Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 501

Archive 495

←

Archive 499

Archive 500

Archive 501

Archive 502

Archive 503

→

Archive 505

Question about removing The Points Guy (TPG) from spam blacklist

My name is Liam and I work in a comms capacity with The Points Guy. I'm here to inquire about the possibility of getting TPG removed from Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which we appear to have been added to in December 2018.

I've been researching this blacklisting issue for some time in preparation for reaching out to Wikipedia. That's how I found this noticeboard. I was not aware until recently that Healthline, another publication owned by Red Ventures, came here in June with a similar request. Editors rejected that appeal on the grounds that sources for biomedical topics have to meet a higher editorial standard than normal Wikipedia-approved news outlets. (That's my own characterization of the discussion. Please let me know if I'm getting something wrong.)

The Points Guy website obviously does not cover medical topics. We do, though, cover travel topics and at least one of our articles has been individually whitelisted because we were the only outlet to cover the story in question (about EVA Air). Relatedly, there was a Reliable sources 2019 noticeboard discussion about similar instances, and editors seemed amenable at that time to allowing TPG citations on a case-by-case basis, namely for bylined, non-sponsored news about topics other than credit cards. (Again, that's my characterization of the discussion and until several months ago I had no knowledge of these noticeboards at all, so please double check that I'm accurately summarizing these conversations.)

To address a few concerns raised in the past: The TPG website *does* include sponsored content. (I can't link to our advertising policy page because of the blacklisting, but it's easy enough to find on our website.) Our news coverage, however, is editorially independent, written by bylined reporters (not "contributors"), and widely shared within the travel industry. We're very proud of our news team and TPG is often the first outlet to cover important airline news. Examples that I unfortunately can't link to:

• "Delta cuts 2 domestic routes, 1 from Atlanta and another from Salt Lake City" | November 18, 2025
• "San Francisco to get new nonstop service to Poland in 2026" | November 15, 2025
• "Mass airport chaos: 32,000 flights delayed or canceled since Saturday as shutdown takes toll" | November 10, 2025

Given this context, the site-wide blacklisting seems misapplied, at least in my opinion.

Obviously eager to hear what editors here think. Liam at TPG (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

• Just a comment: there has been at least one other article from TPG whitelisted. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/01#thepointsguy.com. Also, here is a link to the request from which TPG was blacklisted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=871968662#Sponsored_consumer_finance_blogs --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
• This is a funky one. It was blacklisted in 2018 as "native advertising" and seems to have been spammed into several articles before that. Later (in 2019), TPG was seen as a (very borderline) reliable source in a RSN RfC. However, it was not removed from the spam blacklist despite two requests to do so (1 and 2).
  TPG is clearly not exclusively sponsored content now, so at the very least the blacklisting should be lifted; I can't see how it meets WP:SPBLIST #1 in 2025 ("does the site have any validity to the project?"). Technically, a request for a removal from the blacklist should be made at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals, although separately I'd be curious to see this noticeboard's thoughts on its reliability. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Liam at TPG: Do you have thoughts on how non-sponsored TPG articles in 2025 meet (or do not meet) the criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:47, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Related:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#RfC: The Points Guy
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2018 Archive Nov 1#Sponsored consumer finance_blogs
• Native advertising
• t h e p o i n t s g u y . c o m website: "Our site may earn compensation when a customer clicks on a link, when an application is approved, or when an account is opened with our partners, and this may impact how or where these products appear.

The two issues I see are:

First, we know that you can't be trusted on credit card rewards programs, because you are partners with the credit card companies, not an independent reviewer. How do we know that you are not also partners with airline rewards programs and hotel rewards programs? Looking at your recent article "I left my laptop on a flight. Here's how I got it back within 24 hours" you say some nice things about Delta.

Right in the middle of the article is this ad:

"Earn up to 80,000 miles with our favorite Delta cards. To help you decide which Delta card is best for you, take a look at the details of the most popular Delta Amex cards from our partners."

That ad leads me to, among others, the "Delta SkyMiles Reserve Business American Express Card". Even if Delta itself isn't your partner, they are obviously partners with American Express. (I am using the word "partner", but I am pretty sure that the money and the control only flows one way.) I strongly suspect that your positive comments about Delta pleased your partner American Express.

Second, let's assume for the sake of argument that your news articles are all squeaky clean. They are still residing on a website that is likely to promote a credit card rewards program because they pay you instead of because it is the best program. The website is also likely to ignore otherwise good deals from businesses that refuse to partner with you. Can we at Wikipedia in good conscience allow any links to such a website? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for the thoughtful responses. The Reliable sources page linked to above states that "[t]he 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." Given that explanation, I would argue that for non-controversial news about airline routes (e.g. new route launches, old route resumptions, route frequency changes), airline passenger services (e.g. pre-flight check-in & ticketing, special boarding assistance), airline amenities (seats, meals, entertainment, Wi-Fi), and related airline and aviation industry news, The Points Guy should be considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Other travel news sources already cite TPG for exactly this type of coverage. See examples here, here, and here. I understand that TPG will never be considered a reliable source for, say, credit card rewards coverage and that's fine. I think the epistemic question of whether or not Wikipedia should link to websites that feature sponsored content is beyond the scope of my engagement here. That said, many major news outlets identified as reliable sources, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian, all prominently use sponsored content to generate revenue. Liam at TPG (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

(Note: I just saw the excellent point about AI below, but want to finish my conversation about sponsored content before addressing AI.)

Sponsored content is also known as Native advertising. Turns out that Exposure Ninja (a web page all about how great sponsored content is -- for advertisers) wrote about The Guardian's sponsored content for the credit card company Visa[1], saying "The Guardian commonly runs sponsored content and has been doing so for many years. As publications go, it is one of the most transparent, featuring a (reasonably) prominent “paid for by” section next to the article. They also include who the article was paid for by. The Guardian clearly distinguishes between sponsored content, supported content, and content that is brought to readers by brands." See any differences from how The Points Guy handles sponsored content? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of sources we use have advertising, sponsors, inline sponsors, and sponsored articles. I dont have examples on hand, but I am sure most of this is fairly self-evident. Ill comment further below. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The Points Guy (TPG) is owned and operated by  Red Ventures (RSP entry). A 2024 RfC found Red Ventures properties to be generally unreliable because "Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner" and "The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic." TPG was excluded from the RfC because it was already on the spam blacklist, but I see no reason to believe that TPG is somehow more reliable than other Red Ventures properties. Considering TPG's conflict of interest due to its affiliate marketing contracts with the finanical products offered by the credit card, airline, hotel, and other travel companies that are the subject of just about all of TPG's content, as well as TPG's prior history of spam, I oppose removing TPG from the spam blacklist. — Newslinger talk 02:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Oof. I had missed the Red Ventures part when I made a comment above. I do still think that we're inappropriately conflating the spam blacklist—a measure of last resort that "exists primarily to control widespread spamming and disruption of Wikimedia Foundation projects" and does not take into consideration "whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable"—with the reliable source policy. But, I also don't see a path forward to it being declared a reliable source without something spectacular happening. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't consider TPG as much better than a press release, but I could weakly support moving it to the XLinkBot blocklist or similar to allow experienced users to use it in that context. Jumpytoo Talk 06:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree that "at the very least the blacklisting should be lifted" but also that "inappropriately conflating" should have been a measure of last resort. Dirk Beetstra changed the guideline on 27 September 2021 to say the list includes "... some sites which are persistently abused for shock effects, and some sites which have been added after independent consensus." (This was a few days after I unsuccessfuly objected about blacklisting a non-spam site named ancient-origins.net.) That was bad. Worse is if blacklisting happens whenever a few people here accept (the earlier claim) "Site consists solely of sponsored content" and/or (the current argument) an RfC decided the owner's unreliable. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan this site was not blacklisted for shock effect, nor with a strong independent consensus. Your argument there has nothing to do with this, and this site has nothing to do with ancient-origins.net, nor are the reasons behind the blacklisting remotely related. I understand that you don’t like that a consensus is not aligning with your opinion, but there is no reason to rehash that at every occassion. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Ed's remark re "inappropriately conflating" the spam blacklist with WP:RS is something I thought I'd try to give background about. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No, you're not giving background, you are giving another stab at you not agreeing with an independent consensus using an argument that has nothing to do with the current situation. Please stop with that. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:06, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I will make remarks which I consider relevant regardless of demands that I not do so. However, this discussion may be moving on. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

First, we are not conflating here, the site was blacklisted as native advertising, and there are spam concerns. Such sites are, by nature, also rather or totally unreliable (sometimes with nuances). Though unreliability alone is not a reason to blacklist, for sites which are a spam concern (and/or are spammed) the fact that they are unreliable as well does not help. If a site is reliable we tend to find softer approaches first, but hard-spammed reliable sites do sometimes end up on the blacklist if the situation is uncontrollable. Unreliable sites get on the blacklist easier, having to perform continuous cleanup is disrupting wikipedia.
I see now that the discussion MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/03#"News"_and_"Reviews"_sections_of_The_Points_Guy_(thepointsguy.com/news,_thepointsguy.com/reviews) was archived without closure while waiting for Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_263#RfC:_The_Points_Guy to close. The closing sentence there was "Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located." (original bolding). That statement still stands, and therefore I do not consider full removal from the blacklist an option. With native advertising sites I do still expect spamming concerns (like Draft:Affordable_Travel:_Comprehensive_Strategies_for_Budget-Friendly_Tickets,_Culinary_Exploration,_and_Enriching_Experiences), and it is someone from the website itself that is here asking for delisting (in that showing interest to be linked from Wikipedia where 'regulars' on this website show very little interest in having this delisted/whitelisted).
With those concerns (including the 'hell no') I would leave the site on the blacklist, but execute the whitelisting of the /news and /reviews and then maybe consider to add it to XLinkBot (to catch the 'use editorial discretion' and warn 'new' editors that there are significant reliability concerns.
Just as a side note on blacklisting or other solutions. If you want to live by the word, the spam-blacklist should only be for 'spam', and other solutions are needed to block other links. The only other solution we currently have would be the edit filter (XLinkBot reverts only non-autoconfirmed, that is too low a barrier for spam-sensitive material, BED is even a harder block than spam-blacklist as whitelisting is not even possible). The problem with the edit filter is that it is heavy on the server (for external links), and gets heavier if you have to make 'holes' in it. The blacklist is there more clean, using the whitelist for the holes. Things that go standard on the blacklist is the stuff that is spammed, but if a discussion comes with a 'hell no' type of answer we do have to use our ways of blocking the additions (we are not here to play whack-a-mole to remove all the stuff that is 'hell no' and gets added). You can define that as 'inappropriately conflating the spam blacklist', but the spam blacklist is there the cleanest way to stop addition of such sources while allowing clean holes (whitelist). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for reassessing past discussions and providing such detailed feedback on my request. I do want to briefly address the worries about "TPG's prior history of spam" circa 2018. For what it's worth, I am not aware of any past attempts by TPG to "spam" Wikipedia (meaning, I assume, haphazardly inserting citations to drive traffic to or otherwise promote the domain), and I can assure you that neither TPG nor Red Ventures has any intention of doing so now or in the future. I recognize such actions are absolutely not allowed on Wikipedia.

