There was recently an RFC on the reliability of The Times of Israel in which the closer found that there was consensus that it was generally reliable.
Since that time they have published in a article which spreads fake news. From the article: "Wikipedia has banned several editors for using the platform to spread antisemitic rhetoric and misinformation about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, the Anti-Defamation League says". The slightest bit of fact checking ADL's claims should have lead them to conclude that ADL's claims were false, as it is abundantly clear that no one was TBAN'ed for "using the platform to spread antisemitic rhetoric and misinformation about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza". Importantly, The Times of Israel could have still covered ADL's statements with a disclaimer that the claims are false. The fact that they didn't indicates that they have not engaged in any fact checking. Do we need to reconsider the RFC given that it is clear that The Times of Israel aid in the spread of fake news? TarnishedPath^talk 08:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, this is closer to a statement of opinion than a statement of fact, and it’s attributed to a reputable organization (outside of Wikipedia). If the reason for sanctions is “misconduct in the I/P area” and the primary misconduct according to sources is that named above, it’s not sufficiently unreasonable for them to characterize “persistent non-neutral editing against the Israeli side of the conflict” as “spreading misinformation”, even if you and I obviously wouldn’t. A report summarising a press briefing is generally fine, as long as the summary is factual, which it is.

On the question of content (read: OR), while I generally disagree with that reading of the joke and comparable disputes, the incident that led to sanctions for Nishidani as well as some other situations can be read as such, particularly applying the IHRA definition of antisemitism. FortunateSons (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not reasonable for them to state that the reasons for the sanctions was "using the platform to spread antisemitic rhetoric and misinformation about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza". That is verifiably incorrect. It is not a matter of opinion, it's an incorrect representation of reality. TarnishedPath^talk 08:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

ToI doesn’t say that. It says ADL says that. Are you arguing that they’ve misrepresented the ADL? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

For the statement of the ADL: If they said that this was the justification listed by the arbs, it would be a statement of fact. Their own evaluation of the conduct is opinion.

For ToI: That’s indeed a statement of fact for the question of what the ADL said, with no significant divergence from their statement, and therefore irrelevant when discussing reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That's incorrect. They clearly made a statement along the lines of "X did B to Y because of A", where X is Wikipedia, B is TBAN, Y are the editors and A is 'using the platform to spread antisemitic rhetoric and misinformation about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza'. That is a claim about reality which is 100% testable. We can test it by reading WP:ARBPIA5 which makes it clear that Wikipedia TBAN'ed the editors for entirely different reasons. If the statement was merely an opinion it wouldn't make causative claims. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Reading it again they didn't even get the banned bit correct. They state that the editors were banned with no qualification. TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it’s obviously not the stated reason for the ban. However, that sentence would still make sense if that’s how they interpreted the sanctionable behaviour, which - while I disagree - is not beyond reason. The wrong ban, on the other hand, is a factual error, but not that significant. But neither of those significantly impacts reliability either way, so… FortunateSons (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an accurate report of the ADL’s statements, not fake news. If we cited this, we’d only be able to cite it for ADL’s opinions as there is literally nothing in it in the ToI’s own voice. And if we used it for the ADL’s statements, it would be wholly reliable. There is nothing here not raised in the RfC closed one month ago. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No it is not an opinion. An opinion would be ADL stating that the TBAN'ed editors are antisemitic. Stating that Wikipedia arbs TBAN'ed them because they were antisemitic is making a statement about facts and is verifiably false. Anyone reading the ARBPIA5 decision can verify that is not why the editors were TBAN'ed, that they were TBAN'ed for other reasons. The Times of Israel have propagated false statements by others without a disclaimer that those statements are false. They clearly haven't engaged in any fact checking. TarnishedPath^talk 08:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The Times of Israel spread fake news, TarnishedPath says. See how I accurately reported your claim without co-signing it? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

There's issues with the article. It doesn't point out that this applies to English-language Wikipedia only, and just uncritically repeats everything the ADL claims. It reads like a ADL press statement, not actual journalism. Cortador (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is not actual journalism, but it seems that Wikipedia doesn't require actual journalism as long as attribution to the "fake news" is maintained. I guess Wikipedia also amplifies this kind of selective information handling by allowing it to impact WP:DUE assessments. Still, it's a good reminder of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I think what sorts of statements an organization will publish even with attribution should have some bearing on our assessment of reliability. In this case the ADL, an organization that editors have decided has reliability issues with regard to this specific topic reported something factually untrue and the correct information is publicly accessible if a bit dense for an outsider to parse. TOI didn't do its due diligence in covering the incident as a whole.

In December, around the time of the last RfC, I removed this article from the Gaza war page because I couldn't find much independent or prior reporting on the individuals in it, save for other Israeli or pro-Israel outlets of lesser stature than TOI publishing a nearly identical retelling of the IDF press release detailed in the article. In the RfC I brought up other examples of places the TOI was used where its telling of events was discordant with what the rest of the sources were saying because of its uncritical reliance on IDF press releases, with all the charged terms and dubious claims that a government at war often makes.

These are both examples where I think the TOI shouldn't be used to give credence to a questionable claim, but I don't think it necessarily says anything about its overall reliability or utility. I would much rather go through the list of links to TOI on-wiki and identify cases where it is used detrimentally instead of debating its every claim and republished press release to make an unnecessarily broad decision. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley can you show where ADL said "Wikipedia has banned several editors for using the platform to spread antisemitic rhetoric"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Not clear why you're asking me that. The ToI article is based on this press release.

• "Banned" is in the headline of the press release, although the body specifies that most were "topic-banned" and one "banned outright". (ToI follows this by doing the potentially misleading simpler version in the lead and then specifying in the third para that most were banned "from the Israel-Palestine discussion" with just one "banned from all editing".)
• ToI's "several editors" is clearly based on the ADL's "numerous editors" in the press release headline and "multiple editors" in the text.
• "using the platform to spread antisemitic rhetoric and misinformation about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza" is clearly a summary of "a massive effort... to spread misinformation and hate", with "antisemitic rhetoric" being a paraphrase of "hate".

