Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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

Start a new discussion

RFC: Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor

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

This discussion has been archived, a close request has been made on WP:CR. When it is closed it will be restored. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Screen Rant

There was a previous discussion of this source here in 2021. At WP:VG (Here and here)

Use of source: This source is used on over 7,000 articles (per WmCloud). This ranges from media and pop culture (comic books, video games, film, music, television, etc.) and is cited clearly popular and important seen articles like Quentin Tarantino, Malcolm X and Kylie Minogue.

Why is it relevant? There was a discussion at WP:FILM (within the past year, and for clarification, started by myself) which took take a deeper look at the content of it and other sites owned by it and ValNet. The conclusion of the discussion led to the creation of WP:RSP/VALNET suggesting we limit the content used by these sites to reviews clearly labeled as reviews and direct interviews, as the sites were shown to have poorly researched historical articles on film, attributing material to social media sites (reddit, letterboxd, etc.), and when used by others, it was in terms of interviews conducted by the site itself and direct reviews of films. While editors have brought up that the reading should have only been used for screen rant material after the ValNet purchase, this was only done after the discussion was agreed upon by other editors and no editor or material has been shown to suggest it was ever following its own policy. I bring this up, as the last big application by WP:FILM does not coincide that the site is reliable for for entertainment subjects as it stated at WP:RSP.

RFC: What should Screenrant.com be designated as?

Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2. This is one I've gone back and forth on, but I think the status quo at WP:RSP and WP:VALNET is reasonable for Screen Rant under Valnet (2015–present). It's acceptable for basic pop culture facts but is not "high quality" as defined by WP:FACR. It should not be used for claims outside of pop culture, and it should be immediately removed from BLP claims per WP:BLPSOURCE. It also should not be used as evidence of notability or to indicate that something is WP:DUE in an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, at least for modern pop-culture stuff. Of course, some of its articles are of little use (articles focused purely on plot, random "best of" lists, etc), but it's up to the Wikipedia writer to separate the wheat from the chaff. But those problematic articles are only a problem because of their format, not their actual content. Making things up, repeating conspiracy theories, attacking people, and the usual stuff that would lead to consider a site unreliable as a whole, do not apply to Screenrant. I have not worked with historical film articles, but the main focus of the page seems to be on modern pop culture anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, they definitely write about material related to historical content such as 12 articles related to John Wayne in the past month. Not to mention the articles I mentioned, they are obviously used in articles about real people. I'd be happy to point out basic errors, but I think this requires more clarification on what you mean by being acceptable for "basic pop culture stuff" perhaps with some examples. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. Could be reliable for direct quotations from interviews, but should not be used in BLPs or counted towards notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 (Summoned by bot) I agree mostly with Thebiguglyalien above. Per WP:VALNET their properties are considered borderline - and that should continue for this specific property unless there is specific evidence that it is not subject to the same control as the other properties they own. It is obviously not a high quality source for FAC purposes, but it should not be problematic to source uncontroversial information to it - in fact, it may be the best source for some of the uncontroversial information it includes. I do think it should be limited to sourcing entertainment (film/video gaming) related content, and should not be used to source anything remotely controversial about BLPs. And as always, with less-than-ideal sources, if there is better sourcing available, it should be preferred.
But I disagree with the OP here about how we determine the reliability of a source. Specifically, User:Andrzejbanas seems to claim that if Screen Rant uses, say, Reddit to get leads on information, it is inherently unreliable. That's not how reliable sources work. A reliable source can certainly get its information from unreliable sources. The question we must ask here is what the "reliable source" (that got its information from an unreliable source) did to verify the information it got. If we prohibited all information that has any origin on social media from being here, we'd have no reliable sources whatsoever. Even the most reliable sources like the New York Times get some of their leads from social media, for example. And no evidence has been presented that I can see that Screen Rant doesn't attempt to verify (or at least qualify as from social media) the information it gets.
Lastly, the discussion on WP:FILM isn't actually linked. I spent about 5 minutes trying to find it in the archives (searching on WT:FILM for "Screen Rant" and "screenrant" to try to find it) and I couldn't find it. I would appreciate if that discussion itself could be directly linked since it's being used to justify this discussion here - and if it can be linked here I'd appreciate a ping so I can review it fully and revisit this comment if necessary. But as of right now, I see no reason to move it from "borderline" or "more considerations needed". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, @Berchanhimez: the use of social media is tricky. Using to consider "reception" would be weak. The discussion and my points made are still on the main talk page of WP:FILM. You can see them here. I've provided several sources from ValNet sites discussing how they misrepresent their sources, contradict themselves in their own articles, and such. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That explains why I couldn't find it in the history - when you said "within the past year" I assumed that meant within the past year (and also not currently on the page). My fault. Perusing that discussion, I would be okay with adding a qualification based on this comment you made. Specifically that they are of "questionable reliability" and that they may operate as "content farms". I do, however, still take issue with your attempt to "dig deep". We don't question our sources on their sources. If they verify the reliability of the information they include from, say, Reddit (or other social media), then that's their right. Our concern is their editorial processes as a whole - not where they get information (or leads). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I just couldn't remember if the conversation stated earlier this year, or later last year. (is it nearly May already?) While I understand that other sources could be questioned, I have yet to see the same situations on the ValNet pages and while it could be addressed, things like Variety seem to pass the WP:USEDBYOTHERS regularly in academic journals and published books and other news agencies. When trying to find it for sites like screen rant, I only found them used by others in a serious manner I'd they may have some exclusive interviews. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 - I actually think what's currently on the Reliable sources list is a good spot for it to be. There is consensus that Screen Rant is a marginally reliable source. It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. ^🥑GUACPOCALYPSE^🥑 22:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? The current listing would be option 2, as it has additional considerations about the source and directly mentions that it's a marginal. Option 1 would be that it is reliable for controversial statements about living people etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3-4 It's churnalism and we should not be depending on it. Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as Screen Rant, in particular is known to use "AI" automated text generators for their churn of pop-culture articles. For a recent example: [1] was at least partially drafted with AI as confirmed both by human senses and validated by multiple Chat GPT checking programs. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per User:Simonm223. I don't think it is quite at the level of being worthy of deprecation, but I started a discussion about one of its sites a year back here, and these sites absolutely qualify as churnalism. At best, Option 2 in line with dubious but still relatively innocuous online tabloids (cf. WP:DEXERTO). JeffSpaceman (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 for general articles, Option 3-4 for list articles. I was going to say that it's not necessarily unreliable - certainly is churnalism, low-grade soft media - but... considering the commonality of its list articles, those are bogus as citable sources. They're opinion pieces that are generated as click-bait. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1-2 Agree with GUACPOCALYPSE above that the current description ("marginally reliable source") works well. While the previous consensus seems to be that Screen Rant is not high quality and should be exchanged when there are better sources available, no one has listed a bunch of examples of factual errors or writers making things up. It's mostly up to wiki editors to be discerning (such as listicles don't count toward notability but some of their actual reviews can be useful). In terms of niche fields (TTRPGs, comic books, etc), there has been shrinkage in terms of outlets that cover this area on a regular basis which means sometimes Screen Rant is the best source for details (interviews, product release dates, gameplay description, etc) that help round out an article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1-2. Generally reliable for entertainment media information. AI-assisted writing reviewed by a human writer is not the same as AI slop. The question about list articles should solely be whether the information in this is, in fact, erroneous. If an editor is looking for a source in support of a clearly factual assertion (e.g., that Hulk fought Thor on Sakaar), then a Screen Rant list of MCU fights is no less reliable for this than anything else. If Screen Rant starts coming out with claims that, e.g., Hulk fought Kurse in the MCU (which has not actually happened), then reliability would be suspect. BD2412 T 21:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 for me if we'd still allow Screen Rant to be used, but I'd still be cautious about its AI-generated content (in any form). I'd be also cautious about using it to verify info about living persons especially involved in the entertainment circle. No offense, but I question the "option 1–2" votes. If Screen Rant is generally reliable, then why be more considerate, especially about living persons? Even if the consensus cannot agree on the source's reliability, I'm... kinda hesitant to go for options 3 or 4... unless the source itself is proven "generally unreliable". George Ho (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon

NEW CONSENSUS

Consensus holds that the Free Beacon was "generally unreliable" during Continetti's editorship, but has become "generally reliable" during Eliana Johnson's tenure. Some editors consider the Free Beacon a partisan source. All editors should be aware that the Free Beacon sometimes publishes satirical or humorous pieces, which should be distinguished from their usual journalistic work. I will update WP:RSNP accordingly. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regarding the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon. Previous discussions from 2017 and 2020. Discussion that led to creation of this RFC is here. Marquardtika (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question #1 What is the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon during the editorship of Matthew Continetti (2012–2018)?

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Question #2 What is the reliability of the Washington Free Beacon during the editorship of Eliana Johnson (2019–present)?

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Survey (Washington Free Beacon)

Question #1

Generally unreliable - the previous editor was a salacious political firebrand, and the paper regularly did BLP vios and false statements, as per RFCBEFORE. It appears to have reformed, but any article during previous EIC should be taken with a grain of salt, and other sourcing is generally preferrable. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis and others, see previous RFCBEFORE.

some of the undue/unreliable stuff from RFC Before, and other things i scrounged up

Zialater made these points about 6 years ago based on searching, i assume, snopes [2]
- [3] claim ilhan omar funded groups tied to terror
- [4] claim that europe was gonna label "jewish-made" products
- [5] reduced reliability in wake of trump election
other stuff that is unreliable or undue
- [6] some 2012 conspiracy amplified by free beacon
- [7] an opinion piece about windmills and weaponization of solar farms causing a "bird genocide"
- [8] cia's dei program is dedicated to recruiting transgender folks
- [9] some tortured analogy about obamacare death panels and a scifi show

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally reliable - I would place the reliability of the more advocacy/tabloid era of the Free Beacon in the same bucket as WP:MEDIAMATTERS. Marquardtika (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability depends on context - in this era it qualifies as an advocacy outlet, usable with in-text attribution. But not reliable for verifying unattributed statements of fact written in “wikivoice”. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable per current rating, do not use for politics or BLPs. Trashy advocacy source given to gossip. Absolutely not a source we should be using - David Gerard (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable I do think that the WFB was more ideological during Continetti's tenure, that being said, it still engaged in original reporting and several of the things it reported on were picked up by more mainstream outlets. Like other ideologically driven outlets such as Mother Jones, its reliability depends on the type of content being cited. For original reporting and routine coverage, it meets the standard of verifiability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally reliable - There was certainly clear bias, especially in this era, but not of a nature that it ought to lead to differing treatment than myriad other sources with clear ideological slants. Obviously, how the content should be treated depends on the context, but that's always the case with anything we do here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Marginally reliable~~ - no examples of uncorrected falsehoods have been presented. Open to downgrading my !vote. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out my vote after having reviewed examples provided by u:Bluethricecreamman. While they are not unambiguously bad (here, the False verdict hinges on the assertion that IR USA and IRW are distinct), they seemed to publish less potentially useful pieces during this period. Alaexis_¿question? 06:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable The way that this outlet selects stories is so enmeshed with their political opinion that it is functionally impossible to separate opinion from news with this source. The opinion of a political extremist media outlet is generally unlikely to be due inclusion in articles. Simply put this is not a source we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable Openly and repeatedly published outright falsehoods and misinformation for political purposes. Among the worst of the several right wing outlets that did so over the past decade, openly promoting conspiracy theories as facts. Silver seren^C 15:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable Attribution is a good opition in general either way. But there is a basis for WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable. Coverage just doesn't support the idea that they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. See eg. the coverage of its flat misinformation about Truthy.^[1]^[2] Other sources, like ^[3], document its place in the misinformation ecosystem, describing how it originated a misleading and unverified claim, stating it as fact. This is not how one would expect coverage to describe a reliable source. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable Its reporting was repeatedly questioned by Politifact [10], Snopes [11], [12], and others [13] during this period and I could find limited to no instances of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Chetsford (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question #2

~~Additional considerations for BLP, generally reliable but dueness always matter~~ - the most salacious info on BLP topics should still be corroborated by other news sources before being put on wikipedia, otherwise it's likely undue. seems reliable as is, might have some bias like any other outlet so always weight dueness. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger, HaeB, and Astaire made me want to refine my vote.
- In general: Additional considerations, For investigative/original reports: Additional considerations for BLP, generally reliable but dueness always matter, Other: proceed with extreme caution, likely extremely unreliable or undue Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable - In the Eliana Johnson era, they have broken several high-profile stories via original reporting that have seen notable WP:USEBYOTHERS. See The Washington Post, The New York Times, Axios, and Politico, for example. Aaron Sibarium is a legitimate journalist. See Business Insider. Marquardtika (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable with Eliana Johnson as editor-in-chief, with various original and credible scoops having been used by other reliable outlets. - Amigao (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally Reliable in this era. Blueboar (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time considering the Washington Free Beacon generally reliable when its current home page has a prominent section titled "Enemies of Freedom" that lists exclusively members of the US Democratic Party, and the section's entry (archive link, archive link 2) on Barack Obama repeats the conspiracy theory that Obama is a "secret Muslim". Another questionable article linked from the Free Beacon's home page is "FACT CHECK: Eugene Daniels Says Journalists 'Care Deeply About Accuracy' and 'Are Not the Opposition'", which is a mislabeled opinion piece with the statement "If Daniels meant to imply that journalists are currently not behaving like an opposition party under President Trump, then of course that is false", instead of an actual fact check. The Free Beacon's reliability falls somewhere between The Daily Beast (RSP entry) and The Daily Caller (RSP entry). — Newslinger talk 05:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at that Obama article - this is obviously an opinion piece (as evident form the section title alone) that is very polemical and not a suitable reference, but is that "occupation" seriously an endorsement of this conspiracy theory, or rather tongue-in-cheek snark? Has the publication made serious claims elsewhere - in a non-opinion article - that Obama practices Islam? (Can't find anything in a quick search [14], but haven't looked thoroughly.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am almost certain the "secret Muslim" thing is intended as a joke, given the piece's tone and the fact the website still maintains an active "satire" section [15]. Astaire (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the satire section seems to be along the lines of the Babylon Bee. Obviously unreliable and unusable, but also easily identifiable and clearly distinct from their original news reporting. Marquardtika (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another portion of the Free Beacon's "Enemies of Freedom" entry for Obama claims, «"Born" in "Hawaii" in 1961, B. Hussein Obama moved with his mother at age six to Indonesia and ate dog meat», with the words born and Hawaii in scare quotes. About a week ago, the Free Beacon published an article claiming "Obama was particularly aggrieved by Trump's relentless quest to uncover the truth about his birth certificate, a matter that has yet to be fully resolved", with the word has in present tense. Both sentences echo Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.
Many of these problematic articles are not adequately labeled or tagged. Although the Free Beacon has a "Satire" section and an "Arts, Culture & Opinion" section, none of the articles I linked to are in these sections. Instead, the faux fact check was placed in the "Media" section and the latter article about Obama was placed in the "Democrats" section. One of the authors, Andrew Stiles, is described by the Free Beacon as "senior writer at the Washington Free Beacon" with no disclaimer regarding the veracity of his content. This lack of disclosure blurs the boundary between news content and polemic on the Free Beacon, and is an "additional consideration" regarding the website's general reliability. — Newslinger talk 07:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "fact check" and the Obama article are both written by Stiles and part of the "Stiles Section", which I specifically highlighted in my response as generally unreliable.

There is precedent to upgrade or downgrade the reliability of a specific writer (e.g. upgrading Sibarium, downgrading Stiles) at WP:RSP - see the entries for Boing Boing, Jacobin, Der Spiegel, Quackwatch, and Hardcore Gaming 101. Astaire (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable, per Newslinger. It's not just a blaring advocacy source, it's a trashy blaring advocacy source. Should not be used for politics and really should not be used for BLPs. I wouldn't object to deprecate, frankly - David Gerard (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 for its investigative and original reporting (especially from Aaron Sibarium). Option 2 for editorialized or sensationalistic articles that lack original reporting. Option 3 for assorted tabloid nonsense.

Per BuzzFeed News, the Free Beacon is best described as somewhere between a traditional news organization and a high-concept prank... Alternately parodic and wire-service serious, it has broken major political news, mostly negative, about Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, and occasionally members of rival Republican factions, like Rand Paul. [16]
The Washington Post described the Free Beacon as the rare conservative media outlet that does significant reporting of its own and said that it has an unusual commitment to original reporting... The puckish Free Beacon has managed to dig up damaging stories on politicians — Republican as well as Democrat [17].
Politico called the Free Beacon an online publication that is explicitly conservative and dedicated to “combat journalism,” but which is somewhat grudgingly respected in liberal circles [18], specifically praising Sibarium's work.
The Atlantic wrote that the Free Beacon has produced some memorable political reporting over the years and suggested that it is a rare example of a right-wing outlet doing credible journalism [19].

Under Johnson's tenure, the Free Beacon has broken multiple stories of significance that were later mentioned in WP:GREL sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS), such as:

Plagiarism allegations against the Harvard University president [20] [21], after which she resigned.
Leaked text messages between Columbia University administrators [22] [23], after which they were placed on leave.
A hospital network using patients' race as a factor in rationing COVID-19 treatments [24] [25], after which this practice stopped.
A free speech uproar at Yale Law School [26] [27], after which the school's associate dean retired.
A controversial deposition from the Columbia University interim president [28] [29], after which she announced her departure.

However, the Free Beacon's track record does not extend to tabloid silliness like this recent story about a CNN reporter not wearing shoes on a train. Articles like this, and the Eugene Daniels "FACT CHECK" mentioned above, are written by Andrew Stiles and compiled under the website's "Stiles Section", along with obvious satires like "Exclusive: We Got Joe Biden’s List of Absurd Demands for Speaking Gigs". This section is a grab bag of undue BLP material, opinion pieces, joke articles, etc. Not encyclopedic, but they are self-contained and easy to separate from the rest of the paper (just look for the byline). Astaire (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly add to my comment here, it was recently reported that the Free Beacon's EIC Eliana Johnson was part of the nominating jury for the 2025 Pulitzer Prize in the National Reporting category [30] [31]. This is another sign that the paper's original reporting has a positive reputation. Astaire (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable Under Johnson, the WFB improved in journalistic rigor and made many original reports that were widely used by various outlets (i.e. NYT, WP, etc.). Reporters such as Aaron Sibarium are professional reporters and his work has been validated through secondary coverage. The official editorial stance is conservative but the official stance of Mother Jones is liberal/progressive. The actual thing in question is the site's factual reliability. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable - The WFB has done plenty of legitimate reporting during this era, and I'm frankly a lot more confident about this as a reasonable source than Continetti. Of course, the fact that they house satire on the same site as news reporting means extra care should be taken on exactly what is being used from the site. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional considerations (Marginally reliable): Generally reliable for investigative/original reporting per WP:USEBYOTHERS with Johnson as the new EIC. Conservative bias on politics. Satirical and pop culture articles generally unreliable. I'm seeing this one as a right-wing cross between a WP:DAILYBEAST and a WP:MEDIAMATTERS which are both WP:MREL. BBQboffin^{grill me} 20:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question - is there a corrections policy/examples of the outlet issuing corrections or updates when needed? Currently I don't see anything that militates towards the current GUNREL designation, but given that there seems to be consensus that they do in fact print quality original journalism, I think looking at editorial behaviour should probably be the difference between an MREL or GREL outcome. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are editor's notes such as here and here. Marquardtika (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The later note is more encouraging (that is the kind of behaviour that gives some confidence in the editorial processes). The earlier one, which affects question 1 more than question 2, raises some questions (what are the different editorial processes for "aggregated" news pieces as opposed to "original investigative" ones, and are these types of articles categorised separately in a way that is visible to the reader?). I see the above !vote says Generally reliable for investigative/original reporting but less reliable for other things, and I'm wondering if the difference is always obvious.

Another question: Now that there are some more GUNREL !votes, I see a several that argue that the outlet pushes misinformation/conspiracy theories. Can we please have a link to articles from the Beacon that exemplify this? Samuelshraga (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally reliable. On one hand there is a lot of stories they broke, on the other hand u:Newslinger's examples are concerning. I think that the distinction suggested by u:BBQBoffin makes sense (investigative/original reporting vs satire, pop culture and opinion-style pieces). Its use should be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account who wrote a given piece. If it's authored by someone who had produced high-quality content previously, that should be a positive signal. Alaexis_¿question? 19:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significantly better than during the previous era, although not entirely sure whether its now Marginally or Generally reliable... But I think we're at least close to where we would need to be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like the choices. A related case started on 21 April is the Free Beacon cite thread on the talk page thread of Charlie Hebdo shooting, participants = Peter Gulutzan, David Gerard, David O. Johnson, Gamebuster. David Gerard removed a cite of the Free Beacon and later mentioned "a broad general RFC" somewhere. I believe this edit should be overturned and more generally Free Beacon censorship should end. But I'm not enthusiastic about the the RfC's 4-way choices and their links. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion for a different option beyond the given choices? When I wrote the RFC I just copied the four main options that seem to be listed in other RFCs about source reliability. I thought they were the standard options. Am I missing something? Marquardtika (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The recently-changed 4-way form pays attention to only the publication rather than the other things in WP:SOURCE; the links are to an essay-class page defining (changeably) what your !vote means, regardless what your comment is. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who can't read the cite of Washington Post that Aquillion added as a reflist-talk at the end of Question #2: it's a for-subscribers blog post by Henry Farrell from October 2014 i.e. before the editorship of Eliana Johnson. Its first sentence is On Oct. 17, Ajit Pai, an appointed member of the Federal Communications Commission, wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post making scary-seeming claims that the National Science Foundation was funding a scheme to surveil the Web for "subversive propaganda" that seemed "to have come straight out of a George Orwell novel. The mentions of Daily Beacon later in the blog post are "The rumor that it is something scary seems to have started with a discredited and disingenuous article at the Daily Beacon." plus (in a quote from Filippo Menczer and Alessandro Flammini) "A first wave of attacks in August was ignited by a story in the Washington Free Beacon. It made very misleading allegations, ignored our body of research and made no effort to verify the accuracy of the allegations by contacting any of the researchers." They also say the original story was debunked by Columbia Journalism Review. Though they don't get specific, we can see from the dates that the Free Beacon article is Feds Creating Database to Track ‘Hate Speech’ on Twitter. There were others, as late as November 2014: Truthy, Explained, which includes some response to the Post criticism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable My opinion about the outlet under its new management is unchanged from my opinion of them prior: The way that this outlet selects stories is so enmeshed with their political opinion that it is functionally impossible to separate opinion from news with this source. The opinion of a political extremist media outlet is generally unlikely to be due inclusion in articles. Simply put this is not a source we should use. Simonm223 (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable I don't see the claimed improvement in content by the publication. They still push the same conspiracy claims and misinformation, just perhaps slightly more subtly. The claims above of their breaking reporting picked up by others seems to entirely revolve around Claudine Gay and nothing else, which was itself a massive political furor. And therefore no need to use an already unreliable source like this because of that one instance. I see no point in using this source for anything. Any actual useful stories will inherently already be covered by better and more reliable sources. Silver seren^C 15:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The claims above of their breaking reporting picked up by others seems to entirely revolve around Claudine Gay and nothing else This is simply untrue. I gave five examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS for their investigative reporting (and there are others, omitted for brevity), only one of which was the Claudine Gay story.

They still push the same conspiracy claims and misinformation, just perhaps slightly more subtly It would be helpful if you gave some examples of this in their news reporting. Astaire (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable for investigative and original reporting. Tchouppy (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable on comments on WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to confirm here, since there is a lot of focus on stories that they're breaking, that we're all aware that WP:RSBREAKING exists, right? Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable. No indication that their reputation has improved; if anything it has gotten worse, with sources overtly describing them as publishing misinformation - see eg. ^[4]^[5]^[6] Simply breaking stories isn't WP:USEBYOTHERS; simply doing "original reporting" doesn't make a source reliable. Any outlet can sometimes break a story. What matters is the context; whether secondary sources treat them as reliable. And high-quality sourcing absolutely does not - they're treated as producing a fountain of misinformation. Many of the stories they "broke" - especially surrounding are described by high-quality sources as full of distortions. Their coverage of Claudine Gay in particular has attracted serious academic criticism, eg.^[7] WP:RS isn't about effectiveness, it is about reputation. They plainly lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their coverage of Claudine Gay in particular has attracted serious academic criticism, eg. - huh? A "distorts the context somewhat" would be pretty gentle even for lots of criticism within academia - professors sling worse invectives at one another in academic debates all the time, without us GUNRELing an entire academic journal because it had published an article that was criticized in another one this way.

And your quote (which you misleadingly end with a full stop that is not present in the original) conveniently omits the subsequent part of the sentence part where the author admits although they [The Crimson] acknowledge many errors of a similar kind [as those reported by Sibarium] across multiple pieces authored by Gay. What's more, in the sentence right before, the author himself seems to accept the Beacon's core factual allegations: Writing for the Washington Free Beacon, Aaron Sibarium (2023) has highlighted numerous instances of overlapping phrasing, unclearly cited or incorrectly formatted quotations, and apparent copying in Gay’s scholarly output. When it comes to differences of interpretation (plagiarism or not), it's also worth noting that the opinion which the article advocates (I do not even see plagiarism, in any meaningful sense of the word) flatly contradicts that of several other academics, e.g. Carol M. Swain. However, you apparently want us to believe that the article somewhat represents the academic consensus, as if Sibarium had engaged in climate denialism.

Based on this additional information and the fact that you tampered with a verbatim quote in a way that both furthered your argument and violated MOS:PMC, it could even be reasonably argued that your own comment here "distorts the context somewhat". But I wouldn't accuse you of being a fountain of misinformation just because of that.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "fountain of misinformation" bit summarizes the other sources, which are much more in-depth and clear that the Free Beacon is not a reliable source (one of them says as much in as many words.) I included the bit about Gay merely because that is the main focus of people arguing that it is reliable and to demonstrate that there are sources that cover that as part of the the same thing; and "somewhat distorts" adequately summarizes their position, as you conceded. If the best you can muster in defense of what is supposedly its star bit of reporting and the thing that its defenders believe is that academics have only said that it "somewhat" distorts the facts, then that's hardly enough to overcome significant academic coverage overtly describing it as a propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable website or saying that it is known for spreading unreliable junk. This is simply not something that could conceivably be considered a reliable source; the only serious debate is between unreliability and deprecation. They are not simply biased, they overtly and systematically distort the facts in the service of an ideological agenda. "One of their hit pieces got wider coverage" obviously does not render such a low-quality source reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

significant academic coverage

Let's not overstate the case here. This "significant academic coverage" consists of two throwaway comments both from a single person, Melissa Zimdars. "Significant coverage" would be analyzing one or more of the Free Beacon's stories in detail and showing how it contains factual inaccuracies.
Your summary of the first comment is not even correct: the quotation in full is propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable websites like the Washington Free Beacon, Infowars, and the Daily Caller, respectively (emphasis mine). So Zimdars is calling the Free Beacon "propagandistic", but not "conspiracy-oriented" or "unreliable".
Moreover, this first comment is describing the Free Beacon as it was in May 2017, before Johnson became EIC in September 2019. And the comment is taken from a book published in February 2020, which - given the speed of book publishing - could very well have been written before Johnson even assumed the EIC position, and at any rate is not very far into her tenure.

"somewhat distorts" adequately summarizes their position

No, it doesn't. I am familiar with the Crimson piece referred to here [32] and nowhere does it suggest that the Free Beacon "distorted" the facts. In fact the Crimson article serves more to verify them: Some [passages] appear to violate Harvard’s current policies around plagiarism and academic integrity.
The closest thing to a "distortion" would be this part, which confirms that the Free Beacon has a standard corrections process: The Free Beacon initially reported that Schwartz was not cited in the paragraph at all, when in fact, his work was cited at the end of the subsequent sentence in Gay’s article. The publication corrected the error after being contacted by The Crimson Monday night. Astaire (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally reliable - Many articles are well researched. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable They have been putting out good investigative pieces in the last few years. -Bruebach (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable/additional considerations. They do some original reporting to reasonably high levels of journalistic professionalism. We'd want to make that easy enough for WP editors to use, while at the same time cautioning editors that they need to keep an eye out for the other content. They are conservative and they make that clear. Perhaps because of their conservative convictions, they might take on stories that others would miss or not think to investigate. We wouldn't want to miss stories like that. Novellasyes (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable Although they have a partisan/ideological bent they seem relatively well respected among the wider journalistic community. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable The persistent, negative factchecks I cited in my comment in the previous section pretty much evaporated around 2018. Moreover, we can find numerous examples of recent WP:USEBYOTHERS like Staten Island Advance [33], NPR [34], the Wall Street Journal [35], Washingtonian [36], etc. Combined with the more perfunctory elements like an obvious gatekeeping process and a physical presence by which it can be liable for its publications, this should be sufficient. Chetsford (talk) 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable The complaints about it are primarily that it's opinionated, and shares opinions editors here disagree with, but that's never been a reliability issue; many progressive and liberal publications are considered reliable. And WFB has published significant stories that have been picked up by other, mainstream publications, as detailed above.Hi! (talk) 23:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable. Not only ample WP:USEBYOTHERS, but the ringing endorsements of its reliability and credibility by competing WP:RS highlighted above by Astaire is proof that its perceived bias does not affect its penchant for facts, which is what we look for here. This year, Johnson was even asked to serve on the nominating committee for the Pulitzer Prize. Secondary sources treat the WFB as reliable. In addition, recognition of its reliability will start to rectify some of the WP:SYSTEMICBIAS here on WP. Longhornsg (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional considerations: it's a clear partisan source which frequently criticizes political left and is heavily opinionated. That being said, it doesn't have a history of publishing outright misinformation. It may have done it here and there, but not to the point where it can be considered outright unreliable. PierroPawleczko (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Uberti, David. "How misinformation goes viral: a Truthy story". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2025-05-06.
^ Farrell, Henry (22 October 2014). "No, the National Science Foundation is not building an Orwellian surveillance nightmare". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2025-05-06 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
^ Silverman, Craig (2015). "Lies, Damn Lies and Viral Content". Tow Center for Digital Journalism. doi:10.7916/D8Q81RHH.
^ Zimdars, Melissa (2022). "Mis/Disinformation and Social Media". The Social Media Debate. Retrieved 2025-05-06. The right-wing media sphere is very interconnected, and websites tend to legitimize each other and circulate the same information across social media platforms. Websites like Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Washington Free Beacon, Campus Reform, Gateway Pundit, and many more are known entities for spreading unreliable junk.
^ Kamarck, Elaine; West, Darrell M. (3 September 2024). Lies that Kill: A Citizen's Guide to Disinformation. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8157-4073-5 – via Google Books. One of the linchpins of disinformation networks is the multiple levels of the information ecosystem that try out particular attacks to see which one work before elevating them to sites with a wider readership. Rumors might start out on obscure bulletin boards such as Reddit or 4chan, but as they gain currency, they move up to conservative sites like Infowars, Breitbart, or the Daily Caller. If people read those articles, the information can get picked up by conservative newspapers like the Washington Examiner and the Washington Free Beacon. The most effective stories eventually are broadcast by mainstream media such as Fox News or other cable outlets.
^ Zimdars, Melissa; Mcleod, Kembrew (18 February 2020). Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-35739-5 – via Google Books. If you searched Google for information about potential collusion between Russia and Donald Trump in May 2017, the first results that appear are propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable websites like the Washington Free Beacon, Infowars, and the Daily Caller, respectively.
^ "Claudine Gay, Plagiarism, and AI". AAUP. 24 October 2024. Retrieved 2025-05-06. Or at least that is what the bad faith efforts of Christopher Rufo and the Washington Free Beacon would have us believe. ... A more comprehensive review conducted for the Harvard Crimson by Rahem D. Hamid, Nia L. Orakwue, and Elias J. Schisgall (2023) demonstrates how Sibarium's original reporting distorts the context somewhat.

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

RfC: The Debrief

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 list:

Maths, science, and technology

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of the The Debrief [37]?

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

Chetsford (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (The Debrief)

Option 3 (generally unreliable). The Debrief is the new(ish) blog of paranormal podcaster Micah Hanks (host of "The Graelian Report" - an apparent portmanteau of "grey alien" ... one of the alien species flying saucer believers think are battling the Galactic Federation of Light led by the "good" Pleiadians). With The Debrief, he appears to be trying to edge into the mainstream by branding it as "science and tech" and mixing summaries of mainstream science news with the usual cruft (there's an entire section on flying saucers [38]).
Hanks has written and spoken in a variety of media about ghosts, ESP, "lost" civilization, flying saucers, Bigfoot, etc. (see: [39], [40], etc.) These reports appear largely uncritical and seem to originate at a starting point which presumes veracity of the paranormal. He also frequents the paranormal lecture circuit (here he is at "East Coast Paracon" on a "remote viewing" panel [41]). He is also a guest talking about flying saucers on News Nation [42] which we previously determined was unreliable per WP:UFONATION. Insofar as WP:USEBYOTHERS it was widely cited around one event, the David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, based apparently on the exclusivity of its access to Grusch or those who know him. I can find no other instances of USEBYOTHERS. Chetsford (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I'm also fine with Option 4 if needed to attain a consensus, though, I share the concern of Chess that it might not be used with enough frequency to make it worthwhile adding it to the edit filter. Chetsford (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 5 (totally unreliable). Just forget about it. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to forget about anything that contributes to dramah... and disruption. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can always hope that the domain name The Debrief will be abducted by some UFO people and will disappear from the internet. Would that be nice? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the requisite probing that comes with it perhaps...? ;) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation. It seems to be a mixture of FRINGE and reposts of articles available elsewhere. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this frequently used enough onwiki to be worth adding to the edit filter? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 (additional considerations). It's used in 50+ articles, it requires care but it's of great utility and we wouldn't want to wholesale purge it. Obviously, it a pro-UFO outlet, so it's not reliable for extraordinary claims about alternate worldviews. But ASIDE from FRINGE claims, it meets RS in terms of fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correcting. When it makes uncontroversial claims about living people (Person X has joined Organization Y), it seems generally reliable. Feoffer (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. It's WP:FRINGE material from a WP:TABLOID, non-RS blog. No reason to entertain it, plenty of reason to remove. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/3. Generally unreliable for claims about UFOs etc since it represents a fringe view on the subject. Claims of that nature sourced to The Debrief should be removed. But there is no need to exclude its use for uncontroversial claims and reporting about the activities and persons involved in the fringe UFO community. -- LWG ^talk 18:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Micah Hanks is obviously unreliable and so is his blog. Polygnotus (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 Unreliable misinforming trash - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, possibly Option 4. Micah Hanks is reason enough to define The Debrief as unreliable, but that it claims to have a "reputation as an unbiased source of news" and yet typically publishes material like this...that's a hard NO. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you object to that article of all articles?! it debunks a legend, concluding "there is nothing in the official records to suggest that any sort of UFO or other anomalous activity was involved.... The tragic event seems to have been the result of poor decisions made by the pilot." Feoffer (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. Simply not a basis for decent encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. Not a WP:FRIND or reliable source for UFOs, conspiracy theories, paranormal, occult, etc. For citing uncontroversial information or general facts, there are likely much higher quality sources available, so why use The Debrief? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My own involvement began as a side discussion on the "Sol Foundation" AFD. 21st century stuff is not my forte, but my thinking is that while their beliefs are no doubt fringe, it is not a fringe claim for us to report that various notable fringe promoters have allied under a common name, which is all the source in question was being used for. Seems like the project is better off if we can tell readers "who" the "Sol Foundation" actually is, so they can read our articles on the members, rather than just send them back to the wilds of the internet Feoffer (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I haven't followed that discussion. Could you give an example of data you'd want to extract from The Debrief? The Debrief articles I see about Sol read like propaganda written by a PR person. I think it would be difficult for casual editors to discern how to apply an exception to an otherwise deprecated source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know if we need to cite Debrief in the article, but it's coverage of the controversial group of notable people does count toward notability, at least according to my thinking. To complicate matters, the group is at least partially religious in nature, getting coverage in Catholic press as well as UFO press, both of which are fringe worldviews but still count towards notability (in my eyes). But admittedly, about 50 years outside my expertise, I can't keep straight who is who in the 2020s ufo world. Feoffer (talk) 03:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4. It has no real fact checking or editorial oversight. Their non-UFO reporting isn't any better. - MrOllie (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. Usable depending on context. Decide on a case-by-case basis. Visiting the site, which is clearly not a blog as is being exaggerated here, the articles look and read like straight reporting in the majority of instances. 5Q5|^✉ 12:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4. This is a science clickbait website. As others noted, anything that might be worth it can be found in better sources.-Bruebach (talk) 10:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per Feoffer. Shouldn't be used to push that agenda but seems fine to support inter-UFO community stuff when that would be appropriate in context. There is not, in fact, "likely" better sourcing for a lot of this kind of thing. The debunking/skeptic sources cover it from that angle, which is fine, but will often leave out basic facts irrelevant to their point that are helpful for encyclopedic article writing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 or 3. As 5Q5 has pointed out, this is not a blog, but a quasi-journalistic outfit with editorial guidelines [43]. Per Feoffer and PARAKANYAA, this source still seems usable for uncontroversial claims like group membership; banning it outright is a step too far. It is obviously not FRIND, but that doesn't make it unreliable for details unrelated to the fringe theories themselves. Toadspike [Talk] 15:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (The Debrief)

The Debrief has not previously been discussed at RSN but is coming up with greater regularity by flying saucer enthusiasts who are using it as a source for related articles. A current and contentious AfD is also presently turning on whether or not this is RS. Chetsford (talk) 07:44, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last discussion appears to have been Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 425#Thedebrief.org, which appears to be have been impart a result of this discussion Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 98#UFOlogy promoter BLPs.
This search shows some limited current usage in Wikipedia's articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:22, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: I don't see an {{rfc}} tag on this discussion. Would you like to add one? — Newslinger talk 13:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thank you, Newslinger! Totally forgot - now fixed. Chetsford (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see an analogy with the publications associated with minority worldviews. Ensign (LDS magazine) isn't a RS in the same way NYTs is; we're not citing it to prove the Golden Plates existed. But Ensign is generally reliable, when properly used. Feoffer (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Feoffer here: it's unreliable (or at least undue) when used as a source for subject areas where it's at odds with the preponderance of more reliable sources. But there's no reason we can't cite Ensign (LDS magazine) for a claim like "so-and-so is a LDS theologian whose writings focus on [topic]" and I think The Debrief is acceptable for similar purposes. This far I haven't seen any case made against The Debrief besides "it publishes the writings of people with factually-incorrect beliefs about UFOs" which is an argument that would seem to apply to any publication aligned with a minority worldview. -- LWG ^talk 18:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Media Bias/Fact Check rates The Debrief as "High Credibility" and "Mostly Factual" while still note the unsubstantiated UFO claims. I don't know how much weight we give MBFC ratings, but at minimum the rating demonstates Debrief is a media source, not 'just a blog'. Feoffer (talk) 06:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MFBC and other such sites don't base there analysis on Wikipedie's policies and guidelines. They might be useful for further research of a source, but I wouldn't give their conclusions any weight. This isn't a comment on if Debrief is a blog, or whether it's reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair -- we shouldn't cede our editorial judgement to something like MFBC. But some arguments above really did suggest it's not a media site, so that narrow argument does seem refuted. Feoffer (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MBFC have a report of Science-Based Medicine using the same kind of language[44], however per WP:SBM it should at least be considered partially self-published. Again such decisions should be based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines rather than an external source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By way of comparison, MBFC also rates PoliticusUSA as "highly credible" for factual reporting. Chetsford (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources pertaining to Balochistan's alleged self-proclaimed independence

Three sources are currently used at Operation Herof 2.0:

Arab News: "Pakistan blames 'state patronage' from Afghanistan as separatist insurgency intensifies in southwest". Arab News. Retrieved 2025-05-17.
Used in the infobox to support Pakistan accusing Afghanistan of supporting separatists in Balochistan, which Afghanistan denies.

News18: "Balochistan Trends On Social Media As Activists Declare Independence From Pakistan, Back India". News18. Retrieved 2025-05-15.
Used to support the sentence "On May 9, the BLA announced on X, through one of its spokesmen and activists, Mir Yar Baloch, that they were unilaterally declaring the independence of the Republic of Balochistan."