I do understand the concerns Dirk Beetstra and others have expressed about native advertising, especially regarding credit card coverage. Limiting the whitelisting to the /news and /reviews portions of the site seems like a good solution. What needs to happen for this to occur? Ed suggested that a removal request should be posted at the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist noticeboard. I would post there myself, but the instructions in the Proposed removals section state that "Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined." Would an editor involved in this conversation be willing to make the removal post? Liam at TPG (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Considering that the reliability of TPG has declined even further since I made the whitelisting request in 2019, due to TPG being acquired and operated by the AI-generated content publisher  Red Ventures (RSP entry), I now oppose whitelisting the /news and /reviews paths on the TPG website. Most egregious is the current incarnation of the site's /reviews section, which almost entirely consists of sponsored credit card reviews and other highly promotional content that is indistinguishable from other native advertising and content marketing websites that are regularly added to the spam blacklist. As for the /news section, in the extremely rare case that TPG has a piece of information that is not related to credit cards, is not related to another entity for which TPG has an apparent conflict of interest (e.g. an airline or hotel chain whose co-branded credit card is being marketed by TPG), is not reported by a more reliable source (or by a press release), and is somehow considered usable despite TPG's problems, the individual article can be submitted for whitelisting to ensure that it is vetted and used appropriately. — Newslinger talk 01:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Liam at TPG It does not have to be TPG who was spamming, it could have been anyone including an instructedemployee, an overenthousiastic employee, an external SEO, someone from an organisation you wrote about, even a competitor. The blacklist exists to stop the abuse, and we don’t care who is the spammer. But again, it does not look good that you are here concerned about your website being on the blacklist and arguing for removal where very few regulars do. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a little confusing to me. In this discussion several editors had explicitly stated that the domain-wide blacklisting was misapplied. I totally understand you don't want to open up Wikipedia to spam. I went back and looked at the original nomination of TPG to the blacklist and the explanation there seems to be that it was included as a similar site to the others. When I compare the number of links between the others listed, there are 24 total TPG links on Wikipedia (two are just the website linked on the TPG Wikipedia article), compared to MoneySaving Expert at 186 links on Wikipedia. I'm not sure there was any spamming of TPG links?

I created this account so that TPG could engage transparently and in line with Wikipedia guidelines. I'm pushing back on the "blacklisting" because it seems misapplied, as (again) numerous editors have noted. Wikipedia editors put TPG on a domain-wide blacklist. I'm here to figure out why and if there's anything that can be done about it. All I ask is that editors look at the issue in the same way you would if anyone had brought this for discussion, and not throw this out just because I'm here asking as an employee of TPG. Liam at TPG (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I cannot overlook that an employee of TPG is currently petitioning for TPG to be whitelisted in a way that would allow TPG's sponsored content and highly promotional content to be cited on Wikipedia. If you have a concern about spam related to your competitors' web domains, you are welcome to file an appropriate request for the spam blacklist or on the spam noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 22:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

2018 was a while ago, but I see that prior to thepointsguy.com being added to the spam blacklist, TPG was spammed by sockpuppets who were likely undisclosed paid editors, specifically Bravenewcloud (talk · contribs) and Haste1066 (talk · contribs); see Special:Diff/841592134, Special:Diff/839145351, and sockpuppet investigation. — Newslinger talk 22:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, my bias is in favor of you for bringing this up. Whether we end up agreeing or not, open discussion is good. Far too many times I see someone not discussing but instead trying to find sneaky ways to evade the restriction.

To everyone else: While I still have concerns about the reliability of a source that appears to have connections to credit card rewards programs, airline rewards programs, and hotel rewards programs (many of which are in the form of the airline or hotel having a partnership with a credit card company) I am not at all convinced that there will be a spam problem if we take them off the blacklist. Even if there was spam before they are unlikely to spam again after seeing the results of spamming. If potential spam is the only concern, I say take them off the naughty list. It would be super simple to put them back on if I am wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Guy Macon and that is where I have the problem. In a recent case an editor came to request delisting 17 years after the original (rather large) spam situation. I agree, it is super easy to put them back on, but I already above give a (recent) example of a spammy draft where inclusion of TPG was involved. Spamming is not a naughty list, it is a lifetime criminal record. Spammers spam to make money, not to vandalise their high school page.
This is a site that was spammed, where there is evidence of spammy abuse, where a site-owner is here to request delisting. Of a site that was deemed 'Hell no' for credit-cards and where other parts are questionable for affiliate links, LLM, etc. I don't trust the community to clean up this mess when we get all the non-spam additions, and the established editors in this community do not seem to seriously care too much to have these links included.
@Liam at TPG volume is not an issue, do you really think that if I catch a spammer after 3 links I will wait until the community (well, it is then generally me) has to clean up 100 links? I am not here to play whack-a-mole. Other sites are to be judged on their merits, that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument to not handle the material at hand. It was spammed, it was caught. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 01:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Beetstra: The problem, as I see it, is that you have now multiple times brought up the quality of the website as a primary reason to keep it on the spam list. While in factors into the equation, that is explicitly not what the spam blacklist is for. Like, I'm staring at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist right now. Right at the top of the admin instructions, it says "Does the site have any validity to the project?"

Recent articles, no. But it does not say "a lot of validity", and per the 2019 RfC, there's likely something to be mined at least before Red Ventures' acquisition. A discussion here could determine a date.

Now I'm staring at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist § Proposed removals. That says "The bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped" (emphasis in original). Pretty clear stuff.

Finally, and more colloquially, we wouldn't add TPG to the blacklist now just because of advertorial elements. So why would we decline to remove it on advertorial grounds (and in the absence of evidence that spamming would continue?).

Now, maybe advertising concerns should be a primary purpose of the blacklist. I certainly don't have a strong background of work in that area to advocate for one approach or the other. But that is not part of the current documentation, and if you think that should be changed, you should start a discussion. In the meantime, I've submitted a proposal to remove it from the blacklist at WT:SBL#Request for removal of thepointsguy.com from blacklist. I don't know if there will be consensus, but at a minimum it should be proposed and discussed at the proper forum for it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I clearly state that it is an editor with a clear conflict of interest that is interested to get it delisted, I have above given a recent example of where it was attempted to be used in a very spammy article, the site is native advertising, all spam reasons. And it is largely blatantly unreliable ('hell no'). Where do I bring up that quality is the primary reason to keep it on? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

As a credit card enthusiast, I find TPG to be rather crap, altho they are widely cited for their points valuation, which is a bit specious imo. Ive seen them criticized a lot for how far theyve gone off the trail to be sponsor driven, but they do have a decent use by others case. However, Newslinger has raised some serious concerns. LLM use is not a surprise from a borderline blog that is focused on churning content for money. One has to wonder about the motivations of the company wanting this changed, altho I understand the frustration. What they would need to do is cleanup their act and more clearly demarcate things like LLM content, and perhaps not use inline sponsorship where their news breaks are. What is more important: sponsors or wikipedia? ← Metallurgist (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't wonder at all about the motivation. They make money from people going to their site. Wikipedia sends people to sites. Being used as a source on Wikipedia makes money for them. If that was enough of a reason to blacklist we would have to blacklist most of the Internet. Including Wikipedia -- The WMF gets more donations when more people use Wikipedia. Lots of sites make money from getting more users without spamming. But do they currently meet the stated criteria for inclusion on the spam blacklist? I haven't seen evidence of that. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I can assure you (or anyone else in this discussion) that there is no SEO-driven motivation to remove our website from the spam blacklist. It's more of a reputational concern. The "spam blacklist" label makes it seem like our website hosts malware or is otherwise engaged in illicit activity. And, as I've noted previously, we're very proud of our news team and don't want their work to be discredited.

It looks like one of the accounts Newslinger flagged (Haste1066) did indeed "spam" one Points Guy link into the Credit card article in May 2018. The other account, Bravenewcloud, was exclusively updating The Points Guy article (and all of their updates were quickly reverted). I don't know who these people were, as this was well before my time with the company, but I recognize that such editing is inappropriate and, if it was indeed linked to TPG, I apologize that it happened. We're trying to do the right thing and engage transparently now. (I actually have an edit request posted on The Points Guy article Talk page about updating the History section, and I would love it if an editor engaged in this discussion could take a look at it and review with a critical eye.) Liam at TPG (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

In Special:Diff/841592134, Bravenewcloud inserted TPG spam into the article Credit card. (The account also created the article The Points Guy, but it was later merged with the older Brian Kelly (blogger) article.) The article The Points Guy that you are editing says, "The Points Guy is included on Wikipedia's spam blacklist due to having questionable relationships with the credit card companies it covers" (citing Futurism's coverage of how Wikipedia responded to TPG owner/operator Red Ventures using AI for creating articles), which does not mention anything about malware or illicit activity. — Newslinger talk 18:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Those edits are seven years old, and the diffs do not show persistent spamming. Were protection or blocking not an option? (Wikipedia:Spam blacklist#Introduction). Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

TPG was added to the spam blacklist seven years ago, so there could not possibly be any newer spam edits. At the time, I had noticed spam from five different sponsored consumer finance blogs, and submitted a request for all five. — Newslinger talk 19:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, Newslinger, I missed that Bravenewcloud edit. You're quite right. And it's really the label "spam blacklist" that seems alarming, not the functional explanation provided in The Points Guy Wikipedia article or elsewhere. (Although, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the Futurism article seems to be incorrect. TPG was placed on the spam blacklist for spamming, not for having a questionable relationship with credit card companies. So that explanation is actually slightly wrong.) Liam at TPG (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Apologies for the confusion, I meant to say persistent spamming at the time. I haven't seen diffs or data that support that. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I just spent an hour reviewing my edits from the week TPG was added to the spam blacklist (December 2018), all the way back to my very first edit in April 2018, and I was not able to find additional edits related to the spam blacklist request. Because of this, and given that TPG appears to have switched from undisclosed to disclosed paid editing, I am withdrawing my opposition to the removal of TPG from the spam blacklist. If the site does get removed from the blacklist, I believe the best path forward would be a request for comment on this noticeboard to update the consensus on TPG's reliability to account for its ownership by Red Ventures. Thank you, Liam at TPG, for following our paid-contribution disclosure requirement. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I want to give you some kudos, as I suspect a lot of folks wouldn't have gone through their own historical edits like that (and also come to a new conclusion).