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley that's not ToI simply quoting ADL. Are there other places where ADL actually accused the above mentioned users of being antisemitic? If not, then ToI is manipulating ADL's statements to make them seem more inflammatory. I get that this is a newsblog, and this is only one example, but falsely accusing living people of antisemitism is highly problematic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, Vice_regent that it's a hyperbolic paraphrase, but I'm not sure it is more inflammatory: "hate" seems to me harsher than "antisemitic rhetoric", as hate impugns the character of those accused more profoundly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW In googling the ADL press release words to get the original link, I noted that a couple of other news sources have used the ADL press release in a fairly similar way to ToI. For example:

• "Anti-Israel Wikipedia editors face bans after spreading hate, misinformation". The Jerusalem Post. 20 January 2025. Retrieved 18 February 2025. Multiple anti-Israel Wikipedia editors are likely to be topic-banned after spreading misinformation and hate across the site, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) announced on Friday. [Hate rather than antisemitism, and specifies topic ban, so better than ToI as a summary of ADL.]
• "ADL Wikipedia: Anti-Israel Wikipedia editors face ban for 'misinformation and hate'". The Times of India. 21 January 2025. Retrieved 18 February 2025. Several "anti-Israel" editors by the Wikipedia arbitration committee faced ban after spreading "hate and disinformation", the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) announced. [Implies outright ban not topic ban, incomprehensible word order, but doesn't say antisemitism]

A better report is at the JTA, which does its own reporting rather than rely on the ADL. However, it does also quote a blogger (Pirate Wires) accusing the topic-banned editors of antisemitism:

• Elia-Shalev, Asaf (24 January 2025). "Edit wars over Israel spur rare ban of 8 Wikipedia editors — from both sides". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved 18 February 2025.

AllIsraelNews has a story that appears to follow the JTA one, although they don't attribute to JTA, also including the blogger accusing the editors of antisemitism:

• "Wikipedia could ban six editors accused of anti-Israel bias indefinitely". All Israel News. 18 February 2025. Retrieved 18 February 2025.

Conclusion: The ToI is not the best source for this, but there's nothing new we didn't know when the RfC was closed, and many better news sources also see ADL's comments as noteworthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Live updates/live blogs aren't reliable sources anyhow. Most sources fail to get information about Wikipedia correct - that isn't a valid reason to consider them unreliable/start an RfC. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It's totally normal for reliable news orgs to rely heavily on NGOs for subjects outside their usual coverage window. The NYT for example will typically write up reports from thinktanks at the start of a conflict before they get reporters on the ground. In the first days of the Ukraine invasion, all NYT reporting was based on Rochan Consulting, and in the first days of the recent Syria takeover, all of their reporting was based on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Obviously the reliability of these orgs is less than that of the NYT once they spin up coverage, but even very large news organizations don't have dedicated reporters in every country, or dedicated Wikipedia reporters. Navigating the system here is a skill, don't take it for granted. Certainly the Times of Israel has more trust in the ADL w/r/t Israel than the community here at RSN, but it's within bounds for a newspaper to write up an NGO report based on the NGO's general reputation, even if the result is less accurate than a beat reporter, if as available, would have produced. Similarly, RSN has decided that MEMRI is generally unreliable. The fact that GR sources like NYT, CNN, etc. regularly run reports based on MEMRI shouldn't mean that they lose GR status. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an entirely different situation to a publication not having staff on the ground in a conflict. TOI could have quite easily gone to the WP:ARBPIA5 decision and confirmed if what ADL was stating was true or false. TarnishedPath^talk 06:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

No, they couldn't have. It's a skill! GordonGlottal (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

All of the motions, specifically the Findings of Fact (the relevant bits), were in plain English. It should take no great skill to read them to determine if the claim that editors were banned for "using the platform to spread antisemitic rhetoric and misinformation about Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza" was true or false. TarnishedPath^talk 09:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Find somebody in your life who doesn't regularly edit Wikipedia, show them the ADL release, and ask them to track down the original discussion. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect most people who are in my life, that either aren't journalists or regularly edit Wikipedia, to have research skills. I do expect journalists to have research skills. How else do they conduct fact checking, a criterion we consider when assessing reliability? TarnishedPath^talk 23:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally think it’s silly to expect even a journalist to have in-depth knowledge of WP’s rather complex inner workings if they’re not a regular WP editor - “Well, they should know!” is hardly a solid base to stand on, but you do you I suppose.

I’ve been here for close to a decade now and even I still barely understand some things relating to Arbcom and similar areas. Don’t assume that everyone knows just as much as you believe you do. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be harsh, but in the grand scheme of things Wikipedia, a mere web page, is nothing. And its individual editors, less than nothing. So, even if TOI made the mistake themselves instead of reporting someone else, it would still be a trivia mistake, not a "reliability event horizon" mistake.

Also, the article may not be reliable, but a whole newspaper is something else. We need evidence of big and ongoing problems, not a single article with a minor problem, especially when a dedicated RFC has been closed so shortly ago. Cambalachero (talk) 12:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a good reminder of why the ADL is rightly classified as unreliable. The TOI's press release regurgitation is very poor journalism, it further suggests that questions of WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE are very important in P/I articles. While the article is a factual relation of a factually incorrect statement, if something is only stated by even very mainstream Israeli sources, we are going to need to be very careful in just adding it to an article.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, they aren't classified as unreliable outside of I/P broadly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I thought that consensus was also that they were unreliable for statements about antisemitism? Or is it only about statements of antisemitism in relation to the conflict? TarnishedPath^talk 09:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The decision was that they are fully unreliable for I/P, marginally reliable on antisemitism due to their conflation of it with opposition to zionism, and generally reliable on other hate groups and extremism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

In this case it concerns the Israel-Palestine conflict so generally unreliable! NadVolum (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that, I'm just a pedant. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

