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, 486

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

---

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

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

channelnewsasia.com  

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

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

Survey (CNA)

• Option 1: Given some growing consensus to elevate The Straits Times to WP:GREL similar to how WP:ALJAZEERA and WP:SCMP are treated, I will consider it a reliable source, though with considerations similarly applied for The Straits Times given Singapore's limited press freedoms. In fact, CNA, being a mediacorp news outlet, could be considered a state-owned news outlet given Mediacorp is owned by Temasek Holdings - the investment arm of the Government of Singapore. However, compared to The Straits Times, it's considered more reputable particularly due to its documentaries. It was considered broadcaster of the year at Berlin World Media Festivals and New York Festivals, global gold for Best News Website at Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022 and having outstanding reporting on climate change at Asiavision Awards. A Reuters survey in 2024 also showed that CNA remains the most trusted brand among Singaporeans. Also from accessing its usage across Wikipedia, it seems CNA has been used for various topics. --ZKang123 (talk · contribs) 06:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: CNA should be WP:GREL. While owned by Mediacorp, CNA has demonstrated a greater degree of journalistic independence than The Straits Times. It has positioned itself more as an international news outlet rather than a local one, similar to NHK World-Japan, BBC News, France 24 and Deutsche Welle (DW). Its international coverage is widely regarded as reliable, balanced and professional. While some caution may still be advisable when evaluating CNA's domestic political coverage as with any national outlet, its international reporting is fully reliable and on par with established sources with international recognition for its credibility. Aleain (talk) 06:42, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: Per above. I have personally always found CNA more neutral than ST, especially with their international reporting. By extension, I have also found Today to have similar levels of neutrality to CNA. For some context on Today, it is also owned by Mediacorp and was merged into CNA in 2024. – actuall7 (talk | contrib) 08:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 I still have doubts about this RFC, but will add a comment anyway. The situation in Singapore remains the same, as noted by Reporters Without Borders[1], and especially given the passing of the Protection From Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Bill[2]. CNA is a trusted and respected news organisation[3], but editors need to take into account the local situation when dealing with anything related to the government or ruling party. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 1 CNA fits into the "soft approach" broadcasters Martelanc et al identified [4] in the typology of state-backed external services built for their UNESCO study in the 1970s. The state affiliation, therefore, shouldn't be questioned in its reporting on matters external to the home country and we should default to simply determining if it crests some basic standard of USEBYOTHERS which, as far as I can tell, it does. Insofar as its reporting on the home country goes, the state affiliation itself shouldn't be questioned unless there's evidence (beyond ownership) to support such questions which, as far as I can tell, there is not. It may incorporate or exhibit unique framing in its reporting but that, by itself, is insufficient to question the veracity of the underlying claims. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (CNA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

BizAsiaLive.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Soviet Encyclopedia and Ukrainian inventions

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

• Arc welding

• Melk
• Mellk again

• also renaming Mykola Benardos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweets containing satellite imagery as sources

Hi all,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Business Journal reliable for notability in profiles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does Essentially Sports suck at reliability?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those two sources aren't the best but Essentially Sports has conducted interviews with notable sportspeople in other relatively reliable outlets such as ESPN Deportes, USA Today, NYTimes, Men's Journal, and Tennis Magazine. Deseret News also quoted an Essentially Sports writer as part of its journalistic tribute to Ralph Mann. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I've read the discussions and none of the negative comments seem to bring up actual instances of factual errors in its reporting. Since some of its articles rely on sensationalism and mix editorialising with factual reporting, I'd say marginally reliable or case-by-case basis. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 08:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, I'd question whether any of the content in the second paragraph is worth mentioning - trivia about celenries' play buttons surely isn't worth discussing, however reliably sourced. Second, if it is to be included, we should not be describing the ruby button as 'prestigious'. That's a subjective descriptor, just call it an item. Or "it". Girth Summit _(blether) 09:13, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

historic-structures.com

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

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

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

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

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

Kill it with fire. It's someone's blog, and we don't even know whose. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Simple Flying

Is Simple Flying [5] from 2024 and later ...

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

Is Simple Flying prior to 2024 ...