I have no objections to a new RfC if/when the site is removed. As I said above, I suspect that getting any post-Red Ventures articles ranked above WP:GUNREL status is very unlikely, given the existing Red Ventures consensus and prevailing community attitudes. I'm thinking that more information about TPG's editorial practices and guidelines would be helpful for determining if there is a chance for the lowest-hanging fruit of uncontroversial/routine airline news (e.g. route changes). For example, is there a firewall between the news and advertorial teams that would provide independence? Do they use AI-generated content in non-advertorial parts of the site? Do they employ fact-checkers? Do they publish corrections and disclose conflicts of interest? Etc. (They do have a standards page that goes into some of these, but it would be great to hear more/get additional details; I can't link to it because of the blacklist, but its searchable title is "TPG standards and ethical guidelines".) Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The Sun

The Sun has been deprecated, however, there is a caveat that "Some editors consider The Sun usable for uncontroversial sports reporting, although more reliable sources are recommended." As such, I added this article as a source, in addition to two others, to 2026 FIFA World Cup, which support the claim that a halftime show is not needed during the final game. However, it was removed by another editor, although WP:DEPS states "Citations to deprecated sources should not be removed indiscriminately, and each case should be reviewed separately." Therefore, what aspect of The Sun article is inaccurate or unreliable that would preclude it from being added as a source? Assadzadeh (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Thats an article about entertainment, not sports, so it wouldn't come under the exception (archive for others in case it's required). That it's entertainment during a sporting event doesn't change that. The caveat you mention was meant for reporting on actual sports games, not things generally related to sports. Also it's unnecessary, as there are already references from ESPN and TalkSport where you are trying to add it (for other editors reference see[2]). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If you want to know editors options on The Sun, see the prior discussions link in it's RSP entry (WP:THESUN). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I would not take anything the Sun says seriously, whether it is on page 1 or page 3. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Quite apart from anything else, that's an opinion piece anyway. Black Kite (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Well the issue may well be Undue, it is not unreliable, for the fact she said it, but for it being anything significant is an unrelated issue. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are okay, dueness can be decided by editors of 2026 FIFA World Cup. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Morocco World News

I read the article on Morocco World News because I was wondering if it was a reliable source - the article was full of dead links and sources that didn't quite support the claims made, which makes me suspicious. Media Bias/Fact Check says it has "medium credibility", failed some fact checks and is supportive of the monarchy. A scholarly book chapter describes Morocco World News as a "blog" (p. 243) and a "state-affiliated source" (p. 251). Is it fair to say this is not generally a reliable source for Wikipedia? The article where it is used as a source is Samir Machour. Lijil (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

per the edit notice Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports (emphasis mine). MB/FC is not an RS (see WP:MBFC). CamAnders (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

the only claim cited to that source is achour serves on the advisory board of George Mason University (Korea). In 2022, he established the Sam Machour Scholarship Endowment to provide financial support to students from underrepresented backgrounds and donated $40,000 to the Mason Korea. This is easily confirmable by primary sources. [3]

I might be careful about citing it for controversial claims about Moroccan politics, but this isn't such a claim. CamAnders (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Just chiming in to agree that MB/FC should not be taken seriously. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

References

112.ua

It seems that 112 Ukraine website is really different from 2021 closure. A re-review of WP:112UKRAINE would be needed. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

(copied from other RFCs in the sections above)

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

• I'm not sure what the option are doing here, this isn't a WP:RFC. I've struck them so as to avoid confusion. If you do want to start a RFC I suggest reading the page I linked. If you have something that could change the prior consensus then you should start a normal discussion and explain your point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The editor-in-chief is different. So, someone bought the 112.ua brand and probably has a bureau in Poland. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The editor in chiefs work experience is working for 112.ua for the last ten years, which doesn't suggest much has changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a one-man show of Oleksandr Dostal - all the articles I've checked are written by him (or at least this is what the byline says) [4]. Alaexis_¿question? 07:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Not reliable[5]. Kelob2678 (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
• More context is needed. What is the issue and has anyone contested it? Ramos1990 (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

On claims about Dave Plummer in The Regina Leader-Post, ZDnet and The Register

Dave Plummer runs a youtube channel where he claims:

• That he created Task Manager, sourced on wikipedia to this Regina Leader-Post article: [6]
• That he has worked on Windows NT, the aforementioned Task Manager after its release, and Space Cadet pinball, sourced from this ZDnet article: [7]
• That he personally included Microsoft Bob data as ballast in windows XP CDs, sourced from this The Register article: [8]

I take issue with all 3 of these sources for a single reason: while these sources appear to be sufficient, reliable secondary sources, they are not, in fact secondary. I claim that all 3 of these articles offer no analysis, evaluation, interpretation, synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, or ideas (as required in WP:SECONDARY) taken from Plummer's own claims on reddit and youtube, without any semblance of fact-checking, specifically:

• The Regina Leader-Post article is based almost entirely on this reddit post: [9]. Is it a reliable source for claims about whether or not Plummer created Task Manager?
• The ZDNet article is based on the same reddit post. Is it a reliable source for claims about whether or not he worked on windows NT, task manager, or space cadet pinball?
• the The Register article is based entirely on this youtube video: [10]. Is it a reliable source for claims about whether or not Plummer indeed was the one to personally include Microsoft bob data as ballast in Windows XP CDs? (the fact that someone did is not in question)

^{themoon@talk:~$} 09:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

How do we they haven't checked their story before publishing, are there any sources calling the editorial practices of these sites into question?

He hosted a podcast with Raymond Chen[11], who didn't call him out on the claim. Chen mentions him a few times in his blog; "... my longtime former colleague Dave Plummer"[12], My colleague Dave Plummer ...[13].

Is there reason to doubt the claim, or any reporting rejecting it? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The articles, strictly speaking, are factually correct, insofar as the only thing of note written in all 3 articles is that "Dave Plummer said in a reddit post that [...]". He did say those things, that much is true.

In fact, I'm able through WP:OR to confirm that he did in fact at least create Task Manager. I'm not asking whether the information is true, I'm asking RSN to assess whether these sources making these claims using the sources they're using (himself) are reliable secondary sources, because it sure looks like textbook churnalism.

The Register is cited at Churnalism as commenting "that some level of "churnalism" is both normal and healthy for news organisations" [14]

At the time of the ZDNet article, it was about to be sold to Red Ventures (it has now since changed ownership again). see previous RSN about exactly that: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 424#Something strange is going on with ZDNet

The Regina Leader-Post is part of Post Media, who has been criticized for its journalistic integrity in the past (5 years prior to the article we're talking about).

Beyond the validity of the claimn (i don't really care if we get who ported space cadet pinball to windows xp wrong), these articles are also Plummer's shot at notability. It doesn't sit right with me that the articles establishing notability for a BLP are all "this is a person that has worked at microsoft, here's what he said on reddit. we have no way to check." ^{themoon@talk:~$} 13:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

The first article states: "Not only did Plummer study computer science at the U of R, he went on to work at Microsoft in the 1990s and created a program that’s still being used in Windows to this day: Task Manager."

It doesn't just say that Plummer said on Reddit that he created Task Manager. It says in ist own voice that he is the creator. Cortador (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a start at least. I'm not certain I agree, and I think the author just wrote that because the reddit post wasn't introduced in the text yet, but that's at least better than the rest of the straight up quotes. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 16:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You are doing source analysis i.e. original research at this point. Or rather, speculation regarding the author's intent. Also, since you presented these sources here, you should have already known that at least one source did make that statement in their own voice. Cortador (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

i did know this line was in the article, but I disagree that this is clear-cut "in the author's own voice" for the reason i've explained, and I also still ask the question: even if it were, is this enough to say this is a reliable secondary source? I argue that a single line in the lead of an article otherwise as bad as this is not. Are you arguing the opposite? ^{themoon@talk:~$} 10:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah sorry the issues of reliability for a claim, and a reliable source to show notability aren't quite the same. A primary sources would be reliable, but wouldn't count to wards notability for instance. Unfortunately there's no notability noticeboard.

There's sources are reliable and independent, as to whether they other sufficient levels of interpretation or analysis to support notability I'll leave to someone else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I would normally agree, but Plummer is infamous, at least informally [15] [16] [17], for embellishing history in his favor, so his primary claims can't be taken at face value and need to be independantly verified. are you saying that the 3 articles cited appear to have done sufficient verification on the facts before publication? ^{themoon@talk:~$} 16:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

So we should disregard what is in the Regina Leader-Post, ZDnet, and The Register, but we should accept and believe what some anonymous posters on Hacker News say? And you would "normally agree" except that you read some posts on hacker news?

If indeed Plummer is infamous for embellishing history in his favor, you should have no trouble finding a reliable source that makes that claim. That's pretty much what the word "infamous" means. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

well that's the entire question posed here: should we disregard these 3 sources on account of them uncritically quoting a person who has verifiably lied or at the very least misremembered the past about claims that their reputation as an influencer hinges on? Maybe we shouldn't, but i'd like us to actually think about it and not dismiss the conversation outright before actually having it.