They are unreliable for statements of antisemitism that intersect with I/P or zionism. So more or less the moment they say "Israel" we switch off. I mean, we might accept them if they were talking about Patrol 36 or something, otherwise we would be looking for a better source.--Boynamedsue (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the Times of Israel reported about as well as one could hope a newspaper would on something of no great importance. It reported on what the ADL said - an institution it is interested in, and it also put at the end that Wikipedia had labelled the ADL as generally unreliable - and it didn't cover that that was specifically for the Israeli-Palestine conflict. So overall I think this comes under newspapers always gets things a bit wrong as far as anybody actually involved is concerned. NadVolum (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I see this as just another example of how newspapers are inappropriate sources for encyclopedias. What ToI is doing here is, sadly, unfortunately, shockingly normal. They are taking a source that they're ideologically inclined to trust and not doing any real digging to find out what's really going on. This isn't a ToI problem. It's a 21st century journalism problem. I'd be entirely fine with downgrading ToI's reliability as I generally think newspapers are garbage sources but we should not be under any sort of misconception that what they're doing isn't normal. Simonm223 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I think GordonGlottal, Cambalachero, and NadVolum make some helpful points here. This is a highly specialist, niche topic which we happen to know something about. Mainstream newspapers are rarely good sources on specialist, niche topics unless they have good specialist journalists (which is increasingly rare as the legacy media business model collapses). So on such topics they rely on press releases by NGOs, which they report reliably but which may not (in this case, certainly wouldn’t) themselves count as reliable sources for us. So for niche topics, we have to identify reliable specialist sources. In short, this incident doesn’t add anything to the discussion we had in the recently closed RfC. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

The TOI article is from their "live blog" section. As a newsblog would we give this article any weight for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? I think a lot of editors, myself included, would argue no in most cases. Given the blog nature of the article, should we give it's contents much weight when trying to judge the overall reliability of the source? Our strongest factual complaint is that they say Wikipedia found ADL unreliable with an implication it that was generally vs our narrower RfC closing. That hardly seems to justify any impact on the overall RS assessment of TOI. Springee (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The RSP entry for ToI already has a carve-out that the content of their blogs are not claimed by ToI and potentially unreliable. The Kip ^(contribs) 14:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Striking my original comment as that's a different type of ToI blog, but the ones in question here are covered under WP:NEWSBLOG as "use with caution" anyways. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The Kip can you explain the difference between the two types of blogs? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• The "Live blogs" with www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/ in the URL fall under WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BREAKING, in that they are authored by "TOI staff". It's like what Al-Jazeera calls "Live updates" with www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/ in the URL. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process
• The "Blogs" with blogs.timesofisrael.com in the URL (strapline: The marketplace of ideas) are hosted by ToI but authored by multiple contributors, and so no different from any other self-published source (WP:SPS), so analogous e.g. to Forbes contributors or HuffPost contributors (content written by contributors with near-zero editorial oversight. These contributors generally did not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors consider them highly variable in quality), i.e. a lower standard of reliability that we could only use if the blogger was a subject matter expert and the topic was not a third party. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley thanks! This is helpful.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't see any problem they are reporting what ADL say --Shrike (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

No, Times of Israel is just reporting what ADL said, even if it is a fringe point of view. Reliable sources do that all the time. We could use it to attribute that statement to ADL if it were due someplace, of course, with the appropriate weight and framed by NPOV information. Manuductive (talk) 06:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

as others stated, agree its only reporting what ADL said. could probs have included fact-checking to counter the worst claims, but its not required. also, as others stated, most news orgs regularly get wikipedia operations and information wrong. Turns out most readers of wikipedia do not have a WP:CLUE about what actually goes into it, should not determine which news orgs get downgraded necessarily. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Source: [1]
• Article: Jade Cargill

It is cited as a source for her full name (including middle name). Her middle name Nicole is solely based on the cited VoterRecords.com link. In all other sources , she is just Jade Cargill. Does VoterRecords.com pass as a reliable source for real/birth/legal names? Thanks for the help. --Mann Mann (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that falls afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY, as it's using public records to source such information for a living person. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC) I have now deleted that source and the information sourced to it. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• mulletwrapper.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

They have a page listing advertising rates and claim 20,000 circulation. But are probably not helpful for establishing notability as a local publication to the Redneck Riviera Emerald Coast and South Alabama. Just wanted to put this out there for discussion. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Like most local publications it is likely somewhat reliable for it's local area, but less so outside of that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if these two sites can be reliable, I saw some articles using these as citation but I'm not sure. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 17:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

AllMusic has come up numerous times. The prose reviews and accompanying ratings, which are attributable to staff or freelance writers, are reliable. The sidebar content, including release dates, is not considered reliable and sometimes conflicts with the prose content. Even using the site for credits is discouraged. Basically, only the staff reviews from AllMusic is reliable, the other content is not.

I can't speak for A Bit of Pop Music, I've never heard of that before.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

AllMusic staff written bios are also considered reliable by the music projects, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I looked over A Bit of Pop Music. It does look like they have a staff team as well as an editor over that. Conversely, all but one of the staff members appear to be amateurs. I don't know if I'd say don't use the source at all, but I don't know if it's going to have much won't be found elsewhere.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 19:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

ABOPM has been dead since 2021. Whilst I suppose you could use the reviews, they always seemed to only review stuff they liked. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@3family6, @Black Kite Thank you for your replies. Could I ask about "Two Story Melody" too? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 04:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if they can be a reliable source. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 02:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

They describe themselves as a blog[2], and link to submithub where they appear to offer reviews for money[3]. As a blog it's reliability will depend on how it's used by other reliable sources, and I'm not seeing much that would show it's reliable. The replies of interviewees in an interview are reliable in an WP:ABOUTSELF way, as long as the replies are about the subject and not some other third party. I've left a notification on the music projects talk page to see if anyone there has heard of it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I found this, so I was curious about this article. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 10:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I am looking for opinions about the reliability of this source as it was discussed here [4] where it was noted that "if you see puff pieces that have nothing to do with Nigeria or normal news reporting that's the reason. They are a generally reliable source but this is how they pay the bills, so content from them should be scrutinised". However, WP:NPPSG has the source listed as reliable, citing the conversation [5] here as having declared it generally reliable. It is said they have a reputation for fact checking but the IFCN fact-checker Africa Check has them failing multiple times [6]. Given that multiple articles from The Guardian (Nigeria) have come up positive at GPTZero for AI Generated content [7] [8] [9] that seems promotional as well as articles with bylines that are clearly advertisements [10], is the source really generally reliable? Specifically, [11] is being used at [[12]] and it appears to be AI Generated and an advertisement for Stake. Emm90 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I just want to further clarify rather than editing again: My diving into Guardian.ng began because of its usage at [13], the source in question is no longer live but an archive of the source seems like it is an AI Generated advertisement under a byline. [14], when I started looking into the source I found things calling it generall reliable, etc. Emm90 (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The Guardian is one of Nigeria's major news organisations, but one way it pays the bills is to do advertorials. The one you're looking at is at least highlighted as such ("Contains commercial content"). In general if they suddenly have an article about a US subject addressing a US audience (as the particular article in question does) it's likely an advertorial, as that's not their usual market. In general follow the advice of WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA as mentioned by Gråbergs Gråa Sång. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