The America Times: Times, America (2016-09-12). "US Respects Territorial Integrity of Pakistan, Shuts Door on Baloch Independence". The America Times. Retrieved 2025-05-17.
Used to support the sentence "On May 12, U.S. State Department spokesperson John Kirby told journalists, “The US Government respects the unity and territorial integrity of Pakistan" and that the nation would not "support independence for Balochistan.”"

The rest have only been cited in Republic of Balochistan when it was still an article:

"Baloch separatists declare freedom, seek recognition from UN and India". Arunachal Observer.
"Baloch writer claims independence from Pak, urges UN for recognition". India Today. 2025-05-09. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
Mukherjee, Srishti (2025-05-08). "Baloch Separatists Declare Push for Independence; Seek Global Support Amid Rising Conflict". NewsX World. Retrieved 2025-05-09.
"BACs Tara Chand backs Indian strikes, calls for support to free Balochistan from Pakistan". The Tribune. Retrieved 2025-05-10.

The only reason I can mention these four is because I had made a source assessment table for that article before it was deleted. Unless older versions of this redirect are somehow restored, I can't recall exactly what these had been cited for, but the titles alone do seem to suggest a match with the facts I remember being present in the article. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not totally clear what your question is here. Could you restate it, please? Furius (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda boils down to this: Which of the sources listed above, if included on a source assessment table for a Balochistan-related topic, should receive which color ( Yes No Partial Unknown) under the Reliable? column? I'm aware that Indian newspapers (especially those that are part of Godi media) tend to be regarded as "trash", but I want to make sure whether or not the sources listed here are trash. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the listed sources except the Arab News are unreliable for this subject. Indian publications can be used only for stating India's own position for this subject, not more than that. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can't be saying that no Indian publication at all could ever be used? Are there no independent, reliable Indian sources? RSP lists The Wire and The Indian Express as generally reliable, but presumably there are others. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same line of argument used in #LiveMint for the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict and it's subsections, and is equally going nowhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LiveMint for the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict

There have been disputes at the above page regarding the reliability of LiveMint for covering the conflict. In 2020 RS/N found the outlet to be generally reliable although some editors expressed concern about international reporting stemming from its broad and undisclosed use of syndicated feeds. However the reliability has been questioned by some editors now on the basis that LiveMint is closely aligned with the Modi regime and cannot be trusted for accurate reportage of an in-process military conflict involving India. LiveMint's parent, Hindustan Times has been identified by WP:NEWSORGINDIA as an example of an outlet that has undisclosed paid reporting however LiveMint is not mentioned by name in that document. Bias in an otherwise reliable source is not cause to treat a source as unreliable but undisclosed paid reporting certainly is cause to treat it as unreliable, as would be factually inaccurate statements involving Indian foreign relations, if they exist.

I felt this particular outlet was questionable enough that a reasonable course of action would be to get a sounding from RS/N about it. I should note that I don't currently have a strong opinion either way on this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unreliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. HT media owns both Hindustan Times and LiveMint and is known for colluding with the Modi government.[45] (archive link) It is just another Godi media outlet. Orientls (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are broader issues with this source. Yes it is unreliable for the conflict, and even outside this conflict, one will have to be very careful with using this source given the various instances where it has published false claims and disinformation,[46][47][48] and also used misleading headlines.[49] Wareon (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Both the above users have attempted to discredit this source in other discussions using rationale that are completely unsupported by WP policy - Namely, by declaring sources to be "Godi Media" ^[a] and then arguing that such a characterization makes them unreliable by default. Inspite of being informed that such a rationale (using user-assigned labels to declare sources unreliable) was not in line with WP policy, one of the the editors has repeated the same rationale above. The other editor has produced some examples that, contrary to their characterisation, show that LiveMint is less likely to publish false news, with [50] showing an example of reliable reporting where other media omitted relevant information. [51] was an op-ed, and [52] is for an instance where Reuters-published false information was reproduced by other media. None of these is by any stretch a valid reason to call it "unreliable".

I'll be adding a longer response here in some time, but found it necessary to add this context for now. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on content. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that I could have probably reworded in a way that avoided mentioning editor conduct, but the points raised are still valid. There's been an lot of arguments used by editors to classify sources arbitrarily as "unreliable", arguments that have no basis in WP policy. The second portion regarding specific sources is also relevant. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I agree that references to "Godi Media" are, at best, unproductive. Simonm223 (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use LiveMint much since I prefer print newspapers. But I haven't found any serious problems with LiveMint on the occassions where I had to use them. Wareon's comment is trying to hang LiveMint for putting out ANI/PTI/Reuters news releases. Practically all news outlets do that, perhaps some more than the others. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEWSORGINDIA primarily relates to overly promotional material for individuals and companies, rather than overt bias in politics. If anyone can show they are posting paid propaganda from the Indian government then they would be entirely unusable, but I don't think that is shown by past discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you know I don't like over-using news sources much. As such I'm a bit of a hanging-judge when it comes to news source reliability and I find the ambiguity about who is paying a news organization to write its content troubling. As I said at article talk the reason I consider NEWSORGINDIA relevant to HT in this context is precisely because we don't know if they've been paid to post propaganda. In fact, in this regard, I kind of trust outright state media more because that ambiguity is resolved and we can, at least, understand where their positions are coming from. Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to proof separately that it applies to political matters as well as what has been previously discussed, using NEWSORGINDIA to completely block the source isn't appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Hanlon's razor applies. I have found that the more I know about a subject the worse the media look, which suggests ignorance and laziness rather than bias. Of course, that does not rule out bias as an additional factor. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, again, bias should not be our concern here but rather reliability. Simonm223 (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: Hindustan Times and Mint are among the better news sources in India, which is not to say that they are free from issues that plague Indian media or that have not or cannot be incentivized/pressurized. But I would suggest discounting any editor who throws around the term "Godi media" for these news organizations willy nilly, since that's more name-calling than argument, especially since for the recent Indo-Pak conflict the flaws in Indian media reporting are likely more a result of nationalism than political partisanship. For similar reasons, WP:NEWSORGINDIA is unlikely to play a role here.

That said, the Indian and Pakistan media's coverage of the conflict has been pretty flawed and should be handled carefully. For example, by checking if the reports are based on government/military statements or named experts, which then should be attributed appropriately as their claims; the publication's own on-the-ground reporting; or, just mere assertions, either unattributed or attributed to generic "sources", which should be deeply discounted or even ignored.

In order to enable such an analysis, can someone point to the specific HT and Mint articles whose reliability is to be evaluated and what they are being cited for? Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Indian english digital media hasn't published inaccurate stories other than one instance [53] from The Hindu, which was later deleted. However can't say the same for Indian broadcasting media, they were indeed found in serialising poor updates but we are not even citing them to begin with. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HT has been cited more than 20,000 times. If you wish to challenge this source as unreliable, the first step should be starting an RfC at WP:RSN. Given there are no major instances of misinformation by it, I'm not sure how you intend to justify declaring the source as unreliable or deprecated. Al Jazeera, in comparison, has been caught publishing more fake news [54], yet that alone hasn't been enough to label it an unreliable source. I've already explained on that sources can have a WP:PARTISAN point of view, and it's not up to us to start a CNN vs Fox or right vs left kind of debate. Claiming it leans toward the 'Modi regime' is a weak argument, especially when the other source leans toward the "Qatar monarchy" and effectively acts as its mouthpiece. I've asked Orientls and Wareon to present their case at RSN and establish a consensus as to why these sources should not be used. The WP:BURDEN lies on them and anyone who wants to remove thousands of citations from a widely used outlet. Again, 'Godi media' is not any metric for dismissing reliable sources. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This section has been titled LiveMint for the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict. So can the comments be restricted to that source please? It is owned by HT Media, which is not the same as Hindustan Times. Hindustan Times is not under discussion here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but HT Media owns both, and it would be unusual for two parts of the same media empire to have widely differing biases, especially in Indian media. Having said that, we need evidence that LiveMint has a BJP/Modi bias and some evidence of unreliability before this discussion can go anywhere. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And fwiw, the industrialist family/group that ultimately controls the two publications has traditionally been closer to the Congress (I) party rather than the BJP. See for example, Christophe Jaffrelot's India's first dictatorship in which the he discusses Indira Gandhi's links to K. K. Birla; the latter even wrote a book in memory of the former. Although even then, HT's slant was more nuanced than being a Congress party mouthpiece; see for example this column by Inder Malhotra.

In short, we should stop painting with a broad brush and actually examine the particular articles and claims they are being cited for. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare and Black Kite: I have already provided a report from The Wire showing how one of the editors of Hindustan Times (HT) had to leave after the outlet got the calls from Modi government over the coverage of 2016 Indian Line of Control strike, which is also a part of India-Pakistan conflict.

Here is a report from The Caravan which said that the things for HT "changed by September 2016, when the government was trumpeting its disputed “surgical strikes” against targets in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir. That, the former executive said, was when Bhartia began receiving calls from the prime minister’s office and Amit Shah." It adds "a leading newsroom role told me. “Ministers did not like Bobby very much, and half the job of the editor of the Hindustan Times is to court ministers. He upset people like Smriti Irani”—the minister of information and broadcasting at the time—“and these ministers were complaining to the PMO”—the prime minister’s office."

It is also addressing the last points of Abecedare by saying: “While the other regimes asked for reasonable restraint, this regime asks for absolute restraint,” the editor who spent years in the editorial leadership said.

As for LiveMint, it frequently published the false claim that India had downed F-16 during 2019 Balakot airstrike.[55][56] Sources on the Balakot strike article shows how this claim was false.[57][58] HT even published a dubious report[59] claiming that the Foreign Policy magazine making a false claiming by publishing this report. This report on "US government’s position" couldn't be supported by any third-party sources. Instead of questioning the Modi government, HT and LiveMint were instead finding ways to repeat their false claims. Orientls (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls: Thanks for the link to the Caravan article. I am not surprised that HT/Mint are pressurized by the government as are other media in India (and, unfortunately, now in US), and therefore such sources need to be treated with care. I have thoughts about the previous HT/Mint reporting you link to but since they are not of current interest, can you please provide the links to the specific articles currently under dispute and what claims they are being cited for? Afaict, that hasn't been mentioned in this RSN discussion. Abecedare (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: We are here discussing whether HT and LiveMint are reliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. Their reporting of the other recent conflicts absolutely matters. Even during this conflict, they have engaged in promoting the agenda of pro-Modi government as it can be seen with this random article where is using biased terms like "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK)", added a totally false claim that the "operation saw the deployment of air, naval, and ground forces, making it India’s largest cross-border precision strike since the 2019 Balakot airstrike". It added "attackers were reportedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based militant group", but provided no subsequent rejection by the group and is providing "the list of nine terror facility locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir that have been successfully neutralised" without attributing it as just a claim from the Indian government. This is the problem with all of the articles of HT and LiveMint.Orientls (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" is widely used in India, and many scholars have analysed the issues behind it. "Air, naval and ground forces" were deployed, and that is a fact. What is false here? "Reportedly affiliated with Lashkar-e-Taiba" is enough hedging for a newspaper to use, in my view. They might have made an own judgement but didn't state it as a proven fact. Quite acceptable. If TRF's claim was mentioned and retraction was not mentioned, you might have some basis to question it. Even then it is up to the source to decide how much weight is to be placed on the original claim and how much weight for the later retraction. Plenty of RS have ignored the later retraction. Manoj Joshi commented on an international video debate that, having faced almost universal oppobrium, it was not unusual for the organisation to have retracted it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard practice of terrorist organizations involved in India Pakistan conflict to retract when things get too serious this happened after Pulwama also.

Regarding terror infrastructure beign hit, well in this case HT and livemeint is reporting what GoI is saying at the very best we could say that these sources should be used with caution that's it. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links (numbered [78] and [79]) are syndicated columns from ANI, and cannot be attributed to Mint. The third one (numbered [82]) was reporting on an official statement from the Pentagon, which I am sure every Indian newspaper would have reported. How do these examples prove anything? Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General media reliability of news sources should not be assessed based on their coverage of conflicts in which their home market is directly involved, otherwise cases of NYT-WMD-Iraq abound. For Indian news sources (and generally as well) this scale serves as a helpful guide from low to high reliability: Broadcast (TV and radio, the former is where the "Godi media" label originated for and is still mostly applied to, radio news in India is under state monopoly); Websites (unless otherwise known to be notable/reliable non-notable sites should be avoided, I would apply this to the websites of newspapers and magazines and where if the need is still felt to use them we should look for bylines et. al. and even then prefer the print versions of those articles); Print newspapers/magazines (which are generally the most reliable news sources in India).

Mint falls in the last of these and to discount it as RS, we would need to show a sustained pattern of unreliable coverage which I believe hasn't been shown (instances here and there of online fake news shouldn't really affect its general reliability). Hindustan Times (which owns Mint) is a legacy Indian newspaper (along with others such as The Times of India) which is widely used on enwiki and a much higher bar would be needed to discount it and subsidiaries overall. Though it has been known to have aligned with various governments at times due to pressures or otherwise this doesn't affect it overall reliability; we can on a case-by-case basis discount articles where unreliability has been shown.

Press freedom in India is a concern but that does not mean we use that as a cudgel to bar all Indian news sources, we don't do this for any country. Of course for conflict articles we prefer academic, non-involved, and in-depth RS but that isn't a say on the general reliability of sources from countries with limited press freedom (which are nonetheless suspect of government parroting and nationalism). News sources in the end are the bottom end of RS, when the fog of war here clears for this conflict and [uninvolved] academic sources become available the article should be in a much better shape. Gotitbro (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say, except to add that the news websites attached to newspapers/magazines cannot be expected to be of the same standard as the print newspapers. LiveMint falls in that grey area. So does the India Today website. The corresponding print publications are of high quality. But the websites are not. That means that some of their content is questionable, but not all. What I generally do is to look for corroborating information from other sources and use them in conjunction with the others.

Websites attached to TV channels. e.g/. News18 or NDTV, should be treated on par with the TV channels. They seem to have the same editorial policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I say as much above "I would apply this to the websites of newspapers and magazines and where if the need is still felt to use them we should look for bylines et. al. and even then [meant wherever possible] prefer the print versions of those articles". Gotitbro (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are unreliable Indian media sources that report the claims made by the BJP government as truth. They are mouthpieces of the Indian state engaging in misinformation campaigns like they have done in the past; Media coverage of 2019 India–Pakistan standoff. They should not be used for neutral analysis in this conflict, third party sources are the only thing we can cite here. The objections to use of the term "Godi media" are also unfounded given India ranks at the very lower ranks of press freedom despite being a democracy, these biased indian print and newspapers are actively functioning as mouthpieces of a certain political party that has much to gain from this conflict; (e.g swaying Bihar elections with nationalist rhetoric). Shankargb (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for what it worth Livemint should only be considered for business reportage cause that's their main area of focus. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.

Reliability of Indian media sources in 2025 India–Pakistan conflict coverage

In light of the New York Times report titled How the Indian Media Amplified Falsehoods in the Drumbeat of War, which discusses misinformation and bias in Indian media coverage during the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, can we assess the reliability of Indian media sources in this context? Specifically, should certain outlets be considered questionable or unreliable for coverage related to India–Pakistan military tensions? If so, should they be listed at WP:RSP with appropriate context? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NYT seems to be referring to the Indian sources that are often described as Godi media. Yes they are not reliable for the India-Pakistan conflict. I would urge you to merge your thread with the one already opened above at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LiveMint for the 2025_India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That thread appears to focus specifically on LiveMint, whereas the New York Times article addresses a broader range of outlets. Some editors are attempting to include information from Indian sources that is either not fully corroborated by third-party sources or is contradicted by them. I need to clarify my own thinking on this as well—should we prefer third-party sources over Indian sources when covering the India–Pakistan conflict, particularly in cases where third-party reporting either does not support or directly contradicts Indian media claims? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a discussion immediately above regarding the use of LiveMint on that very page. See WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LiveMint_for_the_2025_India-Pakistan_conflict Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown: Yes that thread is about Hindustan Times and LiveMint, however the dynamics are the same. I am sure that discussion will benefit if you convert this thread into the sub-thread of the former.

Yes, Indian media sources cannot be used for anything other than stating the position of the Indian government in the India-Pakistan conflict. Whatever has been corroborated by the third party sources should be given more weight. Orientls (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree with this, but some editors are promoting the view that Indian media sources—currently considered reliable and not listed as questionable or unreliable at WP:RSP—should be treated on par with third-party sources such as The Guardian. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that kind of comparison is totally misleading. The Guardian is a reliable third party source for this conflict. Shankargb (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orientls is correct. This particular New York Times article is of little value for us since it doesn't name the sources it is complaining about, but statements like this: "Some well-known TV networks aired unverified information or even fabricated stories amid the burst of nationalistic fervor" suggest that it is mainly complaining about TV channels. The Economist was more honest in pinpointing "India's broadcast media". We rarely ever cite TV programmes for anything. Even when we do, perhaps via their associated websites, they have long been flagged up as unreliable sources even outside this topic area. The Godi media page itself is an example of this. There is nothing new for us here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has been raised multiple times on the Talk page of the concerned article and shot down. As I point out above, and as have other editors on that very Talk page, we simply do not blanket ban sources just because they come from particular countries. Yes we tend to prefer those from uninvolved parties for conflict-related articles but since this is an RS issue, particular sources will have to be taken up on a case by case basis. The original attempt (and here still) to bar Indian sources but to still make way for Pakistani sources [claiming that the latter are reliable simply on accord of not having been brought up RSN is also very partial] (the pressures of the government/military on news media in these countries are not exactly unknown). Indian TV news media, what the term Godi media is meant for and what recent articles about the conflict highlight, should not be genericised for all Indian media (PS: we already barely tend to use Indian TV news media in our articles on account of the same). Gotitbro (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you think of any Indian media outlet which is capable of questioning the Modi government over their exceptional claims about their own involvement in the India-Pakistan conflict? If you know any, then just show their relevant article here. Orientls (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That (sources critical of governments) is not something that determines or has ever determined RS, factual reporting is the criteria for news media. For the implication see my above comments about press freedom in the Mint thread above. There is not a dearth of news media, including mainstream, which is regularly critical of the government in India and can be easily listed here but that is not relevant to our discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia editors have been arrested for editing the Sambhaji wiki page. Of course the media can't question the narrative without risking hard time. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely unrelated note I don’t understand why discussions about controversial topics related to India on Wikipedia always bring up past debates. There are suggestions for a blanket ban on Indian sources, and some people on the ANI talk page have even proposed that Wikipedia should block access from India altogether. Neither of these ideas aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines, whether it's a blanket ban or blocking Wikipedia in India. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that all Indian and Pakistani sources be barred from being used in the context of WP:CT/IPA. While both sides media has outlets that are considered generally reliable, these outlets assume a view that heavily supports their own governments agenda during their conflicts with Pakistan/China, as well as on any controversial subject. An exception can be made for all of these sources so that they are considered generally unreliable in controversial topics. Ecrusized (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole RfC would be slightly mnore convincing if the OP themself didn't use edit summaries such as Pakistani source supporting Pakistani claim, what’s wrong with that. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this on the talk page and I'll say it here, I don't support this blanket ban unless the same standard is applied to every conflict page on Wikipedia starting from USA waged wars or conflicts. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not making any sense with that false equivalence. Read about World Press Freedom Index, and see how Pakistan and India have a poor ranking there. The ranking of the US in press freedom is many times better. Orientls (talk) 13:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember a few fake and unverified news circulated by Indian digital media during this India-Pakistan conflict. It's baseless to put such a proposal. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's misleading. OpIndia, FirstPost and more Indian digital media outlets are frequently spreading fake news. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support banning both Indian and Pakistani sources, but we should not use RSN to take sides. So would oppose any ban on just Indian sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't make sense, a blind carpet ban is unnecessary. Point out the sources and we can specifically discuss their credibility. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First you need to point out which Indian publications can be trusted for the India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said WE do not take sides, so we cannot blanket ban all Indian media, yet allow Pakistan's media. So we ban both or niether. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support blanket ban we could discuss individual sources though. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already exists for many years. The Indian and Pakistani publications can be used only for stating their own government's position in the India-Pakistan conflict. If you want to specifically discuss any source, then you should first point out which source from India is capable of questioning the claims and actions of the Indian government over the recent military conflict? Orientls (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No such broad consensus exists or has existed for India-Pakistan conflict articles. We tend to go for 3PARTY in conflict articles and that is what the local agreement for the 2019 Balakot airstrike was limited to. Gotitbro (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That broad consensus exists since the Balakot strike dispute and has also been followed on the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict page as well. That's why this thread was opened because some editors are now refusing to comply with that long-term standard but not telling why. You are also not providing any Indian news publishers who can be termed reliable as a whole for the India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than repeatedly claiming a broad consensus exists why not link that broad consensus here then. You won't be able to though as none has ever existed. The only broad consensus that emerged in India-Pakistan articles post 2019 was for handling Kashmir related leads and infoboxes. No such discussion blanket banning domestic sources has taken place, beyond ad-hoc handling of those sources on particular articles (that includes Balakot and the recent conflict).
I think others here have already shown those RS, though the burden is on those asking for blanket banning of sources for which no precedence exists. Gotitbro (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From claiming "local agreement for the 2019 Balakot airstrike was limited to" you have expanded the scope to "consensus that emerged in India-Pakistan articles post 2019 was for handling Kashmir related leads and infoboxes". That is actually self-explanatory and is only proving my point that there has been consensus not to use Indian media sources for anything more than the position of the Indian government in this conflict. There have been many discussions throughout the recent years to confirm this standard.[60][61][62][63][64] Which part of those discussions makes you think that their scope was limited? Nobody including you has provided any Indian news publishers that can be termed reliable as a whole for the India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go through your links and tell me where does the consensus extend beyond the Balakot page (even that page does not outright bar local sources). You are clearly not familiar with WP:INB discussions, where the Kashmir consensus emerged, I am saying that is the only broad consensus which emerged post-Balakot and 370 revocation. Repeatedly asserting something exists when it doesn't is not tenable. Advocating for nebulous blanket bans is not something we do or have done. Editor discretion exists, and that is how we will continue doing things. This discussion is now going around in circles and I would like to rest my case. Gotitbro (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those links do not concern only the discussions from 2019 Balakot airstrike, but also 2019_India–Pakistan_border_skirmishes and 2025 India–Pakistan conflict. It is clear you haven't checked those links. There are actually more given the consensus on Surgical strike was also no different. Orientls (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The former is a part of Balakot, local understandings on specific articles for generally not using involved sources is not the same as a bar on those sources nor is any broad consensus ensued from these. You need to understand how Wikipedia:BROADCONSENSUS is made rather than badgering the same points ad infinitum. I did not and do not want to continue this but please do not misrepresent discussions. I will let other editors comment on this

Though if a wide consensus existed there would be no need for this discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting those discussions by limiting their scope to just a single 2019 Balakot strike article when they concern articles across wikipedia over India-Pakistan conflict of the recent years. This discussion is happening because one editor was claiming that LiveMint and HT are reliable for this conflict. He has already been proven wrong above. Now some participants in this thread are misrepresenting the purpose of this discussion by claiming to have intended a blanket ban on Indian sources. Orientls (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ecrusized and Slater say exactly that (bar on all Indian and Pakistani sources from the conflict), you say a consensus already exists for it (it doesn't).

A broad consensus has to be explicitly sought and applied, can't be willy nilly extracted and claimed to exist from limited historical dicussion on singular articles (after all Indo-Pakistani sources aren't entirely barred from the Balakot article as well). HT and Mint are RS (whether we use them for this conflict due to being from an invovled party is another matter).

This dicussion is ultimately futile if no end goal is even set for it. Is the purpose to treat sources from involved parties as suspect (we already do), is the purpose to rely on international sources and limit local sources to claims (we also largely do that). These are things that basic editorial judgment and discretion provides for in conflict editing.

But a total bar on domestic RS is something that is not happening or has ever happened, they can be essential when reporting on local deaths, destruction, false claims, and other essential things not reported by the international media. How and when to use them and if they are due is upto editorial discretion. We are not going to throw the entire wiki process away because of a 4-day conflict. We have not done this for Israeli sources for the Gaza war or Russian sources for the Ukraine invasion (yes we limit them and we would do the same here but a bar or nebulous RSP labelling is not happening). Gotitbro (talk) 08:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus exists for barring Indian and Pakistani sources for the India-Pakistan conflict. That's why you are not allowed to use them on any of the pages that I have linked.

You keep bringing up Russia and Ukraine yet you have frequently failed to answer the questions below about it, same way you have also failed to answer the question "Can you think of any Indian media outlet which is capable of questioning the Modi government over their exceptional claims about their own involvement in the India-Pakistan conflict?" Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

limiting their scope

No one here is limiting anything. I can't speak for other editors here but I for one just don't agree with you so the question of limiting their scope doesn't even arise for me. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence was meant for another editor, so if you cannot "speak for other editors" then simply don't make these unhelpful responses. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: It seems you are misleading the other editors here. In 2021, you were against Indian media sources so much that you believed "they shouldn't even be in the body"[65] on the article like 2020–21 India–Pakistan border skirmishes even though I was only using Indian media sources as representative of Indian claims. You wanted only "an official press release from the Indian Army"[66] to be used for Indian military claims and removed the Indian claims supported by Indian media.[67] What made you supportive of Indian media outlets all of now? I would like to hear a proper explanation. Shankargb (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are bungling uo two different issues here. That discussion was about using unnamed sources and portraying them as official Indian claims in the infobox and body which is obviously a no go. This dicussion is about blanket banning Indian news sources. Simply not the same thing. Gotitbro (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source does not become unreliable only because it is citing unnamed source. You are only confirming your distrust over the Indian media sources that they used unnamed sources and portrayed them as official Indian claims. You are in fact taking a more extreme position than those who still allow using Indian media sources for the official stance of the Indian government. Seeing the rest of the messages of yours, you are just contradicting yourself. Orientls (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no ban on Indian or Pakistani sources as long as they're in WP:RSP and please don't put words in other editors mouth if they're saying that they don't want a blanket ban then accept that instead of misrepresenting what they've said previously. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting this discussion as a whole. The above discussion is about why a user who evidently distrusted Indian media sources and won't use it for stating even for the stand of the Indian military is now opposing the factually strong objections to the use of Indian and Pakistani sources on India-Pakistan conflict. Nobody is asking for a total ban on Indian and Pakistani sources but only for this particular subject. Orientls (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is asking for a total ban on Indian and Pakistani sources but only for this particular subject.

Well that's a climb down. But still no as long as sources are in WP:RSP they will be used there should not be a blanket ban.

You are misrepresenting this discussion as a whole. The above discussion is about why a user who evidently distrusted Indian media sources and won't use it for stating even for the stand of the Indian military is now opposing the factually strong objections to the use of Indian and Pakistani sources on India-Pakistan conflict

I was making a very narrow argument that since the editor has said that they don't want a blanket ban that should've been then end of the matter but you took it further in anycase I won't comment on it since at this point it's relevant to the issue at hand. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orientls, It is not clear what you are saying. Gotitbro was just pointing out that Shankargb misrepresented a previous discussion which was about the validity of a particular source as representing the Indian government position. That discussion had nothing to do with reliability of any source. We are just getting tangled up with too many irrelevant issues. This particular subthread here is all bunkum. It is best to ignore it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: Gotitbro said "Discuss here if they should be in the "article body" (infobox is a clear no go for unofficial media claims), and I think they shouldn't even be in the body because unnamed and no international media has reported on them." This completely contradicts your falsification of the dispute that the "previous discussion which was about the validity of a particular source as representing the Indian government position." The difference between "media claims" and "a particular source" is huge. Now look at the page history, there was no discussion over a "particular source" but Indian media sources that Gotitbro was removing as clear here but had to later stick to them.[68] Orientls (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he meant "because [of] unnamed [sources] and no international media has reported on them", which suggests that for that particular factoid based on unnamed sources, he would have accepted it if international media had reported on them. That simply means that he would give international media sufficient WP:WEIGHT for accepting the apparently contentious claim being made there. There is nothing unusual here. We all give higher weight to international media. All of you would benefit from carefully contemplating what WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says:

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

These admonitions nowhere suggest applying a brute force black-and-white evaluaiton like "yes, that is a reliable source" and "no, that is not a reliable source". Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that you are supposed to give more weight to the reliable international sources which are not Indian or Pakistani publications in this conflict, then what is making you disagree over the standard that we must use them only for stating the position of their own governments in the India-Pakistan conflict? Orientls (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase international media have only limited resources in the subject countries, just a handful of reporters, if that, for the huge geographies concerned. The local media would have reporters in every part of the country. What they claim about what had happened or not happened is much more reliable. The international media also write primarily for their domestic audience, and don't have an abiding interest to follow up on uncertain happenings. In this particular conflict, when major escalation happened on the intervening night of 9-10 May, most international media were having a weekend. They just came back the next morning and wrote about the ceasefire from their headquarters. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point, my argument is that almost all of the Indian media promotes the indian narrative of the conflict and reiterates anything the government says. The collusion between Indian media and the state is well known (see our article on Godi media), so is their history of undisclosed paid coverage (see the guidance at WP:NEWSORGINDIA). These sources are unusable for anything other than what the Indian government says. For my point on press freedom, try finding a source that reports that India lost 3 jets including a Rafale (like the actual independent sources have reported) and criticises the government over it, hell try finding Indian media sources that even report that India lost jets! Orientls (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first and most important check on reliable sources is meant to be editors own good judgement. Is a source offering a obviously biased view of a situation? Then maybe you need to find other sources to balance out the situation. Intext attribution can also help, make sure claims and positions are stated as such - especially in situations where the actual facts are clouded or contested. Editors who can't edit in a balanced way should try taking a brake and editing a different are for awhile, there are always other editors who can take up the slack. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinions more or less. Even if a proposal wasnt about a one-way ban, a blanket ban on media based on nation of origin is pretty hard to justify. If there are sources that are peddling misinfo, they can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite opposed to a blanket ban of any kind. The Wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS etc. are more than enough to take care of disparity in the sources. Reliability mainly depends on a source's long-term conduct. It can't be applied willy-nilly on a topic by topic basis. I also wonder why only one side is asking for a ban of the sources on the other side. It is all fishy to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to maintain such a prohibition then you should first cite the Indian media sources that are questioning the handling of the Modi government of this recent conflict like the rest of the world has done. Who is that only one side that is asking for a ban of the sources on the other side? Asking because it looks nothing more than baseless aspersion. Orientls (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the NYT article cited at the beginning mentions only one side as being problematic in handling the facts during this conflict. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did it mention any source we regard as WP:RS? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It raises a gigantic question mark on the reliability of Indian media and sources as a whole. That is why we are requesting that they not be cited in conflict-related articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not blanket ban sources. Editor judgment for any conflict would be: prefer third party sources and use reliable domestic sources only when no alternative exists for the info sought to be included (which though ultimately may or may not be due). Judgment also tells us to avoid broadcast media and random websites (I see that you cited Samaa TV in one of your edits, and replaced it with an unknown Azerbaijani website calibre.az in another saying it is third-party; though Azerbaijan appears to be directly involved in this conflict and of course unvetted websites are always a no go); better just cite known [Pakistani] print media.

Russian invasion of Ukraine and Gaza war which are much larger and significant than this relatively minor [border] skirmish have not lead us to blanket ban domestic sources from the parties involved, even though their issues are far more widely covered and known (media coverage of the Gaza war and media portrayal of the Russo-Ukrainian War). We are not going to do break precedent here based on a single news report.

PS: Another issue with seemingly only relying on 3PARTY sources is the determination of what sources are truly independent of a conflict (as shown by the Azerbaijan example above). That is to be left to editors but no source comes without bias. Ultimately we need to rely on academic sources. Gotitbro (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: Can you name some Russia-based outlets that are used in the Russia-Ukraine conflict articles in an unbiased manner? Wareon (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to visit the articles of the Gaza conflict and the Russo Ukrainian war to see the usage of RS from either side. That is not what this discussion is about though, a blanket ban is being proposed here which is what I point out has no precedent and is unlikely to materialize here. Gotitbro (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not propose a blanket ban; I intentionally left the question open-ended for neutral, uninvolved editors—those not regularly editing the article—to consider the matter, so that we could take a broader perspective. This was precisely why I refrained from giving my own opinion. However, the discussion was steered in a particular direction by involved parties. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply confirming that you cannot name any Russia-based outlets that are used in the Russia-Ukraine conflict articles in an unbiased manner. There should be no use of Indian or Pakistani based sources in an unbiased manner on their conflict pages. Wareon (talk) 10:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to drive this discussion in a tangent; Israeli, Russian, Ukrainian, Palestinian sources are all used in their related conflicts when and where necessary. Obviously we rely on international media and obviously we attribute wherever necessary. We already suspect sources from involved parties (basic editorial discretion). This discussion is a nothingburger with no end goal. Gotitbro (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't make false claims about the conflicts and their handling on Wikipedia when you are not able to back up your claims. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukraine conflict is irrelevant here you're drawing unnecessary analogy. Both India and Pakistan are relatively free compared to Russia or Ukraine you can't put them in one basket. Also come to think of it there are countless Ukrainian sources beign used so go remove them first.

this ban you're proposing cannot be supported. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro is creating that analogy and failing to back it up. I am not proposing deletion of Ukrainian sources. Free in which sense? Press freedom? Ukraine has a far better press freedom ranking than India and Pakistan. It ranked #62 at World Press Freedom Index while India ranked at #151. You must stop falsifying my words, and also stop presenting false claims. Orientls (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine is under martial law. There are lots of things that Ukrainian press can't report most of the Ukrainian press coverage of war has been pretty biased DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SheriffIsInTown says the New York Times article raises a question mark over the "Indian media as a whole". Such a phrase doesn't appear in the NYT article. The examples cited are all TV networks: India Today TV, Aaj Tak and News18. The terms "television" or "TV" appear 8 times in the article. No print newspaper has been mentioned. None of the example pieces of misinformation appeared in any print newspaper. And, the article also praises the tremendous work done by Alt News and "Some small independent online news publications". Sumitra Badrinathan, the scholar quoted there, also talked to South China Morning Post, which focuses entirely on television and social media, and cites both Indian and Pakistani instances of misinformation. The "previously credible journalists" is apparently a reference to Barkha Dutt, whose tweet has now been deleted. None of these matter to Wikipedia because we never cite tweets and rarely ever cite any television news. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why cite websites operated by the same TV channels mentioned? If these channels spread fake news on air, how can their associated websites be considered reliable? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, we shouldn't cite their websites either. I made a pass on a couple of sections yesterday, removing some of these websites. I also tagged Samaa TV website, which you apparently reverted! You remember this, right? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 Did the NYT article specifically mention Samaa TV or the Pakistani media as a whole as having spread fake news? Samaa TV was used to cite a claim made by the Pakistani government. Many editors here have pointed out that it is acceptable to cite sources from respective countries to support their own government's claims. You were tagging Samaa TV while retaining India Today and The Indian Express, and using them to support neutral claims rather than claims made by the Indian government. This kind of double standard should be avoided. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need NYT article to decide the quality of sources, do we? I would prefer if all TV sources are removed in a contentious topic. Surely you can find better quality sources for the claim made? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to avoid broadcast media when better print sources are available, this is not something unique to this conflict that is standard determination of RS. Rather than Samaa, Geo, Ary etc. better cite Dawn, Tribune or TNI and other known print media from Pakistan. Gotitbro (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note It would appear that editors who have Indian flags on their user pages, as well as those whose account contributions are entirely focused on editing Indian-Pakistani conflict, and other subjects related to India have arrived in this discussion to oppose the ban on Indian media outlets. Respectfully, I don't think these users should be allowed to comment on this since they are evidently biased towards their own country/government.

I am yet to see a single editor so far, who is not Indian that has supported using Indian media sources. I also want to add that I am neither Indian nor Pakistani, nor have I ever been to one of these countries in my life, nor do I ever intend to visit them... I believe both countries media should be barred from being used in this topic. (I am pointing out that I am not from this region because I've had baseless accusations made by some Indian editors against me who have accused of being Pakistani). Ecrusized (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First and last warning to all future posters. Singling out other editors based on there ethnicity or nationality has a name, and it's not acceptable. Additionally discussion of any editors behaviour is not appropriate on this noticeboard. Disruptive editors should be deleted with by the normal methods regardless of where they come from, see WP: DISRUPTIVE. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Your comment is quite clearly violative of Wikipedia:PERSONALATTACK. No we don't care what your nationality is nor whether you have travelled to or are connected to the countries you wish to edit content about. For someone who has been here for years such a comment is beyond the pale. And for someone who is focused on conflict-related articles, why does no precedent exist from other conflicts for something that you propose here (blanket ban on domestic media); it is because that is not simply something we do. Editor judgment based on policies and guidelines to determine RS is what we rely on and this board exists to determine other contentious cases. If these are to be thrown out the window, might as well do away with the entire wiki project. Gotitbro (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to rephrase this the best way I can. What I'm trying to point out is WP:CONFLICTOFINTEREST. Ecrusized (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what conflict of interest is about, not even close. See WP:NOTCOI, being from a place is not a conflict of interest in articles about that place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't a conflict of interest. At all. Remotely. What you are doing is Singling out other editors based on [their] ethnicity or nationality, it does indeed [have] a name, and that name is "racism". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man don't do this at this point you're beign rude I don't throw the "r" word around casually but it seems you want to earn it. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of that conflict it is very unlikely that anything reported only in the press in a participant country can be relied on, but in general we shouldn't ban completely sources from any country. Even if all current sources are suspect, there remains the possibilty that someone may start a better source except in the most totalitarian countries. I doubt that we would see such calls for a blanket ban if we were talking about a European country. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: That was not the original question, but "can we assess the reliability of Indian media sources in this context? Specifically, should certain outlets be considered questionable or unreliable for coverage related to India–Pakistan military tensions? If so, should they be listed at WP:RSP with appropriate context?" Reading it as demand for a "blanket ban" is a misreading of the question. Wareon (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy your reasoning I'm of the opinion that this whole thread is about instituting a blanket ban but you're entitiled to your opinion.

can we assess the reliability of Indian media sources in this context? Specifically, should certain outlets be considered questionable or unreliable for coverage related to India–Pakistan military tensions? If so, should they be listed at WP:RSP with appropriate context?

The answer to this is WP:RSP itself if there are Indian and Pakistani sources listed there then they should be used also one must keep in mind that in an conflict the information flow is very rapid maybe some Indian or Pakistani sources listed at WP:RSP had reported misinformation but that shouldn't be used as a cudgel to throw them out outlets like The Hindu ,The Indian Express, The Wire and many more tend to be very transparent regarding problem in their stories. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, that is a misreading of the actual question asked on the thread. It did not propose "blanket ban".

WP:RSP is not a sole indicator of reliability on Wikipedia and where does the RSP say that these sources are usable in context such as this conflict? Sources are gauged based on the context, Indian media in its jingoist frenzy is reporting the claims made by the government as truth which is not surprising given strong collusion between the state and the press in India.