My opinion is that we should, and that churnalism doesn't make for a reliable secondary source at all, based on the arguments i've already outlined. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 10:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

First let me say that I don't care about who wrote what. But let me save you guys wasted effort by pointing out two facts.

1. Perhaps with the exception of Charles Simonyi nothing at MS was or is a single person effort. As they say it would take 3 people and 5 meetings to make a cup of coffee.

2. Anyone who ever corrected a spelling error in a help message for Windows will eventually claim to have written Windows.

So, let it be, let it be. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

PostMedia is recognized as generally reliable (WP:NATIONALPOST). There doesn't seem to be any indication that this particular article is an exception. CamAnders (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

CBS

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.

---

In October, there was a discussion here about whether the reliability of CBS News should be downgraded due to changes of ownership and leadership. The first comment was a suggestion to "wait and see", and much of the following thread concurred with that sentiment. It may be worth asking whether the time of waiting is over.

• Baragona, Justin; Sommerlad, Joe (2025-12-22). "'Holy f***ing dumpster fire': Bari Weiss sparks 'revolt' at '60 Minutes' by spiking CECOT segment". The Independent. Retrieved 2025-12-22.
• Grynbaum, Michael M. (2025-12-21). "'60 Minutes' Pulled a Segment. A Correspondent Calls It 'Political.'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2025-12-22.
• Simonetti, Isabella (2025-12-21). "CBS News Pulls '60 Minutes' Segment; Correspondent Calls Decision Political". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2025-12-22.
• Helmore, Edward (2025-12-22). "Outrage after CBS pulls 60 Minutes segment on El Salvador's Cecot prison". The Guardian. Retrieved 2025-12-22.

Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Withholding of a report is not the sane as being unreliable, though from any first amendment angle, the actions here are troubling. But we know 60 Minutes does extensive fact checking and get their reports cleared internally that there's no question of their journalist integrity on what is actually published. Masem (t) 19:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Failing to report reliable information for political reasons is at minimum an indicator of bias, and even though bias is not the same as unreliability in principle, a blatant example of it puts the question of reliability on the table. At the very least, this is a step towards a notice that post-December 2025 CBS News is a biased source on the topic of American politics. And if that bias derives from attempts to curry favor with the American government, as the sources above strongly suggest, then a biased source can become an unusable source. Quoting WP:PARTISAN: 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 (emphasis added). What we have here is arguably a failure of independence.

Above all, it looks like things have not moved in a good direction since October, and a new thread here seems warranted, even if only to note the recent development. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a failure of independence though, unless you're saying this segment was canned because of directions given by an outside entity. There's a big difference between unbiased and independent. XeCyranium (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

unless you're saying this segment was canned because of directions given by an outside entity That's exactly the concern. There've been allegations throughout the year that CBS's editorial decisions are pandering to Trump, e.g for Paramount merger reasons. I don't think there's any published evidence there's a chain of command where Weiss literally takes orders from Trump, but that's not the standard for what's an independent source or not (An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective, from WP:IIS) Placeholderer (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

What unreliable information did they report? Guz13 (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

yeah agreed. we don't judge on what hasn't been reported.

there is smoke though, but we need clear evidence the reliability is on fire. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I know every one is eager to yell about Bari Weiss and predict the crash and burn of CBS and 60 Minutes, but a single story not being broadcast when it was supposed to is hardly relevant for discussion of reliability: we can't determine whether an article or broadcast is reliable for the claims it makes until the article or broadcast is published: we don't cite future newscasts. This board is not a place to complain in general about CBS.There is not-so-subtle dislike among the most active/visible Wikipedians of anything resembling conservative lean in sources: itching to downgrade a network at every conceivable misstep or outrage du jour is not a good look. We need to discuss reliability of a source in context and cannot until a source is published. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I am not "complain[ing] in general about CBS"; I posted here to raise the question of whether on an important but specific topic area, CBS News should be considered a biased source, and if so, whether its bias is of a kind that would make it a source to avoid on that topic. This is a "single story not being broadcast when it was supposed to" for evidently political reasons and drawing attention from international news media. The sources themselves set this event in the context of an ongoing consolidation of American media that is widely seen as unhealthy for the country's body politic. I think that having at least a little preliminary reaction to that is an OK "look". If the consensus is that we're still at the "wait and see" or "smoke but no fire" stage, then, well, that's where we are. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I think we already saw the issues with consolidation when the Hunter Biden laptop story was squashed. Springee (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

People should keep this in mind when considering the DUEness of a particular CBS claim but this doesn't really seem to be a source reliability issue. CamAnders (talk) 21:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Would "considering the DUEness" potentially involve using in-text attribution? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

It'd really depend on context, but yeah I'd probably be more likely to do in text attribution for CBS now, all else being equal. CamAnders (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd consider wait and see before advancing into rereview of CBS' reliability. For now, it's too early to discuss at this time. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Withholding the report is an indicator of increasing bias, but not necessarily unreliability. Might be worth re-writing CBS' RSP entry, but not time to downgrade yet. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I assume that this - The reliability of a source depends on its context. Please supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports. - is there for a reason. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This incident is highly bothersome -- but not as bad as creating an episode, then editing it at the behest of the gov’t, political party, owner, or other powerful source, and then running it. I think we need to continue watching for a time. The way things are going, I also fear we may run out of U.S. news sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

This is still a wait and see issue. We don't actually know why the report was held. What if CBS decided it had issues and later releases it with the issues addressed? I do agree that pulling reports or just facts within a story can be evidence of bias but at minimum we have already accepted that biased sources can be reliable for fact. We have to be careful when using them to establish NPOV since a biased source is, by it's very nature, not neutral. In this case we have the fact that the report wasn't aired. We have the claim of some that it was done for politically motivated reasons. We also have a claim that it will be aired later. This is a wait and see thing. This would hardly be the first time a breaking story was held or should have been held because it had issues (Dateline NBC has examples and there was the George W Bush National Guard forged letter issue). Springee (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Per NYT and WSJ, “My job is to make sure that all stories we publish are the best they can be,” Weiss said in a statement. “Holding stories that aren’t ready for whatever reason—that they lack sufficient context, say, or that they are missing critical voices—happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it’s ready.” Which is ironic, because this discussion has so far avoided an account of that context. Alfonsi's insistence that the story is accurate does not address her editor's concerns. Weiss's demand to get a fresh statement from the chief of staff and her interrogating some of the language in the report is the stuff of routine editorial process. If anything, CBS seems to be moving toward more reliability, not less. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this is sufficient for a downgrade. However, I think CBS should be noted as being biased in the context of US politics since they agreed to have a political officer monitor CBS's "neutrality". Cortador (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

they agreed to have a political officer monitor CBS's "neutrality" To whom are you referring? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Kenneth R. Weinstein. Cortador (talk) 17:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Weinstein has served on federal advisory boards dating to the Obama administration. He holds no political office. It is routine for news organizations to have an ombudsman position, the mission of which is integrity, not neutrality. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The Associated Press observed, CBS News has a new ombudsman assigned to look into public complaints, but the job being assumed by Kenneth Weinstein bears little resemblance to how this watchdog role has traditionally operated in journalism [18]. A column at the Poynter Institute noted that eyebrows, especially inside CBS News, were raised when there was an announcement of an ombudsman and made a case that Weinstein, who is supposed to sniff out bias, comes in with a bias of his own [19]. Overall, this was not seen as a typical ombudsman appointment, and media observers raised concerns that integrity was being undermined under the guise of upholding it. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• The fact that a news outlet decided not to run a particular story is hardly a reason to deem it unreliable or to downgrade. If anything, it is a reason to continue to deem that outlet reliable and to NOT downgrade. It shows editorial caution and judgement. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Well, it could show good judgment, or it could show the opposite. The show’s staff and correspondents convened for a somber Monday afternoon meeting, where the correspondent Scott Pelley expressed frustration at Ms. Weiss’s handling of the situation and raised questions about her management style. He asked why she had weighed in at the last minute after not attending five screenings of the segment as it was being completed. “It’s not a part-time job,” Mr. Pelley said, according to four people familiar with the discussion who requested anonymity to describe a private exchange [20]. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• The executive likely made a poor management decision (opening herself to integrity doubts among other doubts) including doing the editorial commenting and pull so late (apparently it goes through multiple reviews, and iterations which she could intervene in months ago), and others can and do disagree with the editorial judgement but it is not a reliability concern. From a commentary I read from the Atlantic, the executive wanted more "drama" and more current news (the beastly conditions are well established, including by the New York Times), which she thought could be gotten by getting some administration officials who like to talk and talk (something like, Q; 'Why do you like treating people inhumanely? A: Well, blah, blah, blah.'). As the Suzy Wiles-Vanity Fair piece or the Prince Andrew interview shows, just getting people to talk leads to unexpected places. (By the way, apparently the segment got released in Canada by the local licensee by mistake. Another reason not to do this kind of thing last minute. The critic for the Atlantic and now many others have watched it.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
• As others have said, in and of itself, it's an indicator of bias, not unreliability (which seems to be how secondary sources are covering it.) It's not a good sign for their reliability because this degree of bias can eventually lead to sources eventually publishing outright misinformation, but there's still an important red line between "not publishing things unfavorable to the regime" or "only publishing things favorable to the regime", and "publishing outright falsehoods to support the regime" (or abandoning fact-checking and accuracy in the service of that end to the point where they no longer have a reputation for it.) This distinction is the reason why eg. sources inside China and Russia can be reliable at all - all of them are subject to press censorship, but some of them merely limit themselves to what they can legally / safely publish (and are reliable for what they do publish), while others outright distort what they publish to curry favor with the regime. Anyway, the upshot is that stuff like this is a reason to keep an eye on secondary coverage of the source going forwards to see if it treats their output shifts to the point where it crosses that line, but it's not going to change their reliability in and of itself. I would particularly keep an eye on what they publish regarding climate change, vaccines, and other hot-button issues for the Trump administration, which has in the past been a bit of a canary in the coal mine for when a source is willing to abandon fact-checking and accuracy entirely. But ultimately, one incident usually won't directly change a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; what matters is how it affects, well, its... reputation. So the thing to do is to swing back in a little while and see what secondary sources are saying then. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Good points, particularly the "canary in the coal mine" topics, I think. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I do think it is worth continuing this regular analysis and reassessment of CBS news under new leadership and in rapidly changing political and social conditions around freedom of the press in the US. I don't think anyone here is being hasty to downgrade CBS; rather, it seems that editors are interested in building out a paper trail of documentation as various controversies and concerns about CBS's reliability arise.