GPTZero flagging some articles means nothing, AI detection tools like GPTZero are not accurate enough to prove something was written by AI. The best way to judge reliability is to check the sources and see if the facts hold up and AI detection tools are not a good way to do that. The Guardian is one of Nigeria's most respected news sources with decades-long history of journalism. Dismissing its reliability would mean rejecting a staple of Nigerian media that millions of people rely on for news. 31.214.141.76 (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Whether or not it's written by AI, that "article", allegedly written by a named staffer, is nothing but an advertorial for a gambling company. It's worthless. The problem is ensuring that editors don't use rubbish like this as a source, thinking that it is published by a newsorg that may be reliable for actual news. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, the Stake "article" is very blatantly advertorial and should have never been published. but it's a testament to the publisher's reliability that it was quickly removed upon discovery. Plus, that "article" was highlighted as "contains commercial content". I was referring to the other articles OP submitted as evidence suggesting that The Guardian is not generally reliable. We should be vigilant about advertorials, but a cherry-picked article shouldn't override the broader context of The Guardian's already established track record. Wikipedians already do a good job at discerning whether such sources are reliable on a case by case basis, and such blatant cases of advertisement, like the Stake "article", are obviously not considered reliable, but on general topics like AI, it certainly is reliable. 31.214.141.76 (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I used AI Detection tools on it because the pieces I linked look AI Generated, especially [15], [16], and the specific link about Stake that was in the WikiArticle I linked to. While AI Detection tools aren't a means of deciding a source is reliable, I've seen other sources deemed unacceptable because they use AI Generated content, so it felt relevant to mention. Emm90 (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA might have something useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful! Emm90 (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Website: seeing-stars.com

The ask is in regards to the usability of this website as a source. I was attempting to update the article on Bob Newhart with information regarding his interment at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Hollywood Hills). I was employing the caveat regarding the website Find a Grave, wherein "Links to Find a Grave may sometimes be included in the external links section of articles, when the site offers valuable additional content, such as images not permitted for use on Wikipedia". Newhart's article at Find a Grave hosts photographs of his grave at the cemetery. However, the category was removed. Now, in my own personal opinion this in effect makes redundant having a usage caveat if the info it contains that "offers valuable additional content" that cannot be then reflected on Wikipedia, but that's not the point here. In order to source the inclusion of the category, and thus inclusion of Newhart on the cemetery's wikipedia page as well, I'd like to see if Seeing Stars is a source that can be used to corroborate. As with Find a Grave, photographs of Newhart's grave are on the website, with a page about the cemetery noting that Newhart has been interred there. The website has been in operation since 1999, and has been reported on by outlets such as USA Today and The Los Angeles Times as being an asset for information. Rusted AutoParts 21:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It's self-published by Gary Wayne who doesn't appear to have any other publishing, but it does have some limited use by others. I would consider it a marginal source, but I could easily see others viewing it less favourably. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything on the link provided by Rusted AutoParts that suggests any use by others. The Comments from the press shows coverage in the press (including what amount to reviews), but nothing that indicates that the publication relies on this site as a source for factual information. I don't see, for example, any indication that the L.A. Times reporting as fact information it obtained from this site, and I don't think a reputable news outlet would. The entries in that list that are not just brief mentions opine that the site is interesting; but none that I see take any position on its accuracy. The coverage might be pertinent to a discussion of the site's notability; but not to its reliability.

Films like Apollo 13 and Tucker got coverage, too; but I would not suggest that that means they would be acceptable as sources for Apollo 13 and Preston Tucker.

There's no indication on the site that I can find about how Wayne gets the information he publishes on the site, or anything else that suggests it is reliable. There is no indication that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill self-published web site that is referred to, but not referenced by, some publications. TJRC (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to say I didn't rely on website for my comment, I search for usage myself. He has some usage in works from Routledge, Bloomsbury, Taylor & Francis, etc but as I said it's limited. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to the coverage of cemeteries on the site, it’s via people submitting pictures of them physically visiting the locations. As linked above, Newhart’s grave photo is there. At the very least I find the site is as stated marginally usable, given it’s not making a claim that can’t be supported. Rusted AutoParts 16:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Article: Department of Government Efficiency
• Section: Department of Government Efficiency#Classified intelligence data publicized by DOGE
• Source in question, "Straight Arrow News": https://san.com/cc/doge-accused-of-posting-classified-data-that-was-already-public-information
• Talk page discussion: Talk:Department of Government Efficiency#Classified data section re NRO

Basic context:

We have many (we only use a handful) of extremely trivial [[WP::RS]] sources that say the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) publicized classified staffing data about the National Reconnaissance Office. There is literally no WP:RS that disputes this. For Wikipedia policy purposes, that is utterly non-controversial settled fact in terms of being eligible to include in the article. The various WP:RS cite to intelligence community officials, leaders and professionals.

A few days after this came out, DOGE Tweeted a claim that the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that said:

The referenced “classified information” is actually public FedScope data, posted publicly by OPM (Office of Personnel Management) in March 2024.

Even DOGE does not actually dispute the data is classified, whatsoever, and still has not, nor has any actually valid part of the government to date. NOTE: DOGE did not link to any data/evidence. They only linked to the "top level" URL of that website.

A user contributed the "Straight Arrow News" source (link) to assert this was not classified, but the source seems to only cite DOGE's tweet which does not dispute the data is classified, and a claimed White House statement which also does not dispute the data is classified.