You are citing The Wire which was banned by the BJP government for being critical about their actions,[69] and The Hindu had to retract their news about 3 aircraft losses regarding the Indian military[70] even though the whole world maintains that 3 aircraft of India were lost. You cannot rely on these sources for the India-Pakistan conflict when they are working under the pressure of the BJP government. Wareon (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though only @Wareon understood my question. I never intended a blanket ban; my question was open-ended and intended to elicit the views of neutral editors at this forum. It was raised in the context of the NYT article — whether some of these media outlets, or if most editors believe all of them, should be considered unreliable, we cannot treat the websites run by the same outlets as holy cows in this matter. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All sources of involved parties are suspect in a conflict, we rely on international media and use editor discretion elsewhere. We already disavow usage of broadcast media and their websites as the lower tier of news RS. This proposal to especially consider the case for Indian media is headed nowhere. Gotitbro (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this and the comment by Fortuna imperatrix. It's vague enough that we're only discussing the Indian media, even though the Global Press Index ranks it far better than either of the two IPA countries. The discussion has stalled and isn't going anywhere unless we shift back to focusing on issues with specific sources. As far as I can see, the users bearing the burden have failed to establish any kind of consensus. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing The Wire which was banned by the BJP government for being critical about their actions, and The Hindu had to retract their news about 3 aircraft losses regarding the Indian military

In the hindu case they were right and they reported it's another thing that they had to retract. In The wire case sure they're always on the wrong side of the government but as I see it none of these incident compromised their future coverage. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why The Hindu had to remove their factually correct article? Why The Wire had to remove their article in order to get their ban overturned by the BJP government? This is exactly how these media houses have been intimidated and they happen to lose their quality and credibility by accepting the demands of the government. Wareon (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why The Hindu had to remove their factually correct article? Why The Wire had to remove their article in order to get their ban overturned by the BJP government?

there's no merit to these questions. If these retractions had affected their future coverage then that would've been another thing but that didn't happen. Also I'm 100% sure that you haven't even seen the hindu 3 jet downed story cause they didn't report that story that story came from Press Trust of India wire feed.

https://archive.is/2XpdG here's the archived link. I'm not even sure why even a reliable source like The Hindu is also in your line of fire. Even though this wasn't a story of The Hindu's journalist they owned it and published a retraction as far as I'm concerned there are many reliable news organization in India and Pakistan therefore this blanket ban is unnecessary. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the retracted/deleted articles had to do with Indian aircraft losses, which the news outlets wrote independently, and perhaps withdrew them under government pressure. In my view, these are examples of the independence of Indian media (at least those that choose to be independent) rather than any evidence of government manipulation. It is a pity that The New York Times chose to write about only negative examples, but not about positive ones, but it is not really that surprising that NYT would do that. That is what they always do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no specific issues being discussed. A number of specific issues need to be discussed when evaluating the reliability of a source. For the Israeli-Palestinian topic the misinformation peddling is quite blatant and extends out to other countries and instances of it have been brought up for discussion here - however usually the worst that happens is that they are considered biased for the conflict and should be treated with caution and attributed. Trying to deprecate sources just based on bias, and that without any examples even, is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. NadVolum (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its also weird that the editor starting the thread chose to single out Indian sources, when the incentive for misreporting is much higher across the fence - I'd assume getting killed or kidnapped is far more consequential than losing government ad revenue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is a 2024 article relevant to the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict? It seems like you're clutching at straws. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to address the portion about me "clutching at straws", the practice of enforced disappearance of journalists in Pakistan is not new, not rare, and not likely to die out soon - as an example, there have been some high profile cases this year as well - [71] [72] [73]

However, if you read my opinion I posted above, I am opposed to any sort of generalisation of sources from any country, because excepting a few totalitarian regimes (the North Korean sort), media everywhere is a spectrum of reliability and unreliability. If anyone wants to take any specific source up on a case by case basis, they are welcome to - But any discussion that is targeted at a country in general (such as this one) is a non starter. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is irrelevant to this discussion; the thread is about NYT article exposing disinformation in Indian media regarding the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict and their reliability in light of that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the NYT article itself is irrelevant because they don't name names and beacause they don't name names we're out here talking about a blanket ban which is wrong. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a news organization's words and defamations against other media houses should never be taken at face value. Being an RS newspaper doesn’t mean they are the judge and jury of other news organizations—some of which may be their competitors. Proper academic and scholarly RS, in addition to irrefutable evidence of continuous disinformation, should be required to ban or delist any news outlet. And I mean, The New York Times is one of the most controversial news outlets out there—and people want to blanket ban an entire country just because NYT says so? Damn. 2409:40C1:2E:DE83:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. See my reply above to Phil Bridger. The purpose of this discussion is being grossly misrepresented. Wareon (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DataCrusade1999 How about India Today, News 18, and Aaj Tak? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had already made the point that News channels and their website should be avoided but IMHO India Today website can still be used with proper caution. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this discussion is to ascertain whether there are legitimate reliability concerns regarding a single news outlet - LiveMint - in connection to their coverage of a single event - the 2025 Pakistan / India conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you didn't pay much attention to this section. Nothing is beign discussed here some editors are conducting a roving enquiry of Indian and Pakistani media sources this is why every news organization of both of these countries is beign brought up if any news organization gets caught up in that dragnet then that would be used as a cudgel to beat other Indian and Pakistani sources which would result in a blanket ban on all sources from India and Pakistan. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete misrepresentation—at least of my thread—which I had opened as a separate section on LiveMint. Someone else moved it here as a subsection. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223 You are commenting under a subsection that was originally started as a separate section and had no connection to LiveMint discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been wise for people not to have exploded the scope of this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DataCrusade1999 I don't think we should be using the websites of the same TV channels that were caught propagating misinformation. These websites often carry the same content presented on TV in printed form, meaning the misinformation is also propagated to their websites. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That website carries content from the much higher RS India Today (magazine) along with India Today (TV channel); we need to differentiate between the two. I made the same determination previously regarding Dawn News (TV) and Dawn (newspaper). Gotitbro (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I even said it earlier in an comment. And by the way just so that no objects when someone cites from Outlook which comes under India today group, people shouldn't object to that cause Outlook is a reliable source even though it comes under the same company. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the magazine and the TV channel share the same website: indiatoday.in. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the magazine articles are under that label even in URLs: https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine. Gotitbro (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you're right I messed up i just saw but still India today magzine is reliable and I for one consider their website reliable too specially their fact check unit. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about others but I need a list of News channels and their website that you don't trust only after that I'll make my determination. On HT and Livemint I oppose any efforts to deprecate them from wikipedia, HT should be used with caution and Livemint should be used for business reportage purpose only. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal was based on the NYT article, which mentions India Today, News 18, and Aaj Tak. I don't think the websites of any of these outlets should be used to source content on India-Pakistan conflict articles. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India today is reliable the same NYT article also says that senior news anchor apologised for airing fake news. On the other two I would like to see other peoples opnion first. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India Today is no longer a reliable source for years. They evidently refrain from questioning the Modi government and justify it. Read this for now. Orientls (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliability" applies to what a source publishes, not to what it omits to publish. Your arguments are all fallacious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's too misleading even if your claim (though inaccurate) is accepted because omission of facts associated with Modi government changes the entire working of the publication. India Today is here to spread the agenda of the Modi government, thus it is no longer a reliable source for any controversial topics. Orientls (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It they are omitting information due to government pressures, that would make them biased, not "unreliable". You are totally confused. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

changes the entire working of the publication

that's a very big accusation.

India Today is here to spread the agenda of the Modi government, thus it is no longer a reliable source for any controversial topics.

more often than not they publish factually correct stories. I wouldn't dispute the fact that they're close to Modi government but then that same argument can be made for CNN beign close to democrats so If CNN is still considered reliable why not India today. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable source to back up this claim about CNN? You need to read WP:CNN and the discussions it has listed. India Today cannot be used for the India-Pakistan conflict or anything historical. Orientls (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers and wartime

I think what it comes down to is that news publications have been wartime propaganda outlets consistently at least since the late 1890s. Parties to an armed conflict will manipulate newsmedia as much as they can get away with so that it can serve a propagandistic function. This is not an India specific problem nor a Ukraine specific problem. This is a problem that is rather global regarding newspapers and wars.

Now I do understand why Wikipedians like using newspapers for wars even understanding that they're going to be full of propaganda: they're timely and convenient. Historians don't generally move in until the armed conflict is well in the rear-view mirror. Now there's a few ways we could handle this:

We could decide that we are going to ignore this as being bias and only act when third party sources make it clear that bias has become outright disinformation. This is where we are right now and it's frankly not working. Our various CTOPS related to protracted inter-state conflict indicates that clearly.
We could decide that we should only use news sources from states that are not a party to an armed conflict. While this would allow for the timely use of dispassionate sources it's going to descend into a morass of arguing over which states are party to a given conflict. We've already seen a bit of that with arguments that Al Jazeera is not reliable because of the differential relationship enjoyed between Qatar and Pakistan vs between Qatar and India. Returning to Ukraine we could then ask the question: Is the United States a party to that conflict? Is England? Is China?
We could decide we shouldn't be using news sources at all for wars. I prefer this one because it will reduce the ability to use ambiguities to POV push. Is it a news source? Don't use it for war. Simonm223 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "India-specific problem" here. Neither did the Indian government try to manipulate the newspapers, nor is there any evidence of them getting manipulated. All we have seen is a sloppy New York Times article, which people failed to read closely and started making wild allegations. Where is the evidence of any newspaper misdoing? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. You have praised this source elsewhere[74], and it says "Both sides have declared victory amid considerable misinformation and disinformation about what occurred." It also says "The crisis has been characterized by exceptional disinformation and misinformation in both social and traditional media." Now we have this recent article from The Guardian which also details this problem. All of this just solidifies the fact that we must not use Indian and Pakistani publications for India-Pakistan conflict unless it concerns the position of their own governments. Orientls (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian has "social media" in the title itself. And Christopher Clary mentions "traditional media". Do you think India Today TV would count as one of those? Why are you people misrepresenting sources to make fake claims here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of addressing the problems in your misleading argument, you are rather focusing on falsifying the source and misrepresenting what I said. The Guardian article does say "Many of these posts first generated by Indian social media accounts gained millions of views and the misinformation spread to some of India’s most widely watched TV news."[75] Dont just read the title but read the whole article. Yes "India Today TV", is a traditional media outlet, running for over decades. Orientls (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section clearly mentions Newspapers. Why are bringing in "widely watched TV news"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Indian newspapers would act differently? To address your claim that "Neither did the Indian government try to manipulate the newspapers," I would ask you to read this article to understand how the Modi government has harassed Indian newspaper Gujarat Samachar to comply with their agenda. We have seen the same over other newspaper outlets such as State Times,[76][77] The Hindu [78] and more. Orientls (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the Modi government targets the media, you want Wikipedia to target them too, by declaring them "unreliable"? You are out of your mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:22, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that operate under fear of any government and have to comply with their agenda are unreliable. Your snide personal attacks only speak of your own ignorance. Orientls (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support using third-party sources for independent claims presented in Wikipedia's voice, and limiting sources from countries involved in direct military conflict to statements about their own positions, or using them only with attribution to a specific news or media outlet. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of a policy discussion than about the reliability of any particular source, I would suggest taking it to WP:VPI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:26, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do want to say that some people are suggesting a 'neutral' proposal, which is to limit such articles to 3rd party sources. While I can understand the though process, I do want to emphasise on the point that the (longstanding) issue has been specfically with Indian media's coverage of Pakistan, but not necessarily Pakistan's coverage of India. Pakistani sources, while sometimes do have issues, are generally reliable, if not anything other than reporting of incidents that take place within Pakistan. نعم البدل (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Hatewatch and the SPLC

There is currently a disupute being discussed both at Talk:Andy Ngo and Talk:SPLC regarding the status of Hatewatch and whether it constitutes a different level of reliability than that of the SPLC. WP:SPLC describes the SPLC as being generally reliable for matters of the American far-right however the contention is that Hatewatch is a blog and, as such, should not be used for BLPs per WP:BLPSPS. Hatewatch is not currently described by the SPLC as a blog - it is described as a resource. Its reporting includes both SPLC staff articles and articles by named authors with bylines and it does appear that SPLC claims editorial control over it. A counter-argument has been made that this situation is similar to a Forbes / Forbes Contributor one however this hinges on the level of editorial oversight the SPLC exercises over Hatewatch which may end up being something of a subjective measure. Simonm223 (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be cautions with any content from the Hatewatch section based on several grounds. First, SPLC as a whole is an advocacy organization, not a news media site. It has a perverse incentive to create an US vs THEM narrative in order to drive donations. That concern would apply to the whole organization not just Hatewatch. As for Hatewatch specifically, first it was described as a blog by SPLC for many years. It appears that they quietly changed this (in 2022?) but offered no explanation why or if the change was accompanied by any change in editorial practice. As for editorial practices, it doesn't appear that SPLC was keeping a close watch on what was being published there. The Grayzone [79] (a site that is likely to be sympathetic to the SPLC on the whole) reported a whole block of Hatezone content by a writer not employed by the SPLC was removed. That certainly doesn't speak highly of their editorial oversite. Unlike the SPLC reports, much of this seems like opinion/blog commentary, the sort of material we would routinely reject from most minor media sources. It seems very inconsistent to accept this material as factual/green RS from an advocacy organization with the long list of problems that have been raised during previous RSN discussions. Springee (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That Grayzone piece on Reid Ross seems a bit much though - I'll be honest I have had some minor contact with him in my capacity as a writer and I would call that article an open hit piece based on some rather silly sectarian beefing between Marxists and Anarchists. And that sectarian beef is context that, as it's leftist in-fighting, editors who are not engaged with the left more broadly might not be alert to. Basically, on the topic of that particular man, no, Grayzone, which skews Marxist, would likely be quite unsympathetic. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note, per WP:GRAYZONE that Grayzone is a deprecated source. And I'll say that, even among Marxists, it's not particularly well respected except possibly for providing a counter-voice on Venezuela. Grayzone absolutely has a vested interest in playing the "anti-imperialists aligned with Russia are leftists" game which was far more likely to get a receptive response from Marxists in 2015 than in 2025. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put much faith in the Grayzone either. However, it doesn't look good that SPLC let the material go up then later had to pull it down. That suggests limited editorial oversite. Again, we aren't dealing with a news site, this is an advocacy organization. I think a "use with caution" is the best rating we should have for anything they release that isn't supported by a clear RS referencing it first. Springee (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So first off, considering the Grayzone's deprecation was for publishing factually inaccurate statements, I would not trust based on Grayzone alone that SPLC pulled down Reid Ross' articles for the reasons they describe at all. I can confirm that there are no articles by Alexander Reid Ross on Hatewatch but that's about the extent to which I would trust Grayzone for statements of fact in this matter.

Secondly, let's pretend for a second that Grayzone could be trusted, that might indicate why Hatewatch is no longer managed as a blog - if SPLC had a public relations issue coming out of it in 2021 then it would seem to fit the timeline of Hatewatch being redesigned with tighter control in 2022. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Simonm223: The SPLC published an Explanation and Apology which you can read for yourself. It paints a far less damning picture than the author of that Grayzone article does. It also suggests that there is active editorial involvement in the writing and publication of the articles on Hatewatch. 18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering what I know of Mr. Reid-Ross this makes a lot of sense. Grayzone is one of the least reliable sources around. Simonm223 (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of Reid Ross when that was published. I spent ages checking every fact in it aboit Grayzone and found them all to stand up completely: http://brockley.blogspot.com/search?q=FACT-CHECKING+THE+SPLC+ON+MAX+BLUMENTHAL It seems SPLC caved in to some lawfare, and tightened up their editorial control afterwards to be double sure. This makes them look good not bad. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the Grayzone likely be sympathetic to the SPLC? Politically they don't share a lot of ground. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have some sympathy for people who are distant from the left that they may have missed that there are significant political differences between nominally Marxist, pro-Russia, "anti-imperialists" and anarchist antifascists. Simonm223 (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Grayzone promote disinformation and hang out with fascists; SPLC oppose disinformation and fascism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it doesn't appear that SPLC was keeping a close watch on what was being published there. The Grayzone [73] (a site that is likely to be sympathetic to the SPLC on the whole) reported a whole block of Hatezone content by a writer not employed by the SPLC was removed. That certainly doesn't speak highly of their editorial oversite. Resisting the urge to respond in my native tongue (sarcasm), I will point out that you just made the argument that the SPLC exercising editorial oversight of Hatewatch demonstrates that they do not exercise editorial oversight of Hatewatch. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only after people outside SPLC complained. Closing the barn door after the horse left. Springee (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so your argument is that the SPLC is not exercising editorial oversight because they [checks notes] couldn't predict the future wrt the response to Ross' articles. Thanks for clarifying, though that argument is just as vacuous as what I originally pointed out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep civil. If the SPLC was exercising editorial oversight why did they miss something so big that the retracted all articles by a given writer? On the other hand if they didn't notice until outside sources raised the issue they aren't doing a good job maintaining quality. What else are they missing? Either version would be an issue if this was actually a media outlet. It's even worse when this is an activist organization. Springee (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that their decision to remove three articles by one author in 2018 somehow impugns everything they've posted? If not, please clarify. "What else are they missing?" assumes that they've missed something else. Do you have any evidence that they published something else that you believe was problematic in some way? I don't see why "It's even worse when this is an activist organization." We use lots of RS that are biased; that only means that we use them with attribution. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep civil. Please be serious. This is even more ridiculous a statement to make than the arguments above were. If you can't handle attacks on your arguments, you have no business arguing.

If the SPLC was exercising editorial oversight why did they miss something so big that the retracted all articles by a given writer? Why hasn't this happened more often, if they're not exercising editorial oversight? Even your own unreliable blog source (the irony is not lost on me) implies that was Ross was doing is hardly unusual. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to dispute the basic premise here. It seems the contention is that some people think Hatewatch should be considered less reliable due to publicly holding the opinion that racism is bad. Would Hatewatch be more acceptable with the same staff and editorial procedures if they were ambivalent on racism? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah the classic twist on if you disagree with me you must be a so and so. Those kind of arguments are worthless. 32.140.33.58 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to personalize my comment. Would this same staff and editorial processes be less controversial if they were not publicly an anti racism group? That's the question. They advocate for less racism, and the argument here is that this advocacy makes their research on hate groups less reliable. My argument is that the research is sound, and holding an opinion doesn't make it invalid. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hatewatch is more or less a news blog and has the same level of reliability as the SPLC which is to say reliable but with signficant qualifications/exceptions as eneumerated by the standing consensus on the SPLC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the arguments I've seen so far centering on the SPLC describing Hatewatch as a blog seem rooted in the assumption that the SPLC and us here on WP use "blog" to mean the same thing. But anyone familiar with jargon from more than one field can tell you that's a baseless assumption. The fact that the SPLC stopped calling it that may be worth noting, however, whether that cessation was accompanied by a change in editorial practices is essentially beside the point. That's an argument over whether Hatewatch is reliable, not whether we should call it a blog or not (which is, itself, distinct from the question of whether or not we should consider it a blog for sourcing purposes).

I could go either way on the question of whether to describe Hatewatch as a blog when we mention it in article space. There are RSes who do so. The SPLC does not. I would oppose any attempt to add "blog" to every mention of it in article space, and I would also oppose any attempt to remove "blog" as a descriptor, unless and until a consensus is arrived at, because both look to me to have no utility other than POV pushing. For now, my advice is: if the word "blog" in an article has been there for some time uncontested, leave it. If a mention has been made which lacks that word and has been uncontested for some time, do not add it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this approach to article mentions. Springee (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223, it seems like you have more than one question. A few that I see:

Is Hatewatch less reliable than other SPLC publications? (And perhaps: even if it is, is it still sufficiently reliable to be considered an RS?)
Should Hatewatch be considered an SPS?
Have either of these characteristics shifted over time?

Are there any other questions that you see underlying the talk page debates? FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems comprehensive to me. Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I consider it GREL. There's no info about their editorial processes, but Hatewatch addresses lots of contentious issues/people/organizations, and SPLC hasn't faced a slew of libel suits. I can't weigh in on changes over time. As for SPS or not, there is no agreement in WP's editing community about what "self-published" means (see, e.g., this RfC and the BEFORE discussions it links to), but I'm not inclined to view it as self-published. I'd characterize Hatewatch in the same way that SPLC publications as a whole are characterized on RSP. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatewatch is called a blog because of the one-post-at-a-time format. It is run by a reputable organisation, and it hosts posts by experts, PhDs, recognised and published journalists. I just googled three of the names I saw and two were PhDs in relevant fields and one was a widely-published journalist. Hatewatch is completely fine as a source.

TurboSuperA+_(connect) 18:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Hatewatch section have any published editorial policy? I know Simonm223 has frequently said they feel basically all media should be MREL vs GREL. I think there is merit to that view. My question is why wouldn't we do the same for advocacy organizations that have a perverse incentive to promote to take in money?[80][81]. It seems inconsistent to, correctly in my view, treat respected think tanks/institutes like CATO, Center for Economic and Policy Research as MREL but treat a the views of contributors to the SPLC as GREL. Do we have any evidence that they actually are reliable? It seems most of the lawsuits against the SPLC are related to inclusion on their hate lists rather than their commentary material. Isn't it at least consistent to treat this content like other commentary material? I think part of the issue is that the SPLC does have very good deeds in its history. However, they also have a perverse incentive to push "hate" to get donations (something respected sources have noted). The articles criticizing the organization are nothing new [82][83][84]. A lawyer working for the SPLC was arrested with other violet activists in Atlanta last year[85][86][87]. I'm not a big fan of citing Masters Thesis but this paper sees the same issues as many other people, the SPLC has one part that has done noble work and a second part where every problem starts to look like a nail, "Such success can bring about a natural desire for more, but as the relatively small pool of violent racist groups diminished, Morris Dees was forced to expand his definition of “hate group” to include non-violent groups and to include individuals and organizations whose ideologies were diametrically opposed to those of many of the SPLC’s progressive donors." Springee (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These articles raising concerns about the SPLC are from a previous RSN threads on the topic (compiled from several posts by Guy Macon)

Springee (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly right-wing opinion pieces, which have little validity, for example, "Young Conservative Flagged on SPLC “Hatewatch” List". The SPLC only lists organizations, not individuals, in its hate lists. In this case, an article on the SPLC website about the Family Research Council, which it labels a hate group, listed the program coordinator of Campus Reform among numerous other guests on a radio program hosted by Tony Perkins, who was president of the Family Research Council. It made no commentary about her political views. It was also clear that Campus Reform was not on their list of hate groups.[88] TFD (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are mostly opinion pieces in right-wing outlets which disagree with opinions expressed by the SPLC. Others relate to an employee of the SPLC acting as a legal observer at a civil disobedience event and getting charged with “domestic terror” for that (was he convicted?), which had zero implications for reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFORUM

Did you read these links? Do you really think it is controversial not to call anti fascist beliefs hate? You linked a really whack article that says that. So let's be clear, Springee, is being an anti fascist protestor the same as being in a racist group in your opinion? You linked a source to support that argument. Do you really believe that fighting racism is as bad as being racist, or did you not read what you linked? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa is a group that practices political violence. It is extremist - comparisons are moot. Riposte97(talk) 13:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Hatewatch is a blog. Yes, it is still RS as under SPLC oversight. No, we should not insert blog for inline attribute to it in our articles. The attempt to question Hatewatch usage on enwiki appears to be to deligitimize SPLC and its content rather than a serious review of it as an unreliable source. I saw similar attempts at Homeland Party (United Kingdom) for Hope not Hate. Gotitbro (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One example of a factual error in the Grayzone article is that they claim Reid-Ross is responsible for the idea of the red-brown alliance. This is not the case. Martin A. Lee described the term many years before Reid-Ross started using it and Lee's description was based on the origination of the term in post-Soviet Russia. So, right here, we can see that Grayzone is making stuff up because the author was too lazy to do even a 5 minute google check on a key term. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't possibly think why some editors appear desperate to have Hatewatch described as a blog. Oh, sorry, I can, it's so that they can continue their interminable attempts to have material from the SPLC described as unreliable. As I mentioned before, the SPLC (like HopeNotHate in the UK) shines a light into some pretty nasty crevices of far-right bigotry, and is quite often the only - or one of very few - resources to report on these groups; without them, we would quite often not be able to report on some of the things that these groups would rather we not know about them, which mainstream sources are often afraid to print. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the SPLC is the only source for a claim, is the claim actually DUE? Springee (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Case-by-case basis, obviously, but my last sentence is pertinent here. Also, SPLC material is often cited not because it's the only source, but because it's the most detailed. Black Kite (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's sort of ridiculous to think otherwise. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A blog is a format of website where "posts" are displayed in reverse chronological order. They're typically built on top of user friendly software that simplifies the process of publication. There are connotations of unreliability on Wikipedia because they are often self-published sources, not because of the format. It's unclear to me whether Hatewatch uses a blog format, or how we should even conceptualize the meaning of a blog in today's web (where does "blog" end and "online news magazine" begin?). Going around and adding "blog" to undercut its credibility seems utterly unnecessary (it is hard to see it as anything else, as I don't see the same people going around to dozens of articles to add "blog" every time Ars Technica, Gizmodo, or Business Insider are mentioned, too, or to add "newspaper" to New York Times or "magazine" to Sports Illustrated). The only thing that matters is whether it satisfies WP:RS. It has a good reputation, it has paid staff, there are many authors, authors are typically either staff or reputable researchers, and -- following the argument above -- when the credibility of one of its past authors is called into question, there is enough oversight to go back and remove their posts (which is a good thing). I'd regard Hatewatch as below SPLC's annual reports in terms of reliability, but still pretty reliable. All that said, even if it has a good reputation, SPLC is nonetheless an advocacy organization. That doesn't mean adding "blog"-like qualifiers, but does mean some caution is still necessary to attribute extraordinary claims that aren't also made by other sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the claim in question is an interview with Jason Stanley, who is seen as an expert in these matters (I have critiques but they're OR LOL), and that nobody disputes that Stanley said what he said nor the factual contents of his statement I don't think anybody is trying to source extraordinary claims here. I do think that the concerns that adding "hatewatch blog" to copy is likely to be a foot in the door for subsequent removal of SPLC content seems somewhat apropos considering that Springee has, above, attempted to use the Grayzone smear piece on Reid-Ross as a basis to question the reliability of the SPLC in general. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Black Kite. Various comments in this discussion seem to be more focused on re-littegating the previous RFC on the reliablity of SPLC, than on discussing Hatewatch's reliablity. TarnishedPath^talk 03:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the previous RfC? The RSP list doesn't show a RfC tag and I didn't see one about the general reliability of SPLC or Hatewatch in the list of previous discussions. I think there was a previous RfC but it was about the use in article leads. Springee (talk) 03:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite correct. I was mistaken. The previous RFC was about whether a designation by SPLC that an entity was a hate group meant that should be covered in the lead.

Given there appears to have been extensive discussion previously, perhaps it's time for a RFC on the question:

What is the reliablity of The Southern Poverty Law Center on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?
TarnishedPath^talk 05:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That particular question has been the topic of multiple discussions. See [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] (this one looks like a bit of WP:RFCBEFORE work) [101] and [102] ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC is already listed on WP:RSP. Maybe it is time for Hatewatch to be listed there as well? After an RFC, of course. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:50, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfectly reliable and has an established editorial policy and control over the content, with SPLC writers and states guest writers who themselves are experts on the subjects being used. Springee's use of conspiracy pseudoscience sites and other known unreliable sources as an argument above seems more concerning to me, personally. Silver seren^C 03:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bloomberg, Politico, the Atlantic, the NYT... conspiracy pseudoscience sites? Really? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Grayzone, Capitalresearch.org, Reason Magazine, John Stossel and so many right-wing think tanks. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Springee pointed out they were including any sources they found in old discussions. Better to be over-complete and include any they found than to miss some reliable ones in the name of trying to curate them at this point. Trying to focus on the unreliable sources is attempting to deflect from and ignore the actually reliable sources, which cover the whole spectrum. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to your opinion, Reason Magazine is a RS with a strong history of journalism. Springee (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be opinion pieces, hence are not considered rs. In any case, the focus appears to be on the classification of hate groups which, as has long been accepted, is always a matter of opinion and therefore irrelevant to whether the SPLC is a reliable source. In comparison, Ebert.com is a reliable source for facts about movies. If it says Johnny Depp starred in Pirates of the Caribbean, its probably true. But Ebert's four star rating would be reported as attributed to him, not presented as a fact. TFD (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silverseren, since you said it has an established editorial policy, can you link to it? I searched but was unable to find it. Springee (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found this: Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. [103] The Intelligence Project is a recognised reputable organisation that has existed since the 70s. Their historical data is archived at Duke university, directors have testified in front of Congress, their reports are covered by RS, and so on. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:10, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is reaching [WP:1AM] and [WP:BLUDGEON} territory, with Springee being the only one trying to get Hatewatch removed as a source. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a highly inappropriate perversion of what occurred above. Riposte97 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell it might still be considered a blog, especially considering Turbo's link above from another source describing it as that. It can certainly still be used since I would consider it an expert opinion in its field. It just needs to be labeled as such, that its their opinion and not statements of facts since there may or may not be editorial oversight for that part even though it is under the Intelligence Project section. Just like any other WP:NEWSBLOG. PackMecEng (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it critical to people reading an article to know the source publishes individual articles instead of a monthly edition? I don't understand what you think readers will gain here. We don't usually specify book, magazine, video, etc for other sources. 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We call it out not because of its format but because of its editorial oversight, or lack there of. That is what a contemporary blog is. Not a individual article vs m9nthly edition. Also we call it out because that is the consensus of the community. This has been discussed so many times that is has its own link WP:SPLC PackMecEng (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the link you are mentioning? WP:BLOG is a redirect to WP:V. It then warns against using personal blogs. How is that related to this scenario? You say it's the consensus of the community, but that isn't a factual statement. 166.205.97.140 (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hatewatch could only be considered a "blog" in the sense that it publishes in chronological order; it's clearly not self-published since it consists of articles written by others and posted by SPLC. We don't know exactly when or why they stopped labelling themselves as a blog but I would speculate that they realized the confusion and decided "blog isn't a clear descriptor of what we are" rather than suddenly changing from blog to not-a-blog. The fact that they're transparent about corrections indicates strong editorial oversight.

It seems that using "hatewatch blog" everywhere it's cited only serves to cast undue doubt on its reliability and for that reason we should refrain from labelling it as such. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any proof that this claim is accurate Hatewatch could only be considered a "blog" in the sense that it publishes in chronological order. We are fairly sure that they removed that word from their description sometime in 2024. The issue comes in with WP:SPLC which states that anything from SPLC should be attributed to them, if it is from their blog section, that should certainly be spelled out. Has nothing to do with casting doubt. PackMecEng (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is merely attribution that you are interested in then that can be achieved by stating "... the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch said ...". Adding blog after Hatewatch is not necessary for attribution purposes. TarnishedPath^talk 03:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see evidence that Hatewatch is subject to the same obscure editorial policy - or in fact any editorial policy - as other publications of the SPLC. So until there's evidence that it is, then yes, it needs to be attributed in a way that makes clear it is not just a "part of SPLC". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has the same URL as the rest of the SPLC, why would you think this section is different? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez see this comment. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That comment does not identify an editorial policy. It simply provides a source that says they're staffed with people from elsewhere. It's entirely possible for people to work on some stories/information for a source/platform which has editorial control, but also work for another part of that source/platform that does not have editorial control. For example, the NYT allows its reporters to submit opinion pieces under their own name for consideration to be published. That does not mean that those reporters are subject to the normal editorial control that they would be for their normal news stories when they do so.

And that said, I haven't seen anything about SPLC's editorial policy to begin with. I don't doubt they have one, but there's a reason we attribute their designation of an organization as a hate group, for example. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, and yet "The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States." If Hatewatch is run by the SPLC then I don't see why Hatewatch can't get the same treatment: GENREL for extremism in the US, attribution of statements and evaluation on a case-by-case basis. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats basically WP:NEWSBLOG, generally reliable sources can also run less reliable subsections. Again this is the reliablity of Hatewatch, not of SLPC, even if its hosted by SPLC. PackMecEng (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. A reliable source does not mean that 100% of the things they own/publish is reliable. It's entirely possible, and in fact common that a reliable source will also publish/run less reliable portions. Hence why we treat OpEds differently than the main source itself - for example for newspapers. I see zero evidence to suggest we should treat the Hatewatch blog any differently than we'd treat a newspaper opinion section. The only reason to suggest otherwise is because people are trying to enable using that information to violate NPOV. If it's reliable, SPLC should have no problem publishing it under their own name and through their normal editorial processes. If it's only published on the Hatewatch blog, then we should be questioning why they were unwilling to publish it under their own name/main publications. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC is publishing it "under their own name." All of the content on their website is published under SPLC's name. I'm totally baffled about why you would think otherwise. You refer to "their normal editorial processes." Could you elaborate on what those are / where you found that information? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "hosted" by SPLC. It's published by SPLC. Those two words aren't synonyms. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same as going through their editorial process. It is a blog, as Berchanhimez says, there is a difference between the New York times main sections and their OpEd section. This is SPLC's OpEd section. PackMecEng (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've ignored my point. You falsely claimed that Hatewatch is "hosted" by SPLC, when it's actually published by SPLC. Do you understand the difference in meaning between "X hosts Y" and "X publishes Y"?

I'm not sure what characteristics you think make it a blog, nor have I seen any elaboration on what SPLC's "editorial process" is for any content on the site (whether Hatewatch or non-Hatewatch content). For the record, a blog is not the same thing as an op-ed section. The NYT op-ed section definitely isn't a blog. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue wirh that is basically whitewashing, trying to make a less reliable source look more reliable than it is by not giving the reader all the information to know that there is no evidence of editorial oversight. PackMecEng (talk) 11:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go to a web.archive.org 2008 copy of splcenter.org/blog, look at the top to read the title "hatewatch", look at the bottom to read This is a moderated blog. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) encourages user comments on blog postings, but these comments are the personal opinions of the individuals posting them and do not necessarily reflect the views of the SPLC. SPLC may edit your comments for content or space. SPLC may also choose not to post your comment. Till August 2022 the words "Hatewatch is a blog that monitors and exposes the activities of the American radical right." were still at the top, but I didn't notice the word "blog" in a later copy. The phrase that I used which TarnishedPath reverted -- inside "In August 2020, the Southern Poverty Law Center Hatewatch blog said in an interview ..." -- is thus correct and reasonable as 2020 is before 2022. This post is not about some "broader picture", it is about removing the word "blog". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The broader picture - advocacy sources

We really need clearer guidance on when, where and HOW to use think tanks and other advocacy sources. My feeling is that advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion. Do this and the focus shifts from being a question of reliability to a question of proper attribution and DUE weight. The opinion of a very prominent advocacy group (such as the SPLC) can be given a lot of weight… less prominent advocacy groups - not so much. Blueboar (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm divided here because I'm very sympathetic to Black Kite that violent far-right extremists, especially in the current American political climate, are groups that many people are simply afraid to write about. In this regard the SPLC does necessary and irreplaceable work and excluding them as a source would be harmful to public knowledge of these political extremists. Springee's protests are risible to the point of near disruption in this case. But, if I'm being wholly fair, I dislike over-reliance on advocacy groups, particularly when academic sources exist. And if I'm going to make that comment about right wing advocacy groups then I would be inconsistent if I didn't apply the same standard to those advocacy groups I personally value.

And I do personally value the SPLC. My educated opinion regarding far-right extremist groups is that a fondness for rhetorical games and outright lies is a key part of their discursive toolkit. As such the work of advocacy groups like the SPLC and HopeNotHate is pedagogically valuable. They cut through the bullshit these groups tend to put out. Many of the more mainstream articles shared in this thread attacking the SPLC are American liberal outlets who are distraught that the SPLC is highlighting reactionary political statements from self-described "liberals" such as Majid Nawaz. I actually believe that long list of opinion pieces above is informative for showing the value and significance of the SPLC frankly.

I do think that advocacy groups should always be attributed at use and that we should avoid using them alone to make statements in Wikivoice. But beyond that I would say that each advocacy group should be assessed on its merits, particularly based on its reception by academia.

In the specific case of the SPLC and of Hatewatch I would say my personal stance is that it is reliable for use with attribution and with a preference for academic sources where available. From a broader perspective I would say that the maximum level of reliability for any advocacy group should be the same: reliable for use with attribution and with a preference for academic sources where available. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitely NOT saying SPLC is a “bad” source. They are (in fact) a very important source. However, they do have their bias and when they label things (especially BLPs) we need to tred with caution. Perhaps we need a new category in RSPS specifically for advocacy? Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, once again I think we agree though you suggest otherwise. The SPLC's view on actual violet groups is almost certainly going to be DUE and likely covered by independent RSs. Where I have more concern is when we use commentary published through the SPLC to makes claims of facts about groups/BLPs. We agree that such content should be attributed, treated as expert opinion. The question would be how often is such opinion due in an article. Another question is if we should accept them for statements of fact? I do see a concern when the SPLC starts looking at topics that aren't about violent extremists and are instead related to groups that are clearly non-violent etc. In this regard my concerns are similar to those raised by the Washington Post. Springee (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The question would be how often is such opinion due in an article" makes no sense as a question. What kind of answer are you looking for (e.g., "it's DUE 57% of the time")? Whether a given piece of information is DUE has to be determined on a case-by-case basis, as it cannot be determined out of context. "Another question is if we should accept them for statements of fact?" Are you suggesting that they're never reliable for statements of fact? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen a lot of people talk about DUE but there's a reason we don't have WP:GDUE or WP:GUNDUE as concepts - even moreso than reliability, due weight is heavily contextual and relative to the things already in an article. I think that we can make a very broad statement that the SPLC is often going to be due on account of its high profile and reputation, but that still leaves the question of how much depth to go into, how much text to devote to what they say, how to position it in the article, etc. and there's really no way to make a universal statement about that because due weight involves so many variables. --Aquillion (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies for any reliable source. If a story about Donald Trump only appears on NBC News and not on CNN and other mainstream media then it is undue. If an article about the Hooterville County Fair only appears in the local Hooterville newspaper, it may be due for inclusion in an article about the fair. TFD (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Ngo is not "clearly non-violent." When you do a ride-along with a violent right-wing group selectively filming them to make it look like antifascists attacked them when that's not actually what happened there's a bit of an asterix next to non violence. [104] Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are inventing facts. There was no "ride-along" and the source you cite is by a person who later tried to out Ngo to her twitter followers at a protest. She isn't exactly an uninvolved observer. Conversely, Reason, a source that had been nominated for over a dozen Southern California Journalism Awards this year [105] ran an article questioning that narrative [106]. Clearly this is a disputed fact. To then suggest that Ngo is "violent" in context of "violent far-right extremists" is, well risible. Springee (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. This is getting ridiculous. You can't call every source critical of Ngo "disputed" just because he denies everything. He threatened to sue the paper and they told him to go ahead and try. There was no correction or walk-back. That's not a thing you expect to see from a paper on tenuous factual ground. Simonm223 (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the hyperbolic claims. You are the one who brought up the topic. You made the claim that Ngo is "not clearly not violent". You provided a source. I provided a source that refutes the claim. Springee (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a far-right opinion magazine to counter local investigative journalism. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What?! Reason isn't a "far-right opinion" magazine. Per Adfonts they are more centrist than sources like The Atlantic, NPR News Hour, CNN, NBC News and the NYT. The claim of "opinion" is more valid thought they are still in the 'green box' of most reliable sources.[107] Springee (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adfontes is not a reliable source. And it's frankly very deficient for understanding how non-Americans view the American media landscape. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? It's used as a reliable source in a number of peer reviewed articles. The RSN discussions about such sites have generally said their ratings are not DUE for inclusion in articles about media companies etc. However, while some editors don't like their various methods, they are used as reference sources by scholars. So we have a source that scholarship likes saying Reason is no where close to "far-right". Springee (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, they say that anyone applying to be a reviewer must live in the US, the vast majority of the sources they assess are US sources, and they say that "The line between 'Most Extreme Left/Right and Hyper-Partisan Left/Right' is defined by the policy positions of the most extreme elected officials significantly relevant to the scope of the issue being considered," where they're presumably talking about elected office in the US. But en.wiki is not a US wiki, and there is zero reason to believe that the views of Americans are representative of the views of people in other countries (quite the opposite). Second, there's no way of assessing whether they've chosen a representative sample of articles/segments from a given source. I bet that if I dug in, I'd find other issues, but that's a sufficient start. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting way off topic so let's just leave it as, yes, Adfontes is not a RS for use in Wiki article space. It is a source that is used as a reliable reference in scholarship. They put Reason as, well, far from "far-right". Simon of course can have their own opinion on the source. Springee (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do cite research from other countries that uses it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK...

Here is a paper with contributors across the US and Europe: Grant MD, Markowitz DM, Sherman DK, et al. Ideological diversity of media consumption predicts COVID-19 vaccination. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):1-15. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-77408-4.[108]

This one is from Germany Michael H, Werner V. Hybrid News (in the) Making: A Content and Corpus-Based Discourse Analysis of Political Live Blogs on the 2020 US Presidential Debates. Journalism Practice. 2025;19(4):896-922. doi:10.1080/17512786.2023.2215254[109].

This one is from the Philippines, Panao RAL, Gache AJL. Level field? Sports, soft power and the liberal democratic bias. International Journal of Sport Policy & Politics. 2024;16(4):675-691. doi:10.1080/19406940.2024.2356590 [110].

This one is from a land down under Abid A, Harrigan P, Wang S, Roy SK, Harper T. Social media in politics: how to drive engagement and strengthen relationships. Journal of Marketing Management. 2023;39(3/4):298-337. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2022.2117235 [111].

These authors are from Japan and Poland Szwoch J, Staszkow M, Rzepka R, Araki K. Limitations of Large Language Models in Propaganda Detection Task. Applied Sciences (2076-3417). 2024;14(10):4330. doi:10.3390/app14104330[112]

I found quite a few more and I will grant that the degree to which the papers use Adfontes varies. In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference. Springee (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your first and fourth citations are for research carried out in the US. Your second citation is research about reporting on US presidential debates. Your fifth citation merely mentions it without using it in any way. Congrats: you came up with a single article (the third citation) where the researchers were not focused on the US and used Ad Fontes as a reference, and oh, look, it was mentioned briefly with respect to a grand total of one news source. So let me be clearer: I'm not asking about researchers in other countries carrying out research focused on the US (e.g., using Americans as subjects), and I'm not asking about researchers who simply mention it without making significant use of it in their actual research. I'm asking about researchers in other countries doing research on other countries and using it in a significant way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are moving the goal posts. People say AdFontes isn't reliable so we show it's used as a reference in scholarship. Then the claim is it's only used in the US. Then I show researchers outside of the US using it. Now you are trying to find nits to pick with that. Look, using the Wiki library I found 65 hits for peer reviewed papers that used it. Are all of them good? I suspect not. I think I even said as much, "In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference". If you want sort through and dismiss all 65 hits, be my guest. Springee (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply clarifying what I was asking for when I said "Please do cite research from other countries that uses it." I wasn't looking for researchers from other countries using it for research about the US. I was not asking for researchers from other countries who mention it without using it. "using the Wiki library I found 65 hits for peer reviewed papers that used it." Unless you read each of them, you have no idea whether they used it or if they simply mentioned it without using it. I already pointed out that one of the five references you cited fell in the latter category. Contrary to your claim "I even said as much, 'In some cases it's a critical database, in others it's a supporting reference,'" in that article, it was not "a supporting reference." It appeared nowhere in the references. If you think that I'm going to go through other WML articles on your behalf to investigate your claim, you're kidding yourself. I already told you two reasons that its bias ratings are not reliable from a global perspective. You couldn't bring yourself to address either one of them. Here's a third: there is no objective way to establish where "neutral" is. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I'm unable to navigate the rules you wish to apply to show that a source is used in peer reviewed scholarship in a way that you find acceptable. Springee (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that its use in research was "unacceptable." I pointed out that (a) Ad Fontes is US-centric, (b) it does not provide sufficient information to know whether they've taken a representative sample of reporting (or even what it would mean for the sample to be representative), and (c) the way in which it mathematizes subjective judgements has significant problems. These issues exist notwithstanding that some researchers focused mostly on US-related research use it, perhaps never having considered these issues. You haven't attempted to address any of them. Feature (a) alone is reason not to use it on en.wiki, because en.wiki is not a US wiki (in the sense that neither the subjects nor the editors are limited to the US). FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Reason was centre-right / libertarian? Void if removed (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is unambiguously libertarian. It's officially a libertarian magazine, has a libertarian slogan ("Free minds and free markets"), and publishes more or less universally libertarian content.

Obviously it's a matter of debate where libertarianism itself falls on the "left" vs "right" spectrum, and these days many people characterise any kind of liberty-valuing politics as extreme right-wing (either sneeringly or approvingly depending on their own views).

What Reason (and libertarianism in general) is definitely not, though, by any normal definitions, is "far right". "Far right" does not simply mean "extremely right-wing" but rather indicates politics based on some kind of racial or ethnic nationalism or supremacism. ExplodingCabbage (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adfontes is a pile of crap that is just regurgitating US popular opinion, but saying that Reason is not far-right (unless it's reporting has taken a severe turn since I last looked at it). Definitely right wing, don't get me wrong, just not far-right. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A paper out of MIT found they were pretty good, Lin, Hause, Jana Lasser, Stephan Lewandowsky, Rocky Cole, Andrew Gully, David Rand, and Gordon Pennycook. "High level of agreement across different news domain quality ratings." (2022). Other peer reviewed sources have used these rating groups as references in their research. Springee (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK they have been used in research in a way that regurgitates US public opinion. In a lot of research that's fine, if it's about US politics for instances. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adfontes is garbage but it shifts the Overton window to correspond to a world view where the Democrats are "center left" and the Republicans are "center right" so lots of Americans like to use it. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MAGA is center right? Not in the real world. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you exclude advocacy organizations as sources for statements of fact? Consider, for example, the Innocence Project, which is used as a source for multiple entries in List of exonerated death row inmates. Why would you reject them as a source for that factual information? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would not exclude something like Innocence Project… but I would use in-text attribution when we take factual info from them. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't exclude the Innocence Project, then how would you modify your proposal that "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact"? As for in-text attribution, that list doesn't have in-text attribution for any of the information. What would you say: "According to the Innocence Project, Rolando Cruz and Alejandro Hernandez were convicted in 1985 and exonerated in 1995"? Why do you think that needs to be attributed? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't there be independent RSs that could back back the claims? Springee (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant to my questions to Blueboar. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am overly skeptical, but I don’t trust any advocacy org to present data without massaging it to better fit their stated goals. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overly skeptical. I don't even know how one would massage the year of conviction and exoneration. I don't think you're going to get very far in changing other editors' minds if you first say "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion," then say that you'd accept a specific advocacy organization for some statements of fact as long as it's attributed, but then won't clarify what you're actually advocating. If all you're advocating is something like "we should be skeptical about statements of fact that come from advocacy organizations and should determine that on a case-by-case basis," I think that's already the case. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as reliability goes… I don’t think we should choose on a case by case basis… I think we should use in-text attribution for all advocacy groups (regardless of their advocacy). Shift the discussion to DUE weight. Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we have to make reliability assessments on a case-by-case basis. That's what WP:RS requires.

If all you're saying is "we should use in-text attribution for all advocacy groups," OK, but that's very different from "advocacy sources should not be used for statements of fact, but rather for statements of opinion." Attribution does not imply opinion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflating acquittal and exoneration is an obvious response. But in any case, it’s irrelevant. Our porcine friend is speaking sense. Riposte97 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Often not. The topic area of far-right people has a paucity of other sourcing, when it comes to modern people atleast. Even the academia on the subject often just treats SPLC stuff as gospel. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely common for advocacy groups to be leading sources of factual data and also publish opinionated commentary. One does not detract from the other, just as a newspaper's opinion columns do not detract from its news reporting. A local historic preservation organization might maintain an architecture database while also lobbying the city to reject modernist building proposals, or a wildlife organization known for its annual volunteer bird survey might push for habitat restoration projects. Like any reliable source, we should cite them for facts in wikivoice and use in-text attribution for opinions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are that advocacy groups are prone to “spinning” (or manipulating) data… downplaying or ignoring data that does not further their agenda and highlighting data that does. This can be quite subtle. Their conclusions (opinion) can often be very important to mention… but we should look for unbiased sources for raw facts. Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about Hatewatch specifically? Does Hatewatch manipulate data? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably (and no I don’t have “evidence”). However, I would be surprised if they didn't. They are an advocacy website. It’s the nature of the beast. I assume that they ALL do (no matter what the cause of their advocacy might be). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have a starting point. Can you provide examples of Hatewatch manipulating data, or is it just a vibe? 166.205.97.118 (talk) 05:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that data is the right word to describe what I see at https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/ Information such as "Antigovernment leader Ammon Bundy loses pandemic-era court case in Idaho" isn't data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns are that advocacy groups are prone to “spinning” (or manipulating) data… downplaying or ignoring data that does not further their agenda and highlighting data that does.

This is no different than many mainstream media sources which are considered to be generally reliable. Per WP:POVSOURCE having a bias, which includes on what data is more pertinent, does not speak to a sources reliablity. TarnishedPath^talk 03:57, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A biased source may be reliable for every claim it makes.

They will emphasise some facts that are important to them or de-emphasize or omit some facts that are unimportant to them.

WP:BALASP only says we should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

If we simply treat biased sources as reliable without any qualifier, we breach WP:NOT ADVOCACY.

If we try to account for the bias in emphasis, we run into difficulty. It can be difficult to know which facts are being emphasized/de-emphasized because of bias and that we should de-emphasize/emphasize. But it is often impossible to know which facts they are omitting and which would be included if not for bias.

This was raised as an issue last month at the Signpost. HaeB wrote, in response to an editor with a COI writing a piece, "If this article had been submitted by an independent Signpost journalist, it might have focused more on basic questions like "Where is the money coming from?" or "How is it going to be used?" etc.".

I don't have answers to this, but I hope editors like Blueboar can give advice if they have any. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 08:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is with far-right people there really isn't much other coverage in many cases. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who edits in this topic area a lot, I would oppose any attempt to always require in-text attribution for the SPLC. For specific claims that are especially contentious, yes, but that isn't unique to them, and for "hate group" status. But while they come from an explicitly against the subject matter angle, that is also the case for almost all academic sourcing on the matter, so the SPLC isn't any worse. I do not think it has an impact on their factual accuracy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agree. I also edit a far bit about subjects on the far-right and it can often be a challenge finding sourcing which goes into depth on the politics of such subjects. Often mainstream reporting will only go into detail on the subjects in regards to the events that they are involved in. That sources which do go into detail about subjects' politics have a bias against hate doesn't make them any less reliable. This is clearly covered in WP:POVSOURCE. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen the Wikipedia:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields essay before. Thanks for the link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c is that advocacy sources as a category - by which I assume we mean think tanks and NGOs that have a demonstrable political POV and tend to fall into a partisan lean - which could, in my view, also include sources that claim or aspire to be nonpartisan - are less reliable than journalistic sources that have oversight, and less reliable than academic or expert books, journal articles, and other publications. Even a magazine article in the New Yorker will undergo a lot of fact checking and editing and a corrections process. A blog on an NGO or think tank could have a single author and no oversight, no different than any other blog except for a higher level of presumed prestige and funding. But nonprofits, charities, etc., do not necessarily have a reputation for accuracy. Some do, and those should be treated that way on a case-by-case basis. When challenged or for controversial matters, I tend to think that the category of groups like SPLC and Hatewatch should not be treated as academic unless a specific piece of content from them is cited by a reliable expert academic and that academic also has a high reputation for accuracy. In terms of bias, a reliable biased source should be attributed and not used in Wikivoice, and it should be contrasted with other POVs. Disclaimer: I have no idea what this particular thread is really about as pertaining to specifics. In my experience SPLC is generally reliable but if there is something controversial coming from there it should be attributed, balanced, and maybe omitted if other RS are not talking about or citing it. Andre🚐 22:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Advocacy sources"? Every publication has an agenda. Some hide it better than others, but every news outlet out there is advocating for something. This thread is becoming unwieldly quickly, we should have an RFC on Hatewatch and be done with it. Litigating Wikipedia policy regarding classification of sources is offtopic and beyond the scope of this discussion. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would the RfC do? We've had quite a few on the SPLC already. And what is an RfC if not a timesink that will make this even more unwieldy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the SPLC, which is listed at RSP. This thread is about Hatewatch. From the OP: the status of Hatewatch and whether it constitutes a different level of reliability than that of the SPLC. There are editors who think it does and there are editors who think it doesn't. How do we overcome the impasse except with an RFC? This discussion satisfies RFCBEFORE. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 06:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a clerking issue if a RFC is started can we please do so in a separate section. The board is rather bloated at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, a RSN RfC should be on the RSN page. It should not be on a separate page where people who watch this page won't see it. Springee (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I only said separate section not a separate page. Having a separate section allows this discussion to be archived without having to wait 30+ days for the RFC to be closed. I'm not opposed to having it on a seperate page, or on RSN in a new section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm 100% in agreement on making the RfC a separate section from this discussion. Springee (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I have no problem with that, we just don't need to keep this pre-discussion on the board for the whole time. I'm going to remain neutral on whether it's should be here or on a separate page as long as proper notifications go out . -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Labelling sources as advocacy to filter out which content to attribute to them inline is quite a task and such a broad policy/guideline/precedence will be hard to implement. Focusing on [advocacy?] sources (like SPLC) which we already deem RS or acceptable, we already do attribute (contentious) labels to these sources especially for BLPs. To say that we need to put this into overdrive and attribute every statement coming from these sources is untenable. Gotitbro (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are onto something here, but I don't think it's as easy as saying advocacy group = opinion. For example, this article contains the sentence Bundy and others were charged with misdemeanors for trespassing and resisting and obstructing officers. which seems straightforwardly factual (I haven't attempted to verify it; I know nothing about this case and only picked this article because it was top of the list on their homepage). So an advocacy source should, in principle, be usable as a source of facts. In practice though, we know that advocacy groups exist to manipulate public opinion, and so using them as a source requires a high degree of media literacy to sift the fact from the framing. They should not be used to support use of contentious labels or value-judgements. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the issue there would be that the Murdoch owned media exists to manipulate public opinions in favour of Ruperts own believes, that behaviour isn't something limited to such groups. Saying that I like attribution would probably be for the best in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am also uneasy about the focus on the designation of "advocacy groups." While they are of course generally WP:BIASED, and therefore generally require attribution, I would argue that an advocacy group, which makes its advocacy clear, is sometimes more usable as a source than heavily-biased "news" sources that seek to conceal their biases. Ultimately, what matters is the extent to which secondary sources treat them as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy vs. treating their biases as impacting their reliability. Outside of a few specific areas related to WP:FRINGE topics, we're not supposed to ourselves say "ah this source is biased and therefore unreliable" (doing so invites us to inadvertently weigh sources according to our own biases), we're supposed to look at how secondary sources cover them. Bias is a reason for caution but only in the sense that it's a good reason to turn a critical eye towards their reception. And in this case the broad reception of the SPLC is about as good as any organization of its type could have. --Aquillion (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the RSP entry already says! As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Perhaps there is some slight leeway for statements that are uncontroversial and clearly not opinionated, but usually the standard for that is "does anyone object?"; unexceptional and anodyne statements can be cited to lower-quality sources or to ones that wouldn't be usable in the article voice for more WP:EXCEPTIONAL things. --Aquillion (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at an actual example. In the article on VDARE, an anti-immigration group, the SPLC is used as a source about when the group was formed, who the founder was, what it was named for, who contributed to its website, that allegations were made against it by the NY attorney-general, the retirement of its leader and its dissolution. None of these facts are questionable and the SPLC website is the most user friendly and up-to-date source for this sort of information and may be the only source for smaller groups.

There is also a section about analysis of the group by the SPLC and ADL. If this is undue, it's an entirely separate issue from whether the SPLC is a reliable source.

No one has raised any issues about the facts reported by the SPLC. TFD (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: the issue is not whether SPLC is reliable itself. From the "part 1" comments above, I don't think anyone, even those of us who think it is a biased source, are questioning the SPLC's reliability when they publish something under their own name. The question is whether the Hatewatch blog is automatically as reliable as the SPLC as a whole is. And to me, there is zero evidence or reason to treat the Hatewatch blog any different than, for example, a NYT Opinion piece. There's a reason it was published under the Hatewatch blog and not as an SPLC publication/document/etc. Maybe that reason isn't related to reliability - but we have no evidence one way or the other, and should thus assume that there's a reason related to editorial scrutiny until proven otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, as I said, that's already covered by As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. We already treat the entire SPLC, including Hatewatch, as biased and opinionated and therefore as requiring attribution for anything remotely controversial. If you feel it is somehow worse than that (my impression is that you want it to be attributed with "Hatewatch blog" or something?) then you'll have to produce secondary sources clearly separating it from the SPLC - you say that there's a reason it was published under the Hatewatch blog and not as an SPLC publication/document/etc but that's speculation on your part. I don't even agree with your characterization of it as a blog - see the discussion above; they don't currently call it a blog, and in a quick search the only source I could find that did was the Center for Immigration Studies, which is obviously not an impartial or reliable source on the subject. To me, carve-outs require strong secondary sourcing indicating that something is not covered by the source's general reputation, or overt statements by the source that something isn't covered by their editorial controls; the default is that coverage of the SPLC covers the entire SPLC. I feel that your argument is like saying "ah, but is page fifteen of the NYT reliable? There's a reason why something was published on page fifteen and not the front page, so you need to produce sources saying that page fifteen in particular is reliable!" EDIT: See my summary of recent coverage and feel free to add to it if you want. Aside from showing strong WP:USEBYOTHERS, it's pretty clear that it's not described or seen as a blog by most current coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center#RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those are quite the right questions. Can we pull the RfC back and workshop the questions first? Springee (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why isn't that RfC on the normal RSN page? Is it a new thing to put RfCs on a separate page? Springee (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee, the RFC is own its own page because of a comment above by @ActivelyDisinterested. One which I happen to agree with. TarnishedPath^talk 12:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that RfCs should be on some page other than the RfC home page. That isn't a thing and it tends to hide the discussion from those who aren't already involved or who are just watching this page. Springee (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs being on subpages is specifically discussed at WP:RFCOPEN which states:

In some situations, such as when you expect an extremely high number of comments or there is no obviously relevant talk page, you may instead place an RfC discussion on a subpage of an appropriate, relevant page.

It's not about hiding discussion, it's above making it easier both for other users of this page and for the closer. Besides which I've pinged everyone from this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the same thing as some of the super long RfCs we have had in the past. Also, everyone in "this" discussion isn't the idea. The idea is to get the widest input possible. Hiding the discussion off the RSN page doesn't serve that end. Springee (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ps, the questions don't have to dictate the direction in which the discussion goes. Any decent close should evaluate consensus on the basis of the discussion, not on the basis of !votes or the question. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However, in a case like this it would be good to propose the questions to the group first. I agree with looking at the Hatewatch articles separate from the reports/statements of the SPLC but it also might be useful to ask about their use in things like BLPs cases. Springee (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People can cover that in their comments if they wish. If for example there was consensus of participants who stated that it should not be used in BLPs, even if that is picked up by the option 1 to 4 !votes, I would expect a close to reflect that and I'd say it would be open to challenge if it didn't. TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move RFC to RSN page What is the correct process for moving that discussion to this page (as a new topic)? ActivelyDisinterested's valid concerns about section size would be addressed simply by making the RfC a new topic on this page. Having the RfC on a separate page is problematic since, if this discussion is archived before that RfC closes, there will be no RSN topic on or link to what is supposed to be a RSN discussion. It's also not clear where such a discussion would be archived since the RSN auto archive would have to merge that subpage into this primary page. Springee (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Again neutral on whether it's on RSN or in a new section) If this is put on a new page I'll add a section stating such and make sure it's not archived before the RFC is closed. I think it was the heritage RFC that moved to a separate page once it grew to several tomats, and I did the same for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ActivelyDisinterested, were you initially asking to split the RFC into a new section or a new page? I took it as the former and I'm wondering if there was a misunderstanding? –dlthewave ☎ 13:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I only meant a new section, maybe I could have been clearer. Personally I'm not opposed to having the RFC on RSN or on a separate page. Notification can be sent and maintained either way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:47, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d prefer that it be kept to this page, when it’s ready. However, I don’t think the RfC as formulated by TP is particularly close to where the discussion above has moved. Riposte97 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems like nobody actually wants it on the separate page, let's just move it back here before it gets any more responses. I'd do it myself but I'm away from my PC at the moment. –dlthewave ☎ 14:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just moved the RFC. It is now at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO close that premature RFC and when one does open, open it here and stick to what this is about, ie the difference between SPLC and Hatewatch. Doesn't make sense to have a new RFC on SPLC suddenly with no RFCBEFORE. Void if removed (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of discussion on SPLC previously. That some editors have called into question its reliability above speaks to the need for an RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 04:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: Thanks for getting the RfC started and for the ping. I agree with others that it's a bit premature to open it, however, so will not be !voting at this point. I think the questions need to be workshopped a bit more, and ideally this would be an RfC that encompasses more than just the SPLC and its reliability - such as expanding it to cover "if advocacy-based sources are used, do they (and if so when) need to be attributed in text". There can be subquestions about the SPLC specifically, but I'd like to see it be expanded. If people don't want it expanded, I still think the questions should be workshopped some more. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'd identified the following questions earlier, when I was trying to understand what Simonm223 was hoping to resolve in starting this RSN discussion:

Is Hatewatch less reliable than other SPLC publications? (And perhaps: even if it is, is it still sufficiently reliable to be considered GREL?)
Should Hatewatch be considered an SPS? (for purposes of BLPSPS)
Have either of these characteristics shifted over time?

Another issue that several people have discussed is:

Should Hatewatch be identified as a "blog" in the body of an article that uses it as a reference, and has that changed over time?

I think the first question that TarnishedPath asked is a good replacement for the first bullet above. TarnishedPath also proposed a question about SPLC more generally:

What is the reliability of The Southern Poverty Law Center on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?

I, personally, would oppose asking about advocacy organizations overall. If you want to ask about that, I'd create a separate RfC for it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think questions along the lines of "if advocacy-based sources are used, do they (and if so when) need to be attributed in text?" are broader and separate questions and I'd suggest perhaps questions that need to happen on the talk pages of the relevant policies. TarnishedPath^talk 03:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A general policy on how such groups should be handled would be better discussed at WT:RS than here. It's something that goes quite away beyond the discussion in SPLC and hatewatch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How Hatewatch is characterized by secondary sources

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § How Hatewatch is characterized by secondary sources 2

Deutsche Presse-Agentur

I noticed that there have been quite extensive debates about reliability of high-profile state news agencies such as Associated Press (US), Agence France-Presse, Anadolu Agency (Turkey), TASS (Russia) etc. but basically none about the Deutsche Presse-Agentur (German News Agency), or DPA. Even though DPA is cited in a lot in English Wikipedia articles.

Here is a short list of examples where Deutsche Presse-Agentur is currently cited:

Kim Jong Un and his statements regarding reunification of Korea, 31 December 2013
Oktoberfest bombings: DPA's claim that the bombings were Germany's deadliest since 1945, statements that 1980 investigation closed in Nov 1982 and that the case reopened in 2014 after public campaign led by relatives, victim representatives, lawyers, journalists and politicians
M. M. Warburg & CO and tax evasion court cases
Digital goods: court case UsedSoft GMbH v. Oracle International Corp.
Halle synagogue shooting
WhatsApp and threats to block by Irani government
2008 Sichuan earthquake and interview with Australian seismologist Gary Gibson
Murder of Ursula Herrmann: perpetrator Werner Mazurek apparently scheduled for release in June 2023
2009 swine flu pandemic and claim that in Hong Kong an entire hotel was quarantined with 240 guests
War in Somalia (2006-2009) and interviews with Somali officials about summer 2009 incursions
Qatif conflict and activist Faisal Ahmed Abdul-Ahad’s alleged murder by Saudi forces
War crimes in the Gaza war and the UNOCHA spokesperson's evaluation of Rafah evacuation
Gaza Freedom Flotilla and claim that about 2/3 of the medicine was long expired
Catholic Church sexual abuse cases: apparently in Italy over 300 cases were opened with 150-170 convictions
AfD pro-Russia movement and statements that parts of AfD spread Russian narratives which contribute to expansion of right-wing extremism
Anastasia Baburova and her investigation of Russian Neo-Nazi groups
Haenel MK 556
2015 US Open's prize money
2010 FIFA World Cup final and Lionel Messi's complaints about vuvuzelas
That Adolescence (highly popular British TV series) is a psychological drama

Again, this is just a sample, and as you can see, it is really large and there are all sorts of topics. I tried to point out rather high-profile topics, but as you can see DPA is used in articles about politics, sports, entertainment, sensitive and non-sensitive topics, within Germany and international, you name it.

Now, at first glance it seems to be a no-brainer, and there is no reason to question its reliability. And in general, news agencies from Western Europe seemingly have a solid reputation. However, this section of the article about DPA makes me question this, as apparently there have been accusations of agenda-pushing, potential non-transparency and not-so-good fact checking. That makes me question how freely can we cite articles written by DPA, especially when it comes to sensitive topics.

Nonetheless, I'd like to know what is the opinion from the more experienced Wikipedia editors, and whether we could consider DPA reliable for:

politics within Germany, Europe and worldwide
wars and terrorist attacks happening within Germany, Europe, Africa and Middle East
other high-profile incidents within Germany and internationally
sports and entertainment, whether it's Germany-exclusive or of international merits

Kacza195 (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The DPA reliability is similar to Reuters, Associated Press or Agence France-Presse and all of them are roughly as reliable as reputable newspaper or journalistic publications. So at first glance I see no issue here and I'm not aware of any specific "agenda-pushing, potential non-transparency and not-so-good fact checking"-issues. Rather than making a vague insinuation here, you'd need to be more concrete for this to be assessed. Wo is accusing DPA over what?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~I left a link to the Criticism section of the acticle about DPA. I'll leave the link again here. Kacza195 (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Now, at first glance it seems to be a no-brainer, and there is no reason to question its reliability. And in general, news agencies from Western Europe seemingly have a solid reputation. Well there you have it, it is indeed a no-brainer. These agencies do not "seemingly" have a solid reputation, they just do. This one is as reputable as the others, meaning that they sometimes mess up, but possibly less often than almost any other media outlet. Do you have a specific concern to address? It is not because discussions have taken place about other agencies that we have to discuss all the other ones. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 13:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided the link to the Criticism section of the article, but I can re-print some snippents here:

Regarding agenda-pushing: "There have been ongoing accusations of the dpa abusing its power within the marketplace, using its position for agenda-setting and to manipulate the general public. These sentiments have led to isolated recommendations for restrictions to be placed on the agency's power. Such concerns have been reported as early as 1970 with articles published in ZEIT and SPIEGEL generating discussion on the agency's close affiliation to the government and of the dpa colouring its reporting"
Lack of transparency: "Journalist Stefan Zickler included the company as part of his criticism of the structure of the German Press in a publication in which he challenged the belief that total privatisation of the agency by its around 170 shareholders prevent manipulation of its content. As a company owned by around two hundred shareholders who are responsible for ensuring its independence, the total privatization can be seen as a drawback, as it prevents any state and majoritarian involvement. Furthermore, the ownership also places great power in the hands of the Editor-in-Chief, who can shape the media landscape by controlling how information is disseminated." Basically there is no way to check if the ownership/editor-in-chief can be held accountable in case DPA consistently prints misleading or outright biased information.
Not-so-good fact-checking: "In subsequent years, the agency was forced to apologise for inaccurate reports regarding the protests against the G8 summit in Heiligendamm (2007) as well as the news of a scandal involving the then Federal Economics Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (2009). The role of the dpa in the Bluewater affair in 2009 led to new internal regulations regarding the sources of the disseminated news. The Otto Brenner Foundation conducted a large-scale study in March 2010, led by Hans-Jürgen Arlt and Wolfgang Storz. This study, named "Business Journalism during Crisis - The Mass Media's Handling of Financial Market Policy", evaluated the working procedures of the dpa from spring 1999 to autumn 2009. The ultimate conclusion of the study was that German business journalism failed to provide proficient and informative coverage of the financial market and its related policies prior to the onset of the global financial market crisis. The evaluation of the dpa's contribution to financial market policy journalism was described as being "highly deficient" and that it gave a sense of confusion rather than offering orientation."

Kacza195 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article and some of the linked sources. I don't get the overall impression that dpa is any less reliable than most of the other major privately-held news agencies. It has made errors but it has corrected them. The Bluewater Affair (no English article) was a deliberate and fairly elaborate hoax designed (in part) to illustrate the power of disinformation and the relative ease of creating a false narrative that would be picked up and disseminated by the news wires... numerous other high-profile organisations picked up the story and published it after dpa did, and dpa promptly published a retraction. Great as an example of media fallibility, but not that compelling as a reason to doubt the overall reliability of dpa over the long term. Pretty much all news organisations get criticised, the existence of criticism doesn't automatically make them unreliable. YFB ¿ 16:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I did read the page, no need to copy paste an entire section here. The mere existence of a criticism section on the article of a media organization does not really factor in reliability discussions of it as a source. If two different editors tell you that they think your question/complaint is unfocused, you should maybe try to engage with what they said instead of assuming that they somehow did not read what you said in the first place. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 16:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't that the mighty Criticism section exists and it's big, it's what the criticism is about. I'll try to elaborate. My concern based on the allegations in the section is that the agency seems to be closely affiliated with the German government, and that the Editor-in-Chief has a lot of power within the agency to push whatever agenda he wants/whatever agenda the government wants him to - and it already showed several times. So, for example, should I refrain from citing DPA in articles about Gaza war, considering the fact that the current prime-minister is considered a staunch supporter of Israel? Should I think of a better source when I want to add something about Alternative for Germany and right-wing extremism, considering the current government openly opposes AfD? Or am I being overly critical and I can cite DPA without too much concern? Should I refrain from using DPA if I want to expand articles about sports considering that DPA might publish misinformation to either a) distort the impression of the viewer about Germany's stance and influence in the world of sports (whether it's football, ice hockey etc.) b) simply stir some drama which means higher customer engagement? And so on. Kacza195 (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence at all that dpa has published inaccurate information about Gaza or the AfD, let alone being involved in publishing "misinformation" about sports or stirring "drama"? Otherwise this discussion seems a bit of a waste of time. YFB ¿ 18:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The silence speaks for itself. There is no proof, therefore there is no reason to doubt DPA's reliability. PierroPawleczko (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF and remember that everyone is a WP:VOLUNTEER here so response time may vary. Silence does not speak for anything, and what you say is somewhat of a non sequitur as well. No need to pile on after several editors already pointed the same thing out. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 17:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I was unable to find much regarding Gaza war, this link provides some other examples of DPA being either misleading or biased:

Greta Thunberg: DPA has been reporting that Thunberg "is using the reach of her social media "to draw attention to the devastating situation of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip" but repeatedly ignored her accusations of genocide against Palestinians and her boycott campaign against Israeli singer Eden Golan
The riots caused by left-wing extremists after the 2024 French legislative election were reported as "clashes between anti-fascists and the police"
Calling Masoud Pezeshkian a moderate politician: while he can be considered moderate compared to the rest of the Irani government, he is still an ultra-conservative and strongly anti-Israel
Their portrayal of climate activists' protests in Lützerath in 2023: DPA published a photo of peaceful protesters facing police officers in full gear and titled it "the contrast could hardly be greater", but apparently protesters resorted to violence from time to time. Again, not necessarily a lie - those protesters in the snapshot probably were indeed peaceful, but the report distorted the perception of what was happening in Lützerath.
In June 2023, DPA reported that "UN was concerned because German authorities were investigating climate stickers". Apparently that wasn't true.

Kacza195 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest at this point it is starting to look like you have an axe to grind against the DPA for some reason, because your approach seems to be to try to validate a posteriori your initial assumption of lack of reliability. This latest message appears to be another attempt to throw random stuff at the wall in the hope that something sticks. Even the cherry-picked examples you cite are very unconvincing, reflecting only what based on my knowledge of these issues are completely banal editorial choices, not errors, let alone disinformation. Your repeated use of the word "apparently" like you just found out about some of these things does not help with this impression either. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish here, because it is quite clear you are not presenting things likely to move the current consensus about the DPA's reliability. I think accepting that and moving on would be best as a result. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 22:27, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the impression that I have some personal beef with DPA or something? Like I said at the beginning, there has been some criticism regarding DPA's work. Considering the criticism, I started to doubt whether DPA is trustworthy enough to use as a reliable source. At the same time, DPA is used a lot across Wikipedia, even English Wikipedia, and that could be a problem if DPA's track record is worse than we initially considered. You have repeatedly questioned where I'm coming from, so I provided everything I could. I'm not out there to prove at any cost that DPA is shady, but to simply discuss the matter and conclude whether a) the available info is enough to put DPA's reliability into question and maybe we should think twice before using DPA as a source and if possible, use another source instead b) these controversies are too minor or simply not enough to warrant these doubts. And that's exactly what I did. And I see that the consensus that DPA is a reliable source still stands. I'm fine with that and will move on. Kacza195 (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that if this discussion relates to the current situation in Gaza only extended confirmed editors can take part, per WP:ARBECR. That means only editor who have 500+ edits and who's account is over 30 days old. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your opening premise is flawed. The AP, AFP, and DPA aren't government-affiliated. Anadolu and TASS are state-owned. State control is a major factor in evaluating reliability. Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, you are, of course, correct that DPA is not state-owned. But (and whatever comes before but can be ignored) in my view it is not as independent as AP. Do I have a source for that? No, not at all. Let me clarify that I am not German and have no stake in what happens there, but I know a thing or three about Europe, and speak some languages used there. DPA is effectively controlled by the "big money muscle" industrialists who would like to keep the status quo. And that can be done in Germany, unlike a place like Italy where the word "control" has no meaning. But the big money muscle has enough PR people to make sure we have no conclusive evidence to establish that. I think Kacza195 is not going to go very far in getting his ideas implemented in Wikipedia. C’est la vie. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of source should be done by policies, guidelines and what secondary sources have reported, not editors personal opinions about a sources. Unless you have sources to show "big money muscle" control, it's a none starter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I said was "Do I have a source for that? No, not at all." Did you read that? My goal was to clarify that there are no solid sources to support Kacza195's views, even if those views may have some small basis in reality. And I hoped the C’est la vie comment would suggest to him to stop. I may have just succeeded in that. As far as Wiki is concerned DPA is reliable, true or not is another issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You miss my point, if you don't have a source for that then it doesn't matter. There are many sources that are considered reliable, and I've argued for the reliability of, that I personally believes are compete trash. My opinion doesn't matter, whether I believe it to be true or not doesn't matter, editors should try and judge sources impartially not by their own personal biases. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is funny is that we are in full agreement, but you do not seem to be aware of it. I also think that the personal opinions of all users have the same value, namely zero, and Wiki content is based on sources. Anyway, we must end this "heated agreement" before it gets out of hand. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/RFC: Southern Poverty Law Center

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:

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.

This is a two part RFC about the reliability of Southern Poverty Law Center and Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch. Please see below for each section. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question about Hatewatch and the SPLC for WP:RFCBEFORE. Please also see this search for discussions involving SPLC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC) [reply]

pings

Pinging @PARAKANYAA, @Gotitbro, @ActivelyDisinterested, @AndreJustAndre, @Barnards.tar.gz, @Berchanhimez, @Black Kite, @Blueboar, @Dlthewave, @FactOrOpinion, @TurboSuperA+, @PackMecEng, @Springee, @Simonm223, @MjolnirPants, @Rhododendrites, @Horse Eye's Back and @Riposte97 as editors involved in the discussion over on the main WP:RS/N page. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Grayfell, @Nblund, @Calton, @SoWhy, @CataracticPlanets, @Drmies, @A Quest For Knowledge, @RightCowLeftCoast, @Shrike, @Masem, @Snow Rise, @Slatersteven, @Kyohyi, @PaleoNeonate, @NorthBySouthBaranof, @Guy Macon, @Aquillion, @Alanscottwalker, @Netoholic, @Objective3000, @Sir Joseph, @Insertcleverphrasehere and @The Four Deuces who participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 245#Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 08:05, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Ian.thomson, @Atsme, @Arkon, @SPECIFICO, @Anmccaff, @Neutrality, @Peter Gulutzan, @Fyddlestix, @Saturnalia0, @Eperoton, @Sławomir Biały, @Edaham, @Indy beetle, @Volunteer Marek, @Doug Weller, @James J. Lambden, @Tryptofish, @Power~enwiki, @MastCell, @D.Creish, @Hob Gadling, @Pudeo, @Srich32977 and @Sitush as editors who participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 230#Southern Poverty Law Center As Source For Labeling Someone a White Supremacist. TarnishedPath^talk 08:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Bneu2013, @GreenMeansGo, @El_C, @François Robere, @JzG, @WhatamIdoing, @Santasa99, @Markbassett, @Johnpacklambert, @Jayron32, @Lepricavark and @ColumbiaXY as editors who particpated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 280#Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 08:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IRWolfie-, @Fifelfoo, @Collect, @Binksternet, @Arthur Rubin, @Mangoe, @North Shoreman, @Confession0791 and @Aprock as editors who participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 130#Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 09:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SlamDiego and @Squidfryerchef as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Rocksanddirt, @ScienceApologist, @Moni3, @Arthur Kemp, @Dezidor and @Verbal as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 26#Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 09:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @WVBluefield, @Shazbot85, @Jayjg, @Jmabel, @Y and @Hipocrite as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 48#Southern Poverty Law Center (again) & Rousas John Rushdoony. TarnishedPath^talk 09:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Nableezy and @Skinwalker~enwiki as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 128#Southern Poverty Law Center. TarnishedPath^talk 09:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kevin Gorman, @Itsmejudith, @Binksternet and @Crews Giles as editors involved in the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 127#Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?. TarnishedPath^talk 09:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mrdthree and @Dlabtot as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 70#Southern Poverty Law Center Blog Reliability. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @RandomScholar30, @EvergreenFir and @K.e.coffman as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 208#Southern Poverty Law Center on Debbie Schlussel's Anti-Muslim stance. TarnishedPath^talk 09:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Softlavender, @dlthewave, @MrX, @Kmhkmh, @Carptrash, @Darouet and @My name is not dave as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 232#Is an SPLC report a reliable source for List of Confederate monuments and memorials?. TarnishedPath^talk 10:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @historicaljohnny, @Izno, @Cordless Larry, @Herostratus and @Galobtter as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 247#SPLC: not a reliable source. TarnishedPath^talk 10:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Alaexis, @Alexbrn, @Hemiauchenia, @Nil Einne, @Szmenderowiecki, @XOR'easter and @Thryduulf as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 339#RSP wording for SPLC. TarnishedPath^talk 11:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @NatGertler, @BobFromBrockley, @Spy-cicle, @Fiveby, @Shibbolethink, @My very best wishes, @Mr Ernie and @DGG as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347#When can SPLC be treated as a 3rd party RS vs a primary source that needs to be first mentioned by a independent RS?. TarnishedPath^talk 11:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @X-Editor, @feminist, @Buffs, @Ivanvector, @Johnbod and @MJL as editors involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260#Is the SPLC reliable? It is reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 11:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 (SPLC)

What is the reliability of The Southern Poverty Law Center on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Polling: Part 1 (SPLC)

1.5 generally reliable, should always be attributed, prefer academic sources when available. The SPLC is an advocacy group and should be handled accordingly but I would suggest it represents effectively the gold standard for advocacy groups. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 generally reliable, should only be attributed in the circumstances where any source should be attributed (e.g. it conflicts with other known sources) or in opinion-based designations like hate groups. Always requiring attribution would make it useless for actually providing information besides x is a hate group which already requires attribution. A substantial portion of modern academia on the far-right is just laundering SPLC reports and is just as advocacy oriented, so judging them for that seems absurd to me. They're going to be advocacy sources because of the subject matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate on A substantial portion of modern academia on the far-right is just laundering SPLC reports and is just as advocacy oriented? Is there a place filled with examples you could link to, and did you mean far-left? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does America have a far-left? From what I've seen, the Republicans label anyone left of Mitt Romney as far-left which is amusing. TarnishedPath^talk 03:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I would describe SPLC as more trusted by liberals and less trusted by conservatives. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second Aaron's question. Springee (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant far-right; academia on (i.e. about) the far-right overwhelmingly cites the SPLC/ADL (moreso the SPLC).

My experience here is that I have written a lot of articles on far-right movements and people, and I would say I have a decent idea of what the sourcing is. Read any academic article, or book, on the explicit far-right (e.g. not Republicans but like neo-Nazis and stuff), and perusing their sources you will find an awful lot of citations to the SPLC, usually more than news outlets.

This is moreso from the 1980s on in my experience due to complicated factors - basically every group getting civil suited into oblivion made them more reclusive I suppose, and the media became less willing to contact them directly. It is especially this case since the mid-2000s (probably because the one big group splintered a bunch). There is some academic discussion about this dynamic itself, and some (I think it was Jeffrey Kaplan (academic)?) criticized the advocacy group-scholar dynamic without looking for more primary sources as making it impossible to properly understand such groups, but still, it is what almost all of them do. Due to the information ecosystem around the far-right there really aren't other options!

A very large portion of academia on the far-right is just as advocacy oriented as the SPLC. They explicitly come from an against the subject angle, many reliably published academics are explicitly anti-fascist activists, they find the subjects and their views abhorrent. I don't think being anti the subject matter compromises factual accuracy, or we'd have no reliable sources on neo-Nazis. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think your distinction between explicit far-right vs other groups is important. As an example, in another discussion the group SEGM is labeled as a "hate group" based on a mention in an article [113]. SEGM may be totally wrong on trans gender care but it seems like calling an organization of practicing doctorate level clinicians/health care providers a "hate group" based on their disagreement with transgender care practices a bit much. This is the sort of thing a number of mainstream sources were concerned about. The second paragraph of the SEGM article clearly states they are a SPLC hate group yet the "hate map" and related article offer no explanation. The group may ultimately not be doing the right thing but where is the evidence they are based on "hate" vs just concern for patients (even if that concern is ultimately misguided). This looks very much like a case of politics driving the designation rather than the traditional, violent extremism. Springee (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where is the evidence they are based on "hate" vs just concern for patients

Concern for patients would be if their "concern" was based on the best availalbe evidence and if they weren't actively engaged in political activism, using misinformation.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

Given their usage of misinformation, any claim to 'patient care' can be disregarded. They are clearly a hate group. TarnishedPath^talk 03:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There a several flaws in your reply. First, in the SEGM RfC many of the sort of claims you have made and the sources you offered were refuted with counter evidence. But this is a discussion about SPLC. Where is the evidence provided by SPLC? This supports the concern that RSs have raised that some of the designations are based on political disagreements vs solid evidence such as would have been available against groups like the KKK. So we use the "hate group" label clearly in the article's lead yet the source for that claim provides no evidence or justification (per the links in the article). If the SPLC can't provide strong evidence for the label why are we giving it any weight much less headline billing? Springee (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, where is this RFC? I just looked and I couldn't find it. I presume that given what currently consists of the first paragraph that the RFC found that the sources had sufficient weight to be there? TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per our own article on hate group, the FBI says "a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."". And since more modern sources add gender identity to that, being "hostile" against them counts. It's a vague term. I have no stake in this argument but what evidence would be required except showing they are hostile to transgender people? And secondly, no matter what we go with, their designations are the one thing everyone here is arguing to keep! PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I really have no stake in that debate, I do note that TarnishedPath's evidence does suggest they are also a political activist organization, so I don't see it to be that surprising.

The SPLC's specialization was never in violent extremism, but hate groups, including many which are at least on paper not preaching violent action. Those are not anywhere close to being the same thing. A non-hate group can be a violent extremist one and a hate group can be non-violent. Is the SPLC's designation of them as such wildly divergent with other sources? Doesn't seem to be.

I personally think the hate group label is not always due weight, because it is inherently opinion based, as any definition of "hate group" is going to be in the eye of the beholder, which in this case is the SPLC... but in any other case would be quite similar, because it's just a vague term, which is why I have unsuccessfully attempted to banish it from the two articles we use it as a disamb for, to what seems to be no avail. But it really has no bearing on their factual accuracy, which I have always found to be excellent... far better than news sources atleast.

If we were going to ban sources for being politically biased I don't think we'd have any! PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - since they are frequently used to support contentious labels about living people and groups with BLP implications, of course there needs to be additional considerations per BLP and NPOV. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - I still think this RfC was undercooked and I would like for it to be beyond this one advocacy source.. but since that's probably a pipe dream to get a consensus on (not saying this is the opener's fault at all, it would just be unweildy)... The labels that SPLC provides are contentious, as Isaidnoway points out above. They should be attributed at all times. The SPLC is reliable for what the SPLC says - they are not reliable to unilaterally apply a label to an organization for us to say it in wikivoice, even if no other source has even addressed the topic. In other words, SPLC-based information should always be attributed, at a minimum. But for their view on an organization/person/event/etc. they are of course reliable for their view on that topic. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1-ish: Like PARAKANYAA says, the SPLC occupies a kind of unique space in this topic area for an advocacy group in that much of the actual scholarship about American hate groups is based on their reports. I do think that in the case of specific living people they should be attributed still (just because WP:BLP concerns are a big deal, not because they're particularly unreliable here) but that's not necessary for their labeling of groups. Loki (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BADRFC/Option 2 - I still think this RFC was rushed and there was no adequate discussion of SPLC beforehand - the whole point was what's the difference between SPLC and Hatewatch. Also I don't think the pings got everyone involved in the discussion? However, if this is going ahead, I think they are a useful source of information about far-right hate groups in the US only, especially that are corroborated as such by other sources. They are not necessarily reliable for labelling, or for anything outside the US, and as such they should be attributed. They should not be used for anything outside the US. They are not reliable for anything outside this narrow area, and they are a self-interested and partisan source whose opinions should be taken with a massive pinch of salt at all times, and whose factual claims in any other area are not DUE.Void if removed (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been numerous prior discussions on SPLC and it is appropriate to ask the question about both SPLC and SPLC's Hatewatch as the reliability of SPLC has been called into question. TarnishedPath^talk 08:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You already said this, I disagree that this is an accurate representation of the RFCBEFORE, no need to repeat your comment under my vote. Void if removed (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. WP:SPLC. Nothing has changed. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. It's the gold standard for WP:RSOPINION / WP:BIASED sources and is reliable if any of them are. As an advocacy group with a clear POV it should always be attributed, but this does not change its reliability. I'll point out that most of the arguments for anything other than 1 above seem to be solely based on the fact that it's biased, which is specifically not a criteria for reliability in and of itself. If we're going to categorize the SPLC as yellow based solely on its bias, then we'd have to re-categorize a lot of other sources, too. Bias is a reason to require attribution but it doesn't render a source less reliable unless there's evidence that the bias has interfered with their reliability or their reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which nobody has presented here. --Aquillion (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, RS considers it reliable, and thus it has a reputation for reliability. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Generally reliable for content related to the United States, but they should always be attributed. The only thing I would change about the current RSP entry is to strengthen the note regarding non-US topics. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. This is an entity with decades of attested professionalism and clear editorial/research controls. I'm honestly not sure I would even called it particularly WP:BIASED, but as others have pointed out already, even if we agreed it was, that still represents precisely zero reason to deprecate or restrict it, provided it is used with attribution, which it obviously should be--and I presume pretty much always is. I don't know the whole history here, but, to be perfectly blunt, if there has been even a significant minority drive to restrict this of all attributed sources, that strikes me as more than a little problematic and a sign of just how out-of-control the effort to leverage RSN against perfectly valid sources has become. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - The SPLC is reliable, but I hesitate to call it generally reliable. It is an advocacy/opinion source, and as such needs in-text attribution (especially in BLPs). Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Per the long list of sources previously complied by Guy Macon the SPLC has done both good work but also has a strong perverse incentive to see groups they politically disagree with as "hate" groups. Part of the issue is they have taken the solid reputation they got for going after obvious hate groups such as the KKK and morphed into a politically activist group that uses their clout to label groups that wouldn’t fit the traditional “hate group” definition. These problems reached the point where sources like the Washington Post, NYT took note. Others have noted the strong bias where labels are applied as much on political views/differences as on any real facts. This is a biased source with strong perverse incentives to amplify there importance to continue to solicit donations (again an issue reported on by RSs). Given the mixed history it should always be used with care. Using the SPLC for generalized trends on “hate”, with attribution is reasonable. Using the source to label specific groups or people, especially non-violent groups, with the hate term or other labels is something that should only be done if an independent RS points to the label/claim first. This is a standard that should apply to any claims out of an activist organization/think tank and a standard we do apply to many (see CATO and Rand). Any claim by the SPLC should be attributed and if they are the only one making the claim it may be UNDUE. Springee (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 They are an advocacy group that are serving a purpose, and while they are generally assessing groups in line with how most major RSes consider them, they also tend to encompass a number of "false positives" when compared to other RSes. They are nowhere as close to ADL (which have appeared to decide anything that questions Israel as anti-semantic and thus on their list), but have made a fair number of bunders to the larger media. As such, at minimum any content from SPLC should be inline attributed to them, and when their classification has raises questions (from RSes) that should be put into context. Masem (t) 13:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution. SPLC is very reliable but WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies. Option 2 is not appropriate because it calls into question the reliability rather than indicating that this is an advocacy group. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 and otherwise as per summary at WP:SPLC. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with a trace of Option 2: they are respected, as reliable as anything in this area can be, but should always be overtly attributed in the text (not just a footnote) because it is not an area of objective fact. - Jmabel | Talk 16:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 There accounts of right-wing extermist groups are routinely relied upon by academics, news media, police, courts and immigration departments. While some editors object to some of their classifactions, these are issues of weight, not rs. IOW, an SPLC classification of a group is an opinion that should be mentioned if it has sufficient mention in rs (which it usually does.) TFD (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Well-regarded source of information on hate groups and right-wing extremism. Like any source, WP:RSOPINION and WP:DUE should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but that has nothing to do with reliability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Nothing has changed WP:SPLC; it should always be attributed, which does not change its reliability nor affect its reputation.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. It is an advocacy organization with a (lower-case) point of view, but its information is based on solid research and is generally mainstream and reliable. Depending on what is being sourced, it may need to be presented with attribution. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - Generally reliable, but should always be attributed since it is an advocacy org. PackMecEng (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution As before. No real argument has been given for their reliability status to have changed from prior discussions. Silver seren^C 02:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. As others have said, this is a prime example of a generally reliable, WP:BIASED source. I think the deciding factor between options 1 and 2 here is WP:USEBYOTHERS: by that measure, SPLC passes with flying colors. Yes, they should almost always be attributed, especially for BLP purposes. They have made errors but have been quick to correct them, as any reliable journalistic or research organization would be expected to do. Generalrelative (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. The fact that increasing numbers of people are doing things that SPLC condemns is not a problem with SPLC. Maybe tone down the racism a notch and see if that works? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine if the group is actually racist. However, one of the big criticisms of the group is how do they decide and are their decisions objective or based on politics [114]. Springee (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That piece has a tonne of opinion and I don't see how it speaks to SPLC's reputation for fact checking and accuracy. TarnishedPath^talk 01:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution per Simonm223. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Highly respected research outlet that is reliable for facts. We do NOT need to attribute factual statements they make. (Eg if they say John Doe joined the KKK age 19 we can say that in our voice with no attribution.) Of course we need to attribute any opinions or judgement calls they make, as with any advocacy organisation. (Eg if they say John Doe is an Islamophobic extremist or his organisation is a hate group, we’d only repeat that with attribution, unless the preponderance of RSs also said the same thing too.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. I wonder whether this is really a reliability issue, rather than a WEIGHT issue. SPLC are a notable org whose (attributed) designation is ordinarily inherently noteworthy, but whether everyone agrees about a specific group (especially in relation to LGBT and similar areas) - as opposed to their 'traditional' territory of race/ethnicity being a 'hate group' is moot, but that's why we attribute, and include why SPLC characterise them thus, rather thab use WP:VOICE.Pincrete (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - functionaly the same as the many people who !voted "Option 1 but with attribution". I think the RSP entry should be left as is. Samuelshraga (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RSP entry is currently generally reliable (option 1) so option 2 and leaving the RSP entry as is are mutually incompatible. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear, let me explain. Option 2 does not say WP:MREL, it says "additional considerations". The RSP entry contains "additional considerations" like specifying attribution and that SPLC classifications should not automatically be in the lede. Supporting additional considerations does not mean opposing WP:GREL.

I wrote that my !vote is functionally the same as the people who !voted "Option 1 but with attribution". I interpret their votes as basically saying WP:GREL but with additional considerations. Please interpret mine as "Additional consideration, but WP:GREL". Perhaps a slightly different emphasis, not mutual incompatibility. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 The SPLC is an advocacy organization with a clear political agenda. As such, it should not be used as a source for factual statements, and any references to it must be properly attributed. The organization has a documented history of controversial labeling practices and has faced legal consequences, including a $3.4 million settlement and public apology in one notable case [115]. Given the substantial criticism of the SPLC and its methods, it should not be considered a reliable source for any factual statements. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify that the settlement and apology did not relate to an inaccurate statement of fact by SPLC but by a controversial designation with a non-objective label. The "controversial labeling practices" should lead us to attribute labels; they do not give us cause to doubt reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm that sounds like semantic games to me. Riposte97 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "semantic games" to make a simple distinction between fact and opinion. There were no statements of fact about Maajid Nawaz in the "field guide" that elicited the apology that turned out to be incorrect. The apology was for the opinion that he was an "Islamophobic extremist". Ergo, we should not apply apply subjective (especially contentious) labels to people on the basis of SPLC opinions (but we shouldn't do that anyway with any source, unless the majority of reliable sources agree) but the apology doesn't have any implications about their reliability for statements of fact. This is Wikipedia 101. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 The SPLC is an advocacy organization, and with all advocacy organizations the point is to sell the advocacy. Because of this, internal review is not independent review, and anything published by the organization should be considered self-published. However, since it is a well-regarded advocacy organization, it can be considered an expert self-published source. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 / Option 3 SPLC's trustworthiness is frequently in question by major outlets. Their hate designations cannot be considered reliable on topics where SPLC is representing a party in an important court case (e.g. GAC and Boe v. Marshall) as this constitutes a significant conflict of interest. Evathedutch (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Evathedutch[reply]
I don't think it's accurate to say that "SPLC's trustworthiness is frequently in question by major outlets". Springee seems to have been pretty dogged in chasing negative commentary and their long list of criticisms includes a total of seven published in major outlets (staff writers at The Atlantic, Politico and Harpers, op eds in Bloomberg, WaPo and NYT). If these, one dates from 2000 and relates to the then figurehead (who was fired in 2019) and the others all date from summer 2017 when they labelled Maajid Nawaz an extremist. In other words, not "frequent" questioning of trustworthiness, but one incident a quarter century ago relating to governance and one misjudgement eight years ago.

On the other hand, it's a good point that where SPLC represents a party we cannot treat them as a source of facts, although their opinion would clearly be very due on such a topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 The SPLC routinely demonizes political opponents and will not make retractions + lets political allies slide on significant actions. Buffs (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So your reliable sources which demonstrate that they do not have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking are where exactly? TarnishedPath^talk 16:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution for opinions per all above. An advocacy org, but one widely utilized and considered reliable for non-opinion content. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution for opinions. I agree with others above that the SPLC is generally reliable, but as an advocacy org we should err on the side of attribution for opinions. Woodroar (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/1.5. I do not really think 1.5 should exist on the scale because the scale is already weighted funny between 3/4 or the existence of a requirement that all RFCs have 4 options, yet some community voices and indeed closers have decided to intuit the existence of a 1.5. I am not doubting that or those closes or even really alluding to them except only to say that I see the existence of 1.5 has evolved even though the scale itself rejects the existence of a 1.5, but it has long been held on Wikipedia that options in an RFC are not limited the options foreseen by the RFC initiator and in fact the existence of an RFC statement's purpose is only to be a neutral statement, and does not firmly anchor in potentiality the various possible outcomes conceived by the RFC's creator, or indeed, does not bind the community from closing the RFC as misplaced, having not followed BEFORE, the requirements of which include, having a substantial discussion that posits a change in the on-the-ground conditions as it were, or some new interpretation that is subsantial enough to prima facie justify a new RFC which is an investment of some amount of time and existential significance. So, coming back around in a roundabout way to SPLC, my first choice is option 2 if option 2 means basically it is a political source that has shown a willigness to wade into a factual realm of labeling, which is to say, the question in this RFC is whether the lead section of a page such as Alliance Defending Freedom should say in wiki-voice, "It has been designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an anti-LGBT hate group." Is that a salient fact that should be written there in the lead and should it be attributed. I think it should be attributed and that lands me at 2/1.5. However, option 2/3, would be a place where it is more unreliable than not, which is not true. If 2 is a perfect middle ie usable but some considerations apply and the considerations consist of the attribution requirement, bounded by some amount of relevance or specification, namely "controversial" or for claims that require special attribution. However that means that SPLC was already in some way at Option 2/1.5 so this is not a downgrade but simply an update. If SPLC were generally reliable, when it designates a group as a hate group, that would probably also be possible to state flatly in fact. For example, the SPLC explains that Kanye West is antisemitic, and that is not attributed in the lead, probably because it has been blatant and therefore not "controversial" meaning that its factual accuracy is accepted, and I do not bring this up to violate Godwin's law but simply to use it to illustrate the reliability of the SPLC, which I judge to be, generallyish for facts but some special considerations apply in terms of their categorization or their tendency to add groups to a list that are not so blatantly, unequivocally hateful but are more subtly advancing an anti-progressive cause as pertains to policies that would tend to reinforce or exclude some social view or group of people. Another example given was Maajid Nawaz and while that is not a recent thing it is certainly relevant to how we think about this question. And it seems that our article brands him a conspiracy theorist. But should Wikipedia be so far ahead of the curve? I think Wikipedia tends to want to be cautious when it pertains to BLPs. And it seems that the SPLC report on Nawaz is not used in or out of wikivoice in the lead. This is all to illustrate that some conditions apply, it is case-by-case content by context, but leaning generally reliable which is 1.5. Andre🚐 22:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Here are some things SPLC has said in court about their hate group designation.

“hate group designation is a subjective opinion” “it is not capable of being empirically proven true or false” “the term “‘hate group’ has a highly debatable and ambiguous meaning” https://ia803408.us.archive.org/35/items/gov.uscourts.almd.77784/gov.uscourts.almd.77784.10.0.pdf Therefore, SPLC opinions should only be used with attribution, and not for any statements of facts. TenBlueEagles (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Part 1 (SPLC)

This RfC is undercooked. The discussion is continuing to advance on the main page. This should be closed for now (and probably copied to the parent page). Riposte97 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely doesn't seem like it to me, seems like quite a lot of WP:RFCBEFORE over there in fact. Loki (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, a simple search through RSN's archives demonstrates precisely that. TarnishedPath^talk 08:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was a discussion about the editorial policy of Hatewatch, and then a general discussion about advocacy sources (of which most was about the reliability of Adfontes for classifying Reason).

There's precious little - if any - discussion about SPLC on its own, certainly nothing that would constitute an RFCBEFORE. Void if removed (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources, both ones that Wikipedia considered strong and otherwise, have raised concerns about the SPLC and how it operates. The central theme is the organization historically did good work but over time and as the significance of the KKK has fallen, they turned to other political topics and started targeting groups purely for their political views rather than because they used violence or intimidation etc. This is a list compiled by Guy Macon in several previous discussions.

Southern Poverty Law Center Gets Creative to Label 'Hate Groups': Principled conservatives are lumped together with bigots. --Bloomberg
The Intellectual Poverty of the Southern Poverty Law Center: Branding dissenters as haters undercuts its effectiveness. --Reason Magazine
The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance. --Harpers
GuideStar has more to do, if it cares about its objectivity. --Philanthropy Daily
Has a Civil Rights Stalwart Lost Its Way? --Politico
Department of Defense Purges SPLC Information from its Training Material. --Capital Research
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has labeled several Washington, D.C.-based family organizations as "hate groups" for favoring traditional marriage, has been dumped as a "resource" on the FBI's Hate Crime Web page, a significant rejection of the influential legal group. --Washington Examiner
How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'? --The Atlantic
Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals? --NYT
The Southern Poverty Business Model --Harpers
The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam: A "hate group" list loved by the media is bogus. --Reason
The Southern Poverty Law Center: Anti-Hate Activists, Slick Marketers or Both? --WNYC
The Hate Group That Incited the Middlebury Melee. --Real Clear Politics
Southern Poverty Law Center pays $3.4 million, says sorry, over description. --OC Register
Pressured, the Southern Poverty Law Center Admits It Was Wrong --National Review
A Demagogic Bully: The Southern Poverty Law Center demonizes respectable political opponents as "hate groups" -- and keeps its coffers bulging. --City Journal
Young Conservative Flagged on SPLC "Hatewatch" List. --Capital Research
King of Fearmongers. --Weekly Standard
Hateful speech on hate groups. --Washington Post
SPLC Won’t Label Antifa a Hate Group: To the SPLC, targeting conservatives and giving Antifa a pass is good for business. --Capital Research
Why Is the Southern Poverty Law Center Targeting Liberals? --The New York Times::* How Did Maajid Nawaz End Up on a List of 'Anti-Muslim Extremists'? --The Atlantic
The Unlabelling of an 'Anti-Muslim Extremist' --The Atlantic
The sad hysteria of the Southern Poverty Law Center --The Week
The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam --John Stossel
Poynter Institute's Retracted List of Fake News Sites Was Written by SPLC Podcast Producer: Media watchdogs should not outsource their fact-checking to the Southern Poverty Law Center. --Reason magazine

Springee (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which of any of those articles talk to SPLC's reputation for accuracy and fact checking? The SPLC Won’t Label Antifa a Hate Group article for example does not address their reputation for accuracy and fact checking in the slightest. TarnishedPath^talk 12:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The headline alone (SPLC Won’t Label Antifa a Hate Group) addresses their reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Antifa routinely physically attacks conservatives and engages in acts of vandalism/violence against the government/general supporters. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the headline alone addresses their reputation for accuracy and fact checking. We're not assessing the reliability of Antifa here. TarnishedPath^talk 16:54, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the majority of those are arguing over the "hate group" designation, which is a case where the world does not have a consistent and utterly objective definition, and thus we should always use "the SPLC designates the Anti-Klingon Alliance of Kansas a hate group" and never just "AKAK is a hate group" based on SPLC source. That does not detract from their statements of plain fact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are opinion columns or very unreliable, and are devoted to a few incidents. Declaring the Family Research Council a hate group because they're anti-LGBT, and conservatives complaining that they define conservative groups that are less than card carrying KKK members as hate groups. Or calling Charles Murray (political scientist) racist. Or just complaining about the existence of hate groups at all, which is intrinsic because "hate group" means nothing on its own.

The only seriously at issue on I see here is the Nawaz thing, which was a single time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This list includes duplicates, non-reliable sources and opinion pieces. Almost none of them refer to reliability. Calling a hyper-partisan secularist “islamophobic” (the only thing here which seems relevant to this discussion) is not an error of fact but a contentious judgement. That’s not a claim we’d make without attribution anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems of the complaints about neutrality are about the attribution of the hate group label. From my reading of the RSP listing for the SPLC we already have to attribute the hate group label. Focusing on this is very odd because the hate group listings are a very small portion of the usage of the SPLC onwiki; of course it makes sense to attribute them to in those cases because what is a hate group is a matter of opinion. But it would make them useless as a source to have to attribute them for statements of fact, which is most of their usage, and which no one has evidenced is problematic. They will have to be removed from many pages because it is often impossible to restructure high levels of sourcing to them in line with attribution requirements without making the article terrible. e.g. you would have to do according to splc, [basic fact], [other source], according to splc [another basic fact], ad infinitum. if it makes the writing this bad it would be better to remove the sourcing. Many votes like this carry the assumption that there is better sourcing on the topic of the modern far-right, but there isn't. News media and most academia almost always just repeat them without question, often with introduced errors. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to note and/or explicitly call out that many people advocating for option 1 - generally reliable are also admitting that additional considerations need to be made - such as in text attribution. I trust that the closer of this discussion will, as always, review the comments entirely and consider any !vote for option 1 that expresses support for additional considerations to be a !vote in support of additional considerations, regardless of the bolded !vote. But I would encourage everyone who has !voted for option 1 while also expressing support for additional considerations, such as being explicitly attributed when used, to consider why they put a bolded !vote for option 1 while clearly supporting additional considerations. We all need to review our unconscious biases - and it's clear to me that at least some people are in support of additional considerations while still bolding their !vote as option 1 - generally reliable (without additional considerations). To me, that is an overt example of an unconscious bias which should be strongly considered by anyone who has !voted for option 1 while supporting additional considerations. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So unfortunately this is a reflection of a more general schism between the standard options and how people actually behave in practice. One could easily argue that if you think something is generally reliable with a caveat, that should mean you vote for option 2: after all, 2 is supposed to mean "additional considerations" and the caveat is clearly an additional consideration. But in practice what happens in that situation is that people vote for option 1 with the stated caveat in text, and option 2 in practice means marginally reliable.

Part of the reason people do this is because it impacts the color at WP:RSP, which in turn impacts how people actually use the source. Arguably we should just rename option 2 since actually any of the options can have additional considerations attached. Loki (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's a schism. The options are clear - 1 is for "generally reliable" (without considerations). Option 2 is generally reliable, but considerations apply. If people are !voting for option 1, while clearly supporting option 2, that's a clear unconscious bias (or perhaps even an attempt at inappropriate advocacy) that should be addressed by those individuals. If people are !voting based on the color it will be, even when they agree additional considerations are necessary, that's not appropriate. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what option 2 is. With additional considerations means generally that it cannot count for notability, that it will be removed in many cases as a less than optimal source that we cannot use without damaging the flow of the text (so we will have to review and remove it from many GAs and FAs). Generally reliable but be wary of the circumstances and how you cite it is the status quo. Someone is going to have to clean this up and remove information that can't be easily attributed (anything beyond a hate group designation) from hundreds of articles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if someone is going to have to "clean it up". And "with attribution" is by definition an "additional consideration". Even if it results in having to remove information from articles if it cannot be attributed to them good. That's not a reason to !vote for "generally reliable" just because it's going to need to be cleaned up (either by being attributed in text or removed). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting reliable information with no alternative for no clear reason is bad, yes. There are no better sources on this topic, and there's no actual policy-based reason to have them be considered any less reliable than a news outlet. News coverage of far-right extremism is basically relegated to (often incorrectly) repeating the SPLC, as is most modern academia on the subject. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You may notice that neither myself, nor anyone, has !voted option 3 for the SPLC as a whole. So there is zero reason to "delete... information" from them. But yes, there actually is a policy-based reason - they are an advocacy source. They are WP:BIASED. And per that portion of our RS policy, that means they should be attributed in text. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it is impossible to write a satisfactory article where you have to attribute every single sentence, and we would have to remove them from articles that require high-quality sourcing, so yes, we would have to delete information from them.

From what you linked, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources... When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering." Bias is not a reason for unreliability and there is no requirement we attribute factual information from them. Also, by this logic, all coverage on the far-right needs to be attributed, because scholars dislike Nazis and write all of their studies on the far-right with the express goal of hindering/stopping them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this isn't some sort of attention-laundering/forum-shopping but that's what I wanted to address with Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Split "additional considerations apply"/"marginally reliable" from "no consensus" at RSP: What you said is not the case but is way too common a misconception because of how it's lumped with no-con. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're just inherently wrong. I (and others) voted Option 1 and meant Option 1. The subject matter that SPLC primarily focuses on, however, means that WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV generally applies for those topics. Per the subjects at hand, we shouldn't outright say that some group is a hate group without attributing where that conclusion is coming from. It doesn't matter where that statement is coming from, every single source being used, no matter how reliable, would need to be attributed for such statements. Option 1 still completely applies even when attribution is needed for the subject. Silverseren^C 06:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren My concern with this is that the predominant usage for the SPLC is not actually their hate group classification, but basic / factual details. So saying "attribute always" would eliminate most of their usage as a source by making it very difficult to use them for the topic they are best at. I agree totally that the opinion based designations should be attributed but when it comes to factual matters, why? PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA, Could you give us a few examples of factual information (currently cited to SPLC) that you think does not need to be attributed? Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar Here is an example: William Luther Pierce. The most prominent neo-Nazi in America for probably two decades. Yet, there is no reliable full length book on his life, and there are basic facts about his life that are only cited to the SPLC (or ADL, which is in the same boat but worse), such as. I already greatly reduced usage of the ADL and SPLC sources and now it only cites what is not easily citable to other sources (also, it has the benefit of being free to access, unlike books citing the SPLC and repeating what they say, which are paywalled). See how it looked before for more examples [116]. Here are
He graduated from Rice in 1955 with a bachelor's degree in physics.

He worked at the Los Alamos National Laboratory before attending graduate school, initially at the California Institute of Technology during 1955–56.

As the leader of the National Alliance, Pierce established contacts with other nationalist groups in Europe, including the National Democratic Party of Germany, the British National Party (BNP), and the Greek Golden Dawn party.

In 1978, claiming the National Alliance was an educational organization, Pierce applied for and was denied, tax exemption by the Internal Revenue Service. Pierce appealed, but an appellate court upheld the IRS decision

the "white power" record company, Resistance Records, which Pierce supported from its inception around 1993 and purchased outright in 1999.

Or another dead neo-Nazi, Joseph Tommasi:
The name originated from the left-wing revolutionary Vietnamese Liberation Front, or the Viet Cong.

Tommasi became increasingly prominent within the NSWPP, and Koehl came to see him as a rival;

The NSLF was modeled off of the New Left style of radicalism and lifestyle,

In March 1974, Tommasi relaunched the National Socialist Liberation Front as a separate organization,

What is problematic about citing this to the SPLC or ADL for information like this? And you may say: there are better sources for this. No, In many cases there aren't! Some news sources repeat them incorrectly or with so little detail it becomes confusing (e.g. the Guardian says he graduated from Rice, but doesn't give any years or dates and doesn't specify the degree on his later education, which makes the sequence of events incomprehensible) Or if there are, they are citing the SPLC directly, sometimes introducing errors, with no comment and paywalled, making them worse as citations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think people are saying it needs attribution for opinions (eg a designation as a hate group) rather than needs attribution every time it’s cited for a factual claim. As we generally attribute opinions anyway, it’s an “additional consideration” that doesn’t exceed the normal for option 1, ie it’s not in fact “additional”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 If SPLC says "Christo-fascist Group A has destroyed a nail salon owned by a Muslim woman", we cannot say in WikiVoice "Group A is christo-fascist", but we can say "Group A destroyed a nail salon owned by a Muslim woman" and "According to the SPLC Group A is a christo-fascist organisation". TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but IMO it depends on how prominent we want the consideration to seem. People who say it should be "additional considerations" are saying the consideration is important to warrant that visibility. Nearly all of our additional considerations are just existing policy applied that don't change despite their contextualization in specific cases. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For context, the latest Before discussion many are referring to appears to be #Question about Hatewatch and the SPLC. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been many more than that though. See the collaposed ping section at the top of the RFC. TarnishedPath^talk 04:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 (Hatewatch)

What is the reliability of The Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States?

Option 1: Generally reliable
Option 2: Additional considerations
Option 3: Generally unreliable
Option 4: Generally unreliable, with deprecation

11:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Polling: Part 2 (Hatewatch)

1.5 generally reliable, should always be attributed, prefer academic sources when available. This has been my position throughout this discussion and nothing in the discussion above has really moved the needle. There is no substantial evidence that Hatewatch is differently reliable from the rest of the SPLC. Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1 generally reliable, should only be attributed in the circumstances where any source should be attributed or in opinion-based designations like hate groups. A substantial portion of modern academia on the far-right is just laundering SPLC reports and is just as advocacy oriented, so I see it as mostly comparable, if a bit less rigorous. They're going to be advocacy sources because of the subject matter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. I have seen zero evidence that the Hatewatch portion of the SPLC site is subject to the same academic/investigatory rigor as is other things the SPLC publishes. And bluntly, there's a reason things are published on Hatewatch rather than being published as SPLC statements/views. Until there is evidence otherwise, we should assume it's being published on Hatewatch because it wasn't suitable to be published elsewhere by the SPLC. In other words, pending any legitimate and rigorous editorial policy for Hatewatch being presented, we should not allow it to "assume" the status of reliable that SPLC has. During the BEFORE discussion, there was ample time for people to produce evidence of Hatewatch's editorial policy/how "connected" it was to the SPLC as a whole. As of yet, there has been no such evidence provided. In other words, it should be treated as no different than any other blog or any editorial that comes from an otherwise reliable source until we have evidence otherwise. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, if this results in anything other than "generally unreliable", it should still be attributed in text, even more so than general SPLC views/statements should be attributed. It would be doing a disservice to our readers to state things as fact that were published on a lesser portion of the SPLC site without making it abundantly clear that it's their view. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"we should assume it's being published on Hatewatch because it wasn't suitable to be published elsewhere by the SPLC".... why should we assume that? It's just the title of a specific kind of post they make. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So OpEds by the NYT should be considered "just the title of a specific kind of post they make"? Obviously not. There's a reason they're posted on a blog rather than as a fully SPLC-backed publication. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A blog is a type of website with posts in reverse chronological order. Post order has no impact on reliability, unlike opinion articles. There is no evidence that Hatewatch is positioned as a lesser venture in any way. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there is also no evidence that Hatewatch has any sort of editorial policy that we would generally consider as reliable. As such, your comment doesn't change anything about my !vote or comments. Unless and until someone can provide evidence that the Hatewatch blog is subject to any sort of editorial policy that we would normally consider as reliable, then my !vote and comments stand. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that they have any difference in editorial policy from the rest of the SPLC. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there's no evidence of the SPLC's editorial policy to begin with... so... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:REPUTABLE a reliable source is one which has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Further per WP:QUESTIONABLE [q]uestionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight.

My reading from this is that what is of the most importance, when considering if a sources is reliable, is a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. TarnishedPath^talk 08:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there has been no evidence provided for that reputation for this blog portion of the website. Since when did we start accepting "well, there's no evidence against it" as confirmation on Wikipedia? Are we going to start accepting NYT Opinion pieces as the same level of reliability as the NYT just because they're published by the same company now? It's very clear that a double standard is being applied here because some editors want to be able to use Hatewatch since it's the only place that says certain things.
Well, bluntly, if it's the only place that's saying certain things, one must wonder why no actual reliable source is saying them. People are claiming it's because they say "the quiet part out loud" so to speak. But nobody has provided any evidence that it's not because their fact-checking is poor, so no actually reliable source dares republish what they say. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen zero evidence that an article is being published on Hatewatch because it wasn't suitable to be published elsewhere by the SPLC.
During the BEFORE discussion, there was ample time for people to produce evidence of Hatewatch's editorial policy/how "connected" it was to the SPLC as a whole. As of yet, there has been no such evidence provided.
That isn't entirely true. This comment was pointed out to you, but you dismissed it as proof of only "that they are staffed from somewhere else". But that "somewhere else" is the SPLC:

"Shortly thereafter it initiated the Klanwatch project (later renamed the Intelligence Project) to monitor organized hate activity, including antigovernment militia movements and political extremist groups." [117]
The Intelligence Project is a department of the nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) [118]
Heidi Beirich leads the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project, which publishes the award-winning Intelligence Report and the Hatewatch blog. She is an expert on various forms of extremism, including the white supremacist, nativist, and neo-Confederate movements as well as racism in academia. [119]

And here are RS and academic sources to establish the Intelligence Project as a reputable organisation: [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:20, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted that they were a "department of" the SPLC, or that a person employed with the SPLC is their primary editor/publisher. Merely being published by the same organization as an otherwise reliable source is not enough. Again, there's a reason that information is only on a blog, and not published by the SPLC themselves. Someone leading one reliable source does not mean everything they publish is a reliable source. As an example, many NYT reporters also publish OpEds in the NYT. That doesn't make their OpEds a reliable source. Unless you can provide reliable information as to the editorial policy of the Hatewatch blog, I'm not changing my mind here. This isn't about whether you personally trust it - it's about whether it meets our reliable source policy. If the Hatewatch blog doesn't have a published, clear editorial policy, it cannot be considered a reliable source - regardless if you or others agree with what it says. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Hatewatch is described as "Hatewatch monitors and exposes activities of the hard right in the United States." [125] Let's take a look at some of Hatewatch's contributors, I am simply reading the names of the people who have written a story appearing on the front page of Hatewatch:

R. G. Cravens, PhD - Assistant Professor of Political Science at the California Polytechnic State University [126]
Travis McAdam - director of combating white nationalism and defending democracy at MHRN [127]
Jeff Tischauser, PhD - researcher and writer, Google scholar profile: [128]
Caleb Kieffer - Senior Research Analyst with the Southern Poverty Law Center [129]
Rachael Fugardi - Programs Specialist at the Anti-Defamation League where she works on projects related to extremism and countering hate [130]
Dr. Alon Milwicki - studies white supremacy, Neo-Nazism, and systemic racism in American History [131]
Maya Henson Carey, Ed.D - research analyst in the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center [132]

And so on. Looks like every person who writes for Hatewatch has an advanced degree, works as a researcher in the relevant field, and/or is published in journals and RSs. I put it to you to find a contributor to Hatewatch that isn't in some way equipped to write about right-wing extremism.

Per WP:NEWSORG: Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format and WP:NEWSBLOG: Some newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host online pages or columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. and WP:NEWSOPED: Some news organizations may not publish their editorial policies.

"Use with caution" does not mean "not reliable". Not all news organisations have a published editorial policy, so using a single criteria (out of several) as the only criteria is a bit WP:LAWYER-ish.

That's pretty much all I have to say. If you (or someone) wants me to respond, please ping me. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 08:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC is not "the website of a major news organization". And even if they were, a blog they run (Hatewatch) is not the same as their "website". It's not otherwise reliable - there has been no evidence that SPLC is generally reliable - even if they are considered reliable for some things (such as their designation of a group as a hate group). Actually, that's the opposite of generally reliable - the fact that we only consider them reliable for some things and/or require attribution for their views.

Furthermore, having advanced degrees does not automatically mean everything they say is reliable - people with advanced degrees can, and often do, publish their personal opinions. Reliability is not based on the number of degrees the contributors have. It's based on whether the publication has a reputation for fact checking and editorial integrity. You yourself quote the following: use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. Yet you're advocating for Hatewatch to be considered generally reliable without any caution whatsoever, per your !vote below. There is still zero evidence that Hatewatch is equivalent to the SPLC itself in terms of reliability, and there are still questions as to whether the SPLC itself is "generally reliable" in the first place. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: Generally reliable for topics about right-wing extremism and fascism in the United States. In case of BLPs, their statements should be attributed. Same designation as for SPLC over on WP:RSP. My reasoning is in this comment where I have shown that: 1) Hatewatch is run by the Intelligence Project, which has been a part of SPLC since the 70s; 2) the IP and HW are both recognised as "award-winning"; 3) the person who runs it and those who write for it can be considered experts (on account of their PhDs and/or being published in other RSs; 4) director of the Intelligence Project has been called to testify in Congress on matters of right-wing extremism in the United States. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: While I'm open to changing my view, so far nothing I've seen suggests that Hatewatch is less reliable than anything else the SPLC publish. Loki (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: No different to SPLC as a whole, same additional considerations apply as in my vote in Part 1 above (ie, partisan, with a narrow remit of far-right hate groups in the US, unreliable outside this area, requires attribution). Void if removed (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 and do not call it a blog in the article voice under any circumstances; no reason has been presented to carve out this from its general reliability. As with the organization as a whole, it is WP:BIASED and requires attribution, but none of these things change its general reliability, and it is clear that overall the SPLC has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The only thing people seem to be saying to separate it is that they feel it's a "blog", but this doesn't really matter because the result of such a designation would be to treat it as opinion and we already treat the entire SPLC as opinion; I don't think that it requires anything more than the attribution we already give the SPLC. At the very least, a carve-out touching on it separately from the SPLC as a whole would require actual secondary sources making that sort of distinction. EDIT: Since most of the concerns raised about it are based on people believing it is generally characterized as a blog, I collected recent coverage of it which I think shows that this isn't how it's generally described. Based on this I specifically think we should avoid calling it a blog in the article voice and should remove any existing attributions that characterize it this way; at least as far as I can tell, it is not an exaggeration to say that the main sources still calling it a blog outside of Wikipedia are themselves SPLC-designated hate groups. We should not be doing so. EDIT 2: And, I should add - regardless of any other arguments, the sources I collected below show that it is independently reliable. Academic sourcing specifically praises its methodology and says that it resolves any concerns about its bias, in basically as many words! For a clearly WP:BIASED source, this is as good as coverage can possibly get, in WP:RS terms. See also the strong WP:USEBYOTHERS I collected here. --Aquillion (talk) 10:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What methodology? It's a series of articles, not an assessment. What methodology is shown in an interview with a person? What methodology was used in the articles they decided needed to be retracted after people not at the SPLC pointed out just how bad they were? Springee (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, RS considers it reliable, and thus it has a reputation for reliability. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By that circular logic, nothing RS will ever be unreliable. Buffs (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Generally reliable for topics related to the United States, but should always be attributed. I have seen no evidence or arguments that convince me that the reliability of Hatewatch is any different to the reliability of the SPLC in general so I no need to even give it a separate entry at RSP, even explicitly saying "including Hatewatch" is bordering on disproportionate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 The notion that this aspect of the larger organization's media footprint exists outside of the org's normal administrative and editorial umbrella seems to be purely speculative. As others have noted, attribution is the key to properly framing these editorials/notices, and I see no benefit to muddying the waters with an unjustified "other considerations" qualification. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 12:26, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Hatewatch should be treated like opinion/commentary source. If the specific article is an interview, then it should be treated like the unfiltered views/opinions of the person being interviewed. This should not be treated like a news/media site. Hatewatch’s editorial standards are not published or clear. The source used to be called a blog though it’s not clear if that was based on editorial openness or simply the format in which the entries were presented. It’s not clear there is any fact checking of claims made in interviews. If a person is interviewed in the NYT, we don’t treat the claims of the interviewee as statements of fact made by the NYT. The same should apply here. Statements of opinion, especially as applied to living people, should be considered for WEIGHT. Statements of fact should be treated like statements of fact in any other OpEd article. Remember that almost any claim about a person or group cited to the SPLC is likely to be a contentious claim. Springee (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for the question of the "blog" label. It was "Hatewatch blog" for many years. Long term stable Wiki text using the term "Hatewatch blog" should remain as the name was correct at the time (based on the discussion above, 2022 and earlier). Long term stable text that didn't use "blog" during that time should not be retroactively changed to "blog". Springee (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 - clearly Advocacy/opinion. As such anything taken from it must be hedged by in-text attribution. Does not carry the same DUE weight as more official statements from the SPLC. Treat it as we would an op-ed column in a major newspaper. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - The SPLC is an advocacy organization. It has often been faulted for in some cases trading on person sitting in his garage tilirnong out a small newsletter that he mails off to a few people he has never met, some of whom are police intelligence agents monitoring potential violence, as an actual organized group. Some of its other labeling is also contentious, but the underlying problem is that it has a model to make money and so oversells the significance and importance of some of what it covers. It should be treated as the advocacy and opinion organization it is. This should be doubly the case when we are determining if a group is notable enough for having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 from my answer to part 1, even more so as a blog which means it may lack the rigors of usual editorial checks. Usable but should be with in-line attribution. Masem (t) 13:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution. This is the same question. The Hatewatch project is not less reliable than SPLC proper. Binksternet (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution, as above. - Jmabel | Talk 16:41, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Hatewatch is run by SPLC, contriutors are experts in their field and there's no evidence that it falls under a different editorial process than any other content published by SPLC. There's no need to add a "blog" qualifier, especially given the potential for confusion with self-published blogs, and I would favor removing it from existing attributions. –dlthewave ☎ 19:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Same as above - should always be attributed, which does not change its reliability nor affect its reputation.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, generally with attribution. I've recently been seeing a lot of POV-pushing that Hatewatch is a <<blog>>, as though that's some sort of disqualifying characteristic. That's POV-pushing, not a legitimate argument. It should be used as a source according to the caveats at WP:SPS, but it can still be used with attribution as a source of expert opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be used as a source according to the caveats at WP:SPS Right because it's a blog, calling that out is not disqualifying or stupid POV pushing. It's noting that this expert opinion has no editorial oversight. Which is an important factor and in line with policy, that is the "legitimate argument". PackMecEng (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I've been seeing it a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some blogs are SPS, and other blogs are not SPS. Per two different RfCs in the last few months, there actually isn't any agreement among editors about whether publications from most organizations, including advocacy organizations, are/aren't SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - But just barely, it is a blog of experts hosted by a reputable place. But as a blog I can't bring myself to say option 1 since it lacks editorial oversight, which is required for a generally reliable. It should be case by case and need to observe due weight before using. PackMecEng (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it lacks editorial oversight? Above you said the SPLC in general is option 1: do you have any reason to believe that Hatewatch has less oversight than anything else they publish? Loki (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because it refers to itself as the blog section of SPLC. Blogs do not have editorial oversight. Just like any editorial section of a generally reliable source, is why we have WP:NEWSBLOG. PackMecEng (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:NEWSBLOG? It doesn’t appear to support your position. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically here is the (correct) thing it says, which you appear to be misrepresenting: blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that is what I am saying. They label themselves as a blog which may not be subject to the new organization's normal fact-checking... ie editorial oversight. PackMecEng (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not say “may not be” you said “do not”; you also inappropriately conflated editorial and factual content (which NEWSBLOG distinguishes). 173.79.19.248 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being right is not enough. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What even does this mean? WP:BRIE is, uh, not about how it's good to misrepresent what guidelines say. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It means, that even if I think their content is right without editorial oversight, it's not generally reliable. But can be used as expert opinion and must be attributed to them. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you haven't presented any proof that their content does not have editorial oversight. You've presented evidence that it is a blog, which may or may not have editorial oversight. We have no reason to believe the SPLC uses "blog" to mean "subject to a less rigorous editorial process". Loki (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You mean we have no reason to believe it does. Its on your side to show that it does. PackMecEng (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to treat one part of a source differently to other parts of the same source, the onus is on you to demonstrate a reason why that should be the case. One part previously being called a blog, but which has not been called that for over two years, is not a reason why it should be treated differently. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Been called that as recently as October 2024. But yes, we routinely say different parts of organizations have different reliability. Specifically news orgs that also host blogs. Its nothing special or outside the norm. PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we routinely say different parts of organizations have different reliability. We do that only when we have evidence that different parts have different reliability. That has not been presented here. If it's as obvious as you seem to claim it is then you should have no difficulty demonstrating a material difference in the reliability. A former label does not demonstrate a difference in reliability, let alone a meaningful one. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, when a source says they are a blog and blogs do not have editorial oversight I tend to believe them. The fact that they removed that word has no indication that anything else has changed. Again the onus is on you to show that they are reliable, not everyone else to prove it wrong. Now since you claim for, no discernable reason, that they have editorial oversight and share the same as SPLC I am sure you can point to something saying as such besides your feelings. Because as far as I can tell sources have been presented in this discussion that back up my point and NONE have been presented that dispute that. PackMecEng (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I've been asking for this whole time. There is zero evidence that Hatewatch is subject to any sort of editorial control. Much less that it's equivalent to the SPLC. It was called a blog because it was and is one. Has anyone stopped to think that the reason they removed the word "blog" from it could potentially be to try and get Hatewatch approved as reliable on Wikipedia, or seen as such by others in the general public?

And User:Thryduulf, no, it's not only when there's evidence that they aren't as reliable. It's when there isn't evidence that they're as reliable. We do not just take the absence of evidence of reliability as evidence they're reliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote relevant Wikipedia policy or guideline that says a source's reliability is dependent only on them having a published editorial policy. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 23:24, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote the policy that lets you just assume the editorial policy of the main organization applies to everything they publish/do. And if you're going to do that, I look forward to you arguing for the NYT's Opinion section to be considered reliable too, since it's published by the same organization. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked first. You're the one who is repeating "nuh-uh, no editorial policy!" all over this discussion. Either your argument is based on your personal opinion on what a reliable source is or it is based on Wikipedia policy. I think it is the former, but you have a chance to prove it is the latter. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 04:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NONE have been presented that dispute that.

There have been plenty. You can't ignore them and then say "there aren't any". You also can't handwave them away. Check my comments in this RFC, because I have shown that 1) Hatewatch is part of SPLC, 2) they are considered a reputable organisation, 3) the contributors to it are all experts.

Nobody is saying that Hatewatch should be used for anything other than coverage of right-wing extremism in the United States (and related topics). In this area they are generally reliable. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 23:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Experts publish opinion pieces in the NYT too. Does that mean the NYT opinion section is suddenly a reliable source because 1) it's a part of the NYT, 2) the NYT is considered a reputable organization, and 3) the contributors are experts? No, it doesn't. Because that's not how we handle sub-sections of sources. It's not only possible but extremely common that otherwise reliable sources have subsections, departments, areas, etc. that are not as reliable as the rest of them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the NYT Opinion section is an RS for opinions. It falls under WP:NEWSOPED. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then this falls under the same thing. Only reliable for opinions, cited to them directly and attributed to the source. Not "generally reliable". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Then this falls under the same thing." Why? The NYT identifies their Opinion section as such; it has "opinion" in the URL of each opinion column, and the column itself says "Opinion" at the top. What's your evidence that SPLC considers Hatewatch to be an Opinion section? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPLC themselves labelled it as a blog. There is zero evidence that anything has changed since they removed that label, other than them removing that label. Again, the burden of evidence is on those arguing the positive of "it's not a blog/opinion section". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:15, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"blog" ≠ "opinion"

My question to you, which you ignored, was "What's your evidence that SPLC considers Hatewatch to be an Opinion section?" Telling me "SPLC themselves labelled it as a blog" is irrelevant to my actual question to you, since "blog" ≠ "opinion".

And again: every person has the burden of proof for any factual claim they make. Stop trying to pretend that one side has a burden of proof and the other side doesn't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, who are you asserting said "blogs do not have editorial oversight"? WP PAGs certainly haven't said that. If you're asserting that SPLC said that, please link to the page where they did so. Otherwise, this is an invention on your part. Some blogs have editorial oversight, and others don't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The burden isn't to prove they don't have editorial oversight. It's on you, who wants it to be considered reliable, to prove they do have editorial oversight. There has been zero evidence presented by anyone that is the case. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a burden of proof for things that I haven't claimed. If you want me to provide evidence for something I have claimed, just quote it, like I quoted PackMecEng. Each of us has a burden of proof for factual claims we've made. She made the claim "blogs do not have editorial oversight", and I'm asking her to (a) clarify who she was asserting said that, and (b) provide evidence for it if she's asserting that SPLC said it.

And since I'm responding to you again, I'll note that I'm still hoping that you'll answer my earlier question to you (here): You referred to SPLC's "normal editorial processes." Could you elaborate on what those are / where you found that information? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, there's no burden to prove the negative of "they don't have editorial oversight". You have the burden to prove that they do. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You have the burden to prove that they do [have editorial oversight]."

I'll say this again, since it apparently didn't sink in the first time I said it: I do not have a burden of proof for things that I haven't claimed. If you want me to provide evidence for something I have claimed, quote it. That will help you check whether I actually said it, because it looks to me like you're making assumptions about things I haven't said.

As for "there's no burden to prove the negative of 'they don't have editorial oversight'", that depends on whether the person has claimed "they don't have editorial oversight." If someone makes a negative claim, they have the burden of proof for that negative claim, just like if a person makes a positive claim, they have the burden of proof for the positive claim. Each person has the burden of proof for whatever factual claims they make, regardless of whether their claim is positive or negative, and regardless of whether they made the claim in response to what someone else said. Some negative claims can be proven and some can't, just like some positive claims can be proven and some can't. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always possible to prove a negative. It is possible to prove a positive. You've been arguing for Hatewatch's reliability for this whole discussion (and in this section in general). You're the one arguing in favor of the positive. With zero evidence. It's not on people to prove a negative because that negative may not have any proof whatsoever. It's on people arguing against the negative to prove the positive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:13, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not always possible to prove a negative." I agree. That's why I said: Some negative claims can be proven and some can't.

"It is possible to prove a positive"

Not always. It's possible to prove some positive claims and not possible to prove others, just as it's possible to prove some negative claims and not others. For example, we currently cannot prove the positive claim "there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe." And of course, we cannot prove some positive claims because they're false (e.g., you cannot prove the positive claim 2+2=3).

"You're the one arguing in favor of the positive." Really? Where?

For the third time: if you want me to provide evidence for something, quote what I said that you want me to provide evidence for. Test whether I actually said what you're claiming I said.

As for "It's not on people to prove a negative because that negative may not have any proof whatsoever. It's on people arguing against the negative to prove the positive," no, you are absolutely wrong about that. Every person has the burden of proof for the factual claims they make, regardless of whether they're positive claims or negative claims. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it refers to itself as the blog section of SPLC

Where? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they pulled it from their page lake 2022. [133] PackMecEng (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, I hope you don't think I'm being rude here, but why do you think they do have editorial oversight? The requirement is that they have a reputation of editorial oversight, not that they have no evidence they don't have such. So unless you can do what nobody else has been able to do, and provide evidence of the blog's editorial oversight... -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC in general does and it's a product of the SPLC. I don't see any reason to believe it has any different editorial oversight than any other report produced by the SPLC. Loki (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't operate on "there's no evidence so it must be reliable". We operate on "there must be evidence they are reliable". For example, there's no evidence the NYT's Opinion pieces are less reliable - they typically only allow experts or staff to publish Opinion pieces and they do review them to ensure that things that are not facts/proven are clearly attributed in text. But they're still considered less reliable than the NYT as a whole because of the nature of the section/content.
The same thing is here - they even called themselves a blog until recently - and there is no evidence that they have the same editorial oversight. If they did have the same editorial oversight, why would they be publishing it on a blog-subsection of the site, rather than as a normal piece/document? Nobody can answer that - because there isn't an answer. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But there is evidence that the SPLC as a whole is reliable. For instance, its extensive WP:USEBYOTHERS, including especially many scholarly sources. That's why it was green at RSP and why the consensus here seems to be that it should remain so.

It seems below that Hatewatch has similar WP:USEBYOTHERS and that other reliable sources, including scholarly sources, don't seem to regard it as less reliable than the SPLC as a whole. Loki (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Hatewatch has the USEBYOTHERS that you're claiming it does. For one, they generally attribute them directly to Hatewatch, and not the SPLC itself. Furthermore, the "others" tend to be left-leaning sources to begin with. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - it’s still, after all is said and done, a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution It has the same reliability as the main SPLC site. It's just used for shorter pieces of news information than the full reports the main site puts out. It is still under full editorial control of the SPLC staff as with all their other work. Silver seren^C 02:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blog As I explained in an earlier post, the page itself commonly said that it's a blog though I didn't see that word on the page itself after a date in 2022. SPLC still called it a blog in January and October 2024. Yes blogs are special according to WP:BLOGS and the decision whether to suppress a verifiable fact should be up to the folks editing a given article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. I've read through the relevant discussions and have not seen any reason to believe Hatewatch is meaningfully distinct from SPLC, especially given the way it's described in the sources that Aquillion has compiled below. And Thryduulf makes a convincing case that the burden of proof lies with those seeking to differentiate it from its parent organization. Generalrelative (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to you making this same argument for the Opinion section of the NY Times being considered reliable because it isn't "meaningfully distinct" from the NYT (they even publish those stories in the newspaper too!), and it isn't "differentiate[d] from the NYT" sufficiently enough. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times opinion section is explicitly labelled as opinion, and other sources treat it as opinion, therefore there is a meaningful distinction. As pointed out above, it is also a reliable source for opinions (WP:RSOPINION) so your argument fails on both limbs. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're admitting it's not "generally reliable", but only reliable for attributed opinions. Thanks for proving my point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez: I can't even follow the logic of how this gotcha! is supposed to work. Generalrelative (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez are you even reading what you are replying to? Where have I claimed that the NYT Opinion section is reliable for things other than opinions (please include a quote)? To help you, here are the things I have said:
When you want to declare different parts of a single source to be differently reliable you have to show, with evidence, that there is a meaningful distinction between those parts.

There is a clear distinction between the main NYT paper and the NYT opinion section.

You have not shown there is a clear distinction between the main SPLC site and the SPLC's Hatewatch section

You have not shown that reliability of the Hatewach section is meaningfully different to the reliability of the main site

It is not my responsibility to provide evidence for claims you make

[Hatewatch is] Generally reliable for topics related to the United States, but should always be attributed.

The only thing I would change about the current RSP entry [for the SPLC] is to strengthen the note regarding non-US topics.
For reference, that note reads in part: The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION.

So, would you now like to respond to my actual claims or do you want to continue with the straw men? Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You've claimed Hatewatch is reliable for more than opinions. Hatewatch is at best equivalent to the NYT opinion section.
Hatewatch is not "different parts of a single source" any more than the NYT opinion section is. Yet it's abundantly clear and widely accepted that the NYT opinion section is not reliable for general facts. It's been clearly shown, from the SPLC themselves, that Hatewatch is considered a "blog" style source, even if it is no longer called as such. The burden is on you arguing that to show that Hatewatch should be treated differently than any other secondary portion of an otherwise reliable source.
You're asking me to prove a negative. Proving a negative is not always possible. Proving a positive, as you're arguing for, should always be possible. Yet neither you nor anyone else has provided any evidence for that positive. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Proving a positive ... should always be possible" is total BS. Here's a positive claim: 2+2=3. You truly think it's possible to prove that? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I assumed that the only positive claim I thought would be made here was a true positive claim. If it's a true claim that is positive, you should be able to prove it. Hatewatch is meaningfully distinct from SPLC, the claim Thryduulf made, is a positive claim that would be provable if it is true. Making claims like "2+2=3" to try and claim positive claims aren't provable is, bluntly, absurd. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "try and claim positive claims aren't provable." I pointed out that some positive claims aren't provable. Do you understand the difference? You're the one who claimed "always." You made too general a claim, and it's not absurd to point out that your actual claim was false. As for the constraint you've now added, the same holds for negative claims: if you assert that X is true, then you should be able to prove it, regardless of whether X is a positive claim or a negative claim. You have the same burden of proof for your claim either way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to include a quote of my claiming what you are saying I am claiming, you have not done that. Please try again.

Hatewatch is not "different parts of a single source" any more than the NYT opinion section is. and The burden is on you arguing that to show that Hatewatch should be treated differently than any other secondary portion of an otherwise reliable source. (claims you make in the same paragraph) are contradictory. Either Hatewatch is a "secondary portion" of the SPLC (in which case it is a distinct part and the burden is on you to substantiate your claim that it is less reliable than the main part) or it isn't, in which case we have no basis on which to regard its reliability separately.

Also, the NYT opinion section is a different part of the NYT to the main paper: it is explicitly an opinion section.

Hatewatch is meaningfully distinct from SPLC, the claim Thryduulf made That is is not a claim I have made, it is a claim that I have quoted you making and what you need to prove if you want to treat the reliability of Hatewatch differently to the reliability to the SPLC as a whole.

The burden is on you arguing that to show that Hatewatch should be treated differently than any other secondary portion of an otherwise reliable source. I am claiming the exact opposite: secondary portions of reliable sources are treated the same as the primary portion unless there is evidence that they are differently reliable. No such evidence has been presented here, despite repeated requests.

It is not in doubt that Hatewatch used to be labelled as a blog. You are claiming that this fact means it is less reliable, but you have presented no evidence to back up this assertion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: It should be used exactly as the rest of the website is used - reliable for factual claims, attribute opinions. The chronological format does not impact on reliability and any suggestion that it should seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of other the concept of a blog or of our policies. There’s no evidence reliable sources use it less than other sections of the site. There’s no evidence of errors of fact specific to this section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: I don't consider the hatewatch blog sufficiently independent from the SPLC to warrant a different consideration. Basically, a well-regarded advocacy organization should be treated as an expert self-published source. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 MANY of their "hatewatch" claims are dubious and politically targeted. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence of this in reliable sources, please share it. If you do not have such evidence, please share the basis on which you formed your opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs It looks like you didn't spot this question. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SPLC routinely labels any dissent from their viewpoints as "extremist", associates some dissenting opinions with claims not made (strawmen), and targets successful conservative groups for their influence.
[134]

[135]

[136]

[137]

[138]

[139]

[140]

[141]

[142]

[143]

[144]

[145]

[146]

This is one of their own articles that starts out demonizing and labeling their opposition primarily for their opposition of ESG

More demonizing, quotes out of context, etc.

In short, there is reasoned and rational opposition to some of the labels being used by the SPLC. SPLC fundraises off of these and routinely overreaches without specified evidence. These and others have been brought up in previous discussions and I see no need to rehash/re-debate them here. A large segment of the population feels that the SPLC claims are specious/overwraught. To portray the SPLC/Hatewatch as above reproach and a reliable source while at the same time discounting all dissent as an "unreliable source" only strengthens the position of those who disagree. Buffs (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but those links are just a bunch of right-wing clowns spouting off about a group that rightly calls out right-wing hate groups. Nice try though. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is a reprint from the Associated Press. The 3rd is the same AP article but carried by the Christen Science Monitor. Is the AP a bunch of "right-wing clowns"? As a general rule, even if the source is "right wing" it's better to engage with the claims and show why they are wrong. The Newsweek OpEd makes a strong case against the SPLC. It describes the Dustin Inman Society, a small advocacy group that advocated against illegal immigration. Per the article, "In 2011, Heidi Beirich, then-director of the SPLC's Intelligence Project—which publishes the "hate map"—told the Associated Press that the society was not a hate group, although she did brand it "nativist."" However, " in 2018. Suddenly, the Dustin Inman Society found itself on the "hate map." King hadn't changed his positions, and the SPLC hadn't altered its definition of a "hate group." What changed? An SPLC staffer registered as a lobbyist opposing legislation the Dustin Inman Society supported." While I acknowledge Wikipedia says we shouldn't use OpEds for facts in article space, that doesn't apply to talk pages. If this example is true it would be a damning example of what many sources have been concerned about. That is, few would argue with the obvious "hate groups". The problem is the margins where groups are advocating for things that are well within reasonable political disagreement yet the SPLC uses their position to demonize others with subjectively applied labels. This label apparently resulted in the AJC calling the group a "hate group", a statement it later retracted [147]. It appears this lawsuit, filed in 2023, is still on going. One of the links is a Bloomberg OpEd that again runs through how the SPLC decided to label another group a "hate group". Per the OpEd the evidence was weak. I think the problem is we have a core of hate groups that the SPLC identifies and I think most would agree with. However, there is a group around that where the label is applied based on marginal claims. Yes, the group is free to express it's opinion but if they are going to use weak logic to apply the label or make claims about groups, then we should be careful when crediting those claims. Certainly attribution but honestly, we should ask if they are DUE at all. Springee (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the best one can come up with are comments in the Daily Signal, Capital Research, the AFD, a random book published by Amazon and Chuck Grassley, you're not really helping your own argument. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally we would look at the arguments they make rather than dismiss based on the source. It doesn't speak much to the impartiality of Wikipedia when we decide we don't have to listen to rational arguments because we don't like the authors. Springee (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution for opinions. Like the SPLC, I find Hatewatch to be generally reliable, but as a publication of an advocacy org we should err on the side of attribution for opinions. I don't find arguments that they're somehow outside the editorial control of the SPLC to be compelling. Woodroar (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/1.5 I do not see a good reason to distinguish an official blog from an outlet. They probably share a similar point of view and a similar level of reliability. Official blogs should be presumed reliable if their outlet is reliable. That is a rebuttable presumption and it may be rebutted only by evidence of mixing fact and opinion, institutional propaganda, perverse incentives that align with political prerogatives and so on. That case is one that it is possible to make but I do not see that it has. Therefore I think it leans reliable-ish, but special considerations apply. RSOPINION already constrains op-ed sections or single-byline, probable-opinion from being fact and controversial labels already must be in such overwhelming force to become wikivoice fact that I do not consider this a significant change or have a specific view on Hatewatch the blog vs SPLC being broken out, but perhaps SPLC could have a condition noting that it should be treated as opinion and attributed when it is making value judgments. Andre🚐 22:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. I'm fine with attributing claims to HW, but I see no indication they are less reliable than other sources we have determined to be reliable. Whether it is or isn't a blog is irrelevant. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2/3. For the same reasons as above. Additionally, this is a blog, a self-published source that lacks traditional editorial oversight and independent fact-checking, and it is operated by an advocacy group that has drawn significant controversy. Given these concerns, this source should be treated with caution and not be used for factual statements. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a self-published source that lacks traditional editorial oversight this claim has been made multiple times, always without any evidence to back it up. Do you have any? Thryduulf (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely, since we've had this discussion over and again and no evidence has ever been provided apart from IDONTLIKEIT. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to their editorial policies? Are they published? Springee (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with attribution, I have to admit I salute the insistence of certain editors to remove sources that are stopping them from successfully whitewashing the articles of hate groups, but without any solid evidence whatsoever I'd have to say that you're wrong. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Part 2 (Hatewatch)

As so often happens with advocacy sources, we are focused on reliability when we should focus on DUE WEIGHT… I suspect most people would say that the opinions of the SPLC should be given a fair amount of weight… but does that carry over to their Hatewatch website? Not so sure. Blueboar (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the main problem. Is it "reliable for" an occasional statement? Probably. Is it "the kind of high-quality source a whole article should be WP:Based upon"? Maybe not. I'd say that it's probably "not unreliable", but it's not always DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How Hatewatch is characterized by secondary sources

Moved from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § How Hatewatch is characterized by secondary sources

Since a lot of the dispute over Hatewatch, above, seems to be over whether it is generally characterized as a blog, we should collect recent coverage of it. Here's what I found in terms of WP:USEBYOTHERS just by going over a quick Google News search for Hatewatch and skipping to reliable sources (filtering out the SPLC itself, of course):

Just "Hatewatch" throughout; summarized at the end with Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the "Intelligence Report," an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.^[5]
the Southern Poverty Law Center’s publication Hatewatch^[6]
SPLC's Hatewatch^[7]^[8]^[9]
Hatewatch, a branch of the Southern Poverty Law Center^[10]
SPLC's Hatewatch list, which tracks radical and extremist groups^[11]

Also some less recent sources, but worth noting because they're academic:

...the SPLC occupies a dual role here, as a key player in campaigns to define, identify, and counter instances of hate activity and–through its ‘Hatewatch’ monitoring arm–the core data source through which to assess temporal trends in hate organizing. In its pursuit of the latter, the SPLC publishes an annual ‘Hate Map’ showing the locations of all known hate organizations and also tracks hate crimes and associated incidents through their ‘Hatewatch’ initiative.^[12]
Hatewatch is one such organization, operating under SPLC^[13]
Schafer argues that using a purposive sample developed by a “watchdog” group like HateWatch or the SPLC “does raise certain methodological concerns” as these groups have “an established agenda and vested interests which they seek to protect” (2002, p. 73). However as Schafer continues, because groups like the SPLC and HateWatch have “clear and explicit guidelines for defining which types of web sites will be included in its catalogue,” that any “methodological issues that attend the use of watchdog groups for sampling purposes are not points of concern”^[14]
[EDIT] Network analysis techniques are utilized to map the connections between extremist groups and individuals online. By examining patterns of communication and collaboration, analysts can identify key influencers, recruiters, and supporters within extremist networks. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) employs network analysis to track the spread of extremist ideologies across various online platforms. This intelligence is crucial for disrupting extremist networks and apprehending key operatives. Citation is to Hatewatch's main site, making it clear that that's what they're describing.^[15]

(There is also a lot of academic WP:USEBYOTHERS that simply cites it as Hatewatch and doesn't characterize it, which I didn't include but does further support reliability.)

It is possible to find a few sources calling it a blog, but only by searching for them deliberately; beyond being a clear minority, any reliable ones tend to be older sources, indicating that it's no longer considered a blog by RSes. The only recent sources I could find calling it a blog are SPLC-designated hate groups, who are themselves non-RSes and obviously not impartial. Based on this I do not think we should ever be calling it a blog in the article voice, and certainly cannot require it as attribution; I also feel that any arguments above or in the RFC that rely on the presumption that it is a blog should probably be disregarded. --Aquillion (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I take away from that is that Hatewatch is more of a news-like source than the analysis that the main SPLC content performs, meaning that it can suffer from RECENTISM aspects. Given that main SPLC content itself ultimately summarizes Hatewatch content after a longer period of assessment, would make me think its better to put far more weight on the main SPLC content over Hatewatch. Masem (t) 11:56, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with Hatewatch is it often includes interviews. In such cases how should claims be presented? "Hatewatch said X", "According to Mr X interviewed by Hatewatch", "Mr X said X"? Also, what level of weight shoudl we include to material taken from Hatewatch? Sometimes this material is the only source for some claim used in an article. My feeling is if it's the only source it probably isn't due for anything even remotely controversial. Again as an activist source we should by default assume it has WEIGHT for inclusion. This is why I feel that mention by an independent 3rd party source is important to maintain a NPOV. If Hatewatch is the only one who says something, is it really due? If other sources say the same thing, should we also specifically call out that someone in a Hatewatch article also says it? Also, while I agree we shouldn't label future uses "blog", it would probably be important to point out that "Hatewatch" isn't the same thing as the list of hate groups. It may be worth pointing out, even comming to an agreement here, what Hatewatch is since it's no longer called a blog. What about "Hatewatch article"? Springee (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a particular claim is DUE for inclusion is irrelevant to the reliability of the source that publishes the claim. There is no question that e.g. the New York Times is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean that every claim in that paper is DUE for inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree that there seems to be no question that the SPLC is at least reliable with attribution for their claims. However, this isn't a question of whether every claim in the paper is due. It's a question of whether the OpEd section, with different (hidden/unpublished, in the case of SPLC) editorial policy (if any at all), is itself just as reliable as the NYT because it is published by the NYT. It's not. There has never been any question that portions of websites/publications can be less reliable because of how they are published. That is, until it's about a source that suits one point of view to be able to include claims from.

The only argument being made so far is "well, I haven't seen any reason to not consider it reliable". I also haven't seen any reason to consider most sources on the spam blacklist unreliable. Because they don't publish any sort of editorial policy at all. Does that mean that I should be able to propose that the majority of the spam blacklist be considered reliable sources now, just because there's no evidence against it?

Obviously not. We require affirmative confirmation that it is reliable - not just an absence evidence it's not reliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling Hatewatch an "OpEd" section. I did, in fact, spend a lot of time collecting sources to demonstrate that secondary sources don't treat it as that. If you want to argue otherwise, you now need to actually produce sources of your own backing your contentions. So far, you've made a lot of assumptions about Hatewatch that I've mostly proven wrong, and demanded other people produce sources based on your inaccurate characterization of it! And when I did produce sources showing you wrong, you seem to be ignoring them, which makes me extremely unwilling to spend more time digging up sources (I'll note that in the discussions above you repeatedly asserted that nobody has demonstrated that Hatewatch has any editorial controls, even though one of the sources I produced specifically praises its rigorous methodology) - beyond a certain point WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:SATISFY apply. But even beyond that, the sources I already presented show, I think that it's both reliable and considered by secondary sources to be covered by the SPLC's strong reputation. In the process I skipped over a lot that was just WP:USEBYOTHERS as unnecessary. Would presenting that convince you? I don't think it makes sense to demand individual sources showing that Hatewatch itself is reliable when I've already debunked your assumption that it was an OpEd or a blog, but such sources do, in fact, exist (honestly the sources I listed above would be enough in most cases, but I can present more if you're not convinced), and if you'd acknowledge the existing sources and explain why they're not sufficient, I'll happily gather those to show USEBYOTHERS that would establish general reliability in most cases, absent some actual indicator of unreliability. Basically, what sort of affirmative confirmation are you asking for, if the sources above don't convince you? Why aren't they enough, in your book, and what additional sources should I collect? Why are you still falsely describing Hatewatch as an OpEd when sources specifically say that any concerns about its reliability are resolved by its clear and explicit guidelines for defining which types of web sites will be included in its catalogue? Because it should be obvious from the sources I collected already that Hatewatch, specifically, has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. EDIT: Because there's no reason to wait, I collected a bunch of WP:USEBYOTHERS below. Please engage with it and either acknowledge that it answers your concerns or explain why you feel it doesn't. --Aquillion (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that DUENESS is proportional to reliability. In other words, if a very very reliable and reputable source talks about something, it is more DUE in larger proportional weight. A fringe source may be minimally DUE. The main purpose of UNDUE, in my view, is to exclude less reliably sourced information and emphasize the more prominent sources. A widely cited academic affiliated with world class institutions should influence the article more than a few fringe activists fanning the flames of controversial new academic theories. Andre🚐 01:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with Hatewatch is it often includes interviews.

If that's your yardstick for not being considered generally reliable, we'll need to revaluate pretty much every news org which we currently consider to be generally reliable. TarnishedPath^talk 14:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing my point, perhaps I simply haven't articulated it clearly. If the NYT runs an interview with Mr Smith and in that interview Smith says ABC.org are balloonists. Editors will generally be reasonable enough to see that ABC=balloonist isn't a fact claimed by the NYT and the NYT isn't vouching for the accuracy of that claim. I assume we would also view things similarly if SPLC were the publisher of the interview. The question then would be how do do attribution. If Mr Smith were being interviewed by a writer on behalf of the SPLC, would we say, "according to Smith, when interviewed by a writer for the SPLC, ABC.org are balloonists"? We we see this claim as less significant (DUE) because it comes from an activists organization vs a conventional media site? I would argue yes. Also, with an activist site I would hope we would be more demanding of the details vs less. Extending the balloonist example, if Smith gave no reason or evidence for the claim I would say weight for inclusion goes down, likely to the point of being UNDUE. However, if Smith outlines why, with facts, ABC = balloonists then the argument for inclusion would be stronger. Springee (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Blogs was being interviewed by NYT, we would write '... Blogs said X, Y, Z' and provide the appropriate citation. I don't generally write 'when being interviewed by NYT, Blogs said X, Y, Z' as it is more cumbersome and unnecessary. I see no reason why this would be any different if SPLC are the interviewer. Whether statements are due or undue lies with the statement maker. None of this has anything to do with reliability. TarnishedPath^talk 00:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue it does have to do with reliability. If they were reliable for factual statements, we would not have to attribute them. The fact we have to attribute the SPLC, and especially that it was a Hatewatch blog post, means that they are not "generally reliable without conditions". Note that option 3 does not mean they cannot be used - it just means we cannot use their statements/information to say things in wikivoice without attribution. As you say, reliability has nothing to do with due weight. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See @PARAKANYAA's statements above. TarnishedPath^talk 01:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not have to attribute the SPLC in all circumstances, we have to attribute them for their opinions. That is a very different thing! PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We attribute the SPLC because they traffic in controversial, emotionally laden content. In other words, we are being cautious and conservative by attributing them. Not that they are less reliable for facts but that the line of opinion vs research is blurry sometimes. I.e. I can do a bunch of research finding something based mostly on facts and giving it a new name or organizational scheme with an implicit value judgment as to whether that is just fair academic research or if it is colored by politics, as most things are to some degree. The purpose of source reliability policies are to ensure that we spend more time on less iffy material. Reliability is not the same as bias, but very biased sources do sometimes cross the line into being unreliable when they play with the facts. A fringe source often traffics in misinformation, but a biased source does not necessarily do so. Andre🚐 01:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use by others

Since people are still insisting on sourcing demonstrating Hatewatch is individually reliable, and since demonstrating that is trivial, I've decided to collect some WP:USEBYOTHERS. As mentioned, I believe much of the sourcing I added above demonstrates reliability, but it also has strong academic use. Of particular note, Online Hate: From the Far-Right to the ‘Alt-Right’ and from the Margins to the Mainstream cites it something like twelve times, always for unattributed statements of fact; and is itself cited around 159 times.^[16] Also see ^[17], which used Hatewatch as one of its seven data sources on extremist groups (and as one of the two it highlighted in its summary) and has itself been cited ~250 times. Other academic usage includes ^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27] - many of these are also for unattributed fact; but even the ones that attribute it do so in a way that makes it clear they're treating Hatewatch as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Several of these citations are for points that are key to entire sections or even the paper as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we find academic papers citing the editorial columns of the NYT, WP, or WSJ should we then decide those sources should be treated as something more than OpEds? Springee (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The context matters. There are no sources that eg. use data from editorial columns the way Zhou does, or which repeatedly cite them unattributed for central statements of fact the way Winter does. Citations that use an oped to illustrate a point or for attributed opinion (eg. "Senator Smith has been criticized for this[1]" or the like) are different from citations that treat the source as reliable facts about third parties (eg. "Senator Smith is a member of a hate group[1].") Hatewatch is extensively cited for the latter across a wide range of academia. But even beyond that, your assertion that Hatewatch is an OpEd isn't backed by anything at all. As I illustrated with the citations above, sources that characterize it generally in terms that aren't really consistent with it being framed as opinion. Finally, the distinction doesn't matter much because the current description for SPLC is As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. I don't think that "OpEd" (ie. a source that solely exists for opinion) is remotely accurate as a way to summarize Hatewatch, and I don't think anyone has actually presented anything supporting that, while I've presented a bunch of sources otherwise; but a source can be biased and opinionated and also be reliable (this is the whole point of WP:BIASED. Per Schafer, it has “an established agenda and vested interests which they seek to protect” but also has “clear and explicit guidelines for defining which types of web sites will be included in its catalogue,” such that any “methodological issues that attend the use of watchdog groups for sampling purposes are not points of concern”. This more or less reflects our current description for the SPLC as a whole, ie. it is biased but still reliable, such that we need to attribute it for anything controversial but can use it for uncontroversial data-points and can attribute it even for sensitive stuff. --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming is literally is an "OpEd" rather it's equivalent. An interview with an expert isn't the same as a new article published by the same source. While Wikipedia doesn't use OpEds for statements of fact, that doesn't mean OpEds don't include them. That's the same with Hatewatch. Remember that OpEd in real life contain both opinions but also material from sources that are more like guest articles that aren't subject to the normal review of the source. Perhaps it would be better to call it a "contributor" article. The point being, such articles can vary widely in quality (legal analysis from a highly respected legal scholar to food critic complaining about food presentation). That same concern applies here. Perhaps the better way to hand this is the DUE weight angle but we would only give weight when the article makes solid arguments for/against what ever point. Not when such an article provides a casual mention. As a biased source we can follow the old adage, "trust but verify". Springee (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

op-ed: op-eds are distinct from articles written by the publication's editorial board
Posts on Hatewatch are subject to editorial oversight, therefore it cannot be an op-ed. Posts on Hatewatch are not opinions, they are articles written by subject-matter experts. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming is literally is an "OpEd" rather it's equivalent - based on what? I've presented a huge wall of sources treating it as sharing the SPLC's reliability and using it as usable as a source for controversial statements of fact in the article voice within academic research. I even presented a source specifically praising its editorial policies in as many words, and specifically using this as an argument for its reliability. Every indication is that it is in fact subject to stringent editorial controls and that secondary sources treat it as identical, in fact-checking and accuracy, to the SPLC itself. In the face of that, if you want to continue to argue that it is somehow "equivalent" to an OpEd and somehow outside of the SPLC's usual editorial controls, you must present actual sources supporting that perspective; just indicating your gut feeling that it's somehow OpEd-like isn't enough to overcome sources that plainly treat it as reputable research with a strong reputation for fact-checking and rigorous editorial controls (controls specifically described as sufficient to overcome its biases.) Is your argument that all WP:BIASED sources should be treated as equivalent to op-eds, even high-quality ones like this, even if secondary sources say in as many words that they operate based on clear and explicit guidelines sufficient to overcome concerns raised by their bias? --Aquillion (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are claiming nothing published under the Hatewatch label would be anything other than factual reporting? Are you sure none of the articles are effectively OpEd? This is part of the problem with the blog style of writing. What is a factual reporting article and what isn't? What is material well supported by facts and evidence contained within the article and what is simply off hand claims placed in the article that make it to Wikipedia? Springee (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that is why we have WP:GREL and not WP:AREL; there's always room to argue on a case-by-case basis. And I'll point out again that I (and I think everyone above supporting its reliability) is only arguing that Hatewatch should be placed under the existing SPLC designation, which does say that As an advocacy group, the SPLC is a biased and opinionated source. The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION, so it would normally be attributed, especially for anything controversial; and people can still argue over due weight, especially for things that are just offhand comments in Hatewatch itself. But the coverage that exists strongly suggests that Hatewatch's content is, overall, generally reliable because it is, in fact, subject to a rigorous editorial process. There are sentences even in NYT articles that sometimes make me go "that's just an off-hand claim by the writer, clearly affected by their bias!" but the theoretical existence of such anomalies doesn't change the fact that it's generally reliable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policies & Guidelines

Let us consider a recurring argument from the discussion above in light of Wikipedia P&G.
(paraphrased) "Lack of an editorial policy means that a source is unreliable, in other words, having an editorial policy makes or breaks a source." Wikipedia policy makes a distinction between "published editorial policy" and "meaningful editorial oversight":

1) WP:NOTRS: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight.
2) WP:NEWSOPED: Some news organizations may not publish their editorial policies.

1) One way to prove a lack of oversight is to show that SPLC/Hatewatch publishes factually wrong information and refuses to correct that factually wrong information. So far, I have seen zero evidence of this. However, there is indication that oversight exists -- every Hatewatch report has this note on the bottom: "Comments or suggestions? Send them to [email protected]." They have an editor or editors who are responsible for what is published.
2) SPLC and Hatewatch are not "news organisations". SPLC describe themselves as "The SPLC is a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people." Their purpose (and bias) are clear, but a biased source is not an unreliable source, per WP:ALLOWEDBIAS.

Exceptional claims. I don't think (and correct me if I am wrong) anyone voting for option 1 thinks that SPLC/Hatewatch are excepted from the requirements in WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
BLP. WP:BLPSPS: Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. The writers for SPLC and Hatewatch are experts, or can be considered such, as shown in this comment. Hatewatch is subject to full editorial control of SPLC staff, which means that Hatewatch contributors cannot just post whatever they want; it is not an SPS. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 05:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Caraballo, Alejandra (2022). "The Anti-Transgender Medical Expert Industry". Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 50 (4): 687–692. doi:10.1017/jme.2023.9. ISSN 1073-1105. PMID 36883410.
^ Wuest, Joanna; Last, Briana S. (2024-03-01). "Agents of scientific uncertainty: Conflicts over evidence and expertise in gender-affirming care bans for minors". Social Science & Medicine. 344: 116533. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533. ISSN 0277-9536.
^ Eckert, AJ (2021-10-17). "Conclusions Not So NICE: A Critical Analysis of the NICE Evidence review of puberty blockers for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 2022-10-24.
^ Meloche-Holubowski, Mélanie (October 28, 2024). "These "merchants of doubt" at the heart of the debate on transitional care". Radio Canada (in Canadian French). Retrieved 2024-11-01.
^ "SPLC reports graphic details of double-homicide, gang-connections". WYFF. 30 July 2013. Retrieved 2025-05-26.
^ Farhi, Paul (19 November 2019). "White House aide Stephen Miller held wide sway over Breitbart News, according to emails". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
^ Weber, Peter; published, The Week US (13 November 2019). "Stephen Miller fed white nationalist ideas to Breitbart, ex-editor says, and they've since 'become policy'". The Week. Retrieved 2025-05-26.
^ "Tracking Hate Groups Online". Independent Lens. Retrieved 2025-05-26.
^ Behrmann, Savannah. "Advocacy group releases leaked emails from White House adviser Stephen Miller to Breitbart". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2025-05-26.
^ Ayesh, Rashaan (12 November 2019). "Group says Stephen Miller shared story ideas on race, immigration with Breitbart". Axios. Retrieved 2025-05-26.
^ Lyman, Brian. "Republican National Committee resolution condemns Southern Poverty Law Center, claiming 'obvious bias'". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2025-05-26.
^ Cunningham, David (1 June 2018). "Differentiating Hate: Threat and Opportunity as Drivers of Organization vs Action". Sociological Research Online. 23 (2): 507–517. doi:10.1177/1360780417743769. ISSN 1360-7804.
^ Zhou, Y.; Reid, E.; Qin, J.; Chen, H.; Lai, G. (26 September 2005). "US domestic extremist groups on the Web: link and content analysis". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 20 (5): 44–51. doi:10.1109/MIS.2005.96. ISSN 1941-1294.
^ Selepak, Andrew (2010). "Skinhead super Mario brothers: An examination of racist and violent games on white supremacist web sites". Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture. 17 (1): 1–47.
^ "Unveiling Extremism: Leveraging Digital Data Mining Strategies". Journal of Ecohumanism. 3 (7): 492–502. March 2024. ISSN 2752-6798.
^ Winter, Aaron (24 April 2019). Online Hate: From the Far-Right to the ‘Alt-Right’ and from the Margins to the Mainstream. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 39–63. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12633-9_2. ISBN 978-3-030-12633-9 – via Springer Link.
^ Zhou, Y.; Reid, E.; Qin, J.; Chen, H.; Lai, G. (26 September 2005). "US domestic extremist groups on the Web: link and content analysis". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 20 (5): 44–51. doi:10.1109/MIS.2005.96. ISSN 1941-1294.
^ Tusikov, Natasha (31 March 2019). "Defunding Hate: PayPal's Regulation of Hate Groups". Surveillance & Society. 17 (1/2): 46–53. doi:10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.12908. ISSN 1477-7487.
^ Phadke, Shruti; Mitra, Tanushree (2024). "Information sharing and content framing across multiple platforms and functional roles that exemplify social processes of online hate groups". Social processes of Online Hate. p. 193.
^ Tanner, Samuel; and Campana, Aurélie (1 October 2020). ""Watchful citizens" and digital vigilantism: a case study of the far right in Quebec". Global Crime. 21 (3–4): 262–282. doi:10.1080/17440572.2019.1609177. ISSN 1744-0572.
^ Gambrell, Kem; Topuzova, Lazarina (2018–19). "Introductory Notes on Engaging with Communities for Justice". Journal of Hate Studies. 15 (1): 1–10. ISSN 1540-2126.
^ Phadke, Shruti; Mitra, Tanushree (18 October 2021). "Educators, Solicitors, Flamers, Motivators, Sympathizers: Characterizing Roles in Online Extremist Movements". Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5 (CSCW2): 310:1–310:35. doi:10.1145/3476051.
^ Arbeit, Miriam R.; Burnham, Sarah L. F.; Four, Duane de; Cronk, Heather (22 September 2020). "Youth Practitioners Can Counter Fascism: What We Know and What We Need". Journal of Youth Development. 15 (5): 37–67. doi:10.5195/jyd.2020.936. ISSN 2325-4017.
^ Jakubowicz, Andrew; Dunn, Kevin; Mason, Gail; Paradies, Yin; Bliuc, Ana-Maria; Bahfen, Nasya; Oboler, Andre; Atie, Rosalie; Connelly, Karen (12 November 2017). Cyber Racism and Community Resilience: Strategies for Combating Online Race Hate. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-64388-5 – via Google Books.
^ Parmar, Inderjeet; and Furse, Thomas (4 July 2023). "The Trump administration, the far-right and world politics". Globalizations. 20 (5): 799–813. doi:10.1080/14747731.2021.1991660. ISSN 1474-7731.
^ Cohen, James N. (2018). "Exploring Echo-Systems: How Algorithms Shape Immersive Media Environments". Journal of Media Literacy Education. 10 (2): 139–151.
^ Burston, Adam (2024). "Digitally mediated spillover as a catalyst of radicalization: How digital hate movements shape conservative youth activism."". Social processes of online hate. Routledge. pp. 144–167.

Puck.news, also known simply as "Puck"

Wikipedia Article: Puck (media company)

URL: puck.news

Puck bills itself as the place to find the "inside story happening at the nexus of Wall Street, Washington, Silicon Valley & Hollywood."

Authors include: Matt Belloni, Julia Ioffe, Julia Alexander, Tara Palmeri, Peter Hamby, Dylan Byers, Tina Nguyen, John Heilemann, Leigh Ann Caldwell, Baratunde Thurston and Lauren Sherman, as well as number of other journalists who do not have articles on Wikipedia.

Roster list: https://puck.news/authors/

Editors: Jon Kelly[148] and Danny Karel[149]

Questions for the Noticeboard:

Is Puck reliable? Such as for a BLP article?
Is Puck considered a "Self published Source"? Or is it an online magazine/newsletter?
If Puck articles are reliable, are too podcasts produced, hosted and staffed by Puck?

The New Yorker wrote extensively about how Puck operates in this article published in 2022, if that's of help to anyone. This article by the New York Times describes Puck as a newsletter.

Any Noticeboard regulars commentating would be highly appreciated CeltBrowne (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's Danny Karel's substack and associated podcast. It is absolutely inappropriate for controversial BLP claims like what you seek at Taylor Lorenz. Simonm223 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Puck is reliable. They've got a team of professional journalists, many from well-known outlets like Politico, and they have an editorial structure in place. They’re widely-cited (WP:USEBYOTHERS), and they’ve built a reputation for solid fact-checking. Obviously, we should pay attention to whether a piece is reported journalism or more of a newsletter-style opinion, especially when it comes to BLPs. But I haven’t seen any concerns from WP:RS about their fact-checking or overall reliability, which is what really matters for a WP:GREL source. Podcasts, however, are more journalists' opinions and should be used mindfully and carefully for facts. Longhornsg (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree Puck is reliable to the extent it's fine to cite basic Who What Why Where to it. In looking at its WP:USEBYOTHERS, this is consistent with how its reporting is referenced. It may be problematic to cite analytical statements to Puck as these may be of inappropriate tone or content for our encyclopedia and are not consistent with USEBYOTHERS For instance, in this story [150]:

Citing Puck to establish that Chanel reported $3.4 B earnings is probably fine.
Citing Puck to establish that Chanel only reports its earnings for public relations purposes ("only publishes its earnings to appease a nosy press") is probably not fine.

Under this standard, and in the hypothetical case of a BLP, I think it would be fine to cite Puck to establish that "John Smith served as communications director for Senator Jane Doe" but not to establish that "John Smith was a driving force behind all of Senator Doe’s legislative successes". Chetsford (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is that Puck claims that Taylor Lorentz was dismissed from the Washington Post for violations in editorial standards coming out of her posting a photo on social media calling Joe Biden a war criminal over his repsponse to the Israel / Palestine conflict. I am saying that Puck is not reliable for this claim as it is directly contradicted by more reliable sources that say the Washington Post released no findings from their investigation of Lorentz and said that she quit rather than being dismissed. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sprawl on-going discussion from Talk:Taylor Lorenz onto this page: This reply is for the benefit of Noticeboard readers rather than as a direct reply to the above. I will try to focus on staying on the topic of the reliability of Puck.news, which is what we are here to establish.

My view is that other sources do not "directly contradict" Puck.

There is a (stark) difference between a source noting the Washington Post's statement on the matter and those sources endorsing that statement as "what happened" in their narrative voices. For example, the New Yorker ([151]) cites Lorenz' statement on her exit, the WaPo's statement on the exit, but also cites Puck/Byers' contradicting reporting that WaPo "determined Lorenz violated the paper’s standards and had no desire to continue employing her". In the case, The New Yorker is presenting all versions of the story and not endorsing any single one as the factual "what happened". They are leaving that to the reader. Other reliable sources do not state "Lorenz left of her own accord". They state "Lorenz says she left of her own accord".

Sources noting the statement of one side of the story do not "contradict" the other. They are not endorsing the statements, merely quoting/noting them.

Puck should not be presented as "unreliable" on this matter simply because other reliable sources quote press releases from the other side. Presenting a different version of events than official statements does not make a source "unreliable".

If Puck is reliable, I believe this situation (per WP:BLPPUBLIC) is resolved by noting Lorenz' official statement on the matter, but also the contradicting reporting, just as the New Yorker did. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you may want, reliability is always contextual and the context of how you want to use Puck and for what matters, as does the fact that this edit crosses multiple contentious topics (BLP and Israel / Palestine) which indicates we should be seeking best sources, not settling on dubious ones because they present a convenient picture. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that everything on Wikipedia should be properly sourced, which is why I am engaging with the Reliable sources Noticeboard to determine the reliability of Puck. I am happy to abide by whatever the noticeboard concludes.

So far, the responses to Puck outside your own have been favourable, and do not seem to agree with your assessment that Puck is a SPS. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Puck media in general should be considered self-published, however the specific source used in the Lorenz article is from two of the owners of Puck media. As with the RFC on WP:SBM this means it probably shouldn't be used for BLP purposes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s understandable. I used the podcast as a source as I was having difficulty finding an exact print source for Puck’s reporting (their website is behind a paywall). I will endeavour to find a printed version on Puck’s website. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the context for this discussion is this addition of a Spotify podcast by journalists associated with Puck.news to our biography of Taylor Lorenz (see Talk:Taylor Lorenz § Dylan Byers). Self-published podcasts are not reliable for third-party claims about BLPs no matter who they're from. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has now become important for another reason: Today several news sources are citing Puck.news reporting that an allegation of rape has been made against NBA player Zion Williamson and a lawsuit is beginning. If one users would like to comment on the reliability of Puck.news, now would be a good time to do so. CeltBrowne (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Williamson has confirmed allegations have been made against him and confirmed the lawsuit. Puck.news is being credited for getting the scoop on the story. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Hive

I noticed an editor removed use of Daily Hive from ~25 restaurant articles I've worked on (here's a representative example). I'm not seeing a past discussion about whether or not Daily Hive can be used on Wikipedia. I can understand not preferring to use this source to verify historical, operational, or contentious claims, but in many instances I was just noting the restaurant's inclusion in a list published by Daily Hive.

I wouldn't think this is particularly problematic, but what do others think? Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it is a very local source [152]. I am not sure of how they get their information. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Zoomer Media product which means it has national level reach through the various armatures of its parent. Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time there was a very funny episode of Candid Camera, in which Allen Funt told some office workers about a new, advanced fax machine which would receive sandwiches once an order had been faxed to a nearby deli. The sandwiches were of course put in the machine by a man hidden in the wall behind the machine. So given that Alyssa Therrien seems to be based in Australia, I wonder if she had an Allen Funt fax machine that sent her bagles from Seattle, as here. Anyway, I would not trust a single sentence in the Daily Hive given what their wikipage says about their ethical standards. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Alyssa Therrien moved to Australia from Canada, which maybe why the Daily Hive list her as being a former staff writer. The article you linked to is in there Seattle section, one of the locales they operate in. So Therrien being in Seattle working for the Daily Hive at the time of the article is entirely plausible. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt her opinion based on a listicle was due inclusion though. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Hives operates like a local newspaper in the cities they operate in, so I would not consider them a qualifying source under WP:NCORPs audience requirement. By that same reasoning I also wouldn't consider the inclusion in their lists notable enough to mention in Wiki. Jumpytoo Talk 01:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

row over book of obituaries

At Talk:Ashleigh Aston Moore, Frobias (talk · contribs) is claiming to be that long-dead actor's brother. He says that much of the cited biographical information in the article is incorrect. He describes the source for that information—Lentz III, Harris M. (2008). Obituaries in the Performing Arts, 2007. McFarland, Incorporated.—as a self-published book in 2008 by a man who gathered his information from tabloids, fan fiction, and hey! Wikipedia directly. When attempting to contact him you'll find he has a defunct AOL email address. Lifeandstyle magazine also retrieved their information from the book.

The article cites the book's Google Books listing, which I cannot access. Could someone well-versed in evaluating such claims and sources take a look and see if these allegations hold any water? Frobias appears to've solicited assistance off-site, now, with at least one person promising to "fix this". I'd like to know we're at least supporting keeping and using a good/reliable source. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 09:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth making a request on Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to see if anyone has access to the work.
The author is a prolific writer of such reference works and McFarland are an established publisher, so it's the kind of thing that would be generally reliable. That doesn't mean it can't be wrong of course. It's not a self-published work and that an aol.com email address is dead is hardly surprising, or an indicator of anything. The issue is of course that we have no idea who the person posting to Reddit is, unfortunately they could be anyone.
Beyond the question of reliability, if family members have issues with details in the book I suggest they contact McFarland directly, or somehow get they're corrections published in a local paper or something that Wikipedia can then use as a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found the book. "MOORE, ASHLEIGH ASTON Former child actress Ashleigh Aston Moore died of an accidental heroin overdose in British Columbia, Canada, on December 11, 2007. She was 26. She was born Ashley Rogers in Sunnyvale, California, on November 13, 1981." It cites no sources for any of its entries. Since this was 2007, surely there's an actual obituary or news report somewhere? Gamaliel (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It very little to base anything off of, but it does verify the details it used for in the article. I've tried searching on Newspaper archive (reminder that WP:The Wikipedia Library exists), but it mainly covers local US newspaper rather than Canada ones.
The article used to link einsiders.com (not the current website the address has been usurped), now long dead but archived at the wayback machine. That link is from December 2008, an earlier one simply states she died from a drug overdose, but this one is updated "I originally reported that Ms. Moore died of a drug overdose. This was based on research, news articles and phone calls to Canada. I was recently contacted by someone claiming to be Jaysone Moore, Ms. Moore's youngest brother. He states that his sister died of pneumonia and bronchitis." So at least from within a month of her death reports where stating she died from a drug overdose, and it was being contested. It also suggests that there was reporting on her death at the time, but that it might also state her death as being from an overdose.
I'm dubious of einsiders.com reliability, but if a reliable source could be found for the brothers comments something like "Her death was reported as being caused by a drug overdose, but the family states it was caused by pneumonia and bronchitis." or something similar with better wording could be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that as she died 17yrs ago there are no BLP concerns, if the coroners report could be tracked down it could be used as a PRIMARY source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very Polite Person said at BLPN that the person who claims to be her brother wrote on Reddit that "I do have a 30 year old official Name Change document that immediately proves the cited information is incorrect, or the Autopsy Report," so someone could certainly give him instructions for uploading a copy to Commons. We'd need to be reasonably certain that it's authentic. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there rules about uploading legal documents to commons? Rorb lalorb (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I worry about provenance. Images are easy to fake and getting easier. That's not to say it's happening here, but troll would be happy to use such a method. If the documents come from the original source there can be no doubts of there validity. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a troll went to the headache of cosplaying as a grief-stricken family member for weeks based on seeing some obscure "dead celibrity" sound byte on some TV show, about a lady who died 20 years ago and had been (briefly) a child actor, and generated fake BC government death certificates and autopsy reports to just fake a date of birth on that one Wikipedia article... that's an absurd amount of work to troll something that an IP editor would just nonchalantly change the date on. PRIMARY is PRIMARY, but all things being equal, malice is pretty low on the "is this likely?" scale there, surely. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Troll have gone through a lot more. And as I said the issue isn't this instance, but the next one where a troll pulls "Well you did it for them so why not me?". Primary still still has to be sourced reliably. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, good grief. Wow. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully I'm not sure how much more is needed. The date of birth is sorted, and the incorrect place of birth and cause of death have been removed. Sometimes the solution is just not to include details if they are problematic to source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that person uploaded.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legal_Name_Change_-_Ashleigh_Aston_Moore.png

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:McFarland_Publishing_Communication_-_Harris_M._Lentz_III_Bad_Source.jpg

that email is crazy Rorb lalorb (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The email isn't very helpful for the family or us. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source isn't self-published, but I do have concerns. The overdose claim appears in two other sites besides einsiders: isthishappening.typepad.com and www.maplejuice.com. Neither is a suitable source for such a claim. It's possible that Lentz independently confirmed the circumstances of her death, but it seems more likely that he aggregated the stories appearing at the time. Mackensen (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lentz likely took that claim from einsiders.com. His book is available via AA, and in his reference bibliography, the sites he cites include Entertainment Insiders—http://www.einsiders.com/ (also includes Wikipedia, which doesn't inspire much confidence.) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he cites Wikipedia then that's a straight up WP:CIRCULAR problem and we can't use it. Mackensen (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorb lalorb seems to have confirmed that here:

Talk:Ashleigh_Aston_Moore#Obituaries_in_the_Performing_Arts,_2007_by_Harris_M._Lentz_III_is_not_a_reliable_source -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it looks to me like the author copy pasted the entire reference list from his 2006 edition, which also includes Wikipedia. I think this problem goes much farther than just this article, since it is used as a source for many entertainment related pages! Rorb lalorb (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008 has the same one! Rorb lalorb (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Look at my searches in the below section. If we conservatively assumed the others are used even 10% as often at that one, that's a lot of Lentz. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's a lot of stuff and CIRCULAR is a major issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:51, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the 2009 one, but 2010 has the same reference list that includes Wikipedia. Rorb lalorb (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The email on commons from the publisher says Lentz also has passed away.

For the sake of simplicity -- how MANY of these annual volumes seem to just carry forward prior data or co-mingle data that you've seen so far? And what's the earliest and latest year that cites Wikipedia? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 2006 onwards at least. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The latest book that I have access to in 2013, which does indeed cite Wikipedia. Every book from 2006-2013 names Wikipedia in its reference list, not any specific Wikipedia pages, just Wikipedia in general.

The latest edition that was in physical print that exists seems to be 2019, with Lentz possibly publishing more editions in online format only on kindle. I don't have access to these, though the physical books seem to exist in a few local libraries out there, so maybe someone else can check if we want to be sure.

2001-2005 do not specifically cite Wikipedia, but have this in their introduction:

"Several sources on the internet have also been helpful, including..." with a short list of sites.

2001 has "You’re Outta Here! (http://home.kscable.com/yohms/), Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/45481/), and the Internet Movie Database, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

2002 has "Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/ 60649/), Famous Deaths — Week in Review (http://famousdeaths.150m.com/WeekInRe- view.Main.html) and the Internet Movie Data- base, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

2003 has "Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/60649/), Life in Legacy (formerly Famous Deaths — Week in Review) (http://lifeinlegacy.com/), Enterainment [sic] Insiders (http://www.einsiders.com/features/columns/2003 obituaries), and the Internet Movie Database, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

2004 has "Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/60649/), Life in Legacy (formerlly [sic] Famous Deaths — Week in Review) (http://www.lifeinlegacy.com/), Entertainment Insiders (http://www.einsiders.com/features/ columns/2003obituaries), and the Internet Movie Database, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

2005 has "Celebrity Obits (http://www/voy.com/60649/), Life in Legacy (formerly Famous Deaths — Week in Review) (http://www.lifeinlegacy.com/), Entertain- ment Insiders (http://www.einsiders.com/features/ columns/2005obituaries), and the Internet Movie Database, Ltd. (http://us.imdb.com/)."

I did not check any editions from before 2001 since I was looking for Wikipedia mentions specifically. Though these editions do not name Wikipedia, his list of internet sources is not exhaustive. We cannot be sure that he wasn't looking at Wikipedia pages... Also some of the sites that he does list, like imdb, contain user-generated content. He has bibliographies in these earlier editions, but does not include any of the above sites in the Bibliographies, only printed works, even though he is clearly finding webpages "helpful".

In his introductions he will claim to cite primary sources in the entries that they pertain to; he does this in 2001 (i.e., citing a Los Angeles Times article directly under an entry). Though he claims to do this in the introduction to his 2006 volume, I can find no primary sources cited in the entries themselves, though to be sure I did not read all 400+ pages. Rorb lalorb (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TIL that if I make a curl/wget janky screen scraper (not saying Lentz did, but you get the idea), I too can be a published author.

These books gotta go. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I was thinking based on the email from the published that was put on Wikicommons that Lentz was deceased but I found the 2024 edition as an e-book online and it was published only a month ago so now I am kind of doubting that he is deceased. Rorb lalorb (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorb lalorb -- do you mind jumping in here on the brother's talk page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frobias#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest

He's having some issues with the latest file upload and that's not exactly my forte (I don't want to admit how long it took me to draft up the text on my few non-free uploads). I guess the publisher said he was dead and did some release--for us?--in the email?

As to the ebook, I wouldn't be surprised if that was just some catalog licensing thing. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to see the 2019 copy too and it is the same. So it's probably safe to say that all the physical editions from 2006-2019 cite Wikipedia. Rorb lalorb (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a few hours trying to dig around actual reporting at the time and it appears sources did report the death as an overdose, but they were doing so straight away before they could possibly have been any real information. Afterwards there's no updated reporting, so reporting in later years gets based on that initial reporting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this person's article on grief from 2018. In it the author, Courtney Heard, talks about Moore's struggles with substances, but Heard also says that the coroner said the cause of death was pneumonia. I'm not sure if this sort of thing counts as a reliable source or not. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godlessmom/2018/07/how-to-say-goodbye/ Rorb lalorb (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I found that earlier, unfortunately it would be the kind of thing we need. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:57, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was the best source you found for her death? Regardless of cause, it would be good to have an actual citation for date of death for the article. Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all modern sources are suspect, just as the Lentz books are now. Everything is based on earlier reporting that was never corrected, or Lentz book, or Wikipedia. Entertainment Weekly is green on the RSP, but only give the month and year.[153] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point paring down the article to what can definitely be reliably sourced is probably the best bet, it can then be rebuilt as sources are found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I yanked the last uncited and that redbook bit. We can build out whatever is valid from the remaining good sources. I'll ping her brother on his talk page to suggest he look again at the article. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this separate of RSN and had posted here as well, FYI, prior: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ashleigh_Aston_Moore. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of posting to BLPN, but 17 yes after she died WP:BLP would no longer apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who wants to read the entire situation here, it's all the links in this section, plus the talk page here of her brother:

User talk:Frobias#Managing a conflict of interest

We did a good thing today. Those Lentz books IMHO should be deprecated possibly as WP:RS. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The actor's brother here on his talk page says the publisher told him in email these books apparently should not have been published. I asked him to share what he can (again) on Commons and to drop the link there.

I don't know the specific policies around this, but if that's true, plus what you all found already, put me down as +1 !vote for someone to use a bot to scrape these books off of Wikipedia as sources today. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that rarely happens. These discussions are the easy part, the hard part is editors taking it upon themselves to do the clear up work. Just removing the reference doesn't remove any problematic content, so the clean up is always tough work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this discussion and findings here and on the sister's page would count to stick these Lentz books onto the Perennial/Deprecated list? Then people can just chew through the issue. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking maybe finding someone to add {{unreliable source}} or {{better source needed}} to each use, that way it would get added to clean up tasks and is visible to any editor editing an effected article. RSP isn't a list of all reliable or unreliable sources only those that have been repeatedly discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lentz is widely used

Based on @Rorb lalorb: findings above:

That specific book that cites Wikipedia as a source is used in ALL these articles as "WP:RS"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22Obituaries+in+the+Performing+Arts%2C+2007%22

These four by ISBN:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22978-0786451913%22&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&profile=advanced&fulltext=1

We use "Lentz" as a source in over 500+ articles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22Obituaries+in+the+Performing+Arts%22

What do? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can put you urls between brackets, that way they appear as[154], or use brackets but put a space after the URL and then a word (like so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=insource%3A%22Obituaries+in+the+Performing+Arts%2C+2007%22 this]) that would you give you this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah -- I left those three exposed on purpose so everyone could see the parameters straightaway. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is making a RfC on this noticeboard the next step for making people aware that this source is WP:CIRCULAR? Rorb lalorb (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do an RfC for this? Not everything needs an RfC. Did he cite Wikipedia is a yes-no question: the answer is yes. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A picked a random article to see if I could find anything, ended up on the page for Ferdinando Baldi through November 2007 deaths and the biographical information in that page is pretty messed up as well, and Lentz is used a the single reference for the whole article.

Even though he is listed in the page for November deaths his death is given as 12 September 2007 (though this could be a mistake by a wikipedia editor as I can't find that date anywhere else and Lentz is also cited for his entry in the November 2007 deaths page).

His birth date is given as 19 May 1917, while in most of the the other language versions of the article it lists his birthday as 9 May 1927 and his death as 12 November 2007. The early versions of the English versions of this page also list these dates. I was able to find one English language obituary through the internet archive on the einsiders website that lists his date of death as 12 November that he was 80 when he died aside from that I have found sources claiming both dates, but none that I think would be considered reliable, so I can't really tell which is accurate. His birth and death date change in an edit on the 6th October 2018 when Lentz first appears as a reference, though IMDB is cited as a source in previous versions claiming his birth date as 1917. I would be inclined to believe the earlier versions as the article was first written shortly after his death so the early editors likely would have seen the information in the news somewhere and that information isn't available online any more, that is my speculation. But what is clear is that Lentz has been taken as accurate for a long time now and if it as sloppy as it appears to be, then there is a big mess to clear up.. Giuliotf (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Rorb lalorb analysis above[155], the works are all at least in part based on works that includes user generated content and other such questionable sources. So it's unfortunately not a surprise issues can be found where he's been used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I went looking for good references for Baldi and struck out. Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either of those good? I don't know either site. Or if they are Lentz'd... EDIT: Nope, no death date I don't think. I misread the first. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematografo is a pretty old (1920s according to Italian wikipedia) publication that focuses on cinema. I don't know it, but at first glance it seems fairly respected and not sensationalist in its coverage and the article is an obituary dated from the day we think he died, so it would have been pre-Lentz.

Unifrance also seems like a respectable organization, but there isn't a lot of information on that page and on internet archive it is only available since 2022, so of the two I would go with Cinematografo.

I checked his IMDB page as well, and the earliest version from 2002 lists the 1927 birth date (though it says 19 May rather than 9 May), and the year is change from 1927 to 1917 sometime between July and December 2007. If the birth year is wrong this seems like where they claim might have originated.

For what its worth the Italian wikipedia lists two sources (though no inline citations so no idea where the information came from) that are reference books on cinema dated 1979 and 1993, however I haven't been able to find accessible digital copies to check.

The most reliable looking source I was able to find was this fan newsletter issue (google just makes me download a pdf don't know how to link it here)^[1], however I doubt it would be considered reliable. Giuliotf (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The URL is https://www.spaghetti-western.net/downloads/WAI_Baldi.pdf
If you are on mobile press the three dots next to the search result and the long press the blue "Visit" in the top right and choose "Copy link address". Ridiculous but Google has made it progressively harder to copy the URL from a search result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Special Ferdinando Baldi Memorial Issue (1927-2007)". WESTERNS…ALL’ITALIANA!. December 2007.

What now re Lentz books as RS?

I want to bump this so it can't get archived off presently. What's the best or correct way for us to formally deal with getting these Lentz books deprecated, as there seems to be evolving consensus already toward that? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for advice, the advice is that Lentz books shouldn't be considered a reliable source. There's no special way to clean them up, editors just have to do the work the same with any other unreliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that--I mean, is this discussion sufficient in terms of concensus (or not yet?) toward putting this person's books like this onto Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources with a WP:QUESTIONABLE or WP:DEPRECATED flag? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RSP has inclusion criteria, it's not a list of all sources or even all bad sources. I don't think this would meet those inclusion criteria (see WP:RSPCRITERIA), but if it does anyone can add it - the WP:RSP is just another page. Deprecation requires a RFC and isn't needed for very single unreliable source. If this was used in hundreds of thousands of article maybe it would be appropriate. I'm not even sure the edit filter would work, as there's no specific url or scheme to work off. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started changing some of the sources on pages where it is used to better ones or tagging them as circular or as better source needed (depending on the year) when I can't easily find such a source. I'm starting with the oldest pages first. If people argue about these changes being made then it would be the case for a RFC to be made which is pretty much the inclusion criteria for getting on those lists. Rorb lalorb (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion shows a clear consensus that the source is unreliable, and can be used as justification for removing (or ideally replacing) it where used. If a relevant WikiProject has a listing of good and bad sources, this might be suitable for that list (depending on its inclusion criteria). Similarly if you want a central place to discuss/coordinate/etc systematic removal then a relevant WikiProject is likely the best place (either directly or use the noticeboard to advertise a page in your userspace). A note for GA/FA reviewers might be appropriate, particularly if the source is used in multiple existing promoted articles.

Only if new uses are being added in significant number now, and/or are being persistently added after most of the existing uses have been removed would it be worthwhile investigating options like edit filters. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice :) I will try bringing it up on the talk page of WikiProject Film/Resources since a majority of people in Lentz' books are in the film industry. Rorb lalorb (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HonestReporting

Greetings everyone. Is HonestReporting.com a reliable source to use on Wikipedia? I've seen an user citing this source to prove that Hasan Piker promotes terrorism... I have also used this source myself to support a specific sentence in 2025 killing of Israeli Embassy workers in Washington, D.C..

According to all information i was able to find, this site belongs to a pro-Israel advocatory group named HonestReporting that monitors media to combat "anti-Israeli prejudice". It was involved in a lot of controversies, two times for accusing people of bad things without evidence. What do you guys think about it? WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty blatantly an advocacy group, so no usage without attribution/in Wikivoice. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the controversies (which amount in some cases to clear evidence of outright falsehood, putting journalists lives at risk), there are absolutely no circumstances where we should consider HonestReporting a legitimate source to support assertions that anyone 'promotes terrorism'. And I'd be wary of citing them for anything that couldn't be independently verified - which would make citing them redundant anyway. Partisan pressure groups can sometimes be cited as sources, but not when they are on record for making shit up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the reliability or otherwise of this source, we should never be describing a living person with a phrase like “supports terrorism” in our own voice, unless the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources say so. We should always attribute it, especially if it comes from an advocacy organisation. The same is of course true for phrases likes “is an Islamophobic extremist” (as with the SPLC above) or “is an antisemite” (as with the ADL). There seems to be a trend towards declaring sources unreliable because they make controversial judgements about such subjective labels, rather than simply applying our policies of not repeating such claims in our voice. So hopefully editors can chip in here as to whether HonestReporting has a reputation for reliability about facts and not whether its labels are accurate. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That site sounds like it was founded by one of those users with "truth" in their id. Who are these people who are so gullible as to believe a name? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these pro-Israel advocacy "watchdog" groups like NGO Monitor, CAMERA, etc are unreliable. They are not interested in providing sober analysis, but deflecting criticism of Israel and attacking those that criticise it. There are enough sources covering this topic area that we can go without using them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that these three advocacy groups are unreliable (I believe we have strong consensus that NGO Monitor is, can't recall if CAMERA has been discussed), but they're not unreliable because they're pro-Israel, any more than pro-Palestinian advocacy groups are unreliable because they're pro-Palestinian. It's far better for us to make a robust judgement based on our policies than a partisan decision based on our positions in relation to Israel/Palestine.

However, one indicator of unreliability is being amplified by and amplifying material by other unreliable sources, so if HonestReporting shares material by other advocacy groups we've already found to be unreliable, that would be a relevant data point. Is that the case here? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I wasn't saying that all "pro-Israel" outlets (which I suppose would include newspapers like the Jerusalem Post, etc) are unreliable necessarily, but there are certainly quite a number of pro-Israel "watchdog" groups that I would consider unreliable. There are obviously pro-Palestinian sources like Electronic Intifada that are also unreliable, and avocacy groups aren't necessarily unreliable, see for example the SPLC. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Hemiauchenia, I agree completely. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, any source with that name rings alarm bells as to how honest they are. Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked, I can't see any WP:USEBYOTHERS evidence of HonestReporting being taken seriously by RSs. On the other hand, the only reliable source coverage I've seen are these three damning articles from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/company/honest-reporting-com-inc/ BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

blatent advocacy group. bobFromBrockley link seems to indicate they are mostly used to spread misinfo against perceived ideological enemies. even dismissing lack of reliability, they probably aren't due. better to look for other sourcing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional clarification, but should not a proper RfC be prepared or could consensus be reached here in this discussion? Lf8u2 (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ShowBiz CheatSheat

I'm planning to expand The Finale (Everybody Loves Raymond), and found some information which can be backed by one source, but I’m not too sure if it's okay. The original interview with Academy of Television Arts & Sciences was done in video form and the only article I see written on it (this one) is from Showbiz CheatSheet, but I’m not too sure if it’s reliable. I found a handful of discussions about it in the Noticeboard archives, but all they say is not to use it for rumors and such. So, tl;dr: is this source okay? Crystal Drawers (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Dibble and cancer

I'd like to add the fact that Flint has cancer. Is this source enough?[156] Note that I have asked him if he wants this and he has said yes. He is even planning a documentary on it. Treatment seems to be working. Also, I may have a COI here as after he agreed he asked me I would come on his channel to be interviewed and I agreed. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His cancer isn't a controversial detail, as he has discussed it on multiple occasions. There's this article he wrote for ZME Science that should be usable per ABOUTSELF. It details his cancer and treatment rather than just mentioning it in passing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I’ll look at that tomorrow when I’m back on my PC. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources look usable for the basic claim. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Fleet website

Clear consensus that (1) the United Airlines Fleet website is a self-published source and (2) the as-yet unidentified maintainer is not a subject matter expert. Whether FlightAware is a reliable source is out of scope. Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm reaching out to get the opinion of the board on whether or not the site UNITED Fleet Website is a reliable source for the number of aircraft in the United Airlines fleet. The site doesn't say who runs it, it appears to be an enthusiast/fan site. It doesn't list where it gets any of its "publicly available information". This site is starting to get used heavily for source of United Airlines fleet and related items such as individual number of aircraft, which have been upgraded, the status of individual aircraft etc. Canterbury Tail talk 16:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As if poor sourcing isn't already a problem for airline fleets. There's a lot of information on there that looks to be publicly available only in the sense of "I flew on all the aircraft and took a lot of notes". - ZLEA _T\^C 20:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. A lot maybe coming from spotting websites like Planespotter etc which are already ruled as unreliable user generated sources. This feels like an extension of all the other sources that have been deprecated over the years. And from those just because a plane appears in the livery of an airline doesn't mean it belongs to the airline. It feels to me like someone's passion project that cannot be backed up, and if it can be backed up then why aren't we using those sources? Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot more information there than can usually be found on spotting sites. For example, the site has a comprehensive schedule for business class upgrades for the fleet. I would assume only United employees have that information readily available. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it doesn't disclose where the information is coming from or who is publishing it. It claims all the information is publicly available, so there should be better sources out there. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is by far the most reliable source of any airline's fleet in the world. Each and every aircraft in the UA and UAX fleets have a FlightAware hyperlink that enables you to know its actual current position. Each and every modification of every aircraft is updated within hours of it rejoining the fleet. The site also tracks UA and UAX orders and retirements more accurately than any source I have found. Norco3921 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us where the website was described as the most reliable? If it is, this should be a non-issue, but I've never heard of it, and it doesn't even have its own domain name. I have no doubt a lot of work went into it, and it may even be correct, but Wikipedia isn't about the truth, it's about WP:Verfiability. The fact that it still has placeholder text ("Add Headings and they will appear in your table of contents.") suggests there is limited if any editorial oversight, and the lack of transparency around who operates the site is not reassuring.

I am aware that its spreadsheets cite Flightaware.com, but that makes this at best a WP:PRIMARY source, which is disprefered. I've worked with large data sets before; it's REALLY easy to make a mistake somewhere, which is why we want our WP:RS to have editorial oversight. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is FlightAware a reliable source? Norco3921 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it is or not for this discussion. We're not citing Flightaware. I could write whatever I wanted and cite RS, but that doesn't make my work a RS. If you want an answer to that question as anything other than a rhetorical device, I suggest starting a new thread. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does as each and every plane on the site includes a hyperlink to FlightAware which allows you to not only see where the aircraft is, what flights it is/has operated, but also to corroborate that it is indeed in the United fleet. Norco3921 (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, as we aren't citing Flightaware. Even if it were trusted, we don't and can't know if the United Airlines Fleet team(?) made mistakes, cultivated their data, etc. Also, please read WP:RSSELF. In the interest of not WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, I'll restrain myself from further comment. I suggest you do the same. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FlightAware gets their data from a wide array of sources including ground ADS-B, space-based ADS-B, air traffic control systems and data feeds from airlines and datalink providers along with FLIFO data, flight planning information and schedule information.

https://www.flightaware.com/about/datasources/ Norco3921 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out some data on the site that is incorrect. Norco3921 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No point to what proves this site has "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" per WP:REPUTABLE. Having loads of data that is useful and we think is ok, is not part of any policy or guidance on how to judge if a source of reliable or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for someone to point out where the data is unreliable. Crickets. Norco3921 (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for you to show by what policy or guideline you think this shows this source is reliable, and not just show random website that someone has put online. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable according to the all WP guidelines you have cited. Its reliability is demonstrated continuously by the FlightAware links and its almost perfect alignment with all the other sources in the WP article. The best evidence is your all's complete inability to identify any inaccurate data from the site. Still waiting. Norco3921 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It is reliable according to the all WP guidelines you have cited" Nope, which one and how?
"Its reliability is demonstrated continuously by the FlightAware links..." And again no, that has nothing to do with policy and guidelines.
"Still waiting" Wait forever, you point has nothing to do with if we can trust this source without checking every detail. That you believe it's accurate is irrelevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The best evidence is your all's complete inability to identify any inaccurate data from the site" The only thing apparent here is you inability to understand policy or grasp the purpose of a reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got nothing still, huh? Norco3921 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you've descended to the level trolling on your replies now. I suggest you read WP:1AM for the situation you're in, you don't like the answers you have been given but WP:IDHT doesn't change the answer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:19, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say, "Wikipedia isn't about the truth, it's about WP:Verfiability" then the FlightAware hyperlinks for each and every aircraft in the UA and UAX fleets do just that and quite elegantly. Hit any N number for any aircraft and the FlightAware hyperlink will take you to more current and historical data than you ever wanted and even more hyperlinks to United's reservation system with even more information. Norco3921 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I quote myself, If you want an answer to [whether Flightaware is a RS] as anything other than a rhetorical device, I suggest starting a new thread.. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks as it is not a rhetorical device, but an integral part of the site in question that more than fulfills WP:Verifiability. Norco3921 (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. This discussion is about the United Airlines Fleet website. Just because it links out to Flightaware for some things doesn't mean it's reliable and accurate. There could very well be errors of omission. Plus not every aircraft in some airline's use and livery is part of the airline. Additionally only the actual tail is linked to Flightaware, and most of the rest of the information on that sheet isn't sourced. Plus it disagrees at times. For instance this aircraft is claimed by that website to be UA Mainline and owned by UA, however Fightaware disagrees and it has an unknown owner. Who is right? If not Flightaware where does that website get its details from on that? Is it UA owned or not? Is it leased or not? Is it operated by someone else in UA livery or not? It doesn't say. Aircraft ownership isn't a simple matter, it's not that common anymore for airlines to own all their planes, but they may not disclose who has all ownership of it. Just because they register it and paint it doesn't mean they own it, the data isn't telling us properly on that. Flightaware is only a small part of it, there is no source or indication as to where all the other information comes from. It's an enthusiast site with no evidence it is reliable, all the rest of the data could be randomly generated for all we know. Canterbury Tail talk 00:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where on the site does it claim that plane is owned by United and why would that matter as that information is nowhere to be found on the United WP article? Also, none of the following WP airline articles have any reference for the fleet total in the info box: DAL, AAL, JBLU, Alaska, Frontier, JetBlue, Air France, British Airways, JAL. Some of these WP articles reference the static 2024 10K filing in their fleet paragraphs, but their fleet totals have updated with no applicable reference. The United fleet Google page with the FlightAware hyperlinks is superior to any of these other airlines' WP pages, but you all are concerned about it. And none of those WP articles have the 'better source needed' annotation. Interesting. Norco3921 (talk) 01:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an example let's look at the Delta Air Lines WP article. The 2024 DAL 10K reference has a fleet total of 975 airplanes, but the WP page says 985 total, 10 more with no other references and no 'better source needed' annotation in the info box which has NO reference at all. Interesting. Norco3921 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is not to use a unreliable source, the solution bis to remove the content. If there are no reliable sources for the information then it can't be verified and should be removed, verifiability to a reliable source is required for all included content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the source is extremely reliable and corroborated by the Flightaware hyperlinks then we should obviously use it. Norco3921 (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to show any reason why this site should be considered reliable. Is it a work published by an expert, per WP:EXPERTSPS, is it regularly used as a citation in reliable academic works, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, are there other works that show it has a reputation for fact checking or accuracy, per WP:REPUTABLE, etc, etc. You think it's good is not a policy or guideline based argument.
As far as I can tell it the work of a random person who published a random website, and I can't find any secondary sources that vouch for it. If it's just regurgitating a primary source then use that primary source, the use of WP:PRIMARY sources are allowed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The site fulfills all of the above except as I said before it is not self-published by WP's definition, "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same". Its reliability is demonstrated continuously by the FlightAware links and its almost perfect alignment with all the other sources in the WP article. The best evidence is your all's complete inability to identify any inaccurate data from the site. Still waiting. Norco3921 (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was self published, I was saying that WP:EXPERTSPS is one way that these types of site can be considered reliable. You have provided zero policy based reason why this site should be considered reliable. Unless you can why should anyone consider it a WP:Reliable Source.
This isn't about proofing or disproofing if the information on the site is correct. You can wait forever on that point, I won't answer it because it completely misses the point. The purpose of a reliable source is that we can trust it with having to check every single detail, so whether you believe it's information is correct doesn't matter.
The only question to be answered is what policy based reason do we have to show that we can trust this source? I can't find one, if you can I'm happy to listen. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered repeatedly. Does FlightAware ring a bell? And not one example of erroneous data. At least Canterbury Tail and EducatedRedneck tried albeit unsuccessfully to find incorrect data. Amazing. Norco3921 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EducatedRedneck tried I did no such thing. Please strike your false statement. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "Note that United's in-text source disagrees with your preferred source. The 2025 10-K form has an entirely different figure, depending on whether you count leased or only owned, and it's undoubtedly more of an authority AND doesn't require frequent updating." This is a misleading if not erroneous claim. Of course the numbers of airplanes is different today than on 12/31/24. Just another reason the site in question is superior due to its dynamic and accurate updating. A 10K filing is a just snapshot in time. Norco3921 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That quote shows I found that a source we used disagreed with the source you presented. I myself made no attempt to show that the data was better or worse on any. Whether it's erroneous does not change that you claimed I attempted something I did not. Again, please retract your false statement about me; I at no point tried... to find incorrect data. If you don't, that's fine; the record to shows my correction, and I trust any observer will accurately interpret the facts. I just figured you'd like the opportunity to be sure what you say is correct. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Norco3921 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must be both reliable and verifiable. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. They are. Norco3921 (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us where exactly you saw "I flew on all the aircraft and took a lot of notes" on this web site? Norco3921 (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I saw that on its website. The site doesn't say where it got its information, but only claims that it is "publicly available". My point was that the sheer level of detail to the information far surpasses anything I've seen United release. Therefore, it appeared to be "publicly available" in the sense that you can fly on the aircraft and take notes about their configurations, not that United, the FAA, or anyone else associated with them publicly reported the information. With no way of verifying where the information came from, there's no indication that this is any more reliable than a typical WP:SPS fansite. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. Thanks. Norco3921 (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an open and shut case: the site is a self published source. With the author not naming themselves, they can’t be an established subject-matter expert. RickyCourtney (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same" which is not the case so I guess not. The FlightAware data is integral to the site and it gets its data from a wide array of sources including ground ADS-B, space-based ADS-B, air traffic control systems and data feeds from airlines and datalink providers along with FLIFO data, flight planning information and schedule information. This data corroborates and confirms the data on the site. Still waiting for examples of bad data. Anyone? Norco3921 (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that the author and publisher are not the same. Synthesizing data from another party doesn’t change that. RickyCourtney (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says it right on the site. Norco3921 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the author and publisher are the same (they are) and they can’t be established as a subject-matter expert (they can’t without their name being shared, which it isn’t)… it’s an unreliable self-published source. The fact that this self-published source that synthesizes data from a possibly reliable source doesn’t change that it’s an unreliable self-published source. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same so it is not self-published by the WP definition. Norco3921 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it show that the author and publisher aren’t the same? RickyCourtney (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I unarchived the discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does one get a discussion "closed" here? This seems pretty clear-cut to me: the consensus is that this site is unreliable, despite the very passionate arguments of one editor flooding the discussion and making the consensus harder to see. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the page clearly states that it is a fan website. It isn't a reliable source. 12.75.41.115 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Burma News International (mostly Narinjara News and Development Media Group)

Burma News International is a network of independent Myanmar media outlets reporting on issues happening in the country. Right now, they are one of the many anti-military junta media networks publishing information censored on state media channels. 262 citations use the bnionline url and a further 93 articles use its sister mmpeacemonitor url. The main issue revolves around the reliability of two of its members, Narinjara News and Development Media Group. Both are based in Rakhine State. Although Narinjara does republish articles from AFP, AP, and Dhaka Tribune, both publications are biased towards the Arakan Army. While that by itself does not indicate unreliability, DMG has referred to Rohingya people as "Bengalis" while Narinjara denies many atrocities allegedly committed by AA. Both organizations mostly softened the Rohingya rhetoric by simply grouping them as "Muslims," but claim that they are safer and more free under ULA/AA rule.

On the other hand, a Rohingya news publication called Kaladan Press is part of BNI, and their Maungdaw report (which I cited in the Arakan Army article) highlights alleged AA war crimes.

While both Narinjara and DMG are probably more reliable than Global New Light of Myanmar, I am iffy about citing them for most Rohingya-related articles. So far, any current citations about Rohingya issues are about the junta's actions and statements from locals about ARSA.

All in all, if both publications are to be cited, should they be cited with attribution in all cases? Can they be cited for topics not related to the Rohingya such as anti-junta victories or affairs in other parts of Myanmar? If approaching Rohingya issues, should they be cited with attribution or not cited at all? Battlesnake1 (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morphological Characteristics of Endemic Species of Araceae to Al-Jabal Al-Akhdar, Libya (Field Simulation)

At Arum cyrenaicum, I have used this 2024 source to provide this rare species with a morphological description. It is the only such description made to modern standards, and for parts of the plant the only description ever published. There has been a discussion on the talk page of the article between myself and @Headbomb. The allegation is that, because Beall identified the publisher of the journal as potentially predatory about a decade ago, the source cannot be cited. The editor in question initially removed the source less than a minute after a similar edit, and at that pace may have understandably missed an evaluation of the authors' work. Salih and Abdulrraziq are both plant physiologists at Omar Al-Mukhtar University, and have been cited in BMC Plant Biology,^[1] Izvestia KSTU, and many other indisputably non-predatory journals. More importantly, it is not being cited for any evaluation made in the paper. Only for the morphological description of A. cyrenaicum. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 05:21, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the allegation is not that Beall considers these journals predatory. These journals ARE predatory. They're published by IDOSI and ISROSET, both publishers that advertise fake impact factors and that take pride in having ISSNs and being indexed in CrossRef (one of the agency that issues DOIs), Google Scholar (which scrapes everything it possible can from the web) or Wikidata, which is utterly inconsequential.

These are not reliable publications, these have not been cited by BMC Plant Biology (how could it, the BMC paper is from 2023, whereas the predatory papers are from 2024), and should not be cited, per WP:PREDWHEN.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only the ISROSET citation remains disputed, as Headbomb appears to have accepted my argument that, since the IDOSI paper was cited by a reputable source (WP:UBO) and was never used on its own in the article anyway, the fact it was published in such a journal no longer matters. The main rationale I have for including Morphological Characteristics of Endemic Species ... is in the WP:RSCONTEXT of the research in the paper being a straightforward description of a species lacking such detailed treatment from any other source. No biographical or medical statements were included, and no analysis either. The description could have come from the personal blog of an amateur botanist, and it would still be important until alternative sources could be found.

As for BMC Plant Biology, I did not say either paper was, only that their authors had published in such journals (in the case of BMC Plant Biology a paper by Abdulrraziq), and were professionals in the relevant field. WP:PREDWHEN is an essay, not a policy, but even it states, "Wikipedia cannot conduct such an expert analysis of sources, and must instead rely on the analysis of other experts in the field", which justifies the inclusion of the paper not under discussion. My contextual argument for the paper under discussion is that, as far as WP:VERIFIABILITY is concerned, it is neither "material whose verifiability has been challenged", "material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged", nor in any way a matter of the authors' interpretation, and so applying the "Predatory open access journals are considered questionable due to the absence of quality control in the peer-review process" guideline of the policy WP:NOTRS is excessive for now. It is a morphology paper and includes only morphological descriptions and some distribution statistics. Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 11:23, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"as Headbomb appears to have accepted my argument that"

I have done no such thing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has Headbomb not challenged the verifiabilty of the material? Are they not likely to? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb Do you challenge the verifiabilty of the material? Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ) 18:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De-archived. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Zhou, Hang; et al. (2023-11-16). "Transcriptomics and physiology reveal the mechanism of potassium indole-3-butyrate (IBAK) mediating rice resistance to salt stress". BMC Plant Biology. 23 (1): 569. Bibcode:2023BMCPB..23..569Z. doi:10.1186/s12870-023-04531-1. ISSN 1471-2229. PMID 37968598.

Red Feather Journal

Hello! I have been collecting sources to potentially work on the Melaka Fray article in the future. I found the following article from the Red Feather Journal: International Journal of Children in Popular Culture, which provides scholarly analysis on the character.

For some background, I have found out that the Red Feather Journal is now known as the Journal of Children in Popular Culture, and it is seemingly connected to the University of Winnipeg. I am uncertain if this journal would be reliable for Wikipedia in general, or would be considered appropriate for a potential FA as I would be working on this article with the FAC process in mind.

Apologies if this is obvious. I have never heard of this journal before, under either name, so I wanted to err on the side of caution and get feedback on it. Thank you, and I hope you all have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have an editorial board that does a peer review of the submissions. It seems to be a reliable source that can be used. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 14:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the American Revolution and Daughters of the American Revolution

Hey I have working on a wikipedia article about a certain American family, called Draft:Hatfield family. They notable for the Hatfield–McCoy feud. But they have notable family members with no involvement with the feud and the article on the feud doesn't touch on the overall history and origins of these 2 American families. So I decided to make this article that goes in depth on how these families came to America and why they settled in Tug Fork.

(The article isn't in the best state right now because I am mostly in the stage of collecting sources on this topic.)

When doing research on the Hatfield family, it appears they are related to 2 men who were involved in the American revolution. When doing research on these 2 individuals, I keep stumbling upon Daughters of the American Revolution and Sons of the American Revolution. However, I am not 100% sure these are reliable sources for genealogy or history.

Here is DAR page on Joseph Hatfield. Some information here contradicts reliable sources. For example it says that Joseph didn't have a wife named Elizabeth, he mostly likely did because I saw many genealogy books from historical societies say he did. CycoMa2 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugues de Payens

On the Hugues de Payens article (or more specifically the sources section of the talk page), we are having a disagreement over whether several sources dating from the 15th to 19th centuries (but largely from the 17th century) can be used to support the claim that Hugues was Italian rather than French. They include Filiberto Campanile (1610), Antonino Amico (1636), Constantino Cajetan (1638), Blaise Francois Pagan (1669), Pierre Dupuy (1654), and Bernardo Giustiniani (1692), among others.

There is also a disagreement over the reliability of the modern Italian author Mario Moiraghi. He is also a proponent of the Italian origin for Hugues, but in particular, Moiraghi is apparently the source of the statement that a medieval text was "altered" by a 19th century editor (this statement is also under dispute).

All of the arguments have already been laid out on the talk page over the past several weeks. Now we are looking for comments from the rest of the Wikipedia community. Are these sources reliable or not? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, here is my take on the situation:

I am certain that Mario Moiraghi is not WP:RS for any historical items. He is an engineer, with no academic fame in history. He is in fact in the "fringe book business" for all I can see. I had never heard of him before, and I am a book lover. Umberto Eco he is not. And let us recall that with a population of 60 million in Italy, authors have to write several books to make any money because the market is much smaller than English language countries. Moiraghi seems to be in the far off fringe multi-book business. I wonder if his naext book will question if Totò was a descendent of George Washington.

I have only glanced at the article and the sources, but the situation is pretty confused. I do not know much aboutt the Templars, but know that they are a controversial group. From what I can see there is no certainty as to where Hugues was born.

Finally, why on earth is there a brouhaha about where Hugues was born?

I think the best way is to say we are not certain where Hugues was born. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPWX

DUPLICATE DISCUSSION

Discussion has been reopened on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather, any interested editors should continue the discussion there rather than having duplicate threads open in different places. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copying from a discussion that Hurricane Noah closed for being on the wrong channel.

Feel free to remoce anything that shouldn't be here. I had to copy the entire discussion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just opened it back up right as you posted this here. RSN was literally not needed, based on tons of other WikiProject-based source lists, which I gave in my edit summary. What an edit conflict issue. lol. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I reclosed it now. Since RSN was started, we might as well use it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:45, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve asked them to revert their clearly-improper closure. ^EF⁵ 13:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times

Can these be added to the list? They're not reliable for US severe weather, as they usually parrot warnings such as tornado emergencies within minutes of them being issued without any critical commentary, and everything else seems to be just parroting AP. In both cases, a primary source should be used. Departure– (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not reliable for both. Unless they are pertaining to the weather in India or elsewhere in Asia. Definitely not reliable for America use the AP source they're parroting instead. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be the equivalent of me citing an article "from" KTUU on Hurricane Foo making landfall in Florida, and KTUU likely parroting the AP. I'll hunt down said AP article instead. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

A few sources not talked about, which we can discuss as a project. ^EF⁵ 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Archive

I say case-by-case. All tornadoes are cited to either TPG, DAT, StormData or additional sources that are almost always (if not always) reliable. The one exception to this are a few tornadoes in Asia they've mapped where they use radar data to estimate the tornado's track (obviously WP:OR). I think it depends on which tornado track you're using it to cite, but I wouldn't say flat-out GUNREL. ^EF⁵ 21:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited Tornado Archive before. For tornadoes in the United States, it's likely reliable, elsewhere on a case by case basis. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to not directly use them as a source. They can be good for finding sources, but on its own I don't think it should be trusted. My biggest issue with it is South America, which has loads of WP:OR and a lot of mistakes. Their primary source for the majority the entire continent is a Google Maps project that says that it adds information from (among others) Wikipedia, forums, and reports sent in from anyone. Yobatna (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I usually only use Tornado Archive for state summaries (eg: the Tornadoes in West Virginia article I created last year). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And by that, only for the overall numbers of tornadoes. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional considerations apply as they cite reliable sources, however their sources should be used where possible. Departure– (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally reliable for USA tornadoes as I believe they meet the bar to be a reliable tertiary source, but I'm struggling to see why we would use TornadoArchive instead of the source itself (e.g. Grazulis, NWS). Case-by-case for tornadoes outside of the USA per concerns found before.
WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wildfireupdateman, I use it for the number of tornadoes that way I don't have to try to cite dozens/hundreds of NCEI pages. But I cite said NCEI pages/Storm Data on the individual tornado entries. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Spann

Adding him due to his known anti-climate change views. Does not include stuff written by him in his duties as a meteorologist; obviously that will be reliable. ^EF⁵ 21:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say case by case. If it pertains to the weather in Alabama, it might be reliable, if posted via a WBMA account. Outside of Alabama, probably unreliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly reliable for anything not pertaining to climate change. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if pertaining to Alabama. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable for anything not mentioning climate change - Look, we all love Spann. Great guy and has been in the business since the 1970s. If I would to go anyone about weather info, it'd be him. However, he does maintain a pro-religious view on climate change which is blatantly inaccurate, so I will say that he shouldn't be used for anything related to climate change. I believe he was the first "certified meteorologist" from the AMS, although I'm not completely sure. His expertise definitely outweighs a relatively minor viewpoint, in my opinion. ^EF⁵ 21:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable. Barring his factually questionable views, he holds no apparent qualifications for making claims. Claims made by him that are found in sources with editorial standards, for instance the TV station he is affiliated with, appear reliable. Do we have any proof he has his TV station repeating his anti-climate change views? Departure– (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subject Matter Expert - Reliable for the field of broadcast meteorology. Case-by-case for most other weather topics. GUNREL for climate change topic.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he considered a subject matter expert? He was a broadcast meteorologist and I don't see any other qualifications beyond that. His tenure may be long and include the Super Outbreak but I can't see anyone calling him an expert at anything beyond the act of broadcast meteorology itself. Departure– (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, he has a masters in journalism from Columbia. Also, good to note that he's the 33rd "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" from AMS, a reliable and academic source. Apparently, he's also won an Emmy, which I just found out about! — ^EF⁵ 23:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So he's a subject matter in broadcast meteorology. I don't see how he's a reliable source for other aspects of meteorology, though. Departure– (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, hence why I say case by case for other weather topics and unreliable for climate change. Sorry if I was unclear in my statement. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Moriarty ("June First")

Unreliable for WX due to the outcome of a WP:RSN discussion. ~~No comment on engineering, which is out-of-scope for this project.~~ ^EF⁵ 21:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to second this - generally unreliable per the RSP discussion. I'd argue they're also unreliable for engineering topics. Departure– (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small note for EF5, since this will be a source list for weather articles in general, including individual tornado/tornado outbreaks, and lists like List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes, ect.., I believe his engineering topics can be discussed here as well, since this could be provided to new editors as "This is a list of good and bad sources you can reference when creating an article". If a split consensus forms (example: unreliable for meteorology but reliable for engineering), then he can easily be split in the table. WP:RSP does this all the time, with a good example being WP:FORBES (generally reliable) and WP:FORBESCON (Forbes.com - Generally unreliable). I will comment on the reliability later. I just wanted to make that note for EF5 and others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, unreliable for engineering too, again as per the RSN. — ^EF⁵ 22:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TornadoTRX

Note that this YouTuber does have a Wikipedia account, so they could probably answer questions. ^EF⁵ 21:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwillz: courtesy ping WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say unreliable. Sorry @Wikiwillz. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable - no evidence this YouTuber has qualifications that would make them a subject expert, at least from what I've found. ^EF⁵ 01:10, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama Weather Blog

Case-by-case because some reliable meteorologists do use this weather blog to relay information, including James Spann, who is being discussed above. While it is a WP:SPS, I don't see how this differs from meteorologists writing about their experience in a news article. This should be considered unreliable if the post is by someone not a meteorologist, as they do not meet the subject expert guidelines. ^EF⁵ 22:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Timmer and his crew

Generally unreliable - This is the guy that said there would be over 200 tornadoes on March 15, 2025; there were only about 63. He is known for his aggressive style of "hypecasting" and besides driving into tornadoes doesn't contribute much. ^EF⁵ 22:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable for any claims not directly related to himself or the Y'all Squad. Besides forecasts which as EF5 brings up are often overemphasized I don't know what else you'd use him as a source for. Departure– (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say ditto there. He also popularized the term "gorilla hail" in the 2020s as well. The hypercasting falls in line with Accuweather's damage estimates (see Mt section on that). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hall, Y'all

Note that there is a COI with the person who started this page. ^EF⁵ 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who added the above comment. But YouTube accounts are (no offense intended) typically unreliable by Wikipedia standards. Now I could be wrong, but Ryan Hall seems to fall into the "self published" category. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is a WP:SPS, and those are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is why he's here. ^EF⁵ 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I personally think that one falls into the "self published" and "generally unreliable" category (at least by WP standards). I wouldn't lean on Ryan Hall to be my first choice in a citation, I'd wait for a more reliable source (eg. The AP or the National Weather Service). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Clyde, this is overall, not immediate citations. — ^EF⁵ 21:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, probably case by case, but still leaning towards unreliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @WeatherWriter: do you know what qualifications Ryan holds, i.e. degree and college? I thought I saw something on a WeatherBrains episode in 2022 about him switching his major halfway through. — ^EF⁵ 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was lost in an edit conflict, but generally unreliable for anything not directly related to his own work or to the Y'all Squad. Forecasts especially, per all above. Departure– (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure whether or not he has a meteorology degree. I know he interned at WYMT for a short time. IMO, it's just as unreliable as me launching a (hypothetical) "Hurricane Clyde Weather Channel" on YouTube and then trying to cite myself on Wikipedia. Or creating a website titled "hurricaneclydewx.com" (again hypothetical, none of these sites actually exist) and then citing my hypothetical website on Wikipedia. Does anyone see my point? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable for forecasts, which have a history of being fear-mongered and overhyped. Just take a look at some of the videos he's posted and every single one says something along the lines of "THIS IS DANGEROUS!" or "RARE SETUP!"; all buzzwords. ^EF⁵ 22:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen them. He uses extensive sensationalism. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Clyde, this Reddit post always gives me a chuckle. — ^EF⁵ 22:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of buzzwords in that reddit. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Y'all Squad

Adding this section here, since Ryan Hall's videos are different from the non-profit organization he runs, The Y'all Squad (Website & YouTube), which is a citation on some articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say maybe case by case on that. Reliable if it's them saying they're going somewhere to assist. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:53, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For self-descriptions, they can be reliable in some cases per WP:PRIMARY. However, I wouldn't trust them to for any extraordinary claims beyond the scope of the Y'all Squad as an organization. Departure– (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question I would ask is how reliable would the source be for mentions of them on, for example Tornado outbreak and floods of April 2–7, 2025#Relief efforts, where a post from The Y'all Squad, is used to source how much where they were going to aid. Thankfully, a few other times The Y'all Squad is mentioned in articles, actual RS are mentioning them, so their own posts aren't needed: Greenfield tornado#Aftermath & 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado#Aftermath are examples of that. For a hypothetical example, say The Y'all Squad video of their aid for the 2024 Columbia tornado. Would that video be reliable enough to source a sentence like "The Y'all Squad gave at least $30,000 to victims of the tornado". Based on the three instances I know of (all linked above) where The Y'all Squad is mentioned/sourced, it appears to all be related to X dollars of aid went to X location in the aftermath of X storm. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter, in that context, I think it would be marginally reliable. However, as mentioned above, that is the only context where I think it would be even remotely reliable. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Velocity

Generally unreliable - Basically a carbon-copy of Ryan's method. ^EF⁵ 22:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable Recently received a bachelor's in meteorology, but his personal YouTube channel doesn't have any claims to be made except for forecasting, "nowcasting" (which can be very unreliable), and parroting claims from actual reliable sources. He doesn't appear to bring anything new to the table besides that which he is not qualified to say. Departure– (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sensationalism that Max Velocity uses is also cited in the Reddit post that @EF5 linked in the Ryan Hall Y'all section. The post said "looking at you max velocity" in parentheses at the end of the paragraph. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPC unfiltered storm reports

Generally reliable for sentences such as "In total, there were 50 tornado reports received", but do NOT say "50 tornadoes reported" or "a total of 50 tornadoes occurred" using the unfiltered storm reports as the source. A single tornado can have several tornado reports associated with it. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto per WFUM. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally reliable per WFUM's reasoning. ^EF⁵ 01:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Convective Chronicles

Generally unreliable - No evidence this YouTuber holds the qualifications needed to be a subject expert. ^EF⁵ 22:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where it was used on Tornadoes of 2024, I found that he has a master's in meteorology and is / was a research partner to Howard Bluestein. Departure– (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, huh, didn't know that. I could've swore I'd seen somewhere that he never worked in anything weather-related and was just an enthusiast. — ^EF⁵ 22:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UStornadoes

USdeadlyevents.com

Correct me if I'm wrong. But wasn't there a consensus either last year or in 2023 that it was unreliable? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable as user-generated. ^EF⁵ 21:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally unreliable as a tertiary source, similar to Wikipedia; however, as they cite their sources (and dare I say are more thorough than Wikipedia at it), they do seem to be a good starting point for sourcing deaths etc. Departure– (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Weather-spotter/public confirmed" tornado warnings

Yes and no. If the article is saying that "a Tornado Warning was issued for so and so", then yes it's reliable. But if it's being used to cite a tornado that supposedly touched down. Then no it's not reliable, wait for official confirmation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it can't be allowed with attribution - "The National Weather Service upgraded the warning to observed due to a public / spotter report of X (not just tornadoes)". If it turns out to be incorrect, that can be explained later on in the prose. Departure– (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see the point. But it still should be treated with caution, especially with the tables. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable for prelim touchdown reports - This is basically public confirmation that there was indeed a tornado down at a specific time in a specific county, at a specific date near a specific location. No reason why this can't be used for tornado tables, especially as the event is ongoing. ^EF⁵ 01:26, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5, sometimes people will send the National Weather Service false reports. It's illegal, but they still do it. And sometimes people will accidentally submit mPING reports and didn't intend to (that happened to me recently). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Clyde, very, very, very, very, very rarely has that ever happened. I can't name the last time that happened prior or post-2022, when that Arkansas freak TOR-E happened. — ^EF⁵ 01:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May 2022, public report of a tornado near Middlesboro, Kentucky triggered a confirmed Tornado Warning for the Ponza, Kentucky area. No tornado ever occurred. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:41, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Clyde, other than 2022. That year was peak "wrongful reports" for some reason. — ^EF⁵ 01:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's generally reliable for preliminary tornadoes, but not necessarily for tornado ratings. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Radar confirmed" tornado warnings

I'm adding this because during outbreaks people tend to use confirmed warnings as a source to add preliminary, "EF?" tornadoes to tables. ^EF⁵ 21:11, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. If the article is saying that "a Tornado Warning was issued for so and so", then yes it's reliable. But if it's being used to cite a tornado that supposedly touched down. Then no it's not reliable, wait for official confirmation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 21:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Clyde on both tornado warning discussions above. WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally unreliable except for RC-TOREs - The reason I separated these are because public confirmation and radar confirmation are two different verification methods. Radar-confirmed is a lot less "solid" as a source than public confirmation. TOR-Es are different, as all but two-or-so tornado emergencies ever have produced tornadoes. ^EF⁵ 01:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TorKUD

Independent German organization that has high-quality documentation and surveys of tornadoes in Germany ([157]).

MeteoNetwork & PRETEMP

Italian organization that documents severe weather in Italy, including for tornadoes ([158] & related database).

Météo-Varoise

French organization that documents weather in France, incl. tornado surveys (website & Facebook page). The main problem is that a lot of valuable information is posted on their Facebook page. Would it be okay to cite their Facebook posts? For example: List of European tornadoes in 2025#1 February event-- they gave a rating for a tornado but only posted it on their Facebook page.

Metsul Meteorologia

Brazilian organization that documents severe weather in parts of South America. ([159])

WeatherBrains podcast

FOX Weather

I'd like a clarification on FOX Weather's reliability status, given Trump's policies (which they wholeheartedly support) are now affecting the weather community. ^EF⁵ 22:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say case by case per above concerns. Though leaning towards being more reliable (unlike their partners at Fox News) for non-political weather topics. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case-by-case per Clyde, but the second FOX Weather (inevitably) starts pushing a pro-Trump agenda it should be GUNREL'd. FOX is nothing to play around with, and this is barely over the bias margin. ^EF⁵ 01:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5, I 1,000% agree. If it gets politically biased, then GUNREL it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:44, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note that bias alone has never been used to deprecate a source; it must be actively spreading misinformation etc. Bias is only half of the problem, and can easily be addressed per WP:DUE etc. Fox News as a whole has, but I'm unsure if Fox Weather has. Departure– (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Fox is considered unreliable for anything to do with science or politics. No need to discuss since the community at large already decided. Noah, BSBA^Talk 02:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is FOX Weather, not FOX. ^EF⁵ 13:25, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid Fox for anything where facts can come into conflict with political agenda - which unquestionably includes the weather now. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what we are using Fox Weather to report. It is certainly reliable for reporting that a tornado touched down in a specific town, but not reliable for saying that the response to the tornado was poor due to the incompetence of a specific political party (etc). Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is being sourced? A claim that it was 65 and sunny in [city] would be fine. Politics, that would probably violate the Fox politics. However, this should be decide on a case by case basis. Absent a specific example the answer is yes, but considerations apply. Springee (talk) 13:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Underground blog

Yale Climate Connections

Reliable - From Yale University, which is a top-tier academic institution. ^EF⁵ 01:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say most accredited universities will probably be reliable to some extent. Especially ones like Yale and Iowa State. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:08, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

reporteconfidencial.info

https://reporteconfidencial.info

Near as I can tell (from page inspection) this is a Wordpress hosted publication without a visible publisher. I'm not fluent in Spanish but it appears to focus on Venezuelan pop culture for which it's used in some Wikipedia pages like bios for actor Lourdes Valera and beauty pageant contestant Valeria Cannavò. I'd like to know if it's suitable either for BLP details or for establishing notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Uberti, David. "How misinformation goes viral: a Truthy story". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2025-05-06.

[2] Farrell, Henry (22 October 2014). "No, the National Science Foundation is not building an Orwellian surveillance nightmare". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2025-05-06 – via www.washingtonpost.com.

[3] Silverman, Craig (2015). "Lies, Damn Lies and Viral Content". Tow Center for Digital Journalism. doi:10.7916/D8Q81RHH.

[4] Zimdars, Melissa (2022). "Mis/Disinformation and Social Media". The Social Media Debate. Retrieved 2025-05-06. The right-wing media sphere is very interconnected, and websites tend to legitimize each other and circulate the same information across social media platforms. Websites like Breitbart, The Daily Caller, Washington Free Beacon, Campus Reform, Gateway Pundit, and many more are known entities for spreading unreliable junk.

[5] Kamarck, Elaine; West, Darrell M. (3 September 2024). Lies that Kill: A Citizen's Guide to Disinformation. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 978-0-8157-4073-5 – via Google Books. One of the linchpins of disinformation networks is the multiple levels of the information ecosystem that try out particular attacks to see which one work before elevating them to sites with a wider readership. Rumors might start out on obscure bulletin boards such as Reddit or 4chan, but as they gain currency, they move up to conservative sites like Infowars, Breitbart, or the Daily Caller. If people read those articles, the information can get picked up by conservative newspapers like the Washington Examiner and the Washington Free Beacon. The most effective stories eventually are broadcast by mainstream media such as Fox News or other cable outlets.

[6] Zimdars, Melissa; Mcleod, Kembrew (18 February 2020). Fake News: Understanding Media and Misinformation in the Digital Age. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-35739-5 – via Google Books. If you searched Google for information about potential collusion between Russia and Donald Trump in May 2017, the first results that appear are propagandistic, conspiracy-oriented, and unreliable websites like the Washington Free Beacon, Infowars, and the Daily Caller, respectively.

[AAUP-7] "Claudine Gay, Plagiarism, and AI". AAUP. 24 October 2024. Retrieved 2025-05-06. Or at least that is what the bad faith efforts of Christopher Rufo and the Washington Free Beacon would have us believe. ... A more comprehensive review conducted for the Harvard Crimson by Rahem D. Hamid, Nia L. Orakwue, and Elias J. Schisgall (2023) demonstrates how Sibarium's original reporting distorts the context somewhat.

[8] The term, while having acquired some legitimate coverage/usage in sources, is still primarily used in converstion as a derogatory term to describe certain media houses as "lapdogs" of the current ruling party in India. For those uninterested in Indian politics, it would be analogous to the usage of "Fake News Media" as a label used in the American political context.

[Caraballo-9] Caraballo, Alejandra (2022). "The Anti-Transgender Medical Expert Industry". Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 50 (4): 687–692. doi:10.1017/jme.2023.9. ISSN 1073-1105. PMID 36883410.

[Wuest-10] Wuest, Joanna; Last, Briana S. (2024-03-01). "Agents of scientific uncertainty: Conflicts over evidence and expertise in gender-affirming care bans for minors". Social Science & Medicine. 344: 116533. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116533. ISSN 0277-9536.

[Eckert-11] Eckert, AJ (2021-10-17). "Conclusions Not So NICE: A Critical Analysis of the NICE Evidence review of puberty blockers for children and adolescents with gender dysphoria". Science-Based Medicine. Retrieved 2022-10-24.

[Meloche-Holubowski-12] Meloche-Holubowski, Mélanie (October 28, 2024). "These "merchants of doubt" at the heart of the debate on transitional care". Radio Canada (in Canadian French). Retrieved 2024-11-01.

[13] "SPLC reports graphic details of double-homicide, gang-connections". WYFF. 30 July 2013. Retrieved 2025-05-26.

[14] Farhi, Paul (19 November 2019). "White House aide Stephen Miller held wide sway over Breitbart News, according to emails". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2025-05-26 – via www.washingtonpost.com.

[15] Weber, Peter; published, The Week US (13 November 2019). "Stephen Miller fed white nationalist ideas to Breitbart, ex-editor says, and they've since 'become policy'". The Week. Retrieved 2025-05-26.

[16] "Tracking Hate Groups Online". Independent Lens. Retrieved 2025-05-26.

[17] Behrmann, Savannah. "Advocacy group releases leaked emails from White House adviser Stephen Miller to Breitbart". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2025-05-26.

[18] Ayesh, Rashaan (12 November 2019). "Group says Stephen Miller shared story ideas on race, immigration with Breitbart". Axios. Retrieved 2025-05-26.

[19] Lyman, Brian. "Republican National Committee resolution condemns Southern Poverty Law Center, claiming 'obvious bias'". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2025-05-26.

[20] Cunningham, David (1 June 2018). "Differentiating Hate: Threat and Opportunity as Drivers of Organization vs Action". Sociological Research Online. 23 (2): 507–517. doi:10.1177/1360780417743769. ISSN 1360-7804.

[21] Zhou, Y.; Reid, E.; Qin, J.; Chen, H.; Lai, G. (26 September 2005). "US domestic extremist groups on the Web: link and content analysis". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 20 (5): 44–51. doi:10.1109/MIS.2005.96. ISSN 1941-1294.

[22] Selepak, Andrew (2010). "Skinhead super Mario brothers: An examination of racist and violent games on white supremacist web sites". Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture. 17 (1): 1–47.

[23] "Unveiling Extremism: Leveraging Digital Data Mining Strategies". Journal of Ecohumanism. 3 (7): 492–502. March 2024. ISSN 2752-6798.

[24] Winter, Aaron (24 April 2019). Online Hate: From the Far-Right to the ‘Alt-Right’ and from the Margins to the Mainstream. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 39–63. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12633-9_2. ISBN 978-3-030-12633-9 – via Springer Link.

[25] Zhou, Y.; Reid, E.; Qin, J.; Chen, H.; Lai, G. (26 September 2005). "US domestic extremist groups on the Web: link and content analysis". IEEE Intelligent Systems. 20 (5): 44–51. doi:10.1109/MIS.2005.96. ISSN 1941-1294.

[26] Tusikov, Natasha (31 March 2019). "Defunding Hate: PayPal's Regulation of Hate Groups". Surveillance & Society. 17 (1/2): 46–53. doi:10.24908/ss.v17i1/2.12908. ISSN 1477-7487.

[27] Phadke, Shruti; Mitra, Tanushree (2024). "Information sharing and content framing across multiple platforms and functional roles that exemplify social processes of online hate groups". Social processes of Online Hate. p. 193.

[28] Tanner, Samuel; and Campana, Aurélie (1 October 2020). ""Watchful citizens" and digital vigilantism: a case study of the far right in Quebec". Global Crime. 21 (3–4): 262–282. doi:10.1080/17440572.2019.1609177. ISSN 1744-0572.

[29] Gambrell, Kem; Topuzova, Lazarina (2018–19). "Introductory Notes on Engaging with Communities for Justice". Journal of Hate Studies. 15 (1): 1–10. ISSN 1540-2126.

[30] Phadke, Shruti; Mitra, Tanushree (18 October 2021). "Educators, Solicitors, Flamers, Motivators, Sympathizers: Characterizing Roles in Online Extremist Movements". Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5 (CSCW2): 310:1–310:35. doi:10.1145/3476051.

[31] Arbeit, Miriam R.; Burnham, Sarah L. F.; Four, Duane de; Cronk, Heather (22 September 2020). "Youth Practitioners Can Counter Fascism: What We Know and What We Need". Journal of Youth Development. 15 (5): 37–67. doi:10.5195/jyd.2020.936. ISSN 2325-4017.

[32] Jakubowicz, Andrew; Dunn, Kevin; Mason, Gail; Paradies, Yin; Bliuc, Ana-Maria; Bahfen, Nasya; Oboler, Andre; Atie, Rosalie; Connelly, Karen (12 November 2017). Cyber Racism and Community Resilience: Strategies for Combating Online Race Hate. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-64388-5 – via Google Books.

[33] Parmar, Inderjeet; and Furse, Thomas (4 July 2023). "The Trump administration, the far-right and world politics". Globalizations. 20 (5): 799–813. doi:10.1080/14747731.2021.1991660. ISSN 1474-7731.

[34] Cohen, James N. (2018). "Exploring Echo-Systems: How Algorithms Shape Immersive Media Environments". Journal of Media Literacy Education. 10 (2): 139–151.

[35] Burston, Adam (2024). "Digitally mediated spillover as a catalyst of radicalization: How digital hate movements shape conservative youth activism."". Social processes of online hate. Routledge. pp. 144–167.

[36] "Special Ferdinando Baldi Memorial Issue (1927-2007)". WESTERNS…ALL’ITALIANA!. December 2007.

[37] Zhou, Hang; et al. (2023-11-16). "Transcriptomics and physiology reveal the mechanism of potassium indole-3-butyrate (IBAK) mediating rice resistance to salt stress". BMC Plant Biology. 23 (1): 569. Bibcode:2023BMCPB..23..569Z. doi:10.1186/s12870-023-04531-1. ISSN 1471-2229. PMID 37968598.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[1]

[1]

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