I want to encourage editors to think a bit more critically about how omissions can impact reliability, especially when they are omissions that favor a government's narrative. Independent news organizations are more reliable than the governments they report on when they investigate competing narratives in pursuit of an objective view of reality. An organization that uncritically reports government narratives, regularly pulls stories in response to government pressure, and does not bother to verify, contextualize or provide an alternate perspective to the government's case, shouldn't necessarily be considered any more reliable than the government it is stenographing.

Here is CBS's initial reporting on an incident that occurred in Chicago on October 6 where CBP agents shot at/detained a pair of US citizens for monitoring their activities. CBS's reporting uncritically reports the government's case, and makes no mention of facts that contradict the government's case, which were already being reported on by local media by the following day, if not earlier. It's hard to believe that CBS didn't know about this information, given that they reported on protests at the scene. When the feds dropped charges against the driver, CBS (to their credit) reported the full story. But CNN's reporting is much better.

I think it's at least worth having a conversation about how to deal with the character of CBS's reporting on government claims as it relates to dueness and the way that material is presented in article space, particularly as relates to government denial of wrongdoing (see WP:MANDY). I haven't had time to read too much into the CECOT episode and why it was pulled, but it seems to me like a part of this same issue. It would be easier to have this conversation around real uses of CBS on-wiki though, rather than just as a reaction to each newsworthy controversy as it arises. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm hoping that a "paper trail" (so to speak) would be helpful if and when an on-wiki use of a specific story provokes a debate. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

• Request to close this discussion per WP:NOFORUM, WP:SPECULATION, and/or WP:TPG (it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements). Critiquing a source in regards to no particular claim in no particular article does not seem to be in keeping with the purpose of this noticeboard, and is inviting open-ended complaints about what the source might do in the future. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  None of the linked policies and guidelines apply here, since we're not speculating in article space about future events, or using a talk page "to argue any point that has not met policy requirements". Asking whether a news agency continues to be reliable, whether it should be referenced using qualifiers like in-text attribution, etc., is all part of implementing policy requirements. And a particular news item was raised above, indicating that this is already a live issue, not free-floating speculation. (Multiple discussion threads on this page right now were opened without pointing to a particular citation in a particular article, and some have gone for days without that kind of specificity coming up.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Multiple discussion threads on this page right now were indeed opened without pointing to a particular citation in a particular article, and I think there's an argument for closing them on the spot, this one included. As it says on the edit page of this noticeboard, The reliability of a source depends on its context, and evaluating CBS on the basis of claims that it is not making actually is free-floating speculation. There's no policy for this "news item" to meet because it pertains to no claim and no article. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  The previous thread began without reference to a "particular claim" in a "particular article" and was open from 5 through 24 October and never formally closed. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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

MSN - a news aggregator?

Because of a certain thread on Chinese Wikipedia, I have take a look on msn.com - but I am confused on the result: Sometimes, I have some legitmate news like The Guardian or The Independent, but sometimes it gives me poor one such as William C. Fox or Cyrus Janssen - and most of time, I am confused, such as Popular Mechanics, Daily Dish or StarsInsider.

Any idea how to use/cite news on MSN? Saimmx (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There's no general rule for it unfortunately. Source aggregators basically have to be evaluated on a source-by-source basis from what the original source is. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:28, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

MSN is no better than Yahoo in the sources they aggregate. Both should probably just be avoided, but I unfortunately don't think we can fault them for what third-party websites they host. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:39, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

But at least, MSN does not fall into content farm, right? I am also curious about your reason of avoiding Yahoo, since WP:YAHOONEWS presumed that they are generally reliable. Saimmx (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the summary? The "generally reliable" label refers to Yahoo's original reporting, but Trailblazer101 is referring to their syndicated content. Per WP:YAHOONEWS: Take care with syndicated content, which varies from highly reliable sources to very unreliable sources. Syndicated content should be evaluated as you would evaluate the original source. The same applies to MSN. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

If it's a syndicated sort of thing google the title and hunt down the original. Shouldn't be hard. If not accessible/paywall on original, stuff it into archive.org and archive.today, may be there already, or can get past the paywall. If a local-to-MSN article, context matters, but I thought they still had proper editorial and such, so likely fine (in general). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. My question is about certain originals - while I can tell that some originals like William C. Fox are clearly not reliable since Fox is a YouTuber, I am not sure about some other originals, such as Daily Dish (dailydish.co.uk, I don't think that's something Andrew Sullivan runs) or StarsInsider (starsinsider.com). Saimmx (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

MSN (formerly known as Microsoft Start, MSN News, and Bing News) is a longstanding news aggregator that has recently started to incorporate AI and other generative technology in ways that lower the quality of its content. Microsoft began replacing human editors with AI in 2020, which led to MSN republishing fake news on numerous occasions. MSN publishes no original content under its own name, but its owner Microsoft has maintained AI-generated columns on the platform such as "Microsoft Travel", which published a computer-generated article in 2023 that was widely criticized for its many errors (and for its recommendation of a food bank as a tourist destination). MSN has also added questionable AI-generated content to its syndicated articles, such as a poll asking readers to guess the cause of an article subject's death in 2023, which the original publisher (The Guardian) found objectionable.

Although content from news aggregators should be evaluated by the reliability of the original publisher, I would prefer to cite the original source or another news aggregator without MSN's problems, if possible, and I would prefer an archived copy of the original source over an MSN link. — Newslinger talk 22:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

This sounds weird... Saimmx (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean? My point is that MSN is still usable if the syndicated source is reliable, but I would only link to MSN as a last resort. — Newslinger talk 02:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I mean, for me, if there are errors with lots of criticism about their errorous AI-generated contents, it will be an unreliable, at least marginal reliable.

I am not very sure about your meaning of "usable", does it means that we can use them to get the original source, like other news aggregators? Saimmx (talk) 05:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

For original AI-generated and computer-generated content (to the extent that such content can be described as "original") that was not directly republished from another source, such as the "Microsoft Travel" column that was published on MSN by Microsoft, I completely agree with you. The WP:RSML guideline classifies sources produced by machine learning, including LLM-generated content, as unreliable.

The situation with MSN as a whole is more complex. MSN is one of the oldest web portals on the Internet, and for a long time, did not have the issues with its syndicated content that we are now seeing in the current LLM era. I mentioned three kinds of issues in my first comment here:

1. The first is MSN publishing new computer-generated content from Microsoft, including that "Microsoft Travel" column. Per WP:RSML, the "Microsoft Travel" column and other computer-generated columns by Microsoft are unreliable. As MSN appears to be the only platform on which this content was published, this reflects negatively on MSN's reliability. However, only a very small portion of MSN's content is in this category.
2. The second is MSN syndicating low-quality content that was originally published elsewhere, as documented in reports by Futurism and CNN. Because MSN clearly labels the original publisher of this syndicated content, the content reflects negatively on the reliability of the original publisher. For example, the cryptid assertion "Fishermen Catch Mermaid Creature in Their Nets" shows the unreliability of the now-defunct conspiracy and astrology website Exemplore.com (which is on our spam blacklist), the AI-generated obituary "Brandon Hunter useless at 42" shows the unreliability of the content farm website AutoGear.pt (Race Track), and another MSN-republished article "Prominent Irish broadcaster faces trial over alleged sexual misconduct" (which included the photograph of an unrelated public figure) shows the unreliability of the now-defunct fake news website BNN Breaking. MSN does take a reputational hit when it repeatedly republishes these low-quality sources, but because the names of the sources are clearly labeled, they do not impact the reliability of MSN's syndicated articles from other higher-quality sources.
3. The third and final issue is MSN adding AI-generated "enhancements" to its syndicated content, such as a distasteful poll about a person's death that cast the original publisher of the article (who did not include a poll in its reporting) in a bad light. MSN added this particular poll to the comments section of the article, which does not impact the reliability of the article content itself, although it indicates that we should continue to monitor MSN's use of AI to ensure that MSN does not start tampering with the actual content of its syndicated articles.

By "usable", I mean that MSN can still be cited for its republications of content from sources that would be considered reliable if they were cited directly, if we are certain that MSN has not inappropriately modified the content. Due to MSN's problems, I would only use MSN if there were no way to directly cite the original source in a way that is accessible to the reader (i.e. the original source would have to be paywalled, geo-blocked, defunct, or otherwise inaccessible; and there would have to be no accessible archived copy of the original source). — Newslinger talk 04:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

MSN.com has been an issue. They tend to republish other sources, so its best to simply use the source republished directly. If you cant find it, I would check to see if who they are republishing is reliable, and go from there. I have seen them republish sources considered GREL and GUNREL, and I have seen them republish articles that I could not find elsewhere. ← Metallurgist (talk) 03:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Format discussion. --Saimmx (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Update: There is consensus in Chinese Wikipedia that MSN Chinese is deprecated for significant poor-quality content. Saimmx (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a RfC yet, but I'd go deprecate if it was. That's the only way to get people to just cite the original source. Cortador (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:31, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

We did deprecate the news aggregator  NewsBreak (RSP entry) in a 2020 RfC solely to encourage editors to cite the original sources, although NewsBreak is different because it only shows a short preview of the full article, whereas MSN actually republishes the entire article. — Newslinger talk 18:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• We must accept the fact that AI generated content reduces costs, which in turn increases profits and VP yearend bonuses. So the trend is there. There will be endless lipservice to their commitment to quality but their main commitment is to their bank balance and share price. MSN is going that way from what I can see. So by the time this discussion is over they will be mostly unreliable, and more and more each week. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

CiOL

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.