Is this site a reliable source here? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No site that advertises itself with the tagline Unbiased. Straight Facts.™ is going to be reliable. They boast of winning certificates from outfits that we, for good reason, do not trust. They spin hiring people from a mix of reputable news media and propaganda shops as a good thing. Their brand is performing a lack of bias. But no, they're not reliable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I'm a bit concerned that a publication that is actively advertising its relationship to Joe Ricketts is going to be a questionable source. Simonm223 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

nope. they don't seem to have a useful editorial control. [17] and [18] is incredibly useless.

their team looks more like the team for a hedge fund than one that is a real journal [19]

their leader is billionare Joe Ricketts, suggesting no separation between the owner/founder/etc and editorial team.

Joe Ricketts, it turns out, is incredibly pro-Trump. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't really care one way or the other. Honestly I assumed from context the article was from an anti-Trump publication. But new media orgs that collapse print, online and video and that put their billionaire founder front and center on their "about" page without much detail as to the editorial board make me think non-independent vanity group blog for a billionaire. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

"We serve you, not an agenda", the 'when did you stop hitting your wife' of media bullshit. It implies that all other media has a biased agenda, but not Straight Arrow News. This is not true - all media is biased, as all people are biased. Someone trying to tell you what the middle ground is, is trying to get you to accept their opinion of what the middle ground should be. That's a rant about the poor state of media awareness more than it is about this source in particular though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say that SAN (apparently pronounded "sane") is generally unreliable for most purposes especially when it comes to American politics. I think that there could be valid uses in WP:ABOUTSELF when it comes to Ricketts himself so deprecation is probably too far. They don't have any of the things we look for (reputation, high editorial standards, editorial independence) and I don't think we can simply chalk it all up to bias. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have observed that certain Wikipedia pages cite this website as a reference. I would like to inquire about the trustworthiness and legitimacy of this site for use as a reference. In my view, the website appears to resemble a blog more than a credible source.

I'd like to see that website to be included on this list WP:RSPSOURCES Newpicarchive (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t about reliability but it based on what’s been presented it should not be on the list suggested since according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources sources need to be repeatedly discussed to be placed on the list and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that is the case.--65.93.194.126 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Currently I'm editing the article Chinese icebreaker Haijing 1411 on it's history in the China Marine Surveillance. I have found many sources saying that between it's service in the chinese navy and it's acquirement by the Chinese coast guard in 2013, there was a brief period of time where it was used by the CMS(and named Haijian 111), however when i tried to find the date it was acquired by the CMS was this article by global times, which claims it was acquired by the CMS in November 2012. Only other sources i can for the date the CMS acquired the ship were blogs, however good news is this article by BBC that Haijian 111 was seen in 21 December 2012 which means it was definitely acquired prior to 21 December, sort of backing up the global times claim.

I honestly think global times can be used in this context for several reasons:

1. I am purely using it for the date it was acquired and nothing else
2. No sources that I could find contradict it at all, rather the BBC article shows that it was acquired before 21 December
3. It is the only source I can realistically use
4. The claim that it was acquired November 2012 is not an exceptional claim nor is a controversial one(more controversial stuff in the same article i will not be using as i have better sources for them)

Anyways pls check out #Possible uses of deprecated sources (in some contexts): Baidu Baike and China Central Television (CCTV) and update guidelines for Baidu Baike and add a disclaimer that only CGTN channels are not allowed and non-CGTN CCTV channels are allowed per discussion. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF is an exception that applies to the use of generally unreliable sources, including deprecated sources such as Global Times (RSP entry). One of the concerns the 2020 request for comment noted with the use of Global Times under WP:ABOUTSELF is the uncertainty of whether content published in Global Times actually represents the views of the Chinese Communist Party.

For this particular case, the Global Times article in question was republished by China News Service, which gives me the impression that the article contents are state-approved, and can therefore be used within the limitations of WP:ABOUTSELF for citing the month that Haibing 723 was repurposed as Haijian 111 (November 2012). However, I would cite the China News Service article instead of the Global Times article to make this situation clear to readers.

In response to your final paragraph, I'm not aware of any page (including the perennial sources list) which claims that CCTV channels other than CGTN are deprecated or disallowed as sources, so I don't think there is an appropriate place for such a disclaimer. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks; I tried citing the China news service in a previous version of the article, but it was reverted because it was republished. I will add WP:ABOUTSELF in the edit summary so that it does not get reverted again.

For the last paragraph I think there should be a disclaimer on the perennial sources list saying that non-CGTN CCTV channels are allowed so that other editors do not mix them up. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Here are possible uses for two depreciated sources that I found

Baidubaike

Honestly keep Baidubaike depreciated, as it is also open source just like wikipedia, HOWEVER i found one function that may be useful. When a source is referenced on Baidubaike, that source will be archived with a screenshot for a website(E.g. this screenshot of the Shenzhen municipal public security bureau website https://baike.baidu.com/reference/8484809/533aYdO6cr3_z3kATPKCmKj2O33ENNn4vrSCBrRzzqIP0XOpT4-rSZJ859gpsPRpWwzAvZRydJkWmea-XxUB8fYQbuw1QbMkgjagEHetyL7l-d80mtBa-84eBL4VhvX3tg). This could be quite useful(especially when we discuss law enforcement agencies in China) as there are quite some chinese government websites with dead links which have not been archived on the wayback machine however have archived screenshots for Baidubaike. I would suggest allowing the use of these archived screenshots if the source itself is reliable(e.g. official government sources).

CCTV

I believe that CCTV should be allowed in the use of non-controversial cases such as national parks(which they have some good sources on) and Chinese military topics(e.g. equipment or special forces); additionally CCTV7 has it's own youtube channel which can be useful to have more information to add to topics related to the chinese military, as information on english wikipedia is currently lacking in that direction. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

As far as using Baidu Baike links go, using it like the wayback machine is probably OK. CCP controlled outlets other than Global Times and CGTN are generally considered ok as long as it doesn't involve sensitive political topics or is obviously self-serving government propaganda. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks

So I can use CCTV after all; that makes improving chinese military related topics much much easier(speaking of which, is youtube allowed if the channel is generally considered ok？) Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Reliability is the same whether it's published on YouTube, their own website, or through a news aggregator like MSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

For the Baidu baike links, could there be a disclaimer on the depreciated sources page saying using it similar to the wayback machine is allowed as long as the archived source is reliable? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As Baidu is a major search engine, I see Baidu's web archiving service being usable in the same way the Wayback Machine and archive.today are usable to preserve cited articles, as described in Help:Archiving a source. The fact that the archiving service is on the Baidu Baike subdomain (baike.baidu.com) does not impact the usability of the service, in my opinion.