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

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

Survey (Simple Flying)

• Option 2 (2024+), Option 3 (2023-) ... Recent reporting seems to be fine for non-BLP content on aviation-related matters that doesn't make extraordinary claims or assert information inconsistent with other sources; older reporting may be problematic. Simple Flying passes WP:USEBYOTHERS as it's widely cited by, for example, The Kansas City Star, [6] the Miami Herald, [7] WBOY-TV, [8] USA Today, [9] CNN, [10] WJLA-TV, [11] Fortune, [12] The Week, [13] and scores of others. It has multiple reporters, indicating a gatekeeping process, and it hasn't been negatively checked by fact-checking websites like PolitiFact, Snopes, etc. On the other hand, their reporters all seem to be generalists without specific expertise in aviation journalism, almost all of the USEBYOTHERS has occurred in the last two years, and some basic factual errors were noticed in the years immediately after it went online (2019-2022). Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Simple Flying)

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

  For reference those discussions were:
  WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 421#SimpleFlying.com
  and
  WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#SimpleFlying revisit.
  Simple Flying is a Valnet publication[14]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I thought I'd take a look at what content Simple Flying currently has on its website. An article entitled How Many P‑47 Thunderbolts Were Built? [15] has just been published, and since I know a little about the P-47, that seemed worth further inspection. And I have to say, I'm far from impressed. The article is repetitive and badly written (e.g. "Thunderbolts destroyed upwards of 7,000 Axis aircraft, with around half of that number being on the ground and more than half being in air-to-air combat." which requires rather unorthodox mathematics) and gives a distinctly unfinished impression - assuming that an LLM wasn't involved somewhere, which seems at least possible. If this is at all typical of Simple Flying's output, I'd have to query why we'd want to cite it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Another example of sloppy writing, from February this year: "Supermarine built a number of seaplanes, including the Seafire (a naval version of the Spitfire)" [16] Either the writer doesn't understand what a seaplane is - a float-equipped aeroplane operating from water rather than land - or he has done zero research into the Seafire, which most definitely wasn't equipped with floats, being instead a modification of the Spitfire design, equipped with a tailhook etc for operation from aircraft carriers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I should probably nominate this bit of insightful writing for the annual internet stating-the-obvious prize (I assume there is one. If not, there should be.), From Why The Boeing 747 Has Four Engines (published 4 days ago) .[17] "The Boeing 747 has four engines because that is what it was designed with. It was designed with four engines because, in the 1960s, four engines were considered optimal given the engines available, the need for power, and the range requirements." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

New York Post exclusives

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

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

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

How should we handle this?

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

Thanks in advance for your input.

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

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

This seems to be a case when the NYP can be used with attribution. Alaexis_¿question? 10:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

baronage.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Peerage_websites applies here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Inverse.com

Is Inverse a WP:Reliable Source? It is cited in about 3,000 articles, and they have an editorial staff. Inverse is currently owned by Bustle. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Is anyone challenging it? Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Danmakusaur (feel free to give any input here) removed it from Polybius (urban legend) as a "low-quality source" that does not "pass muster" Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Russian music magazine is an "Inappropriate external link"?

I added a russian music magazine reference to an article about a SONG, and it was removed because of "INAPPROPRIATE". When it was not. Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mary_Jane_Holland I AM A HOMO SEXUAL MALE (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Adding an extra citation to an already adequately-sourced claim, as was the case for this edit, is generally considered non-constructive. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

That was not the reason it was deleted I AM A HOMO SEXUAL MALE (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really the right forum for this discussion (I would follow up with the editor that placed it, and/or take it to the relevant article talk page (i.e. Draft talk:Mary Jane Holland), but from reviewing your user talk page, it seems that the other editor saw that the addition of this citation was unnecessary, and thus inferred that you were adding it solely to promote the website in question, thus calling it spam, etc. That you immediately accused the other editor of anti-Russian racism is a personal attack on such spurious evidence, particularly given that en.wiki's verifiability policy includes a clause specifying that if equally-relevant English and non-English sources are available, the English one should be preferred and the other excluded. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, when I tried to open it, my virus blocker blocked it. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Senator James Person

On August 6, 1969 Senator Pesarson voted "Aye" on the Smith amendment that would have denied all Safeguard funding. Then he voted "Aye" on the Cooper-Hart amendment that would only allow research anddevelopmentfunding forthefirst two sites. Both votes were against President Nixon. A "nay" votdd supporteddthe president's position. 38.88.161.62 (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)