---

See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Henry Stickmin

ciol.com is cited for this sentence in the Henry Stickmin draft:

Would this source be considered generally reliable, marginally reliable, or generally unreliable? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The Chartered Institute of Linguists, which is a UK professional body, would be reliable in some cases. However, the website you are citing is an organisation of the same name that appears to have no connection with the British organisation or to have any interest in linguistics. It's not reliable.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Clicking through to the CiOL website and seeing that when I expected the CIoL was a shock. As far as I can see CiOL doesn't stand for anything and is just "CiOL". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

In other words, it's an impostor among us. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is an imposter, as it does not make the claim to be the notable CIOL. But it does not state what it actually is in its about us page, which says a lot and nothing in corporatese, although it seems to claim to have some kind of private training arm. It has 7000 followers on twitter, despite never having posted, and 300 on insta and its articles impressionistically suggest to me the use of LLMs. I would avoid using it. Its supposed subsidiary, "Cybermedia India", certainly has some existence, being a company based in Gurgaon.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I've decided to look at the revision history for the Henry Stickmin Collection article on Russian Wikipedia and found out that the misidentification of ciol.com as the Chartered Institute of Linguists goes all the way back to the very first revision to that article, when it was the second source cited. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

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

Reliability of Power Spike Games

See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Henry Stickmin

Please tell me if Power Spike Games would be considered generally reliable, marginally reliable, or unreliable for video game-related topics.

Here's some context that I hope will be considered sufficient data for (you to provide) a meaningful answer:

• Citation: Harrison Gowland (2020-08-25). "The Henry Stickmin Collection Review: A Hat Stick". Power Spike Games. Archived from the original on 2021-07-13. Retrieved 2021-03-23.
• Claims: (the following are machine translations of sentences on the Russian Wikipedia article about The Henry Stickmin Collection that this source was used to support)
  • Completing the Mission is 3 times more than Fleeing the Complex, and there are 16 endings and 164 failures.
  • Power Spike Games Harrison's division believes that the result of connecting several Flash games well preserves their previous aesthetics, and that "the humor fits well into the tone of the game, and the newest part remains the true style of the original." Gowell noted that The Henry Stickmin Collection has many references to modern pop culture.
• Concern: I just wanted to ask about how reliable Power Spike Games is. I'm not in a dispute with anyone over this, as that would require me to have made a binary assumption (i.e. that it either is or is not reliable) which is not necessarily the case; I came here because of my uncertainty.

Your answer might even help inform Power Spike Games's placement at WP:VG/S, even though it currently isn't cited on any English Wikipedia article or draft.

Now that I think about it, the sort of context that people like me should provide at RSN could be described as the three Cs.

Hopefully this section will stay out of the archives long enough to get a response or two. Better late than never. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

There 'about us' page[21] isn't encouraging "This website is for us to have an outlet for our love of gaming but also to hone our skills as writers, reviewers, editors and if you’d like to get involved we’d love to have you". The site only existed for a little over three years, and I can't find any use by others. The author of the article does have a background in game design and some very limited work beyond powerspikegaming[22]. It's probably reliable for basic facts, but I don't think the author opinion is likely due for inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

World of Reel

There was an RSN discussion about Jordan Ruimy’s World of Reel blog 3 months ago. In the interim, I have been removing the source from all articles and, in the process, investigating exactly what and how their content is being used in these articles. I took a break from doing so but I’ve just now finished up the job. What I have found from all of this is that the primary use for World of Reel on Wikipedia is as a source for unverifiable leaks and rumours that mainstream, reliable sources have either ignored or rightly decided not to publish. In effect, the source has been functioning as a backdoor for otherwise unverifiable claims. It really seems like editors here are only getting away with using World of Reel as a source because it is presented in website format instead of it just being obvious dubious claims coming from a Twitter account. Nevertheless, it is an unreliable blog, plain and simple. We would not trust claims that could only be verified through Daniel Richtman's Twitter account (@DanielRPK). Or that of any other "scooper" such as @MyTimeToShineH or ViewerAnon for that matter. This is no different. The same goes for accounts @DiscussingFilm, @FilmUpdates, and other mysterious posters, by the way. Though it’s worth mentioning that @DiscussingFilm is currently being used in upwards of 200 articles on here. I’m afraid I haven’t the time or energy to remedy that. There was a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_289#DiscussingFilm that didn’t really go anywhere. As indicated in the previous RSN, self-published sources require a high-standard establishment of the author in prior work via reputable publications, or agreement of their merits in coverage by reputable publications, to be considered reliable under WP:SPS guidelines. And again, I’m really not trying to rain on “spoiler culture”, but for the purposes of Wikipedia removing these sources is necessary. Because, and it goes without saying, we are not Twitter or Reddit.

Credit to MikeAllen who worked diligently to clear out and replace a lot of the citations to World of Reel here on Wikipedia. It is now all gone. Though, it will surely return into articles, repeatedly, which is why I’ve decided to collect and present some summaries of the edits I made removing World of Reel from articles, edited for readability. The purpose being to both record and further illustrate the problematic nature of this website and its use as a source here on Wiki. In the previous discussion, I examined clear examples of rumours that I found directly by way of the website. The following was instead discovered by backtracking citations in Wiki articles, looking into how and when editors used them. I’ve also noticed that World of Reel is more commonly used in articles during periods when films have not yet completed production and/or been released, meaning the following examples are simply World of Reel citations that managed to remain in Wiki articles, rather than those that were already removed for being proven incorrect once time passed and reliable sources published information contradicting Ruimy’s scoops. Hopefully these examples can illustrate the bad journalistic practices of this source and the insidious nature of its use on Wiki. Οἶδα (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Examples

Denis Villeneuve
removed World of Reel and its claim "Villeneuve is also attached to direct [...] the science fiction drama I'm Waiting for You, based on the short story by Kim Bo-young" which has not been repeated by any mainstream outlets[23]

Brian De Palma
removed World of Reel being cited for the two rumours of "his supposed retirement" and "having had Sweet Vengeance and Catch and Kill fall through", both of which have not been repeated by any mainstream outlets[24]

Alfonso Gomez-Rejon
removed an obscure rumour from World of Reel supporting the claim that "Gomez-Rejon is set to direct the film Ichabod based on Washington Irving's 1820 short story "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow," starring Timothée Chalamet as Ichabod Crane". This has not been not been repeated by any mainstream outlets.[25]

Ari Aster
removed an obscure rumour from World of Reel claiming that Ari Aster was adapting Nick Drnaso’s novel Acting Class, which was was not repeated by any mainstream outlets and was also reported to be incorrect by IndieWire[26] ("previous reports that Aster was directing the latter as a feature with Joaquin Phoenix and Emma Stone were incorrect".)

Saint Omer (film)
removed World of Reel which was being cited for its rumour that Saint Omer was submitted to the Cannes Film Festival and made the shortlist, which has not been repeated by any mainstream outlets.[27]

Tár
removed World of Reel; the article merely quotes a casting call, then an update at the bottom of the article states "Production seems to be underway in Berlin.", but this text links to a Twitter post from Aug 29, 2021 that only includes photos showing Cate Blanchett walking with her family in Berlin. None of this actually confirms the claim here that "Filming began in August 2021 in Berlin."[28]

Bourne (franchise)
Jason Bourne (film)
removed World of Reel because their article being cited here was committing WP:SYNTH: "Matt Damon has stated that he’d be back for “one more” film in the ‘Bourne’ franchise. A Production Weekly listing now has the next instalment titled “The Bourne Dilemma,” and Berger is listed as having signed up to direct the film." All this says is that Production Weekly listed a Bourne title and Berger as director. An earlier comment by Damon is not confirmation of anything. Yet World of Reel's article title says "Edward Berger's ‘The Bourne Dilemma' to Star Matt Damon"[29][30]

Out of This World (2026 film)
removed World of Reel being cited to support the claim "Filming wrapped on September 17, 2025.". The World of Reel article was published on September 17, 2025, it does not claim that the film wrapped filming on September 17, 2025. No reliable sources published that date.[31]

The Prestige (film)
removed World of Reel; the source has no established reliability and its "Critics Poll" surveys, including the one cited here, have not received coverage in reliable, mainstream outlets.[32]

Spike Lee's unrealized projects
removed World of Reel and its rumour "Production was set to begin in early 2023 under the title Rise," which was not repeated by any mainstream outlets[33]

Peter Hujar's Day
removed World of Reel; the source states outright that "“Peter Hujar’s Day” was originally conceived as a short film", however this claim has not been repeated by any mainstream outlets, which have instead indicated that the filmmakers were unsure what the finished length would be.[34]

Licorice Pizza
removed World of Reel; their article uses a selection of user comments on the Blank Check Podcast subreddit as it sources.[35]

Infinity Pool (film)
removed World of Reel; this source is just early speculation about an NC-17 rating before it was ever confirmed and the article is almost entirely a repetition of a random reader's comments reacting to the film.[36]

The Bride!
removed World of Reel and their claim that "Netflix used the strikes to get rid of [...] Maggie Gyllenhaal's The Bride". This has not been published in any reliable, mainstream sources. The article's entire source is a supposed "insider" who publishes leaks and random internet rumours and unsurprisingly has a long track record of missing the mark. Daniel Richtman (@DanielRPK), much like with other Twitter scoopers, is not a reliable source for Wikipedia.[37]

The Bride!
removed World of Reel; the cited "reports" in November 2023 were this singular World of Reel blog article claiming that Warner Bros. Pictures was producing the film. This information was not published in any reliable, mainstream sources until January 2024.[38]

Emilia Pérez
Camille (French singer)
removed World of Reel; I added their claim that Clément Ducol composed the original score for the film, while French singer Camille wrote all of the original songs, which is inaccurate according to the abundance of reliable sources and has unfortunately remained in the article here and in the film's article at Emilia Perez for nearly 2 years[39]

Aggro Dr1ft
removed World of Reel; the relevant part of the article is simply a repetition of the Variety article already cited here[40]

David O. Russell's unrealized projects
removed World of Reel and their claim that Warner Bros is rebooting Get Smart with David O. Russell was not published in any reliable, mainstream sources. Cracked called it "unconfirmed rumors", and AV Club even "extremely hypothetical". The article's entire source is a supposed "insider" who publishes leaks and random internet rumours and has a long track record of missing the mark. Daniel Richtman (@DanielRPK), much like with other Twitter scoopers, is not a reliable source for Wikipedia.[41]

Jay Kelly
removed World of Reel; the source was added to this article in August 2024 to support the text "Linus Sandgren served as the cinematographer.", a claim which was not published in any reliable, mainstream sources until 2025. World of Reel's article was based entirely on a Tweet that in turn was based on a screenshot of what appears to be a person's CV.[42]

Ghostwriter (film)
removed World of Reel; the source cites a Tweet by a self-published indie media outlet (@Feature_First) that includes a photo depicting "Glen Powell on the set of J.J. Abrams' untitled upcoming film". The Tweet was published on April 25, 2025, it does not claim that filming began on April 25, 2025, nor that filming even took place. Information about this rumored filming in London has not been published in any reliable, mainstream sources.[43]

Brian De Palma filmography
removed World of Reel; the claim that "Brian De Palma’s ‘Sweet Vengeance’ Will Soon Start Production" was not published in any reliable, mainstream sources[44]

Resident Evil: Welcome to Raccoon City
removed World of Reel; the source itself attributes the claim that Mikey Madison was offered the lead female role in Zach Cregger’s "Resident Evil" to "whispers". In other words, rumors. This information has not been published in any reliable, mainstream sources.[45]

Memory (2023 film)
removed World of Reel; the source was added to this article in June 2023 to support the text "The film will premiere at the 2023 Venice Film Festival.", a claim which was not published in any reliable, mainstream sources until July 2023 when the Venice lineup was unveiled. World of Reel's article was based entirely on a Tweet from a self-published Mexican educational platform.[46]

Lyna Khoudri
removed World of Reel; the source was added to this article in July 2023 to support a 2024 release date, a fact which was not published in any reliable, mainstream sources until it was officially confirmed in September 2023 when the film's trailer was released.[47]

Oppenheimer (film)
removed World of Reel; the source was added to this article in June 2022 to support the claim "Filming wrapped after five months in early June 2022", a claim which was not published in any reliable, mainstream sources. It is currently being used here to support the claim "Filming wrapped in May 2022", which is not even supported by the article. The article was published on 6 June 2022 and merely states "Production [...] just wrapped this week in California".[48]

The Adventures of Cliff Booth
removed plot details sourced from World of Reel; the source was previously cited here but was removed with the plot details kept, despite these having not been published in any reliable, mainstream sources. An article from Variety published two days after World of Reel's article clearly stated "details concerning the storyline are still under wraps."[49]

The Adventures of Cliff Booth
removed the claim "Principal photography began on July 28, 2025"; this has only been published by the World of Reel blog, not by any reliable, mainstream sources. World of Reel was previously cited here for the July 28 date but was later removed, leaving the unverifiable date in the Wiki article.[50]

Wuthering Heights (2026 film)
removed World of Reel; the source was added to this article in December 2024 to support the text "with Linus Sandgren as director of photography.", a claim which was not published in any reliable, mainstream sources at the time and remains that way.[51]

Remakes of films by Alfred Hitchcock
removed World of Reel and its claim that "David Fincher to Direct ‘Strangers' for Netflix". This is just a rumour ("I’m hearing that it’s back on and will be Fincher’s next film.") A rumour that has not been published in any reliable, mainstream sources.[52]

Remakes of films by Alfred Hitchcock
removed World of Reel and its rumour that "David Fincher Attached to Direct ‘Rope’ Remake" which was not published by any reliable, mainstream sources[53]

Dune: Part Three
removed World of Reel being cited for the claim that "The movie was shot entirely on 65mm film", which has not been published by any reliable sources[54] Οἶδα (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work Οἶδα, and for writing this up for the archives. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the recognition, AD! It took a lot of time to investigate each source, ensure I was being accurate, and remedy the pages they were being used in accordingly. So it felt like a waste for this work to just be buried in individual page revision histories where it is not archived for easy future reference. Οἶδα (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

IranWire

This news website is funded by the USA ([55]). In this Anti-Iran website, nearly all articles are written without mentioning the responsible writer. The only staff name available in their website is Maziar Bahari, an Iranian-born dissident living in Canada, and the UK-based company that he directs IranWire with.

There was a recent editorial dispute in Nowruz, between me and a veteran user. I noticed a paragraph that mentions "Prominent Twelver clerics like the Ayatollahs Ruhollah Khomeini and Ali Khamenei have also disparaged the actual holiday of Nowruz, condemning its origins in Zoroastrianism." The source is from IranWire ([56]). The sourced article (Posted in March 2021) is in English, but its own sources are in Persian. Those Persian sources refer to Khomeini and Khamenei's own website (which is a good idea) but one can not judge by them that those two men "disparaged Nowruz since it was based in Zoroastrianism". I removed the paragraph, but the mentioned user reverted my edit. I invited him for a discussion. I presented him some more sources from K & K official websites (like the same sources in IranWire article) but he kept not reading them, instead calling K & K "murderers, despots and dictators" ([57]). I prefered not to continue that argument.

In conclusion, I presume when a propaganda website such as Press TV is not considered reliable due to its ties to IR government, IranWire (funded by USA) should not be considered reliable too.The.shahab (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much funding of an organisation but it's editorial independence. PressTV is not independent of the Iranian government, something other independent sources have commented on. Are there independent sources that discuss IranWire? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:20, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

if no fund exists, could an organisation continue to live? For instance, when the annual budget for VOA Persian was cut some months ago, the whole satellite channel was shut down for several months. Recently, it has resumed its broadcasting. About editorial independence, The Guardian (UK) is independent, since every article is written by a known and mentioned writer. is that the case for IranWire? I guess not. The.shahab (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The BBC is funded through a government grant (kind of, I'm simplifying), but is generally considered to be editorially independent and reliable. Funding alone doesn't show how reliable a source is, even if it's a factor in that reliability. As to having bylines, again it's a factor but there are many reliable sources that don't use them.

My point was not to say that IranWire is or is not reliable, but that what other reliable sources say about a source is a good indicator of it's reliability. That's why I asked if any existed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Here's the previous (and only one other?) WP:RSN "thread" (if it can be called that, it's pretty short) about IranWire [58].

I presented him some more sources from K & K official websites (like the same sources in IranWire article) but he kept not reading them, instead calling K & K "murderers, despots and dictators" ([3]). I prefered not to continue that argument.

As seen in the discussion (here's the one after [59], and your revert reasoning [60]), that's not quite the full context. You're claiming that IranWire is not WP:RS, but do not consider that when it comes to the words from the websites of Khamenei and Khomeini, two despots well known for human rights violations, including the murder of many people (as per their Wiki articles and countless WP:RS), because we all know, depots have a reputation for telling the truth. Something which you still haven't elaborated on. Instead you keep mentioning that I've said that about Khamenei and Khomeini and that I can't read Persian, not sure how that is helping the discussion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Most of the articles on IranWire have bylines from various journalists, it is not only run by Maziar Bahari.

The site is generally reliable, you would need to show instances where it has not been. They are a good resource for Iranians to see when Ali Khamenei is lying to them.

There are some staff members and writers who hide their identify as they live in the Iranian diaspora and they don't want their relatives living in Iran being tortured or put in prison by Khamenei. Guz13 (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Unless we get actual examples of IranWire publishing questionable content or being described as doing so by other sources, I don't see why their funding alone should make them unreliable. Cortador (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

FlightRadar24 - use for referencing the existence of airline routes

I previously opened a discussion on this source - however, with the benefit of hindsight it was a bad idea grouping three sources which were rather different together. Therefore, I'm starting this targeted discussion instead.

Is Flightradar24 tracking information reliable to verify the existence of an airline's route? For example - does this verify that Super Air Jet flies a regularly scheduled route from Balikpapan to Lombok? In my personal opinion, it's clearly WP:SYNTH. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Cal1407 since you're eager to use these sources, can you persuade us how FR24 is anything but WP:SYNTH? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

In this context, no, it is not WP:SYNTH. The site clearly shows that flight IU285 from Balikpapan to Lombok is operating normally, including details such as the ETA, STD, and other relevant information. There is no original research involved here. Cal1407 (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

So where on the page does it state there is a regularly scheduled and timetabled flight from Balikpapan to Lombok? Or are we coming to the conclusion based on the data presented? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

You asked whether the flight exists, and the reference clearly shows that it does, with flights operating on 10 and 13 December 2025. That should be sufficient to establish its existence. Cal1407 (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

No, I'm asking whether this source is WP:SYNTH. That should be sufficient to establish its existence. - that is the definition of WP:SYNTH - Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. We are clearly making an assumption based on data presented by the site - nowhere on FlightRadar24 does it explicitly state that the route is being flown regularly and scheduled. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

How am I combining material from multiple sources? I am using only a single source in this case. And how am I making an assumption? The source clearly shows that the route exists. If the concern is the reliability of FR24 itself, that would be a separate issue. Cal1407 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I repeat again the second part of the statement above - Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Where does it explicitly state the route is being flown and is regularly scheduled? That is what is required, and as of yet you still haven't been able to answer. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m genuinely confused. Where exactly am I combining different parts of the source to imply a conclusion? I am not doing so.

Are you disputing the fact that a Super Air Jet flight between Balikpapan and Lombok operated on 10 and 13 December 2025? The reference clearly shows that these flights took place.

No conclusion is being drawn here. The only statement being made is that the route exists, as evidenced by the presence of flight records. This is a straightforward factual observation, not original research or synthesis. Cal1407 (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to where the confusion lies. I'll ask again - where in the source above does it explicitly state that this is a route that is being regularly flown and is scheduled to continue? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:29, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The existence of the route is directly shown by flight records from 10 and 13 December 2025, without any synthesis or additional conclusion. Cal1407 (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not an explicit statement - that's drawing a conclusion from data. Sorry, but that is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not a conclusion drawn from the data. If the flight did not exist, there would be no flight record to reference. Cal1407 (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Then I will ask yet again, because it appears the point still isn't sinking in - where on the webpage that is linked above is there a statement - be in text or a map or similar - that this is a regularly scheduled route by this airline?

I genuinely feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here - If the flight did not exist, there would be no flight record to reference - that is WP:SYNTH, as plain as it gets - you are drawing a conclusion based on the data. The data is there, therefore the flight must be a regularly scheduled flight - that is a conclusion, not an explicit statement. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Where in the Wikipedia article is any editor actually making a claim that this is a regularly scheduled route by this airline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

LMGTFY. FOARP (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

It's cited, e.g., in Mactan–Cebu International Airport#Cargo and Larnaca International Airport#Cargo (also in more non-airport articles than I expected). There's no mention of whether these are "regular" or "scheduled" flights.