I support the proposed exception, and also support excluding URLs beginning in https://baike.baidu.com/reference/ from the deprecation edit filter for Baidu Baike to prevent the filter from triggering when one of Baidu's web archives is cited. — Newslinger talk 07:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

The only China Central Television (CCTV) channels that have been deprecated are the China Global Television Network (CGTN) (RSP entry) ones, which broadcast to audiences outside of China. Per the List of China Media Group channels article, only 6 of CCTV's 49 channels are under the CGTN (formerly CCTV International) branch. Since CCTV-7 is a domestic channel and not a CGTN channel, it has not been deprecated. — Newslinger talk 08:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I've amended the section heading to include the names of the sources and correct the spelling of the word deprecated, which is not to be confused with the word depreciated. — Newslinger talk 08:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh ok thank you Thehistorianisaac (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Why would national parks be a non-controversial case? National parks in China (and to be fair most other places) almost always involve forced displacement and other land disputes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about stuff like the biology and geography of the national park Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

And why would those be less controversial? Remember nothing is published by CCTV which doesn't have a propaganda purpose, it is a propaganda organization that just happens to publish news (openly so, propaganda is not a dirty word in China). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean they have published info on which animals are in which national parks, location + size of national parks, and, even as a chinese government supporter myself, i have seen much much more propaganda like chinese sources then CCTV Thehistorianisaac (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Unresolved

Moved to Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#h-An_editor_is_referencing_the_Media_and_Journalism_Research_Center_across_Wikiped-20250215075800

Just drawing the attention of the community to a user using Fox as a source for a story that's not currently being covered by more reliable sources. Is it best for us to wait for anothe source or is this acceptable as a placeholder in the meantime? 2A02:8084:4F41:B700:E4C8:1537:A57F:B4E9 (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

include a link? see also WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, generally dont use fox news in political stories User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The context is at Portal:Current events/2025 February 21 - the IP above is attempting to remove a FOX citation to a story of a geopolitical nature. 14:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Departure– (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a good removal. It's a US politics claim. Additionally, it seems undue even if it wasn't from Fox but was instead from a single other new source. Springee (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:FOX the consensus is that Fox News is not reliable for reporting on politics or science. Also AOL acting as a news aggregator and reposting the same Fox report doesn't mean it's no longer a report by Fox.
The issue has been solved by using a different source, always using the least controversial source for any particular piece of content is a good way to not waste editors time. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The RBC Ukraine source is also a news aggregator unfortunately. It's just quoting from Fox again. I've started a conversation topic at the associated article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I found this source which is independent of the Fox News source - but it looks a bit like WP:EXPERTSPS so I'm ambivalent about usability. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

wp:notnews if RS do not care neither should we. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Fox should NOT be used, it does not qualify as either WP:V or WP:RS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.161.228 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Kainikara, Dr Sanu (2020-08-01). From Indus to Independence - A Trek Through Indian History: Vol VII Named for Victory : The Vijayanagar Empire. Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. ISBN 978-93-89620-52-8.

Can anyone verify if this is a reliable source or not? Someone has already provided sources confirming that the author is a historian, (Talk:Bahmani–Vijayanagar_War_(1443)#c-Mr.Hanes-20250217182100-ImperialAficionado-20250217180700) but I still want to confirm it here. Koshuri ^(グ) 11:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I see on the article talk page use of this book is disputed for a statement about outcome of some old war (caste related? muslim vs hindu empire). Are there any reviews of this book (or book series, or older books by the same author) in journals about Indian history? These would certainly help to ascertain reliability of the author and his work. Pavlor (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

You rarely even find book reviews of even authoritative sources. Maybe it could help to establish notability but in this case I can't find one. But yes the author has written a whole book series [29]. Note that his book is also used in the National library of Australia [30]. Koshuri ^(グ) 09:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Also found his books at Scheltema Koshuri ^(グ) 09:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, history journals usually have a review section. If no history journal has any coverage of this author, I wonder how due for inclusion his opinion really is. Note library catalog entry is not a measure of a reliable source. scheltema.nl is a bookstore, again not a measure of a reliable source. Same applies for other sources used in this dispute. Pavlor (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It isn't. Vij Books is a commercial popular press not an academic publisher and has no peer-review. The book has no academic reviews to make up for it either and the "historian" tags are from bios, i.e self-descriptions of the author. There is no evidence that he has any qualifications or recognition in this topic area, according to the his linkedin he has a PhD in international politics. These kinds of "history books" are dime a dozen and none of them are reliable, at a minimum one generally needs books published by academic publishers or articles in reputed academic journals which go through peer-review in this topic area. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks Tayi Arajakate. Koshuri ^(グ) 07:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

These sorts of accusations by new/IP users that Wikipedia is biased always predictably devolve into WP:FORUM discussions that have no meaningful goal or resolution, so I am closing this now to avoid wasting further time. People are as always free to create threads about individual sources like MSNBC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved from WP:VPM

I was looking through the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and I noticed that you rate Fox News in three different categories, two are red and one is yellow. I agree with those ratings. Then I looked through and I noticed that MSNBC is only rated once and it is considered green for a reliable source. Come on, MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right. If Fox has three different ratings so should MSNBC and their ratings should be identical. Their opinion pieces skew so far to the left that I go there for entertainment value when Fox isn't entertaining enough. Their coverage of politics has never had a good word to say about Republicans. Now, I'm not saying Republicans are the bee's knees, but I'm guessing they have done something that was okay, even our current President. But according to MSNBC he is Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Attila the Hun all rolled into one, except worse. And yet you rate them as green.

I'm not sure who you use to rate these media providers, but whoever it is definitely skews to the left if they consider MSNBC as reliable. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any action is required here. This could be the writing of somebody who's Overton window is so off-centre that they genuinely interpret centrist American media as far-left or it could just be trolling. Either way, they have completely misunderstood our concept of Reliability, which has nothing to do with left or right but with factual accuracy when covering events. It is not an endorsement of anybody's opinions. Opinion pieces are not used to source facts here so whether those are right or left doesn't matter. Fox has form for reporting known falsehoods, as facts, in its coverage. That's what renders it unReliable. MSNBC does not. We are not using any outside agency for these decisions. These decisions were all made by Wikipedia editors after discussions on noticeboards such as this one.

BTW, if our anonymous friend sees this, and wants to take their idea of reading left wing media for entertainment a step further, I recommend reading a little actual left wing media. It probably won't change their opinions but it could help to provide context leading to a better idea of where the centre really is and some of their writers are undeniably entertaining. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I would very much like to know who rates MSNBC as more factually accurate than Fox. Mind you, I'm not defending Fox, In fact, I specifically said I think your rating for Fox was accurate. Rather I believe MSNBC is just as factually inaccurate as FOX regarding politics. I ask this because if the 'editors' you cite tilt one way or another they would be suspect. Also, why aren't MSNBC's talk shows rated similar to Fox? They have them and they certainly don't report the news without a severe leftward bias. Notice if you visit this site: https://makingsociologymatter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/media-bias-chart-9.0_jan-2022-unlicensed-social-media_low-scaled-1.jpg you'll note that MSNBC's Reid Out (an MSNBC talk show) is rated more poorly (untrustworthy) than Fox's The Five and nearly as bad as Fox's Hannity. Also, you may note that Fox.com and MSNBC.com are rated similarly for trustworthiness. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Just an aside but all talk shows would be covered by WP:RSOPINION, so they would be reliable for stating the opinion of the host but not for stating fact. That applies to all sources, left, right, US or international. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Ahh, but if you look at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources it breaks out FOX talk shows and rates them as unreliable, which is accurate. It does not do that same for MSNBC talk shows, which are rated at least as unreliable according to the site I sent. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list is a log of discussions that have repeatedly happened on this noticeboard. The list is not a list of all sources, just ones that have been repeatedly discussed. So I'm guessing that Fox talk shows have been discussed multiple times, probably because editors where trying to use them as a reliable source, and the same hasn't been true of MSNBC talk shows. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Well then, let this be the first time someone talks about the unreliability of MSNBC talk shows and present a chart that detail exactly how unreliable they are. :) 192.26.8.4 (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

And that's covered by WP:RSOPINION, actually Wikipedia handles them as being less reliable than the chart. It still won't be included in the perennial source list as perennial means happening repeatedly. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear if editors repeatedly try to source fact to MSNBC talk shows I'll happily slap them with a trout. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

One source being the same as another because they have opposing political opinions is a none starter. Each source should be evaluated on its own merits and it's political leaning should never be a factor in that judgement. Bias does not make a source unreliable, Wikipedia even has policy saying so (see WP:RSBIAS). MSNBC saying bad things only about replublicans, or Fox only saying bad things about democrats, is bias not being unreliable.
Personally I don't think much of MSNBC, but if you want to show they are unreliable you need to show that they are knowingly publishing lies or misinformation, that they are not correcting mistakes when they are made aware of them, or crucially that other reliable sources are reporting that MSNBC is not reliable. Note it can't just be stuff you disagree with, or that might be open to different interpretations, but things that can be provably shown to be wrong.
So MSNBC can say that Trump is a big meanie, as that is a matter of opinion and bias. They can't say that Trump eats babies, as that would be a lie. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

They're probably including talk shows, and as the entry says they should be treated as opinion pieces. Anyway if the poster points to a couple of actual examples that would help, otherwise I don't think anything more can be done here. NadVolum (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but I believe in trying to explain the difference between bias and reliability in these situations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

See above where I provide a chart that highlights the general unreliability of MSNBC talk shows. 192.26.8.4 (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION per my reply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Their coverage of politics has never had a good word to say about Republicans. Yes MSNBC leans left. But stating the network never has a good word to say about Republicans is a bit odd considering each day starts with four hours of Morning Joe, hosted by Republican Joe Scarborough who received a 95 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union during his congressional career. But as said by others, what matters is the reputation for reliability. That of Fox was poor even before they paid a $787 million settlement for spreading misinformation. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe of differing reliability, but it's not wrong to say they're similar. MSNBC is quite frequently compared Fox in research. Take a look at the first couple of Google Scholar results, for example. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

That is not an appropriate comparison and Google Scholar results do not come out the same for individuals. LifeIsPainHighness (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Search results aren't going to be the same for different individuals. You need to cite the comparisons (quotes will help as well). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The first couple of related results that show up for me are:

Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC "liberals and Democrats prefer CNN and MSNBC to Fox News, with the reverse true for conservatives and Republicans"

Changing channels? A comparison of Fox and MSNBC in 2012, 2016, and 2020 "Some 93% of those who identify Fox News as their main news source identify or lean Republican, while 95% of those who primarily rely on MSNBC identify or lean Democratic"

Cable News Use and Conspiracy Theories: Exploring Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC Effects on People’s Conspiracy Mentality "Republicans tend to consume Fox News while democrats opt for CNN and MSNBC news instead"

On a side note, my reply was to Special:diff/1276984180, which seems to have gotten removed for some reason. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 00:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

None of those show anything about reliability, just that particular people watch particular channels. Neither a channel being more left wing than another, or the reverse, nor people watching channels that share their politics have any bearing on reliability. Sources are needed that compare their reliability (or analysis MSNBC's reliability separately). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we're having a misunderstanding. When I say MSNBC is quite frequently compared Fox in research, that's in reference to the (now deleted) comment from Life I was replying to, which said "Come on, MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right." - Only to delusional individuals. The sources are meant to refute that. MSNBC is the left's equivalent to Fox. Not in terms of reliability, sure, but in terms of who's watching, which is what I meant when I say they're similar. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This is RSN not a forum so I would assume any comment relates to the reliability of the source. This includes Life's comment. Do you have some reason to think Life was talking about who uses the source rather than it's reliability or at least generally? Because in both cases Fox News and MSNBC are not equivalent even if they are equivalent in targeting or at least being mostly consumed by certain audiences. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, the claim "MSNBC is the left's equivalent to Fox" isn't true unqualified. There isn't really any left equivalent of Fox News in a general sense. In some sense MSNBC is. In some sense something like Jacobin or GrayZone is the left's equivalent. Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems to be used on several dozen articles about prominent people, often to source that they were the subject of a google doodle: e.g. J._M._Barrie#cite_ref-81, Ludwig_Mies_van_der_Rohe#cite_ref-49, Django_Reinhardt#cite_ref-87, but occasionally attached somewhere else (e.g. here's one I removed). To me this looks like churalism spam basically; I see no indica of reliability. Is "was the subject of a google doodle" a thing that should even be in articles of genuinely significant people? I am skeptical, but I thought it would be good to check with others before doing any substantial cleanup. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

The articles relating to Google doodles have the appearance of AI generation, and at least the article on Django Reinhardt (link) is based on a copy of the Wikipedia article at the time[31]. They don't appear to have credited Wikipedia in the article, and even if they did they would still be WP:CIRCULAR and so unusable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks -- that was the vibe I got but I hadn't found an example as concrete as that. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems like most of these were added by User:Vimal256, who probably has a COI. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there was a mass removal of content here. I was concerned about the removal of sourced information but luckily, there was an informative edit summary that led me here. It's too bad that more editors don't take care of details like that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes I've been working my way through [32]. The vast majority of the uses were added by the user I mentioned above; mostly, it was added to source the claim that someone was the subject of a Google Doodle, which in my opinion is unencyclopedic trivia; in a few places it was attached to information that already had a better source. I have received good advice about edit summaries in the past, I'm glad it was helpful in this case! 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

someone used this source to try and support that dandy’s world is notable for inclusion in the List of Roblox games. Source here: [33]

a bit unsure if it is reliable or not brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 11:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

They are the digital arm of the Times Network part of the same group as the Times of India and the Economic Times. As an India news media group the advice of WP:NEWSORGINDIA seems appropriate. The author usually reports on US political and culture war issues[34], so it is a little odd to see him doing a puff piece on a Roblox game. I would suspect this is an advertorial and shouldn't count towards notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Times Now is a broadcaster not a digital arm. Its the flagship broadcaster of Times Group (BCCL) while Times of India is the flagship newspaper of the same. TNN is just a tag they use for their combined network. But otherwise yeah. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Times Now is the broadcaster, Timesnownews.com as being discussed here is the digital arm of the Times Group as per their own description [35]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not the digital arm of the Times Group (the company). The description/about us on the website is a about us of "Times Network". It says "Times Network is the television division" and that "Timesnownews.com (is) the digital arm of Times Network". The term network means a television network; Times Now has a number of derivative channels under it. The same description is copy-pasted on the web-addresses of all their other channels.

Or in simple words, Timesnownews.com is just the web-address of Times Now. It is the same relation that the timesofindia.com has to the newspaper, you wouldn't call the website the digital arm of Times Group. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 18:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Unreliable: It's parent company BCCL is considered to have pioneered paid news in India (see [36], [37]) and Times Now is peppered with obvious undisclosed advertorial articles (see for example, [38], [39], etc etc). It also had a well documented history of publicising misinformation (see for example, [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], etc etc) and conspiracy theories (see [45]). The article in question here is also likely an example of undisclosed advertorial. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 13:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Times Now is a very appealing source because they are often one of the first to cover new Internet culture phenomenons. However, I've seen them publish articles that are clearly assisted with ChatGPT with no disclaimers. I'd say it is only useful as a last-resort source for non-controversial facts. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I am asking for a quick survey for reliability of Christian Van Vallet or known on his YouTube Channel (CVV Clips) where he is interviewing all WWE Legends or in all well-known superstars, but he's more on interviewing in WWE Legends and Hall of Famers. I am thinking if he's reliable or not.

One of the example is the interview of The Rock You can check it here ROY is WAR Talk! 08:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Typically interviewers are generally reliable unless they maliciously edit their subjects' words, which I don't think is the case here. However, any citation to the interview should really only be used for statements the interviewee made about themselves. I would not use them to verify any other facts, particularly in the wrestling industry where people lie or stretch the truth a lot. Pinguinn 🐧 09:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

That YouTube channel is self-published, so Pinguinn is correct that the interview should only be used for statements the interviewee makes about themself and shouldn't be used for anything that's too self-serving. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Should the Irish Daily Star fall under WP:DAILYSTAR? MB2437 10:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking in the archives this has been asked before, but never answered. The Scottish and Irish editions of the Sun and the Daily Mail are covered by the deprecation of those papers, which would point to the same applying to the Daily Star. I think it would be on the editor wanting to use the Irish Daily Star to show it's actually an entirely seperate entity, and so shouldn't be covered by DAILYSTAR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The Irish Daily Star began life as the Irish version of the UK Daily Star, it is owned by the same company and shares a name and logo. We should assume that WP:DAILYSTAR applies unless given a reason to believe otherwise. (Even if deprecation didn't apply, it's a tabloid on the British model with approximately half of its Wikipedia article devoted to its decision to nonconsensually publish topless photographs of a celebrity; we would normally consider such an outlet generally unreliable by default) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be another outlet of the similar name and publisher on the url Irishstar.com.

[46] Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Appears to be the US version of the same outlet, with similar content to the deprecated dailystar.co.uk. MB2437 04:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't say much about the site generally, but while I was trying to GA Skibidi Toilet, I noted how Irishstar.com was the only outlet that got Alexey Gerasimov's nationality right. It was fascinating how the media telephone game turned "Georgia-based" to "Georgian" and then "of Georgian nationality". Ca ^{talk to me!} 08:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

They also published that hell is likely based on County Cork,[47] that Designated Survivor has a "perfect Rotten Tomatoes score" (spoiler, it does not),[48] (fairly sure they've been paid by Netflix after reading further [49]) as well as frequently publishing opinionated headlines as fact,[50][51] and similarly publishing Kanye West's words as gospel.[52] It seems apt, however, that they know the intricacies of their Skibidi Toilet. MB2437 16:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess that article was an outlier then; kudos to that one journalist that actually did their job. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)