be advisable when evaluating CNA's domestic political coverage as with any national outlet, its international reporting is fully reliable and on par with established sources with international recognition for its credibility. Aleain (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Per above. I have personally always found CNA more neutral than ST, especially with their international reporting. By extension, I have also found Today to have similar levels of neutrality to CNA. For some context on Today, it is also owned by Mediacorp and was merged into CNA in 2024. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Blood Tribe disagreement about meaning of a source

[26] I thought the source, [27] justifie Russophobia. I’m not sure though, I could easily be wrong Doug Weller talk 17:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

It's a thing. See [28] , 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)[reply]

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 unreliable as 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards