Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Language and linguistics Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is behindthename.com a reliable source for Wikipedia? See #behindthename.com where it comes from. --Altenmann >talk 18:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from other RFCs in the sections above)

1. The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
2. There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
3. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
4. The source is recognized as being generally unreliable and should be deprecated.

• Option 4 per our policies. --Altenmann >talk 18:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know if this is worth a RfC but it's definitely not reliable. (t · c) buIdhe 18:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 - Similar to IMDb. Ahri Boy (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow close Option 4 - why are we doing an RFC? RFCBEFORE was not met. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 20:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved subthread about WP:RFCBEFORE to the Discussion subsection. — Newslinger talk 23:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely 4 EEng 21:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4. Why would anyone think this hobbyist UGS could be cited for anything at all? JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 additional considerations apply. Banning it as a source would not improve the reliability of name articles GoatnamedWilliam (talk)
• Option 3 While there is likely some fact checking, it's still a one person site basically so it wouldn't meet the standards needed here. But I don't think the site is mindlessly publishing made up/fabricated stuff that would typically merit deprecation/option 4. Some of their content has sources [22], so in the some cases the site can be used for initial research. However, the site also allows UGC names (example: [23]), which should never be used and such content is closer to a option 4 even if "verified" (the verifications are also UGC and not done by the site owner). Jumpytoo Talk 06:41, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3. It's a personal website with no indication of (or reputation for) fact-checking or reliability, so it clearly shouldn't be used as a source. I don't really see the reason for full deprecation, though - there's no indication that it publishes disinformation, nor are there hordes of people trying to use it despite its obvious unreliability, nor is it something particularly sensitive or any of the other things that might require deprecation. Deprecation isn't just "extra-unreliable", it's for situations where a source that is obviously unreliable in basically all cases also threatens to cause problems severe enough or persistent enough to require an edit notice. --Aquillion (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it causes a grave problem. By citing it, Wikipedia implicitly endorses this hobby website, like it or not thus creating a vicious circle of false credibility. We absolutely do not want to endorse information of unverifiable provenance. --Altenmann >talk 04:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2.5 I am generally against barring sources, especially if it cant fully be demonstrated that they are problematic. This is a SPS tho with no certain standards, so its reliability is shaky.← Metallurgist (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 as per reasoning of GoatnamedWilliam in the discussion below. The user-submitted name pages should of course not be used as sources, the name pages which are part of the "official" curated database should be fine to use. --CaptainOlimar42 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2/2.5 as Metallurgist has noted. Deprecation is unambiguously not warranted for this source and should not be an action taken lightly. The user-generated pages are obviously generally unreliable, but the other pages warrant closer consideration based on the sources provided. This does indeed have some modicum of reliability, given that it has WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is used in this book "The Riches of Intercultural Communication" [24], published by Brill, particularly in the chapter [25] "Cultural Representation in Disney’s Cinderella and Its Live-Action Adaptation" by Azra Alagić and Roselinde Supheert. I couldn't find information on the first author quickly, but Roselinde Supheert is an assistant professor at Utrecht University. [26], published since 2002. In addition to the NYPL note, this warrants it some reliability.Katzrockso (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4. A hobbyist website maintained by one person is not reliable. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:11, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 The site has been cited in several papers within Names[27][28][29], the academic journal of the American Name Society. It was mentioned in a review that described it as follows, Two key first-name databases linked from the American Name Society webpage, BabyNames.com and Behindthename.com. Both dating to 1996, these important websites have seen exponential growth over the past two decades, growth related in part to the expansiveness of online formats, with the capacity for detail both verbal and visual, interactive displays, hyperlinks, and ready updating[30]. The site takes reliability seriously, users can submit identified errors[31], and user-submitted names are verified by the editors[32]. One of the questions in the FAQ, Why do you not have more names from this language or culture? is answered with Probably because there are few reliable reference materials about names from that language[33]. The site also contains an extensive bibliography[34]. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those details make this site not an amateur SPS... The blog owner and some unnamed volunteers who are "long-time users of this site" are not "editors" in any meaningful sense. We should apply the same standards we did to ThePeerage.com (which has far more "citations" to it and employs far more references itself). JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Editors" is just a word. If true, I would have supported Option 2 for ThePeerage.com as well. Kelob2678 (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And you would have been in the overwhelming minority in the discussion that deprecated that source... An "editor" for RS purposes means professional qualifications, professional editorial hierarchy, and clear editorial standards, none of which are present here. JoelleJay (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any discussion there. Is the issue that those people lack the necessary degrees? Kelob2678 (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think the issue here is there is some sort of underlying degree/credential fetishism going on here, where lacking a degree means that somebody can never be a reliable producer of knowledge, but only a "hobbyist". Editors advancing this argument rarely engage with any of the academic literature on the sociology of knowledge/STS on how these boundaries are not as clear-cut as they might seem. Katzrockso (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not about degrees, it's about our requirement that SPS can only be reliable if produced by recognized experts who have have RS publications in the field, and even in these cases it is discouraged. JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Look at the RSP entry. The issue was that this was an amateur SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for bringing the American Name Society to our attention, Kelob2678. The mentioned quote about Behindthename.com comes from Christine De Vinne, who actually served as the president of the American Name Society. If a subject-matter expert like her endorses Behindthename.com as a "key first-name database", that is a clear indicator that the website should definitely not be deprecated. Even if the editors of Behindthename.com do not have onomastics degrees, them being endorsed by reliable institutions such as the American Name Society and the NYPL (+ being cited in relevant books and journals) weighs much heavier than the labelling of the site as not reliable by the non-expert Wikipedia editors in this discussion. --CaptainOlimar42 (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Without doubt, some users exploring first names will gravitate to such electronic resources. Nonetheless, [...] for the scholarly imprimatur of Hanks, Hodges, and Hardcastle together, I want A Dictionary of First Names on my reference shelf. Endorsement doesn't make the site not self-published... JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But it does suggest that the site is not total trash. In the RSP color code, we're talking pink at worst, not bright red. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, I'd agree with that. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not option 4 Outright deprecation, I believe, should apply to propaganda mills and other cases where even linking to the site in question would be harmful. A hobbyist's personal website, on the other hand, might propagate falsehoods through carelessness but is not likely to engage in deliberate distortion (for personal gain, to push an ideological agenda, etc.). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction: The deprecation is irrelevant to propaganda; it is used to avoid repetitive discussions here about its reliablity as used in particullar articles. The question is plain and simple: is it a reliable source per our policies (not per some wikipedian's opinion) or not. --Altenmann >talk 22:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 Considering a site deprecated does not mean, in the words of another comment, that it's 'total trash'. It means that it clearly cannot meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. 'Deprecated sources are highly questionable sources that editors are discouraged from citing in articles, because they fail the reliable sources guideline in nearly all circumstances.' (WP:DEPS) This does not mean that the content is generally false: It means that it can't be verified or has not been reviewed by experts. I cannot imagine the circumstances under which this would be an appropriate source for Wikipedia. Pathawi (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not reliable, because:

1. It is maintained as a hobby page by a person that has no credentials in any relevant areas of expertise, regardless how long he has been doing this.
2. Its name pages have no references to sources of information

Therefore information provided there is basically non-verifiable. --Altenmann >talk 18:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altenmann's characterizations are backed by what we find at https://www.behindthename.com/info/contact : This website is maintained by Mike Campbell and Tara Campbell. It is based in Victoria, BC, Canada. We can be contacted at mike@behindthename.com, but we regret that we cannot answer all of our email. If you have a question about names, please ask it on one of the message boards. If you would like to submit an addition or correction, please see the submit-a-name page. For advertising information, please contact chris@admetricspro.com and indicate you are interested in advertising on behindthename.com.

In another thread (above on this page), it's pointed out that Behind The Name has built up a reputation good enough to be endorsed by a highly respected organization like the New York Public Library (named as "reliable online dictionary" here). I'm afraid that falls short of what we'd need to see in order to treat a self-published, profit-making site (which is what behindthename is) as an RS:

• The full statement (by a librarian at NYPL) is this: A name dictionary is the best resource, though it is a good idea to compare entries in more than one dictionary as they may differ in methodology and scholarship. A reliable online dictionary is BehindtheName.com. In context that's a qualified endorsement.
• A useful parallel is ancestry.com, which Perennial Sources lists as "generally unreliable". Certainly a librarian will eagerly refer a patron to ancestry.com for any number of purposes -- purposes different from what we do here as Wikipedia editors. Same goes for behindthename.

Anything useful in behindthename ought to be available somewhere else -- a scholarly somewhere else. But unfortunately behindthename doesn't reveal its sources (which is another bad sign), so there's no way to look behind it's bare assertions. For all these reasons, I'm afraid it falls in the "deprecated" category. It's hard to imagine any way an article could use it. EEng 21:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

behindthename reveals its sources Kelob2678 (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is a humongous list, half of which is personal communications. I specifically wrote about "name pages". And here is a disclaimer: "Submitted names are contributed by users of this website. The accuracy of these name definitions cannot be guaranteed". So, what is the "real" source for, e.g., Amari or even Nicholas? The pages do not say this. But even they were citing, e.g. "Cottle, Basil. Dictionary of Surnames. Penguin, 1978.", then we'd rather cite Cottle as well (after double-check), rather than a hearsay. --Altenmann >talk 00:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. A giant bibliography is useless. EEng 02:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not important whether it is useful, what is relevant is that they didn't make it up. For instance, the following is a quote from a source listed in the biography, Amari is one of several boys names ending in -mari that have recently become popular in the African - American community. What probably originated from them is the pronunciation, a list of related names, and, less likely, the hypothesis of its Arabic origin. Why do you propose to deprecate it when similar to it WP:ANCESTRY, WP:FOTW, and WP:IMDB are just WP:GUNREL? Kelob2678 (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly writers generally tie their particular assertions to particular sources, so that those following behind can investigate and judge for themselves, though not all writers do that all the time, and that can be acceptable depending on the circumstances, the nature of the assertion, and (most importantly) the scholarly standing and reputation of the writer. There's no way to trace anything said by this site back to any particular work in its giant bibliography, and -- I'm sorry -- the site's owners don't have the kind of standing that makes me want to take their word for it. I'm willing to assume that they "didn't make it up", but that doesn't mean they didn't just plain get it wrong, misinterpret the source, or whatever. Honestly, it would be super easy to give citations for each entry, but for some reason they don't do that. I'm sorry, but that's deal-breaker. EEng 01:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think writers in this area use inline citations, so Campbell is not an exception. He has scholarly standing, as his work is sometimes cited in academic literature. The site also practices editorial oversight of user-submitted names and, according to the site, verifies information. I suppose they don't use inline citations because the site is very old, when it was mostly compiled, no one cared about this. It is similar to how Wikipedia articles from the 2000s can be completely unreferenced. The earliest Wayback archive of the list of references is from 2015. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, articles from 2000 cannot be completely unreferenced. Sooner or later, such an article would be stripped down to a stub, or deleted for nonnotability. EEng 23:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that inline citations are a relatively recent phenomenon. The site was created a long time ago and didn't include them in the past, they decided, for consistency, not to include them going forward. I mentioned Wikipedia as an example of a site that underwent a similar shift. This is also true for academic books, where inline citations are more prevalent in newer works. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is no more or less reliable than published baby name books and dictionaries, which also don't generally cite their sources for every single name entry. Name meanings and histories have for the most part been done by hobbyists, not scholars, and most of the dictionaries are repeating the best guess of the previous hobbyist. Behindthename.com regularily updates its entries with new information and only adds names to the official database after vetting by the editors. It best represents the consensus of English name meanings and origins. You'd be restricted to The Oxford Dictionary of Names and Naming or onomastic research papers as allowable sources to raise the bar above behindthename.com. Plus Dr. Cleveland Evans regularily contributes to the site, a past President of the American Name Society. GoatnamedWilliam (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that restricting sources to an Oxford branded dictionary and scholarly papers would be just fine with the participants in this RFC. In fact, if you could make a list of sources or scholarly journals on a page somewhere, that would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: list of sources or scholarly journals – sources about what? If you are talking about sources with surname origins, then such pages do exist: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/External resources (etymology) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/External resources (popularity). As I see, they may be expanded, because they only list "...free online sources for the reliable..." --Altenmann >talk 19:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list of journals is short as onomastics is not a big area of study. The impact would be large with many names not having been studied individually and wikipedia would be restricting itself to one source in many cases. And with no real improvement in accuracy either. The current list of sources has "The Romance of Names" by Weekley, which is entertaining but not scholarly. GoatnamedWilliam (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is less reliable than the published books... JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Published name and baby name books are intended for general public audiences and usually try to include as many names as possible, especially newly coined or newly popular names. The authors don't need any special credentials to publish the books and will make a best guess of the origin of new names so as not to leave the meaning blank for new entries. Later books will republish these best guesses without checking. The Oxford Dictionary of Names by Patrick Hanks (2006), who is a lexicographer and onomastician, is guilty of this as he repeats his own best guess about the American name Kayla from 1996, saying its an altered form of Kayley, when the American usage data shows Kayla's popularity predates Kaylee. That's his guess because he's British and Kayla's popularity came after Kayleigh in the UK. If you remove the reference to behindthename.com in the Kayla name article you will be left with the Hanks reference. GoatnamedWilliam (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For us to cite something it must be reliably published, which the ODN actually is and a SPS is not. You're also claiming that, because the popularity of Kayla in the US predates the popularity of Kaylee in the US, the ODN's claim that it's derived from Kayla must be wrong and BtN's statement that it's a combination of kay and la (with no mention of Kaylee) must also be a direct refutation of ODN...that is OR and SYNTH. We absolutely should be going by the origin published in an Oxford Dictionary series by a person who had a PhD in the subject, not extrapolations from what is said on a hobbyist website, even if we personally think the former is incorrect. JoelleJay (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the ODN does make a claim that's contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community. There are over 6 existing reliably (?) published origins for Kayla, but Mike Campbell is allowed to do OR. That's the value of the site. It best represents the consensus of English name meanings and origins. GoatnamedWilliam (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...So then cite the evidence, published in RS, that ODN contradicts the prevailing view, rather than this website. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to, Peter McClure sums up the problem wikipedia editors are facing in Chapter 16 of The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography (2015) "Few editors have the relevant linguistic and onomastic expertise to distinguish denotation from connotation, or etymology from onomastic function, or to judge which etymologies are reliable for names borrowed from exotic or archaic languages. The problem is particularly acute for compilers of general dictionaries who, unless they consult expert etymologists, have little option but to take on trust the explanations they find in other dictionaries, resulting in endless repetitions of whatever errors appeared in the original." He thinks the Oxford Dictionary of First Names is the least bad, but it occasionally suffers from the same faults discussed in the chapter, for recently coined names, and for non-English names, Yiddish names notably. This is why banning BTN in favour of published sources will do nothing to improve the reliability of wikipedia name articles. BTN isn't perfect but it's a better starting point than many published sources. GoatnamedWilliam (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If McClure thinks that a book by an academic lexicographer is the "least bad", he certainly would not consider a self-published site by an amateur name enthusiast to be more reliable! That's in fact more an argument to dismiss all the non-academic baby names books as non-RS. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He mentions BTN and doesn't think its reliable but mostly because of format, not the content. But that was 10 years ago and it has been continously updated. I think if Wikipedia restricted its name pages to the single academic name dictionary it would certainly improve the reliability of English name articles (for the ~6000 names in the book anyway). For me, that would go a long way to making wikipedia half as reliable as BtN. I am repeating myself now but I hope this discussion does help editors understand the problems with the published name resources. GoatnamedWilliam (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So we have RS from an expert explicitly stating BTN is not reliable... JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A librarian would direct a patron to ancestry.com for its extensive primary sources and documents, not for its genealogical relationships in the user generated trees. Katzrockso (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding surnames origin, in all pages I've seen ancestry.com snatches its info from Dictionary of American Family Names and says so, therefore whwrwver I use ancestly.com, I format the ref like this: "Petersen", ancestry.com, citing Dictionary of American Family Names, — i.e., indicating both the real source of wisdom, for faithful attribution, and the online page, for convenience. We could have done the same with behindthenames if it were using the same policy of decent referencing. --Altenmann >talk 19:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The following subthread about WP:RFCBEFORE was moved from the Survey subsection.​​ — Newslinger talk 23:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bluethricecreamman, I think you need to read WP:RFCBEFORE again, which is about considering the alternatives to having an RFC at all. You can't "meet" RFCBEFORE, as it imposes no requirements. If your goal is to get something listed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, there are no viable alternatives; only an RFC will do. RFCBEFORE is therefore irrelevant to RSP proposals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think i was wrong, actually, though for another reason. looking back at the RFC proposal, I now see there was a link to a previous discussion and context. I didn't see Altenmann had placed a link, the blue text wasn't the regular diff link (like this [1])

  Will disagree on principle, RFCBEFORE seems required to RSP proposals. RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions. that warning is on this page. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RFCBEFORE isn't about prior discussions. Please actually go look at it. RFCBEFORE begins by saying things like "If you are considering an RfC to resolve a dispute between editors, you should try first to resolve your issues other ways" and "If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC", and then has a bullet list whose meaning is "You know, you could try Wikipedia:Peer review instead. Or have you thought about getting a Wikipedia:Third opinion? Or the Teahouse! You could try the Teahouse!"

  The RSP proposals process (like any other process on Wikipedia) can set whatever standard it wants, but it's still not going to be Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Before starting the process ("RFCBEFORE"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a literal page notice that opens up when you try to start a new discussion on this noticeboard. It says you need a discussion before you start an rfc. I dont know where that notice is encoded or when it became a thing, but that has been on this noticeboard for a while.

  • actually the language on opening up a new topic appears a bit stronger than i expected. Im not familiar with page notices, but if there is a discussion to change it please ping me, im interested to learn

  • i did not vote badrfc. I voted snow close. Its snowing unless someone elucidates a clear reason otherwise

  • originally didnt see the link from OP and thought someone put this discussion up without any context or info. In practice, i was wrong, but any rfc that shows up with no context in theory is annoying to editor.

  • many editors can say rfcbefore isnt met and i and others will continue to reserve the right to say guidance wasnt followed. What the impact of it happens next is up to closer, who weighs consensus and how community interpreted guidelines

  • you ofc have every right to complain when we yell rfcbefore, and we have every right to continue to call it out anyways

  User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone votes BADRFC, and then cites RFCBEFORE, perhaps they are not saying that there exists policy that automatically dismisses the RFC.
  They are perhaps voting that the consensus you get out of the RFC is that they want additional info gathering and time to discuss it done before an RFC solidifies the convo.
  A closer has every right to dismiss such votes, or weight them appropriately.

  and again, I voted snow close 4 here. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_494#AnglicanWatch_and_Anglican_Ink. Sorry to bring this up here again but @Happysociologist is repeatedly re-adding (diff, diff) contested material sourced to Anglican Ink and AnglicanWatch. The previous discussion was quite clear that AnglicanWatch is unreliable as a self-published source; users appeared skeptical of Anglican Ink but given Happysociologist's insistence that no finding was reached regarding Anglican Ink I am bringing it back here. One source from Anglican Ink that Happysociologist wishes to use as supposedly sources for this material, which includes controversial material about living persons, is an anonymous blog post republished from this blog (it purports to be a statement from unnammed vestry members of a church but there is no evidence that it is authentic). The second source from Anglican Ink is a statement originally published by the subject of the article and reposted at Anglican Ink. If we can get a clearer consensus that Anglican Ink is non-reliable since it is almost exclusively composed of primary sources and self-published content reposted from other sites, I'd appreciate it. Courtesy ping to previous participants @Pbritti @Yesterday, all my dreams... @LPascal @Boynamedsue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I appreciate your interest in the matter given your extensive contributions [35] on the subject. Anglican Ink [36] publishes a wide variety of material including news articles authored by journalist George Conger [37] as well as re-publications of primary sources. My understanding is that material cited to primary sources authored by the subject of the article is permitted, which applies to the material you were attempting to revert. Anglican Ink is a commonly cited source for articles related to Anglicanism and it would be an undertaking the remove all of its citations from the site, if that's what you're proposing. I am also interested in a determination. Pinging previous participants on this topic @StAnselm, @Erp, @Random person no 362478479, @Boynamedsue, @Doug Weller, @Travellers & Tinkers. Happysociologist (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Unscripted is a related website to Anglican Ink, and while it is a notable subject (something I became aware of as I did research for the last RSN thread), it is nowhere near a reliable source since it is an opinionated, self-published podcast with a reputation for "truthiness" over truth. A search of Anglican Ink's archives indicates that Conger's reporting is a tiny fraction of the site's content, and since Conger is the site's sole "editor", his reporting would be considered self-published if nothing else. Meanwhile, please don't misrepresent me @Happysociologist. I am not asking for Anglican Ink to be blacklisted and removed from Wikipedia. I'm asking for a determination be made that it is composed almost exclusively of primary sources, which may be used under limited circumstances. I'm sure that many or even most of its uses on Wikipedia are for uncontroversial factual statements, but primary sources must be used carefully or not at all when Wikipedia is summarizing a matter of controversy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused by Happysociologist's actions here. Less relevant to this as an RSN matter, there seemed to be something of a consensus against including the matter that they are now again adding to that article. More relevant to RSN, I think we can safely discount Anglican Watch as a RS as it has no indicated reliability or editorial oversight. Their "about" page leads me to believe that it is little more than a blog by someone who has an adversarial personal relationship with the American Anglican environment. Anglican Ink may be reliable when someone who has particular authority on a given topic publishes on the website, but it does not seem to possess any strong editorial guidelines or a reputation for reliability among other outlets. I would especially discourage citing it when it is merely serving as a host for documents posted by other institutions. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conger's reporting isn't a "tiny fraction of the site's content." The number of articles Conger has written for Anglican Ink span many pages. [38] His reporting would not be considered "self-published", either. Kevin Kallsen is listed as the site's publisher and the organization is a 501(c)3 nonprofit. They have been cited by The Washington Post in its coverage of allegations of sexual misconduct against the archbishop of a small, theologically conservative Anglican denomination. [39] I don't understand the need for a blanket determination that Anglican Ink is "almost exclusively" composed of primary sources, an assertion that doesn't even hold water. Clearly, the reliability of its output should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Happysociologist (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posts at your link allegedly by Conger include a primary source document from an Anglican entity, a cover letter written by accusers of a bishop and a press release from Gafcon. Clearly what's posted under Conger's name on Anglican Ink includes many primary sources reposted from elsewhere. And you have not demonstrated how even posts original to Conger on a site on which he is the sole editor would not be considered self-published. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's literally not the publisher. They might be "self-edited," but they're not self-published. Jahaza (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kallsen and Conger are a two-man show who do a YouTube podcast and republish material on a blog. If one of them occasionally writes original material, I think that counts as functionally self-published. It's certainly not going to have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight (and indeed, Kallsen and Conger do not have a reputation for accurate coverage, see here and here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Anglican Unscripted was cited by the Washington Post (and not for its journalism but for its opinion coverage of the ACNA), not Anglican Ink. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to look at the Anglican Ink articles first

• "Misconduct investigation requested of the Bishop of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic". Anglican Ink. July 27, 2025. Retrieved 3 October 2025.
• Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic (29 August 2025). "Statement from the standing committee of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic on compelling acceptance of women clergy". Anglican Ink. Retrieved 5 October 2025.

The first is an anonymous reprint from an anonymously maintained website giving a timeline and some primary sources. The second is but a scan of a primary source with no context. On the Anglican Watch side

• "Uproar continues at Incarnation Anglican Church Williamsburg (ACNA) over the ordination of women and more". Anglican Watch. September 6, 2025. Retrieved 3 October 2025.

This seems to be a reprint of source 1 above plus source 2 with some editorial opinions added (not journalistic putting into context added). Anglican Watch seems to be a one man show and Anglican Ink a two man show (note 501c status is unrelated to whether an entity is a reliable source). In this case I would say none of these articles are reliable secondary sources and even if reliable that notability of this incident (an argument between a church and its bishop) that makes it significant enough to include in Wikipedia is not shown (the other misconduct charge still in the article had Washington Post coverage). What do others think? Erp (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Anglican Ink is not a reliable source by itself. It is definitely a two-man show/blog that republishes primary source documents sent to it from elsewhere, sometimes re-publishing other people's blogs or opinions without comment or investigation. It also seems to have a certain bias or agenda within the Anglican communion, rather than as an outlet of independent Anglican news. For a wikipedia article, I would only use Anglican Ink as a source sparingly and only with other sources cited to confirm it. If, in my research, I came across something I wanted to reference which was on Anglican Ink, I would always search for another more independent source that confirmed the same fact.

I question any blog publishing letters or emails from a bishop or vestry. Copyright to correspondence belongs with the author so I never know if this type of correspondence has been given permission to be made public or if it has just been sent to a site such as Anglican Ink so that AInk will publish it because it suits their agenda.

Re: Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic article/Misconduct allegations. The section as it stands today (without Happysociologist edits) is OK as it starts and ends with abuse allegations that have been investigated and confirmed and the citation is to a mainstream news outlet. This section has to be very carefully written as it is about allegations against living people and could be contentious and defamatory. However as the bishop SW information is found across many news sources, I think it's OK.

However it is confusing whether the section heading "Misconduct allegations" refers to the youth minister in the first para or the misconduct of the rector in not properly investigating. If the whole section is meant to refer to abuse by various clergy, it should be a heading something like "Incidents of abuse". If the allegations are independently investigated and confirmed and the clergy held accountable then it is not an allegation. It can be factually reported. Abuse by clergy or church workers should not be labelled as simply "misconduct". Labelling abuse as misconduct is a way of minimising or downplaying abuse.

When the para about Warner/conflict with the church, is added in, the section becomes really confusing, because it does not flow through about abuse by clergy but has a sudden departure into a conflict between a particular church and a bishop. This is intra-church conflict or conflict between one church and its bishop and at the allegation stage and should not be aired on a Wikipedia article. It is an allegation against a living person which has not been independently investigated, confirmed and reported in a reliable news outlet. it also sits within a section about sexual abuse by clergy and seems more like a hit piece against the bishop. The source for the content (AInk) about the conflict is not independent, acts like a blog and publishes correspondence without any indication of permission to publish.LPascal (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to address two related questions here:

(1) whether Anglican Ink can be treated as a reliable source under WP:RS in limited contexts, and

(2) whether its use in the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic article is policy-compliant.

First, on reliability under WP:RS. WP:RS does not apply a binary “reliable / unreliable” classification to all sources; reliability is context-dependent (WP:RS#Context_matters). Specialist publications are routinely accepted where they demonstrate subject-matter focus, continuity of publication, and a record of reporting verifiable events, even when they are not mainstream outlets (WP:NEWSORG, WP:ABOUTSELF). Anglican Ink functions as a specialist news outlet covering Anglican realignment and denominational governance. It has a long publication history, an identifiable editorial staff, and produces original reporting on synods, disciplinary proceedings, episcopal actions, and official statements that are frequently not covered in general-interest media. This places it closer to denominational or trade press than to a personal blog. Importantly, the material at issue here consists of straightforward reporting of documented diocesan actions (e.g., standing committee statements, requests for investigation), not opinion or analysis. Where a source is used to verify that an event occurred, on a stated date, and with specified institutional actors, that use is generally permissible under WP:RS provided the reporting is attributable and verifiable.

Second, on independence and attribution. While Anglican Ink is clearly situated within a particular ecclesial milieu, WP:RS does not require ideological neutrality, only editorial independence from the subject of the article. In the case of the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic, Anglican Ink is not a publication of the diocese itself, nor is it controlled by the subjects discussed. Where attribution is appropriate, the article text can and does make clear that information is reported by Anglican Ink, which satisfies WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV where needed.

Third, on use in the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic article. The Anglican Ink citations in that article are used to support factual, non-interpretive claims about diocesan governance events. These are not WP:BLP claims about private conduct, nor are they used to establish notability or to advance evaluative conclusions. In addition, the article employs multiple sources, including mainstream press, for other aspects of coverage, which mitigates any concern under WP:UNDUE. The sourcing here follows standard practice: Anglican Ink is cited using "cite web" for discrete factual assertions, while higher-level historical or contextual claims are supported by broader secondary sources where available. This is consistent with how Wikipedia handles specialist religious, academic, and trade publications.

Relatedly, one of the citations at issue involves a primary document authored by the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic itself (e.g., a formal statement or written communication). In that instance, Anglican Ink is used to document the existence and publication of that primary source, not to interpret or evaluate its claims. The article text is correspondingly limited to relaying what the diocese stated, with neutral wording and without affirming or adjudicating any allegations, consistent with WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF. This is a standard and policy-compliant use of primary material: the source is used descriptively, with attribution, and only for straightforward factual assertions about what was said or published, rather than for analysis or conclusions. Where the content touches on sensitive matters, the article avoids inference and confines itself to accurately summarizing the primary document’s contents.

Fourth, on precedent and process. This source has been discussed at RSN multiple times without a clear community consensus establishing it as generally unreliable. In the absence of such a determination, editors are expected to apply policy text directly rather than treat prior RSN threads as prohibitions. If the community believes Anglican Ink merits a perennial-source classification, that would require a separate, broader discussion.

In summary:

Anglican Ink should not be treated as a universal high-quality secondary source, but its limited, attributed use for reporting verifiable diocesan actions — as in the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic article — is consistent with WP:RS, WP:NEWSORG, and long-standing sourcing practice for specialist outlets. Happysociologist (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider neither of these as "closer to denominational or trade press than to a personal blog". The Roys Report would be closer, and, as it has reported on the ACNA stuff in the past (and even very recently), I searched it for this particular misconduct accusation, nada. You could conceivably use the second Anglican Ink source with the image of the diocese letter (setting aside potential copyright issues), but, that is a primary source and without reliable secondary sources giving context for using that material and showing notability it cannot be used. The other parts of the section in the article are about a very different sort of misconduct (sex abuse and coverup of such) and so you cannot use that as context for including a church/diocese argument about women priests and use/misuse of episcopal authority. Erp (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not suggesting that Anglican Ink is equivalent to The Roys Report, nor that it should be treated as a high-quality secondary source for analysis or contextual framing. The point is narrower: under WP:RS and WP:RS#Context_matters, specialist publications are sometimes acceptable for documenting the occurrence of institutional actions or statements, even where broader secondary coverage is absent. The use here is not to provide interpretive context, but to verify that a diocesan communication was issued and what it contained.

The lack of coverage by another outlet does not, by itself, render an event unusable on Wikipedia. Wikipedia routinely documents organizational actions that are not covered by national or watchdog media, provided the sourcing is appropriate to the claim being made. That distinction is especially relevant where the article text is limited to describing an internal diocesan dispute or governance action, rather than asserting broader significance or wrongdoing.

I agree that the diocesan letter itself is a primary source, and that it cannot be used to establish notability or to draw conclusions. That is not how it is being used here. Consistent with WP:PRIMARY and WP:ABOUTSELF, the article text simply reports that the diocese issued a statement expressing a particular position; it does not affirm the allegations, evaluate their merits, or extend them beyond what is explicitly stated. Anglican Ink is functioning here as a reporting conduit that documents the existence and publication of that primary material, not as a source of independent analysis.

If the concern is that the section structure risks implying a connection that the sources do not support, I’m open to restructuring or clearer delineation. But on sourcing grounds alone, the limited, attributed use of Anglican Ink to document a diocesan statement — without interpretation, inference, or notability claims — is consistent with WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, and long-standing practice for institutional self-statements.

I’m happy to work toward wording or structural adjustments that address neutrality or clarity concerns, but I don’t see a policy basis for excluding this material outright given the way it is currently sourced and framed. Happysociologist (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Happysociologist, why would you add this Anglican Watch article as a source at Truro Anglican Church when the Anglican Watch article (unlike the other, reliable sources you added) uniquely makes lurid, unsubstantiated, criminal allegations about a living person while making speculative insinuations about that living person's LGBT status? I think the consensus about Anglican Watch's unreliability has been quite well-established. Your persistence in using it as a source, particularly about living people, is irresponsible. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That article was not used as an exclusive source for any BLP claim. The factual material for which it was cited was independently supported by secondary WP:RS such as The Washington Post, which were also cited inline. No lurid, criminal, or speculative claims exclusive to that article were included in the text. If the presence of a redundant citation from a marginal source is a concern, I’m fine with removing it. Happysociologist (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Anglican Ink identifies an editorial team and publishes corrections [40] the site also clearly distinguishes between press releases, news articles, and editorials. I'd consider it fine for non-controversial claims, although for sensitive BLP claims better sourcing should be sought out. I don't think there is anything factually incorrect with Anglican Ink's reporting in the content in dispute, but I believe WP:DUE is more relevant here, the allegation is anonymous and the Diocese is not investigating it. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Traumnovelle I think this incident underscores who woefully lax Anglican Ink is at fact-checking and corrections, emblematic of a two-man shop. The original 3 January story stating the bishop was acquitted is still up on the site with no editor's note: https://anglican.ink/2026/01/03/rwanda-court-clears-former-shyira-bishop-of-graft-charges/. The "correction" isn't a correction, it's really a letter to the editor from an archbishop saying the original report was wrong: https://anglican.ink/2026/01/05/correction-shyira-bishop-convicted-of-graft-charges-not-acquitted/. That's not a normal or standard journalistic practice for handling a correction/retraction and I think it signifies my point that Anglican Ink is more of an amateur blog. (To put it into BLP terms, this is a site that has published an article stating that a living person was acquitted of a crime AND that the same living person was convicted of the same crime and neither is retracted. How can we use that for BLP claims? How can we say that's reliable?) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Suissa_and_Sullivan was not actually closed with a final decision, and, as such, the source is back.

So, to briefly review:

• It's a highly fringe gender critical source that, in its opening, states that its purpose is to show that "the core position of gender identity ideology is fundamentally opposed to the expression of a range of views on sex and gender, and the role of the definition of ‘trans-phobia’ in creating unspeakable truths".
• It meanders. Things are brought up and immediately dropped as it moves to the next point. Note the jump from Rowling to legal cases to parliament on page 69, for example.
• It uses sources that include personal blogs of non-notable people, often adding hyperbolic language. For example, the subject of the last debate here, page 69, "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020)." Is sourced to the essay of Rowling that they mention, which does not mention insults, and this post on Medium (website), which, to quote Wikipedia, is "regularly regarded as a blog host". The "tidal wave of requests" is hyperbole added by Suissa and Sullivan and appears in neither source.

I think it should be declared an unreliable source outright. The current usage is that it's being used as commentary on "Rowling has opposed proposed gender self-recognition law reforms in the UK that would make it easier for trans people to change their legal gender" This has a note attached to it stating that "The laws and proposed changes are the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill; related is the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018. The UK Equality Act 2010 already makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic." That last sentence is attributed to it.

Suissa and Sullivan, while it says that, connects this statement to Rowling in any way. As such, we'd have to accept Suissa and Sullivan as a legal source, providing uncontroversial commentary on laws around transgender people. Also, that such commentary is appropriate here. Also, that this isn't mere WP:SYNTH. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 19:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very least it's obviously not a very good source to make for potentially-controversial statements about the law, what with being published in a journal focused on the philosophy of education by authors with no legal expertise - to the extent that they're usable for anything, I would say that it's best used for statements specifically about the philosophy of education, and at best only a step removed from that; whereas what it's cited for here isn't even tangentially related to those things. Pulling out random asides about the law or JKR from a source published in a journal on something totally unrelated isn't really appropriate in such a controversial area. If the legal statement here and its legal relevance are both uncontroversial we should easily be able to find a better source, and if it isn't and they're the only ones saying this then we shouldn't be relying on them for it. The fact that it meanders or covers blogs isn't really that relevant; the fact that it's being used for controversial statements and connections wildly outside the expertise of the authors or the publisher is a bigger problem. --Aquillion (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What is the evidence that this is a fringe source? It appears to be a peer reviewed journal. However, I will admit that not all of the stuff published in such journals is good. Also, in what context is the article citing personal blogs etc. Is it treating those as reliable sources of controversial facts, as examples of people saying things on the internet, some other use? Springee (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There was a stray carriage return, but I quoted the exact text cited to it. Just being in a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it not-fringe, especially with obscure journals. This was published in a peer-reviewed journal. It attempts to justify homeopathy by citing Jewish magical rituals that it's similar to. (It's quite a read, if you can get it.) Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 06:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that not everything in peer reviewed journals is worth the bits it may be stored on. But, unless Suissa and Sullivan was published in the British Homeopathic Journal, I'm not sure that example is relevant here. You have made claims about this specific source which may be true but haven't provided the evidence to support the claims. Springee (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a law source, and it has three sentences on Rowling in the entire article - and none of them mention the "fact" that it's being used for. There's a very lengthy discussion linked to from last time the source was kicked out of the article. It shouldn't be back for a new use. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 19:51, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly any source can be a poor source for a specific claim and that may be true in this case. Onus is certainly on those who say this source passes WP:V for a specific claim. However, you have made some generalized claims about the source as a whole but haven't offered sufficient supporting evidence. Springee (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: Please see the previous thread on here, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_440#Suissa_and_Sullivan. If there's general agreement - and it does appear this is true -that this is a bad source for claims about the law, and about J. K. Rowling, I'm not sure rehashing those arguments are worth it when I don't think it's used anywhere else on Wikipedia, and is obscure enough that I'm not sure how it was found in the first place. Let's not argue for argument's sake. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 01:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You started this discussion by attacking the source in general. Skimming the previous discussion and the source itself I don't see consensus for the "generally bad" claims you make. I do see concerns regarding if the source is used for legal claims etc but your original posting seemed more focused on getting the source branded as generally unacceptable ("I think it should be declared an unreliable source outright.") vs insufficient for specific claims. My conclusion thus far is, it appears to be a peer reviewed source and I see no evidence that it shouldn't be given the general reliability we assign to such sources. However, I also think you have a legitimate BURDEN claim here (I previously cited ONUS when BURDEN is more appropriate here). I agree with others that it shouldn't be hard to find better sources for some of the claims as to what the specific laws do (or is that claim specifically disputed). Is there reason to doubt this paper as to what Rowling opposes? Springee (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I think I'd doubt any paper as a source on a person which only mentions them in passing, for three sentences total over the approximately 20 pages the paper takes up. There's no reason to presume any expertise on Rowling when the paper is not about her, and doesn't cover her in any detail whatsoever. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have a good point there. We often have papers/sources that are about topic A but mention topic B in some limited capacity used to add contentious labels/facts/claims to topic B. That doesn't mean the source is bad, only that editors are stretching its use. Springee (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the source is back, when exactly did it leave? (Other than your attempt to remove it a few days ago). This looks like it is still there from the addition by S_Marshall, previously discussed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fairly horrible source, and it advocates for a POV with which I disagree. But it's reliable in context for the only claim I used it to support.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the context for this it's use to support the claim "The UK Equality Act 2010 already makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic."? I can't see it being used for anything else in the Rowling article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or does this have more to do with the next signpost oped? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The claim I used it to support was: Rowling received insults and threats. I see that claim has now been changed to Rowling received insults and death threats, and the sourcing changed to Whited 2024 p.9 and the BBC article here. I have no objection to that change. I haven't evaluated Suissa and Sullivan's suitability as a source for any other claim, and won't be doing so, having completely lost patience with Ms Rowling's article.—S Marshall T/C 14:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry S Marshall I meant my comment to be in general, rather than singling you out specifically. Poor placement on my part. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said about other non-controversial details being referenced with controversial sources, using the least controversial sources for any particular claims ensures that editor's time isn't wasted arguing over a source for no good reason. If the claim isn't being challenged but the source is so controversial as to cause this kind of timesink, replace the reference with a different source and move on. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:00, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people so desperate to include this source? Let's look at the timeline:

Before my recent edit, [41] this was used inappropriately to cite "The laws and proposed changes are the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill; related also are the UK Equality Act 2010". This is definitely not in the source.

Sirfurboy added text when adding it back in that he cited to it: [42] "The UK Equality Act 2010 already makes gender reassigment aprotected characteristic"

So the text being argued over has only been in the article for five days. The text does not come from a section about Rowling, it's a dubious explanatory note added to the end of what is already an explanatory footnote. It's not even in the main article text.

Why is this source so important that it's being forced in? Is someone editing this article friends with Suissa or Sullivan? Becaause it's really not clear why we can have the huge discussion on here back then, a discussion now, and the goalpost for what it's used to cite is never something that it's particularly suited to. It used to be claimed as a cite for a single word in a sentence; I have no idea what it was meant to be doing in the first citation.

Even at best possible interpretation, given the footnote is explicitly about bills Rowling campaigned against, it's not suitable to add any bills that we don't have a source directly connecting to Rowling. And Suissa and Sullivan does not connect very much to Rowling at all, because Rowling only gets three sentences in the entire article. To be clear, every single mention of Rowling in the article follows:

• Page 66, "The book-burnings and #RIPJKRowling hashtag provoked by JK Rowling’s latest novel before it had been generally released exemplify the capacity for those so-minded to be outraged by words they have not read" (Nothing before or after this connects it with anything else discussed)
• Page 69 "The treatment of J.K. Rowling, subjected to a tidal wave of requests to ‘choke on a basket of dicks’ and similar, in response to a strikingly thoughtful and empathetic essay, is simply the highest profile case of a commonplace phenomenon (Leng, 2020; Rowling, 2020). Rowling’s intervention was prompted by the fact that women who speak publicly on these issues face campaigns of harassment, including attempts to get them fired." (Ditto; the source explicitly moves on from Rowling after bringing her up as an example)

Let's be even more clear. The text which the footnote listing the laws attaches to is "Rowling has opposed proposed gender self-recognition law reforms". That means that any law listed in the footnote must be one that Rowling opposed. It's not an indiscriminate list of laws. As such, using a section of Suissa and Sullivan that isn't about Rowling to cite it is putting views into Rowling's mouth, which sure seems like a violation of WP:BLP.

It's weird to see people attempting to defend a patently bad source for this article. If I was writing an article, such paltry material wouldn't even merit consideration. However, for some reason - and I can't even begin to think why - it's highly and actively defended. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 20:12, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only question for RSN is whether this is a reliable source. The broader question of the text of the text on the page, and the sources that support it, are for the article talk page. But, for some reason, you declined to open the discussion there. To be clear, your timeline is wrong. This began when you decided to remove the source, leaving part of the existing text unsupported, as you had apparently not noticed that the sources you left behind did not support the existing text about the Equality Act. There are, of course, solutions - but you have chosen not to pursue the solutions, but came here to argue the source is not reliable.

So, the question of reliability: yes, of course it is reliable for what it is supporting. It is not a "potentially controversial claim" about the law that the UK Equality Act makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic. That is a well understood and straightforward summary of the Act. We could just cite the Act, of course. OK, the Act would be a primary source and this source is secondary, but if we were only concerned with verifying that statement, we could use the primary source. But what the source also tells us is that this is due. Why are we saying this about the equality act? Because it is related (as per S Marshall's original text which we could revert to if we think that is better). Why is it related? Well here we might actually need to cite more of that source, because it answers that question:

We will argue that current conflicts around sex and gender are not about trans rights per se, which we fully support, and which are already protected under current UK legislation, but about the imposition of ontological claims underlying a particular ideological position.(pages 55-6)

But here is the problem, and no doubt why some people want to excise the source altogether: that is a gender-critical thesis. That's what the source is about. Wikivoice will clearly not be following that thesis. But that doesn't mean the whole source is unreliable. It is unreliable for its conclusions, and it needs careful handling for its biases, but that's not why we use it in a footnote about the laws J K Rowling has taken issue with in a section on her views on the transgender issue. We use it there because we are trying to tell the reader what the position and beliefs of Rowling are, and to describe the backlash too. And if what we are trying to explain is what gender-critical beliefs are (and aren't), then a source like this has to be part of the puzzle. Neutrality does not require us to give equal time to opposing voices, or any such nonsense, but if we are literally trying to say this is the point at issue, and if the source says that this is the point at issue, then yes we can and should use it, and yes, of course it is reliable for describing the gender-critical position - especially if we are sticking to the strictly factual point, a secondary source summarising the legal position in the context of the laws that are (and are not) at issue.

Now, once again, the question here is reliability. Someone may take issue with this summary and say we might want to approach that text in some other way. But those are matters for the article talk page. Is this source reliable for saying that the UK Equality Act makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic, of relevance to the gender-critical position? Yes. Do we have to agree with the positions in the paper (or even quote them) to say that is so? No. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a "potentially controversial claim" then we don't need to cite any source for it. We only need to cite statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. If it's not likely that someone would challenge that the Equality Act makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic then we don't need to cite anyone for it.

On the other hand, if this is a potentially controversial claim, this isn't a good secondary source for it. If we want to know what a law says we'd like to cite a legal source. This is not a legal source. The preference for secondary sources is to avoid original research, i.e. us as non-experts just reading the law and guessing what it means. But Suissa and Sullivan aren't legal experts either, so there's no reason to expect their interpretation of the law to be more informed than ours. In order to know our guess is accurate we'd need analysis from someone with some kind of legal expertise. Loki (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A one minute google search came up with these:

• "The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables adults to apply for a gender recognition certificate which changes their gender for most legal purposes. There is some uncertainty as to how it interacts with the Equality Act 2010, which protects people from discrimination on the basis of certain protected characteristics, including sex and gender reassignment."[43]
• "Gender reassignment is one of 9 'protected characteristics' covered by discrimination law (Equality Act 2010). Gender reassignment discrimination includes direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation."[44]

I don't believe that gender reassignment being a protected characteristic in the UK is likely to be challenged, but if it is there are plenty of sources for the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like we should use one of those sources then. Loki (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, it's a WP:SYNTH to mention it in relation to laws that Rowling opposes. Any mention of a law in that context either needs to be one that Rowling explicitly opposes, or she needs to have brought up that point herself. Otherwise, it's a synthesis of sources, and, well... Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_contentious_material_that_is_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced explicitly says to remove any thing like that. This is a fairly basic synthesis issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 02:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on reflection, the real issue isn't "is this point of fact true" but the implication that it makes the changes proposed in the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill unnecessary. (The laws and proposed changes are the UK Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Scotland Gender Recognition Reform Bill; [419][420] related is the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018.[421]. The UK Equality Act 2010 already makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic.) That implication is a clearly-controversial pieces of legal analysis, and would therefore have to be cited to a source with legal expertise, not to a one-sentence aside in a journal on the philosophy of education. "People are trying to change the law to say X, but it already protects Y" is a legal critique of the implication of changing the law and what it would and wouldn't mean. Replacing them with a source that just says "the law protects Y" without connecting it to point Y is only acceptable if we intend to remove the statement The UK Equality Act 2010 already makes gender reassignment a protected characteristic from that footnote and place it in another part of the article where it isn't connected to the Scotland Gender Representation on Public Boards Act of 2018. --Aquillion (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed it. If it doesn't stick, then we'll need to start getting some BLP enforcement. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 05:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be on the article talk page as previously requested here and in edsums. When I last checked this page, this section had been collapsed as out of scope. Now it is uncollapsed, but it remains the fact that this is not an issue for RSP. The question on whether that footnote should be retained in that format is a matter for discussion at the article talk page. I have begun a section there: Talk:J. K. Rowling#Footnote on proposed laws. I also reverted the change as I did not see anything on the article talk and the WP:CRYBLP threat here (which I have just now seen) is inappropriate since we are not putting arguments in Rowling's mouth, we are listing the two laws she opposed and two others that are related. They clearly are related per the sources, and per Rowling's funding of a successful challenge of the self recognition laws by appeal to the Equality Act. The problem here is that Adam Cuerden wants to remove a source he doesn't like. There is no evidence of any concern we might be misrepresenting Rowling there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not useful to forum shop back to the article's talk page while ignoring all discussion here. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 23:52, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring before this discussion is completed is also a bad thing. Springee (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear it's not a reliable source, especially for what you want to use it for, and that, were the text you want to include be valid, a better source should exist. Why do you care about this source? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.8% of all FPs.} 06:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do "I" want to use this source for? Where have I added/restored this source to the article? I've challenged you to support some of your claims about this source given passes peer review. Do you think is appropriate to edit war over the use of this source while this discussion is still ongoing? Springee (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert the unhatting of this section (not a section now), but I will say that the discussion of other editors and their motives is not appropriate for this noticeboard. Editors should stick to only discussing the source, there are other forums for any issue with editors actions or behaviour. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I am not sure that hatting the comment and all replies is the answer in this case. The other editors, as they should, mostly ignored the bit about other editors motives and pretty much continued discussing the reliability of the source. I suspect that hatting only the objectionable comment and any replies that talk about other editors would be well received. Or perhaps a warning on a user talk page would be sufficient? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A talk page warning could come off as templating the regulars. Everyone involved has edited long enough to know the proper forums for such comments. The hatting involved one comment and it's immediate replies, not the whole thread about the sources reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is my considered opinion that WP:TTR has far better arguments than WP:DTR.

This is your only warning; if you continue to avoid templating me because I'm a regular, you may be hit with a fish without further notice.

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will dutifully template you at regular intervals. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because I don't think that general grumbling about why other editors think a source could even possibly be useful is inappropriate for this noticeboard. I don't think any of that should be collapsed. It's not a complaint about conduct issues, it's a complaint about how awful the source is. Loki (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to disagree, but I'm not going to re-hat the comment. However my later comment stands, stick to just discussing the source - this isn't a topic area that needs anymore heat. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The paper in question, which we are hopefully discussing here, does seem to be a WP:FRINGE source based on various factors, including its argumentation and claims written within. It also is just written strangely. I don't know if it's a quirk of this particular journal or not, but I don't think I've ever seen an Introduction that basically word for word copies the Abstract, with only minor changes. Is this a philosophy academic paper thing?

Add in that the paper seems to actively use known transphobic groups for sources, such as Transgender Trend and whatever Conatus News is, and generally unreliable sources involving Substack, Wordpress, and Medium (including Arc Digital, Debuk, Mary Leng). Oh, ew, just blatant fringe bigoted site Quillette as a source as well. Also, that they seem to use multiple sources that come from the people they used as proofreaders for the paper, which again seems like an unprofessional way to write an academic paper?

Yeah, this paper seems complete trash on every level and unreliable to the extreme. Silverseren^C 02:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the following (real) case. A charity (with a WP page) publishes on their Facebook page a statement that "the event was hosted by A and her husband B" with a picture, where both A and B have Wikipedia pages. Can this be used to support a statement that they are married?

N.B., the case is real but currently the Facebook link is not used as a source. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would say not, as it is user-generated content, and that would be BLP information. If that is the best source for a BLP claim, I would be wary. Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The facebook page (with the image) would backup a Wall Street Journal article which has a picture of A and states that her husband is called B. Google eye or similar can easily find B from the image on the facebook page.

My thinking here is that there can be many people called "B", and remove any ambiguity. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the charity would be authoritative on who is married to whom. Consider the case where they are not, in fact, married but are together. If the charity says "... and her husband", how do they know it is her husband (and married) and not a partner? Do they have an editor checking their facts before the information goes live? are they just saying what they were told by the party themself (in which case, this is reported primary information). All it really tells us is that the charity believes this person is their husband. If there's any doubt, this doesn't really resolve it, and if there's no doubt, it isn't necessary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A was the President & CEO of the charity at that time, if that is relevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there's only some Facebook page with that information, the information doesn't need to be included in the article unless better sources bother to report on it. Cortador (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why the anonymity, if this is not controversial information, who and what are we talking about? Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymity is because currently it is Draft:A waiting for review, and does not include the Facebook page as a source. (Both the charity and B have had pages for many years.) I do not think the details matter, although if you really want to push I can add them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it matters, as I cannot answer a question without knowing the context. For a start, is A even notalbe in their own right?Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK., note that COI is declared.

• A= Draft:K. Sujata, her notability has nothing directly to do with her husband.
• B= Laurence D. Marks (me)
• The charity is Chicago Foundation for Women
• The Wall Street Journal article is ^[1]
• The Facebook page is https://www.facebook.com/ChicagoFoundationforWomen/photos/a.10151879854707889/10152899568072889/?type=3

Ldm1954 (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe WP:ABOUTSELF would cut through this matter? Posts by the subject of an article are reliable for noncontroversial details about themselves. Have the two of you every posted about you anniversary on social media? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:16, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. As the Chicago Foundation for Women boss she gave permission for the picture and text to be used (I did to) and was responsible for all the content (it is an influential but small in terms of staff foundation), so I will argue that WP:ABOUTSELF applies. I will use it (and this discussion) as an addition if someone questions the Wall Street Journal source.

In terms of anniversary posts etc there is nothing; her social media profile is work related and mine is minute. There are various "K. Sujata and Laurence Marks" donor acknowledgements which is how married couples are acknowledged, but that is probably far too obscure for use as a RS that will be understood. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Confused… does the Wall St, Journal say you are married? If so, there’s no need to cite facebook… just cite WSJ. Blueboar (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am being a perfectionist, as I am not Laurence Marks but Laurence D. Marks. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ should be sufficient & I don't think anyone would contest it, but if someone does, you could then bring up the FB post from the charity she ran as the ABOUTSELF additional evidence. Jumpytoo Talk 02:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could at least be argued that the Facebook post counts as a usable WP:BLPSPS posting, as "A" was the president and thus the technically responsible party for the posting (and able to have it deleted if untrue.) But then we get into the old SPS marriage loop, since if A says they're married to B, a precise reading of it would find that we can use it to say A is married, but not say anything about B, including that he is who A is married to. Having said that, given the WSJ source, this isn't so much asserting a claim as simple disambiguation. HOWEVER, I'm gonna Hail Mary this one. Using the Facebook source would not be a problem if B were dead and outside of WP:BLP... and given our policies and guidelines about taking suicide concern seriously, we should not be putting the editor in a position where committing suicide would get his edit approved. (Yes, this is splitting hairs, but hairs are huge to one who studies nanoparticles.) I say that in the interest of safety, we accept this source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

😎 Ldm1954 (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for their comments. As @Jumpytoo said, if challenged then I can bring up the FB & WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSPS...and this discussion. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A note about the title of this discussion: keep in mind that Facebook is almost always a primary source instead of a secondary source. — Newslinger talk 20:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Tony Dokoupil, who is now head anchor on CBS news, put out a video here that includes the statement "On too many stories, the press has missed the story. Because we've taken into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American. Or we put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you." Now, this can be taken a few ways, but given what's been happening at CBS of late, it seems to allude to disregarding the input of said experts. While we need to wait and see how this resolves in actual reporting, this is probably another piece of evidence to put onto the watch for CBS on whether it might remain a reliable source or not. No action can be taken immediately but we should be watching this closely now. Masem (t) 17:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about this if people don't want to watch the video: https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/5669062-tony-dokoupil-cbs-evening-news/ Some1 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To me this is further evidence against CBS' continued reliability. https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/media/skydance-fcc-cbs-news-bias-ombudsman-dei-paramount Czarking0 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we end up repealing WP:BIASED, the political factors aren't relevant to WP:RS until the outlet actually starts presenting falsehoods as fact for political purposes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is on WP:RSP these findings could warrant a shift to WP:MREL Czarking0 (talk) 04:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From David Ellison

The merger [with CBS] was completed by August 7, 2025, and Paramount Skydance Corporation was formed. Ellison serves as Chairman and CEO of the merged company.^[1] Following the merger, Ellison made conservative-friendly changes at CBS News, hand-picking Bari Weiss as its editor-in-chief.^[2][3] Shortly in her tenure, Weiss controversially held a 60 Minutes story on the Trump administration's deportations to Venezuela from being aired on CBS.^[3] Ellison sought to hinder a merger of Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery. The Wall Street Journal reported in December 2025 that Ellison had given assurances to President Donald Trump that if Paramount were allowed to buy Warner, he would make sweeping changes to CNN, the news channel that Trump has frequently criticized.^[4] Czarking0 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Please note the previous discussion on CBS that closed not two weeks ago. Nothing seems to have changed substantially since. Op-eds or hand-wringing about what CBS may do or report on in the future is premature. CBS isn't the only news outlet in the world: neither is Mother Jones or The Wall Street Journal. If an outlet focuses on different aspects of a story, that is not necessarily a sign of unreliability. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please do tell us how "[holding] a ... story ... from being aired" is the same as "an outlet [focusing] on different aspects of a story". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually know why the story was held? If the story comes out next month how will we react? So far I see nothing in this recent statement justifies a RS change. While such a statement could indicate a shift to problematic reporting, it also could indicate a shift to more balanced reporting. It could mean ignoring facts and well reasoned arguments from experts but it could also mean getting a sense of the mood of the public to decide what stories should be covered etc (more perspectives on the same facts). It could be a non-statement or a warning of a drastic change. The fact is we don't know and will have to wait to see. Springee (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(I do not know the answer, and it does not matter for my reply anyway.) LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 14:30, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Optimistically, CBS saw the story as very one sided and biased and held it with the intent of getting other perspectives before releasing it. That would align with the second statement. Pessimistically, they "held" it with the intent of killing it because they knew/know it would make the current administration look bad. That version doesn't align with any charitable reading of the second quote. At this point we really don't know thus we should wait and see. Springee (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And Animalparty did not establish that optimism. Not that it matters, since I have just realised that "Ellison had given assurances to President Donald Trump" means it is likely the other way. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC) (edited 15:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC) and 15:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC))[reply]

There isn't much daylight between "getting more perspectives" from government sources about a serious allegation against the government, and publishing a government-approved version of events. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold out much hope for the reliability of a organisation that wants to switch from experts and academics to public opinion, but it's reliability will depend on the quality of what it publishes not on the anticipation of what it will publish. Not publishing something is an obvious sign of bias, but as long as that bias is political and not anti-factual it has no effect on a source reliability (per WP:RSBIAS).

If a giant teapot appeared orbiting the earth and certain anti-teapot sources didn't report on it then that wouldn't make them unreliable, or weigh against the inclusion of details about the giant teapot on Wikipedia. Being anti-teapot would'nt make a source unreliable, but publishing reports that it was actually a giant coffeepot would. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a case where we need to see what that means. For example, asking experts what they think about a particular chemical in the environment totally makes sense. They shouldn't ask lay people what they think and treat that as correct. However, asking lay people what they think of a public policy may make sense. Also, picking stories based on what is important to the public at large also can make sense. One of the criticisms directed at legacy media in the last 30 years is they have become more insular and focused on topics/stories that are relevant to where they live, not the country as a whole. I recall this was due in part to the decline in local news affiliate stations that could feed stories up the chain to the national desks that were typically in New York, DC or a few other large cities. Thus topics that were important to those areas were frequently covered but topics that might be important in other parts of the country weren't covered. A kind of except to this was perhaps CNN in the 1990s. Any snow in Atlanta was somehow important national news. Certainly this could be true when talking about public policy stories. A new automotive safety or fuel economy law may can both be touted for how it will reduce X (a good thing) but a NYC desk might miss that it results in a significant increase in the cost of buying a new car. That tickles down to general car affordability which really impacts people in more rural parts of the US. This is a criticism that has been raised in California where things like high energy costs may not impact people who live in the temperate bay area but can really hurt those who have marginal income and live in the hot central valley. All of this can be covered reliably, factually but with a change in emphasis.

The above take of course is the optimistic view. It's also possible this is CBS saying they will become a biased sources of half truths etc. Only time will really tell. Springee (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree in material of opinion or politics, but the US public opinion is irrelevant in say the matter of how effective vaccines are or whether fossil fuels are a cause of global warming. In one of your examples public opinion is irrelevant as to whether a change makes a car safer, but is important in the way that change may effect them due to cost increases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in agreement here. Springee (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

‹The template +1 is being considered for deletion.› +1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

👍 SuperGrey 03:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with this, as I realized below, is that you're basically saying "we don't know enough to make a statement about CBS' reliability." But we currently are making a statement! We're saying it is reliable under the new leadership, based on the reputation it previously had under the old leadership! I think that we've seen enough indications of drastic changes there that post-merger CBS should be considered a separate entity for RSP purposes. In particular, I think it's fair to say that coverage itself is treating it as a new entity and taking a "wait and see" approach to its reputation. That means that that that new entity hasn't really earned a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, at least not at the point where it's reasonable to give it a green RSP entry. While we'd need more secondary coverage to say it's unreliable, I think a statement like this one overtly saying that the leadership sees itself as throwing out CBS' previous editorial controls is sufficient to bring us to the point where we can't apply pre-merger coverage to the new CBS. Is there coverage indicating that post-merger CBS in particular has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? I don't really think so. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NEWSORG well established news organisations are generally considered reliable, CBS is only listed on RSP because it has been the source of perennial discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  But the new version of CBS isn't well-established, that's my point. It's functionally a new news organization with no reputation, which means that News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact applies. It's only well-established if we assume continuity with the previous version of CBS, and they're being very stridently clear that they want to be seen as different. --Aquillion (talk) 20:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Although taking a new direction it's still the same organisation. I can't see anyone showing there has been a completely discontinuation. If the whole staff had been fired and replaced, in an new office elsewhere, maybe that would be different. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:52, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your reasoning would allow editors to disqualify any source by saying, "Sure, it's has been GREL in the past, but it hasn't established a track record of accuracy since [insert controversy here]." Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening here is a significant internal shift within CBS's leadership. Depending on how you viewed CBS beforehand, it's becoming a biased source or it was already a biased source and that bias is shifting rightward. That change in bias doesn't affect CBS's reliability until it starts publishing questionable reporting. That hasn't happened yet. Mackensen (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but my concern is that if they are not going to incorporate experts but instead just rely on what average americans say (which is just one possible reading of the statement), then we could see very bad reporting like around vaccines or climate change, because they're going with the "feelings" average americans have rather than experts, which is pretty much what Fox News does a lot. I'm not saying all Americans are this gullible but we should be aware on average that America is not really that smart of a nation to trust the opinions of an average American over an expert. But yes, until we actually see reporting that is questionable, this is just a red flag to be added to watch for. Masem (t) 14:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your "one possible reading of the statement" part. I wouldn't presume it to be that way. At the same time a number of news desks listen to "experts" leading into the 2016 election and clearly missed the ground level support for Trump. I don't trust average Americans to get science/tech right. I do true the public to have a better sense of what is important to them, how they will vote, etc vs the experts. Ford had experts that said the Edsel was a good looking car. The public didn't agree. It appears the public was correct. Springee (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I didn't interpret "we put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you." to mean "not going to incorporate experts but instead just rely on what average americans say". Unfortunately, "experts" do miss the mark sometimes, as you've pointed out. Some1 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm not saying how I've suggested is the only way to read that statement, but with enough other stuff going on at CBS, it begs to be something to keep an eye on. I've also seen ads for the reworks evening news from CBS, and in that, its clear they dont want to just bring talking heads into the newsroom to say how we should feel about a story, but instead go out to average joes to figure out the public sentiment on the matter. That would absolutely not be an issue if that's what was meant. Masem (t) 17:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I already this during the previous discussion: I don't think the situation warrants downgrading the reliability of CBS, but it warrants considering them to be biased regarding US politics. Cortador (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultimately, as I said in the last discussion, we'll have to wait for high-quality secondary coverage; how they handle climate change, vaccines, and other areas with a clear academic consensus will likely be crucial, since those seem to be the things that prompt high-quality coverage outright describing a source as a purveyor of misinformation. Also, it's likely that there will be a great deal of misinformation during the 2026 elections and if they serve as a source for it then academic coverage will likely take note of that fact. COVID-19 and the 2020 election denialism were an infliction point that attracted a lot of academic coverage of misinformation in the news media identifying specific sources in ways that we would summarize as generally unreliable. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, after thinking about it a bit, I actually think we probably should update their WP:RSP entry. I don't think we're at the point of categorizing them as unreliable yet, but here's what their RSP entry currently says: CBS News is the news division of CBS. It is considered generally reliable. Some editors note, however, that its television content may include superficial coverage, which might not qualify under WP:MEDRS. I don't think that that's complete or accurate. The ultimate purpose of RSP is to summarize our consensus so redundant time isn't spent arguing over sources again and again and to give people a sense of what initial "default" reaction they'll get if they cite a source. If someone is considering citing CBS, today, they need to know that its leadership changed in 2025 and that its older reputation may not apply. Honestly if there was an easy way to convey it I would say that post-merger CBS shouldn't have an RSP entry at all; I don't think it's reasonable to apply its pre-2025 reputation to it given the drastic shift. We don't have enough information to say what its new categorization should be, sure, but it is functionally not the same entity as 2025 CBS - it's unreasonable to treat it as the same entity, and grant it a reputation based on the direction of its old management when its direction has changed so drastically. At the very least, we should mention the change in ownership and fact that it is now considered WP:BIASED, which almost all discussions seem to agree on, but I would also perhaps add that the reputation under the new ownership is not yet clear. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the shift away from academic and expert opinion is cause for concern. I think it further underscores the need to weight news media as the least reliable form of source that is still permissible for use on-wiki. When news is breaking, it's likely going to be all we have, but as academic and expert analysis emerges, we should prioritize that. I also think that more can be done to consider the weight of CBS in specific contexts, without downgrading their reliability as a whole. For example, if CBS or other US news sources are the only ones reporting a version of events favorable to the US government, particularly involving human rights in the US or US foreign policy, and other sources contradict that version of events, I think it would make sense to weight the contradictory sources more highly if they would otherwise both be considered equally reliable. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube videos by [45] Doug Weller talk 18:34, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm possibly, but not for anything critical. There does seem to be some recognition of him, but as with all oral traditions there are many branches and different views. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Heavily in the etymology section, including ~Navajo historian Wally Brown stated that the Navajo word "Anasazi" never referred to all Ancestral Puebloans at all, but to a specific group who, according to legend, once lived in Chaco Canyon and perpetrated slave raids on their neighbours, and that the use of the word to refer to Ancestral Puebloans in general had been a mistake by anthropologists. He stated that the slave-raiding "Anasazi" were not the ancestors of the current Puebloans and that he did not believe that they had left any descendants.~ Doug Weller talk 10:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Brown is surely a reliable source for the his own beliefs, and for the traditional beliefs of some Navajo people. This is given undue weight in the article at present. The tradition Brown asserts was, presumably, adopted by (some) Navajo from Pueblo sources; Lekson describes a similar account of White House from Acoma which might refer to Chaco, and elsewhere indicates a separate tradition at Hopi. But this is politically complicated and has subtle religious and moral overtones which also impinge the origins of the Katsina cult. Were Chacoans were ancestral puebloans, or did the post-Chaco Pueblos define themselves in opposition to Chaco? For that matter, it is not entirely clear how Mimbres and its successors fit into the picture. As Lekson and others make clear, contemporary politics shape these discussions. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I originally posted this at the Teahouse and was asked to bring it here. Recently I've come across a batch of BLP articles using unreliable sources like classmates.com, familysearch.org and imdb.com to cite personal details, (DOB, place of birth, etc.) about living people with imdb the most frequently appearing. None of these sources can be considered reliable or appropriate for a BLP and imdb is even listed at the perennial sources page as unreliable, (though acceptable to be added to external links sections). Is there some method of blacklisting these so that people can't use them as citations? I considered the spam blacklist, but these aren't really being spammed as such, just grossly misused. I take BLP very seriously and I think we need some way to prevent misuse of unreliable sources in BLPs beyond manually removing them when people happen to see them. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 21:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally sources are only deprecated if they are especially problematic, and it's requires a RFC for each source. See WP:Deprecated sources for details. Deprecation is separate from blacklisting, deprecation causes a warning message to appear when you try to add the source. Blacklisting is usually reserved for spam (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist), and completely stops the url from being added.

In some cases neither is possible because there are still valid uses for the source, take for instance WP:Citing IMDb that states to valid uses for IMDB. As well as a lot of unreliable usergenated stuff Classmates hosts a collection of digitised year books, whichay be reliable even if the are primary. You'll find the same issue with WP:FAMILYSEARCH, it again hosts reliable primary documents. Neither are usable for living people, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, but the technical solutions available are very blunt and can't discern between different types of article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is very unfortunate, as I regulary see BLPs with IMDB used as a source, including for personal details. I guess it will have to continue to be a problem as I can't go around removing them all, certainly not as quickly as people seem to add them. It's pretty irresponsible of Wikipedia to have no way to prevent this apart from manual removal. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 22:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perennial problem, the best defence Wikipedia has against poor sourcing is attentive editors. For BLPs with few or no watchers that can be a real issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, a bot that runs once a week/month that detects articles that are now using IMDB and adds them to a list for review might be an alternative. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds similar to WP:BOTREQUESTS#Bot to revert improper use of certain inline sources on BLP articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:56, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Go figure someone already had a similar enough idea. :P --Super Goku V (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RSNP, where it is listed. Doug Weller talk 10:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question, for non-controversial claims like DOB, are sources like IMDB that bad? Take an article on a retired actress with limited notability. If IMDB is the only source we have for DOB would we just leave it off? I get it for controversial claims but it would seem that this is the opposite of a red flag claim. What about for a claim that the actress was in a particular movie? It would seem like an uncontroversial DOB can be cited to IMDB per wp:Citing IMDb (though that is just an essay). Springee (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB guidelines say you have to submit documentation if you want to update a DOB[46], but the sentence "We will no longer accept DOBs for minors without supporting evidence." doesn't inspire confidence in their past practices. From reading the past discussions it would appear the site was more user editable in the past, what that means for the site's current content I couldn't say for certain. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my opinion on that: WP:RS makes a point of quoting this passage from WP:BLP:

• "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

The key phase is "contentious material", In the vast majority of cases a birth date or whether they were in a movie is the opposite of being contentious material. The exception is when a web search turns up sources (not necessarily reliable) that accuse them of lying or accuses IMDB of having wrong information. At that point we should try to find a better source. Otherwise we can simply not have an inline citation (see our claims that Phil Caracas starred in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter and that Lee Demarbre was born 8 March 1972 for examples). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIVACY deals with this: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public....The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified". See also previous discussion regarding DOB with pertinent commentary [47]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 22:18, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I remove unsourced dates of birth whenever I find them in BLP articles. Dates of birth are rarely important in BLPs anyway. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS strictly prohibit using self-published sources such as IMDb for claims about other living people. The fact that IMDb does not disclose whether they have verified a listed date of birth makes IMDb unusable for such claims about living people. If the individual is deceased, then IMDb is still generally unreliable and should not be used for the person's date of birth, but WP:BLPSPS would no longer apply. — Newslinger talk 20:07, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Making noncontentious claims about living people with no source at all, on the other hand, is perfectly acceptable, as seen in the Phil Caracas and Lee Demarbre examples above. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not policy-compliant. Wikipedia has a lot of articles that are not properly sourced, but repeatedly adding unsourced or improperly sourced information about living people is a common reason editors are blocked when reported to WP:AIV. — Newslinger talk 21:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone "repeatedly" add material that isn't contentious? If nobody disagrees, who removed it? How did they end up at AIV for actions that aren't contentious? If nobody opposes your behavior, who reported you? Should the editors who added the claims that Phil Caracas starred in Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter and that Lee Demarbre was born 8 March 1972 be blocked, when nobody has ever disagreed with those noncontentious claims in any way?

WP:V says

Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material:

• direct quotations,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

Nowhere does it say that every claim about a LP must be sourced. Only the four types of claims listed above. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter, MOS:FILMCAST states that "Names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." Like with plot summaries for films and track listings for albums, the media in question is implicitly cited as a primary source for parts of the cast that lack an explicit citation. MOS:FILMCAST also states, "For uncredited roles, a citation should be provided in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Do not use IMDb as a reference, as it is considered unreliable."

For Lee Demarbre, I found that Demarbre's bio for the Slamdance Film Festival 2000 had his date of birth, so I have added an inline citation; the source has also been accessible from the article as an external link. If I was not able to find a source, I would have challenged the listed date of birth by adding a {{Citation needed}} tag. — Newslinger talk 01:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would just have removed it per WP:BLP/WP:DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would be perfectly appropriate per WP:BLPREMOVE. Anyone who adds improperly sourced content into an article is taking a gamble, because the reaction of the reviewing editors (i.e. whether they challenge it or consider it contentious) plays a role in determining the extent to which the content violates policy. — Newslinger talk 19:29, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb's biography sections are essentially completely user-generated, despite vague claims to the contrary by the site. Hence, those sections are unreliable no matter what. Contentiousness never comes into play at all. Silverseren^C 21:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We have established that you can't use IMDB as a source. The question now is whether every claim in every BLP must be supported with a source. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a question for WP:BLPN or maybe WT:BLP, it's certainly not a question about reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:14, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deprecating IMDb. Valid use-cases are...unlikely...and anyway would still be possible to add even if deprecated. DOBs absolutely can be contentious and are considered confidential/sensitive info in general. California even has a law requiring redaction of DOB from electronic public registers. So do some other states.[48] JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That law is specific to court calendars, indexes, and registers of actions available to the public, not records or public records at large. You can still find plenty of public records detailing dates of birth in California, e.g. my cousins who live there. Katzrockso (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPRIMARY states "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." So those kinds of documents are also disallowed in BLPs (there's an exception for when the same information is cited to a RS and the primary source is used in support, but I can't understand why anyone would need to cite a primary source if a reliable secondary already supports the info). - The literary leader of the age ✉ 22:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that and never intended to imply that public records documents are allowed for usage in a BLP Katzrockso (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that DOB is considered private enough that it is redacted from court records. JoelleJay (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Floating an idea about information that can be useful to identity thieves such as signatures and exact dates of birth --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting conundrum. I can assert that most BLPs are full of non-contentious claims that have no sources (they usually can be verified easily, but nobody has bothered to do so because the claim is non-contentious). I can invite the reader to go to a random BLP and see this for themself. But the moment I give a specific example it switches from being non-contentious to being contentious, because someone who doesn't agree with WP:V ("four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material...") and instead thinks that all information in BLPs must have a citation will instantly either dispute the claim or add a citation. The example could have been uncited for years and most likely would have stayed uncited for decades had I not used it as an example. So, no more examples. Nonetheless, no Wikipedia policy says that every single claim in every BLP must have a citation. You don't need a citation for claiming that a well known basketball player plays basketball. You could -- it is easily verifiable -- but Wikipedia policy only says (with four exceptions listed at WP:V) that information needs to be verifiable, not that it needs to supported with an inline citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's only for unchallenged material. Once any unreferenced material is challenged, a reliable source backing the information must be presented or the material is subject to removal by any editor. That's what WP:BURDEN is about. If non-contentious material is challenged for its accuracy, then reliable sources are required, even if they weren't mandated prior to that challenge being made. Silverseren^C 01:31, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have only been talking about unchallenged material. I would give an example but it would instantly be challenged. The fact remains that BLPs are full of material that in unchallenged, non-contentious, easily verifiable, and uncited. Just today I saw a BLP that used the phrase "Los Angeles, California" when the source only said "Los Angeles". No citation at all supporting the claim that Los Angeles is in California! That claim was unchallenged, non-contentious, easily verifiable, and uncited. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but this thread is entirely about material that is currently being challenged. Anything being sourced to the unreliable sources OP mentioned is right now being challenged for accuracy. Silverseren^C 01:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. I will stop commenting now, and would hope that anyone who makes further claims that all uncontested material in BLPs must have a citation would get the same message. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on some suggested sources for a BLP, if you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this has been resolved by blocking the sockpuppet who made the suggestion. Do you still need someone to look at this? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon It could be helpful if we could determine if the suggested sources are useful or not, they're definitively on-topic. But weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would the ISFDB be reliable for bibliographic/publication info (dates of publication, publishers, etc.)? I would like to use [49] and similar to source a publication date of June 1972 in Justice, Inc., along with other books in the series or in general. It is user edited, but my understanding is that it is better than most (see article). The last discussion was about its BLP info (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_273#The_Internet_Speculative_Fiction_Database_as_a_source_for_BLP_data). Thanks, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:42, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My general reading of the past discussion, especially in light of Mike Christie's comment[50], is that it's reliable for bibliographical data but not biographical information. Has anything changed in the last few years to alter that? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I'm just asking for confirmation and because I remember seeing it dismissed elsewhere, though I can't seem to remember where. Thanks, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:15, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be fine for bibliographic data. Nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not accepted at FAC, FYI. That goes for bibliographic data too. Pragmatically, it's very reliable indeed, though not flawless (well, no RS is flawless). The problem is that it is created by end users. If you sign up there, and start entering bibliographic data, your edits will be held until one of the site moderators approves them. If you make good quality edits over a period of time, you can acquire the moderator flag yourself. At that point you can enter anything you like. So the barrier to entry is higher than for some sites, but it's still basically user-entered data, which is a no-no for the highest-quality RSes. A pity, because as I say in practice it's one of the best bibliographic sources out there. However, Galactic Central is accepted at FAC, and has a great deal of bibliographic data, though not as much as the ISFDB. Sometimes you can find what you need there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:23, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many things aren't accepted at FAC. Most of our articles are not FAC-able. It isn't the best source but I wouldn't go around removing it en masse for bibliographic data. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be one of the only sources that's kept up-to-date. I remember using some printed bibliographies on archive.org before, but those are decades old and don't contain editions and novels published later. I wasn't aware Galactic Central was acceptable. I'd come across it before but just assumed it was another SFF themed blog/website, so knowing it's usable is great. Thanks, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:36, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This came up during one of my FACs [51]. As Mike says, it's ultimately user-generated content, which runs contrary to our documented preferences for sources even if in practice this website has a lot of quality control. I have almost always found what I needed at Galactic Central, and often you can get what you need by citing the primary sources themselves. I did get an FLC approved that used ISFDB (though I subsequently replaced it, after the above discussion). So the prohibition isn't enforced universally. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually just cite the frontmatter of the book for this sort of publication info, but it's not always available on archive.org or elsewhere. Luckily, it seems Galactic Central has everything I need for this series ([52]). Thanks for linking to that discussion, it seems Ealdgyth thinks Galactic Central is slightly better than ISFDB. Regardless, I'm not planning on getting any of these articles to FA, so it should be fine. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:28, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Music-News

[53] As I read its About Us page, I trust it is reliable, but I want to see peer reviews about this website. One factor which ensures me its reliability is: Articles from Music News have been re-produced by many publishing houses all over the world. Newspapers: The Times, New York Times, The Sun, The Mirror, Independent, Guardian, Metro, Evening Standard and online Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Jamaica Observer, Morning News USA, Daily Express, Toronto Metro, The Week, Belfast Telegraph, Daily Mail India, Trinidad & Tobago Guardian, Australia Network News, Inquisitr.com Music Publications: NME, Rolling Stone, Uncut, MTV, Ultimate Guitar, Ultimate Classic Rock, WNRN, Team Rock, Spin, Planet Rock, Blues Matters, M Magazine, Music Universe, Digital Spy, Gibson, Music Times, Vinyl Factory, Rock Magazine, Boybands, Music Radar, Music Glue News & Entertainment outlets: BBC America, Vogue, TeenVogue, Glamour Magazine, Fashion & Style, Celebbuzz, Celebrity Auction, Parent Herald, The Londonist, The Atlantic, , CineWorld (A lot of sources above mostly regarded as reliable in Wikipedia)

Riff and Euphoria magazines

In addition, Riff and Euphoria magazines were used in a lot of music-related articles (especially when rating the album). Camilasdandelions (talk!) 05:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why this has been brought here? If there is some sort of controversy, outlining what it is will likely gain a more effective answer. The claim the source is being used for is always important.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what were you supposed to say, isn't this the place that determines the reliability of the source? I've continuously asked about these sources (except MN) on WP:A/S, but couldn't get response. Than's why I brought the discussion to here. There was no controversy along with these sources, however, I just wanted to make it sure that they're reliable or not. If they are reliable, then I'll keep it, otherwise, I'll clean up them. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 06:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, the job of this board is to analyse the validity of a source in context, i.e. with relation to particular claims rather than in general. That's what it says at the top of each editing page. Questions like "is the Beano reliable for Trans issues?" should usually be the exception rather than the rule.

Having said that, Music-News.com clearly includes paid content, advertising copy from artists and labels. This means that some of the site's content is WP:ABOUTSELF at best. Don't go deleting anything yet, because the question is whether the site clearly distinguishes between the two types of content or not. If it does, only the stuff marked "Guest Post", "Profile Booster" or "Artist Promo", or whatever code they use, is problematic. If it doesn't, we have big problems, especially if the source is being used widely to provide notability for articles.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your analysis. After reading your comment, I wanderd various Music-News' articles, and I couldn't find "whatever code they use". So it seems problematic to me either, but fortunately, the source is not yet "used widely to provide notability for [Wikipedia] articles", as the source may never be mentioned among Wikipedia users in WP:A/S. Anyway, should I put this source at WP:A/S#Unreliable sources?

Also as I noticed "Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.", I'll provide the context for Euphoria and RIFF. For Euphoria, I cited this source for critical reception in BB/Ang3l#Critical reception, and Riff was cited in Dreamsicle (album)#Critical reception. Both magazines are mostly used for album reviews. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 08:19, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Riff magazine looks to be fine, but Euphoria states it also publishes sponsored posts. Again, the concern is distinguishing paid content from unpaid content. I can't find any way to differentiate paid-for content in Music-News either, so I think we need to class it as generally unreliable until someone can do that.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll put Music-News on unreliable sources list in WP:A/S for now. Should Euphoria be listed on there too? Or should we wait for others opinions? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 07:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would have a look at Euphoria and see if you can see any evidence of differentiation between paid and unpaid content first. I haven't put too much time into it myself.Boynamedsue (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to check it, but seems there's no sign of those stuffs. I think we should gain more people for this. BTW, are there even any magazines that clearly reveal whether their articles are paid or unpaid? Camilasdandelions (talk!) 07:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Cartel of the Suns, an article about a supposed Latin American drug cartel that involves politicians and military leaders, heavily relies on articles from InSightCrime, a think tank sponsored by, among others, the US State Department (or more specifically the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, whose job it is to promote US interests in the Western Hemisphere). These articles is not only the most-cited source in the article, but also contradicts other source on numerous occasions e.g. one other source states that Venezuela is an alleged ally of the cartel, whereas InSightCrime claims that the group is run by Venezuela's leadership. While InSightCrime clarifies that the cartel is not an actual cartel, but rather a coalition of various groups and people, it sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t to it as a group whereas other sources question whether even that is accurate. There are also numerous claims solely backed by this source e.g. that the symbol of the group is the sun also to be found on the uniforms of Venezuelan generals.

Is InSightCrime a reliable source when it comes to Latin American politics, and this supposed cartel specifically? Cortador (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, internal contradictions within the InSightCrime "Cartel of the Suns" article suggest that information from it should be bracketed or treated with caution. The opening line "It is not clear how these cells relate to one another, or whether they interact at all" seems to make all the subsequent generalizations run against common sense. NotBartEhrman (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like community input on the reliability and appropriate use of the following source in the article Russian shadow fleet:

Forbes Russia, article titled "Sanctions, chases, explosions: what are the risks of the vessels of the "shadow fleet" of Russia", which includes commentary by Alexey Gromov, Principal Director for Energy Studies at the Institute for Energy and Finance Foundation (FIEF).

The disputed content consists of an explicitly attributed expert opinion, namely Gromov’s characterization of tanker sabotage and related measures as part of what he describes as a "hybrid war" against the Russian "shadow fleet". The proposed wording clearly attributes the claim to him and does not present it as fact or consensus.

An editor @TylerBurden has challenged inclusion on the grounds that:

• the view is allegedly "fringe" and expressed by a single analyst;
• Forbes Russia is claimed to have lost editorial independence and therefore to be unreliable;
• the opinion is not widely repeated in other sources.

My questions for RSN are therefore:

• Is Forbes Russia, as of the cited publication, generally considered a usable reliable secondary source for reporting expert commentary, absent a specific community finding to the contrary?
• Is it acceptable under WP:RS / WP:NPOV / WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to include a clearly attributed expert opinion from such a source, even if the interpretation is not widely shared, provided it is given minimal and proportional weight?
• Does the mere fact that a viewpoint is expressed by a single named expert constitute sufficient grounds for exclusion, or is attribution and due weight the correct handling mechanism?

To be clear, I am not arguing that Gromov’s framing represents consensus, only that reporting that he expressed this view in a reliable source may be encyclopedic if properly attributed and not overstated. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That only one person said something, which is at odds with general opinion, sounds like the kind of detail that could be excluded per WP:BALASP. Ultimately it would be something to discuss on the articles talk page. As the one trying to include the quote on the article you should start that discussion (see WP:ONUS). If it is a minority view, more than one shared by a single individual, then it should be included in proportion to how sources treat that view point (WP:DUE). If the viewpoint is so at odds with the mainstream view that it could be considered fringe the it should only be included if it has been reported on by independent sources (WP:ONEWAY). Again that becomes a discussion for the articles talk page.

As to Forbes Russia in general, press freedom in Russia is abysmal (Media freedom in Russia is useful reading), with one of Forbes Russia's own journalists being arrested in 2024[54]. All reporting by sources in Russia should be somewhat suspect due to the level of censorship. At least nothing they report will be at odds with the Kremlins view on the matter, as they will be censored if they don't conform.

I would suggest trying to find other sources that have also reported Gromov's words. That way you can show what weight sources give to his opinions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I've already tried to discuss this topic on the discussion page, but it didn't lead to anything. AlexeyKhrulev (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem related, the only comment is by Historyguy1138. Did you link the right section, or did you mean to link #G7 instead? Either way as I said, the way to resolve this is to find other sources that consider Gromov's opinions worthy of inclusion. If they exist it's a strong argument for including them in the article, if their don't it's a strong argument to not include them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:04, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CESNUR is an academic organization devoted to studying new religious movements, which hosts a journal and conferences. The peer-reviewed Journal of CESNUR is considered a valuable source by religious scholars, and the CESNUR website is also considered useful although it is not peer-reviewed. Both are highly cited by academic sources. For instance:

• Cambridge University Press book on Jehovah's Witnesses cites six different Journal of CESNUR articles.
• Cambridge University Press book on Scientology in France cites CESNUR or its journal about fifteen times
• An article in the journal Religions on new religious movements in France cites the Journal of CESNUR twice and the CESNUR website three times.
• An article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion on leaving new religious movements cites one CESNUR article.
• One CESNUR article on religious freedom in China has been cited in academic publications by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Taylor & Francis, and Brill, as well as some other journals and conferences.
• The Journal of CESNUR is cited in Nova Religio too many times to count, as they are two journals in the same subfield.

On Wikipedia, CESNUR is considered generally unreliable ("Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used"). The WP:CESNUR table entry at WP:RSP reads: "CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest." But this is not true. For instance, the Journal of CESNUR publishes Stephen A. Kent, a critic of Scientology who relies heavily on ex-Scientologist testimony. CENSUR's editors and peer reviewers do not gatekeep research based on the researcher's opinions about new religions and their relationship to the state.

The most recent Wikipedia evaluation of CESNUR, in 2019, included the arguments "I am not confident in this source, but can't put my finger on why" and "It's a junk source for cults and has been for decades, I wouldn't trust it an inch." I think the time has come for a new evaluation. I do not believe the past discussions engaged in a good-faith evaluation of CESNUR's level of respectability in the academic community and its participants' engagement with all sides of ongoing social debates over new religions. It is true that some articles on CESNUR evaluate the experiences and claims of religious believers seriously. But the Journal of CESNUR is still a peer-reviewed academic journal where questionable statements are given a round of scholarly scrutiny superior to most sources judged "generally unreliable." That doesn't mean CESNUR is free of mistakes, but it should at least be treated equally to, e.g. the personal blog of Tony Ortega which is currently considered an expert source for Scientology-related articles. NotBartEhrman (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference CESNUR in general was also heavily mentioned in the 2022 RFC of CESNUR#Bitter Winter, see Archive378#RFC: Bitter Winter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Related:

• CESNUR
• Massimo Introvigne
• WP:CESNUR
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 378#RFC: Bitter Winter
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 24#CESNUR / Its proponents
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#CESNUR as a source for articles on New religious movements
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#Massimo Introvigne and CESNUR
• The Opposition to “Cults” in Various Countries and Its International Coordination --CESNUR
• Blacklisting or Greenlisting? A European Perspective on the New Cult Wars --CESNUR
• USA Today Emphatically Hails Jehovah's Witnesses' Legal History for "Rich Contribution to Freedom" --CESNUR

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I edit in this topic area a lot and them being declared generally unreliable has always been very bizarre to me, as it is wildly out of step with the academic consensus on this topic. This is a deeply controversial academic field, and so literally any writer has been criticized, but generally unreliable has always seemed like overkill given how widely cited they are in academia. Their materials are very, very widely cited in academia, which does demonstrate a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" and all the authors are respected academics. The last RfC's only sole basis was that it was too opinionated which, per WP:BIAS, is not actually a reason for unreliability provided factual accuracy is kept. They have had a few dust ups but so has every scholar and book in this topic.

If we were to remove every single person who had published with CESNUR we would have no scholars in the entire field. They are opinionated on frequent occasion, yes, but I haven't actually seen a pattern of factual inaccuracy, and as mentioned they also regularly publish people like Kent for example who is the exact opposite direction. If something is wildly out of step with other sources then, at minimum, attribute, and analyze if it is due weight if no other source says this - as you do with any source. As for the website proper, it is not the best source, as it is not peer reviewed, but I see no strong reason to call it "generally unreliable". Bitter Winter is the same basically. I have never found their website to be the best source, it's mostly conference papers that were later refactored into journal articles, and what amounts to generally accurate sparknotes on various groups. They are often opinionated, and their opinions may not always constitute due weight as they are somewhat contrarian, but generally unreliable is IMO overkill. The journal is fine; Benjamin E. Zeller described it in a bibliographic introduction to the topic (which, funnily enough, actually mentions the wikipedia dispute and how contentious this topic is onwiki) as a generally accepted journal. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CESNUR is an apologia site for new religious movements, and thus is inherently unreliable in its core area due to conflicts of interest.

Is that the view of editors on Wikipedia, or the view of academics in the relevant religious studies fields? To be clear, we should not give two shits what say a biologist or a dentist or a physicist has to say on this, any more than I'd give a shit what a religious studies prof's views were on whether or not a given aerospace or orthodontics journal was good or bad.

Isn't the question of how reliable a source is for us, is how reliable the actual proper WP:RS in their field consider it?

Example: I think it was Journal of Orthodontics that is THE authority in that space. So if someone asked, "Is the magazine 'Braces and Retainers Quarterly' a reliable source for those dentistry topics?" and we had evidence that Journal of Orthodontics and similar fine sources lay into and heavily cite to/reference and use "Braces and Retainers Quarterly", it should not matter if even 100 Wikipedia editors don't like the Braces and Retainers publication for some reason, if the entire relative academic foundation of the involved topic actually says, "No, that's quite literally a good source."

Are we against this for internal site/ideological reasons/editor choice? What do the actual authorities say? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 01:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The view of academics in the field is largely positive and discuss it as an academic association. E.g. [55] (explicitly calls CESNUR a "trustworthy source"), [56], [57], [58], for a few. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In a general positionm, surely the sane de facto Wikipedia position is that:

a) if the relative non-Wikipedia editor recognized subject matter experts exist,

b) and the question is, "Does this publication or content count as WP:RS for Wikipedia?", then

c) if that content is considered by that specific academic field as good/reference material, then

d) even if a riot of Wikipedians or various credentialed folks of other and therefore irrelevant academic fields don't like that source,

e) yes, it's fine as WP:RS, even if that means someone has indeed 'lost' some kerkuffle here in this arena.

If ten pastry chef academics say "Book XYZ" is 100% WP:RS, it doesn't matter if we could demonstrably prove that 90% of Wikipedians and 101% of nuclear physicists say it's horseshit. We're a technocracy here if anything, not a vibesocracy. The pasty chefs 'win' as easy as Superman swatting aside me. If a botanist and a Swiss watchmaker with their own article calling them an expert on Swiss watches beef about some Swiss quartz thing, we'd be idiots to not side with the Swissman unless someone has some super MacGuffin card to play proving the botanist more right.

So, if your take here on the acceptability of CESNUR is accurate, and you do seem to be one of the local experts on these niche religion things here, I'd have no reason to not defer to you and say, sure, doesn't seem like any reason to not tag CESNUR as WP:RS.

If someone says don't use CESNUR then, I'd say prove why it's not a good source for a specific quoted like this sentence.

Same general "how to decide decision matrix" is how I look at any of these. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:43, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Are we against this for internal site/ideological reasons/editor choice?" I personally believe that past Wikipedia discussions graded CESNUR as unreliable because of lack of familiarity with the relevant expert literature at the time. NotBartEhrman (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion one way or the other about the reliability of CESNUR, but I would note that it appears few editors appear to have actually looked at those discussions listed at WP:CESNUR. Otherwise someone else would have noticed that one discussion was listed twice.[59] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them previously, I just don't see why it would be important to remark upon the discussions being linked twice... we're here to discuss the source not our own posts.

And none of those discussions evidence familiarity with the academic literature, which is really what we should be evaluating. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I never expected anyone to comment on the double link. But if ten experienced editors saw it I would expect at least one of them to do as I did and fix the obvious and easily-fixed error. Thus my conclusion that this topic has not received much attention from editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other people's posts is frowned upon, no? But I agree few editors have chimed in yet. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editing other people's signed talk page comments is frowned upon. Editing other people's edits to Wikipedia pages is not only encouraged, it is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Again, an obvious error sitting there unfixed is evidence that few editors have read the material with the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should distinguish between the positive knowledge of CESNUR and making juridical demands on the behalf of NRMs. So, it should not be denied they have positive knowledge, but also not take their juridical views for granted. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning we should distinguish between knowledge and desires. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to get to the crux, what do you mean in terms of how we use it? If it's RS and they say: "factoid about this religion" then we can probably cite that.

I know around FRINGE type things a lot of editors like to be... roundabout or such to not be fenced in/pinned down, but I don't what you mean by desires.

On the surface the only thing that makes sense is that we shouldn't use CENSUR if it adds legitimacy via our presentation or the air of legitimacy to such a movement; but that sort of aesthetic call is beyond our mandate and authority as editors, so it cannot be that.

What do you mean? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's a difference between their knowledge of fact, and their advocacy. We don't write "cults are good, because so says CESNUR". E.g., for Gregorian Bivolaru, I have no opinion upon whether he should get sentenced. But I do not take his defense by CESNUR as representing the epitome of human rights. I.e., I make allowance that in some liberal-democratic societies, cult abuse can be prosecuted. CESNUR seems to think that religious freedom should be absolute. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again; would that not be the same as with any source that is in the range of WP:NPOV? "Avoid stating opinions as fact". Whether anything is good or bad is opinion. Whether religious freedom is good or bad can never be stated in Wikivoice regardless of whether it is mainstream Catholicism and child molesting priests, the MSIA, whatever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that religious freedom is good, but it is not absolute in relationship to other human rights. So, advocating religious freedom is a mainstream view, advocating absolute religious freedom is extreme. Anyway, Wikipedia articles shouldn't be about what I wish, nor about what CESNUR wishes. The old is-ought dilemma. They are experts on what is, not upon what ought to be. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that goes for every source that incorporates opinion. I regularly write about neo-Nazism. Most academia about neo-Nazism contains such elements (that they wish neo-Nazism did not exist), which is their opinion, and so we do not say it as fact. Much like sourcing on neo-Nazism that does not mean it is factually deficient. We do not treat opinion as fact regardless of source, and as I said, their opinions may not or even usually be due weight, it depends on topic and context. CESNUR is a standard academic association, it just so happens that the academia on NRMs is deeply opinionated one of which ways - to see a comparison in the opposite direction, the anti-cult ICSA, which is generally good but much like CESNUR has had opinions we would not want to present as fact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly against any change from the generally unreliable status. I don't doubt that they've published some good content, but they also whitewash cults. The problem with CESNUR is that they'll seemingly publish anything having to do with new religious movements. Imagine an academic journal that published anything about, say, modern politics or ancient history. Fine, respectable research right next to crackpots. This is what you get with CESNUR. Woodroar (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have in mind when you say "they'll publish anything"? Because that is kind of a baffling suggestion to me. What crackpots have they published "right next to respectable research"? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember the details, I'm sorry, but I think it involved a guru who was widely described as an abuser, scammer, etc.—except in CESNUR sources, which treated him as a legitimate holy man. This was several years back, probably here and at the drama boards. I couldn't find it in my contribs. Woodroar (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is that "publishing anything"? I would be curious if the representation of this person was similar in other scholarly sources, or this is a scholarship vs popular media distinction again, which happens quite frequently in this topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. I was wrong, it wasn't abusive gurus, it was neo-Nazi Satanists: Joy of Satan Ministries, now at Temple of Zeus (organization). That article cites a Massimo Introvigne source 6 times, ironically published by Brill. Introvigne does mention the neo-Nazi connections but it's very blasé, as if it's very normal to find yourself involved with them. Similarly, accusations of child sexual abuse in these groups are mentioned casually and then forgotten. Introvigne calls them "difficult to evaluate". We shouldn't be relying on anything by CESNUR or anyone connected to CESNUR, like Introvigne. They're simply too sympathetic and credulous about anything related to cults. Woodroar (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the consensus is that Introvigne reputably published outside of CESNUR is citable. Biased sources are allowed. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That doesn't seem to me to be the way the Introvigne citations are used in the current Temple of Zeus article, here. Introvigne neutrally describes how revelations about previously unknown neo-Nazism created controversy and a split in the group. That neutral description is precisely what we are looking for with an RS. Also, this is not only not a CESNUR text (as you noted), it's in the Texts and Studies in Western Esotericism book series sponsored by Aries (journal) -- that is to say, this is not an unmonitored Introvigne production; the book was reviewed by people who are subject matter experts in modern Satanism. I cannot find any results when I do a site:cesnur.org search on Temple of Zeus or Joy of Satan. NotBartEhrman (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever else you may say about him, Introvigne is one of the most well regarded scholars of Satanism (according to multiple scholars in Satanism: A Reader, Oxford University Press, 2023) and that he is very frank in describing their activities is not a negative. He does not deny their affiliations - if anything, not being sensationalistic about it is actually a plus, and is generally in line with all other scholarship on the group. This is the general tone in Satanist studies, even when dealing with groups like the Order of Nine Angles, which are universally agreed to be monstrous. Scholarship does not generally deal in that kind of emotion. Unless you think all scholars of Satanism are unreliable I fail to see the issue. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

for quotes:

Satanism: A Reader, OUP, "The relationship between the larger Satanic (or Satanism- related) organizations and academia was initially quite unproblematic, even harmonious [...]. The aforementioned James R. Lewis (1949– 2022) should be considered one of the field’s founding fathers, together with his fellow American J. Gordon Melton (b. 1942), and the Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne (b. 1955). All three can be characterized as highly productive scholars with a wide-ranging interest in new religious movements, and their work was crucial in establishing the topic as an important one to study, and for integrating it into this broader field. They also laid the empirical foundations for future scholarship." p. 13, "The best and most comprehensive broad histories of Satanism in history as well as contemporary times are The Invention of Satanism (2015) by Asbjørn Dyredal, James R. Lewis, and Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Massimo Introvigne’s Satanism: A Social History (2016) and Ruben van Luijk’s aforementioned Children of Lucifer: The Origins of Modern Religious Satanism (2016)." p. 14 PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CESNUR scholars declared Aum Shinrikyo a victim of religious persecution when they were accused of gassing the subways. Doctors who gives all patients a clean bill of health, even the obviously sick ones, may be entitled to their opinions, but they're certainly not reliable in their diagnostics. Feoffer (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a source that says that had anything to do with CESNUR at all? Because none of them do, this was in fact explicitly done as part of a different academic association. Lewis, who virtually all criticism of that whole saga focuses on, was never a member of the group. Melton was but he did not declare that; as said by Reader (in a piece about this whole saga that does not once mention CESNUR), "J. Gordon Melton, one of the NRM specialists involved, shortly afterwards concluded that Aum had in fact been involved in the attack and other crimes".

Further, that someone who has presented a conference paper somewhere made a bad judgment once in 1995 does not make the academic association associated with the conference liable for all decisions ever made by it as part of unrelated missions, especially if the vast majority of scholars in a field have published with them at some point. If we can attribute every accomplishment both positive and negative by association then both everything good and bad in this entire field is CESNUR's fault. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alkarama is an independent human rights organization focusing on issues in the Arab World. I utilized pages 75–76 of a report detailing several United States airstrikes on Yemen for the 2010 Marib airstrike. Regarding the section on the airstrike itself, the only seemingly agreed-upon fact between the sources used is that deputy-governor Jaber al-Shabwani was killed. Most sources provide only a surface level description of the strike, and differ on the total death toll, identities of those killed asides from Shabwani, and the person Shabwani was meeting with at the time of the strike.

Alkarama provides by far the most detailed description of the actual strike, including its approximate location ("between Al-Hawi village and the lands of the al-Usha tribe"), the time at which it took place, the name of each casualty, and who Shabwani was meeting with (corroborated by a CTC Westpoint report, page 107). As most of the other sources used don't discuss much of this, would it be appropriate to include the information listed as the undisputed description of what actually happened, or should it all be attributed? Hsnkn (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here are five (1 2 3 4 5) examples of ordinarily reliable sources publishing claims by the Department of Homeland Security that people shot by ICE agents in their cars "weaponized their vehicle" provoking an agent to fire in self defense. In at least three of these cases, video of the incident disproves or at least calls strongly into question the truthfulness of DHS's claims. In simple terms, we know that any time US federal agents shoot someone in their car, they will say that the person they shot tried to attack their agents with their vehicle, with absolutely no regard for the truth of the matter. If DHS were the source in question, this level of distortion and dishonesty would easily be grounds for deprecation. The problem is that due to well studied journalistic incentives (such as maintaining contact with sources, maintaining one's broadcasting license), norms, and the necessity to report news as it breaks, ordinarily reliable sources are publishing these claims without meaningfully investigating their accuracy.

It seems that "we publish whatever reliable sources report on" is demonstrably insufficient to maintain Wikipedia's own reliability in this context. We can't just deprecate all these sources outright for serving as stenographers to dubious government claims. All media organizations face pressure to report the government's story. I would propose that instead, as an editorial standard, Wikipedia should ignore claims for which the sole source is DHS, regardless of the reliability of the publisher of those claims, unless and until independent evidence corroborating or contradicting those claims emerges. Put simply, if ICE shoots someone and calls it self defense, and there is no information yet available to verify or dispute that claim, Wikipedia should simply say that ICE shot someone, and refrain from weighing in on justifications until independent witnesses, institutions and evidence gives us a clearer picture of those claims. What do other editors think? Is this a workable solution? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources make clear that "weaponizing the vehicle" is a DHS claim with the language that they use. For instance, A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed a man in Franklin Park, Illinois Friday morning after authorities say he attempted to drive into agents. and DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said agents in Portland were attempting to conduct a “targeted vehicle stop” when a driver attempted to “weaponize” his vehicle. We can use them with proper attribution, as the RS do. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we can include DHS claims by attributing them. In some contexts, that might be appropriate. My question is, do we have to report every dubious claim by a demonstrably unreliable agency unconcerned with truth, due process and the rule of law just because those claims are published in an RS. I think that laundering every RS-published questionable claim gives way too much epistemic power to whatever institutions are willing to lie the most brazenly and have the power to pressure the media into publishing their brazen lies.

To give an example, when writing about this incident, I think it makes more sense to say "ICE officers fired upon a Cuban immigrant who was attempting to flee from a traffic stop." If evidence other than the testimony of DHS emerges to support the claim that he hit officers with his vehicle, if they maintain the claims in their public statements in court, if the frivolous charges they press against people they brutalize aren't dropped, then we can include that information. Does that make sense? Or am I required to include and attribute DHS's claims in the explanation of every incident to maintain NPOV? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the only thing that existed was the news regurgitating the government statement, the event would likely fail WP:NOTNEWS, WP:DUE, and WP:BLPCRIME anyways and we would not have an article/prose on it; it would not be an unusual event as US law enforcements kills thousands of people a year per Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States. In this specific incident, the thing that made it notable was there was bystander video that disputed the government statement which made it a high-profile case, and there is plenty of coverage which evaluates the video. Jumpytoo Talk 05:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to make it clear in the article text that the claim of the vehicle being weaponised is purely what the DHS claims, and not have it be stated in Wikivoice. Cortador (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is pretty much the norm in reporting about the Israel-Palestine conflict where spokespeople lying about what happened is common. Attribution works. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An issue I've seen a lot is news reports being used for things they don't actually say, but rather report that someone else said. "The sky was blue when Mr Smith saw the moon" is different from "Mr Smith said the sky was blue when he saw the moon" or "'The sky was blue when I saw the moon' said Mr Smith". News organisations tend to be quite deliberate in the language they use, and content should reflect that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:30, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

eg "As a service to editors, I have indeed been working on adding quotes from citations[6]. But with this kind of attitude, I'm not going to bother spending any more time on that. Editors who can't access the newspapers of record of Nordic countries – that Greenland is part of – can buy access themselves, as I've done. --User:Bjerrebæk📘 (talk) 13:01, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American hybrid warfare against Greenland during the second Trump administration. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The paywall is not relevant, but the source being non-English is a red line. See WP:PAYWALL and WP:NONENG directly below it. NotBartEhrman (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

tldr from that guideline, if there is no quote included, its immediately suspect? seems fair to me. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:51, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Being non-English is certainly not a red line. Whatever gave you that idea? A quote should be provided with any source if requested. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources are fine (English sources are only preferred), but yes editor need to supply a quote if requested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete the citation and any material that depends on it with the edit comment "cannot verify due to refusal to quote paywalled material". If reverted, I would explain the situation at WP:ANI.

Helpful hint: https://removepaywalls.com/ bypasses many paywalls. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We are now seeing editors using AI assistance (eg. ChatGPT, Claude, Grok) for editing articles. It would make sense at this point to start thinking about whether AI assistant output, including so-called AI summaries from Google searches, can be regarded as WP:RS. Not least of the problems with AI is that Wikipedia forms a substantial part of their core corpus, and there is thus a serious risk of WP:CITOGENESIS, damaging both the encyclopedia and any AIs trained on it.

My attitude is that they should absolutely not be regarded as reliable sources, and that we should have a general prohibition on using AI sources. — The Anome (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We already do. WP:RSPLLM and WP:RSML. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - it wasn't obvious to me. Perhaps we should have explicit separate entries on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for each of ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok etc. to cover this. — The Anome (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to wait for the restructure for them to show up, but entries can be added here in the meantime if we do this. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AI isn't a source because its output isn't published. To the extent that it is published, it is WP:UGC. Katzrockso (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This issue of using AI to copy edit articles is common, and oddly little discussed or managed. The clues are: a single large edit. The edit contains unambiguous improvements to grammar and clarity of prose, thus most editors ignore it - looks like an improvement. However it also tends to "sand down" context, turning specifics into generalizations. For this reason they are typically in the red byte-count a net deletion. Here is an example from Sears: Special:Diff/1329054639/1329568871 I posted paragraphs pre and post edit into an AI detector and the pre was 100% human and the post was mostly AI. Nobody caught it or reverted it for days. AI copy edits are difficult to detect but over time they turn articles into generic slop. -- GreenC 21:04, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And the annoying thing is that most people want credit or some sense of satisfaction for "improving" things while not realizing they are making things harder. There were a bunch of discussions early on during the Iran–Israel war which ended up with an article written by an AI with imaginary citations "merged" with a detailed article to fix the issue. (In actuality, the AI article was fully deleted and the other article replaced it and received a new article name.) Archives are permanently weird now as a result as the whole first page of them is primarily useless due to revolving around the AI article.

As an aside, I am a bit confused though regarding your Sears example as you seem to have caught it within half a day after it happened, unless I misunderstood the edit history. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia page Sexual abuse by yoga gurus the following sentence has been added:

"The Daily Telegraph, reporting on the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, stated that Swami Satyananda "engaged in 'aggressive, violent sex' with numerous women and may have raped a seven-year-old" child, although no finding was made against Satyananda in the Commission's final report."

The Daily Telegraph article includes the following paragraph:

"An Indian guru who founded the global Satyananda yoga movement engaged in “aggressive, violent sex” with numerous women and may have raped a seven-year-old, despite preaching chastity, an Australian inquiry has heard."

As per WP:SECONDARY:

"Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences."

To me this indicates that the Daily Telegraph quote is a WP:PRIMARY because it is something the Royal Commission heard from the victims, not the assessment it made. Is this correct?

Given the mixed factuality rating of the Daily Telegraph and the fact that no finding was made against Satyananda in the Commission's final report, should the Daily telegraph quote be removed? ~2026-19410-0 (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first place to discuss whether content should be removed or not is usually the articles talk page. I've left a notification there in case anyone watching that page wishes to take part here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was a discussion in the article talk page, but there was disagreement - hence I posted here for additional opinions ~2026-19798-4 (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference MBFC rating aren't based on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and so are not a full proof way of judging a sources reliability, see WP:TELEGRAPH for past discussions about it's reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, it should not be put as something that the Telegraph said in their own voice, which is a misleading representation. If I follow correctly, this is Satyananda Saraswati, who is dead for over a decade, so BLP concerns should not apply... which does not mean that the content is inherently due. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave whether this should remain in the article to others, but it was structured in a way that read as if the Telegraph was making the statement rather than reporting on the statements given to the commission. I've made an edit to make it clearer[60] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article cited at [61] is from The Daily Telegraph in the UK. The "mixed factuality rating" cited by 2026-19410-0 above pertains to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), which is under different ownership from the British newspaper with the similar name. Although this topic pertains to an Australian issue, the news report being cited is from the British newspaper -- which is considered "generally reliable" at WP:RSP except as to transgender issues, which the article in question is not related to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out! Looks like Daily Telegraph (UK) has the same right bias and mixed factuality rating as The Daily Telegraph (Australia). ~2026-19798-4 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for clarifying that it is considered generally reliable by WP:RSP. In that case the main issue is whether the quote should remain because it can be considered as WP:PRIMARY not WP:SECONDARY. ~2026-19798-4 (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and sites such as MBFC have different way of judging a sources reliability, and there opinion on the political leaning of a source is entirely irrelevant. Sources are allowed to be biased, see WP:RSBIAS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making this edit, it helps! The primary question remains - whether the quote is WP:PRIMARY not WP:SECONDARY and should be removed. ~2026-19807-4 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY wouldn't be a reason to remove it, primary sourcing is allowed. Whether primary sources content is WP:DUE for inclusion may depend on if other sources have reported on it, but in this case that other source is the Telegraph reporting on the primary source (the statements given to the commission).

Even if the quotes are PRIMARY, as in they're quotes from the witness of the commission, the Telegraph reporting on them does show there's some weight for inclusion. Whether that's enough to justify inclusion if a bit beyond me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]