Are you talking about the boilerpate at the top of most ===Passenger=== sections, which says "The following airlines operate regular scheduled and charter flights..."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Not Reliable For Airline Routes - *The source itself is not a WP:SYNTH because that's something that Wikipedia users do with sources. It's unreliable for the purpose users want to use it for (stating which are and are not regularly-flown routes), because it explicitly says it is: " Some of the flights presented may be charter, cargo, ambulance or other types of flights not available for passenger travel.". It goes without saying that this source is primary and doesn't contribute towards notability. EDIT: let me also say that claims that this source is not being used for airlines routes are the result of simply not even looking to see whether it is or isn't. Even a perfunctory search shows that it is across multiple articles. FOARP (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  You seem to have missed the very first sentence of the disclaimer: "The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers." The first sentence alone indicates that FR24 functions as a secondary data source, contrary to what is often assumed. Cal1407 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  Simply compiling primary information doesn't make a source secondary. For a source to be a secondary source, it must analyse, comment, not just process algorithmically. And I note you're skipping over the basic fact that it says it is unreliable and that not all the flights it lists as being served regularly are actually regular flights. FOARP (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

• Reliable to verify the existence of a given route on a given date, and the internet archive and similar mean that this will continue to be verifiable in the future. Almost all the other comments are assessing reliability for claims not made, which is not the purpose of this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  "claims not made" - people most definitely are citing FR24 for airline routes regularly flown (not just once), and that is what this discussion is about. See Kuala Lumpur International Airport (used for "seasonal charter" routes), Air Corsica (used for all routes, regular and otherwise), List of AirAsia Group destinations (used for two Thai AirAsia routes) (etc. etc.) If your position is that the source shouldn't be used for that, that's great, but this feels like claiming that no-one uses it as a source for routes regularly flown when it clearly is used for that. FOARP (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

  • I think they mean that the website in question is not claiming that these are regularly scheduled flights-- in fact it specifically states that it isn't making that claim. If for some reason we needed a source that said "this flight occurred on this date", this would be a reliable source. But it's being used to support claims it's not actually making, which is a source-interpretation issue, not a reliability issue 16:04, 25 December 2025 (UTC)
• Not reliable for claims about "routes", for which editors necessarily apply SYNTH. And while a statement that some particular flight operated between X and Y on some particular day may be accurate and not SYNTH, I don't think there is ever a situation where it would be BALASP to include in an article. JoelleJay (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
• Comment They are pretty reliable for what they provide: information on given flights. However, agglomerating them is possibly original research. Its not synth. Synth is when you connect A to B and B to C, therefore A is connected to C. Saying because they had flights between X and Y on dates 1 2 3 etc means they have a route there is basically original research. They are kindof a primary source because they directly report transponder data. All in all, there are better sources for this. I think it would be fine to use it for a specific flight, but not a route. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Has something changed since November when you last raised this source? (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 499#Flightconnections, Flightradar24 and FlightsFrom - reliable to verify airline routes?) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:44, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

No - and indeed I address this in the original post I made. That previous discussion was ill-conceived of me, in that by combining three essentially unrelated sources into one post, the resulting discussion was completely unfocused and resulted in no consensus being able to be formed at all. That’s why I’m now only addressing one of the sources instead of three at once. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Disclaimers

I see your point now. My apologies—this is not personal, and I am sincerely trying to understand Wikipedia’s policies. In that case, if FR24 flight records are considered WP:SYNTH, how should airport route maps like this be treated? Would they also be considered WP:SYNTH? No additional conclusion is being drawn here; the map merely depicts the routes as presented by the source. Cal1407 (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

From the bottom of that page - Disclaimer: The information provided on this page is a compilation of data from many different sources including flight scheduling systems, airline booking systems, airports, airlines and other third-party data providers. The data is provided as is, there are no guarantees that the information is fully correct or up to date. Changes and errors may occur. Therefore Flightradar24 cannot be held liable either for the accuracy of the information or for ensuring that the information is up to date at all times. Some of the flights presented may be charter, cargo, ambulance or other types of flights not available for passenger travel. That doesn't sound particularly reliable to me - it may not be WP:SYNTH, but given the website themselves say they can't guarantee the accuracy of the data, I think that's an open and closed case. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

So we can agree that this does not constitute WP:SYNTH. With that clarified, the remaining question is whether the source itself is reliable.

Additionally, the disclaimer clearly indicates that the source functions as a secondary source, unlike the earlier discussion where several editors argued that it was a primary source and therefore unusable. Cal1407 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

That particular part of FlightRadar 24 is not Synth - however using tracking data is. I would strongly suggest we shouldn't use those route maps, given FR24 themselves make it clear they shouldn't be relied upon as accurate. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a standard disclaimer, in all fairness. Katzrockso (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Standard to what? Fr24 or to sources in general? I've never heard of a news outlet using disclaimers like that... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Then you haven't looked at any of their websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Disclaimers are standard on websites, including reliable sources. They've been discussed before, and AFAIK the community has never accepted a website's disclaimer as evidence of unreliability.

For example, here's a paragraph from the disclaimers on the website for The New England Journal of Medicine:

YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT ACCESS TO AND USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. THE SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” AND AN “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS. MMS DOES NOT MAKE, AND HEREBY DISCLAIMS, ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, REGARDING THE SERVICES, INCLUDING (WITHOUT LIMITATION) IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, FREEDOM FROM COMPUTER VIRUS OR OTHER HARMFUL CODE, AND ANY WARRANTIES ARISING BY COURSE OF DEALING OR CUSTOM OF TRADE. MMS MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY THAT ANY MATERIAL, CONTENT, PRODUCTS, OR SERVICE OFFERINGS DISPLAYED ON OR OFFERED THROUGH A SERVICE ARE ACCURATE, COMPLETE, APPROPRIATE, RELIABLE, TIMELY, OPERATIONAL, ERROR FREE, SECURE, SAFE, OR THAT THE SERVICES WILL FUNCTION WITHOUT DISRUPTIONS, DELAYS, OR IMPERFECTIONS. WE DO NOT CONTROL, AND ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR, CONTROLLING HOW OR WHEN OUR USERS USE THE SERVICES. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR AND ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO CONTROL THE ACTIONS OR INFORMATION (INCLUDING CONTENT) OF OUR USERS OR OTHER THIRD PARTIES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES. ACCORDINGLY, SOME OF THE ABOVE EXCLUSIONS MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.

and here's one from The New York Times:

5.2 NYT does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Services by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. NYT will not be liable to you or any other person as a result of a user’s interactions with other users. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information will be at your sole risk. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAWS, THE SERVICES AND ALL SOFTWARE ARE DISTRIBUTED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WHILE WE TRY OUR BEST TO ENSURE THAT THE SERVICES ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE, UP-TO-DATE AND CORRECT, NYT DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. THERE MAY BE DELAYS, OMISSIONS, INTERRUPTIONS, AND INACCURACIES IN THE CONTENT OR OTHER MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SERVICES. YOU SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE CONTENT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR, NOR DOES IT REPLACE, PROFESSIONAL LEGAL, FINANCIAL, TAX OR MEDICAL ADVICE. IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR HEALTH OR THE CONTENT ON THE SERVICES, YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CONSULT WITH A PHYSICIAN OR OTHER HEALTH-CARE PROFESSIONAL. PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE OR SALE OF ANY SECURITY OR INVESTMENT, YOU ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT WITH YOUR BROKER OR OTHER FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO VERIFY PRICING AND OTHER INFORMATION. WE WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR INVESTMENT DECISIONS BASED UPON, OR THE RESULTS OBTAINED FROM, THE CONTENT PROVIDED IN THE SITE, THE CONTENT, OR THE SERVICES. NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE SITE WILL BE CONSTRUED AS INVESTMENT ADVICE. WE ARE NOT A REGISTERED BROKER-DEALER OR INVESTMENT ADVISOR AND DO NOT GIVE INVESTMENT ADVICE OR RECOMMEND ONE PRODUCT OVER ANOTHER. YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE USE OF THE SERVICES IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK.

But you'd never say that these were unreliable sources just because their lawyers stuck some similar text on the websites. These disclaimers don't tell you anything about whether the source is reliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for getting a little heated there - I was frustrated, but that's no excuse. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 17:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

OR

Are Wikipedia editors drawing the conclusion that the airline “regularly” flys a route based on data showing that it flew the route on two days in December? If so, that would definitely be an OR conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be what is happening... Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blueboar, it's being used in edits like this one. The result is a ===Passenger=== section with a table that says (in one row) the name of the airline and the the name of an airport, looking vaguely like this:

| Super Air Jet | Balikpapan |

The word "regularly" doesn't appear anywhere in the article. At most, it might imply regular service (because it's not explicitly marked as being seasonal/occasional/one-time/historical), but it doesn't say anything like that.

Continuing with this example, the flight was started last March by parent company Lion Air. This is easily verified in Indonesian news sources (example, example). At some point, the parent company (Lion) switched these flights to their subsidiary (Super Air Jet).

But at some level we know that this company really does regularly fly between these two places, because if you go to Google and put "Super Air Jet" Balikpapan Lombok in the search box, the first thing that pops up is Google Flight information. There can't be any reasonable doubts about this information, so I think we're in the Mother, May I? phase of sourcing, or maybe a game of WP:FETCH: The facts are undisputed, and the only question is whether we have The Right™ Source behind it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Not synth specifically, but WP:OR. Looking at an automatically generated database of machine-interpreted signals and drawing conclusions on which airlines can be acceptable, but not for an encyclopedia. If the only place you can find this information is on Flightradar, it doesn't need to be in the article. JustARandomSquid (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

If a Wikipedia editor is looking at flight data from a few days in December, and concluding that this means the route is “regularly scheduled”, that is most definitely OR. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

• Unreliable The site itself isn't even the source of the data. It's scraping it from the airplane transponders. Meaning it's just someone's website that's taking that data from elsewhere. On that alone, it's unreliable. And that's before we get into the discussion of said data not being useful for anything on Wikipedia. As noted just above, it's 100% WP:OR to claim the existence of a regular scheduled airport flight because of transponder data showing a plane flew between two airports. We need an actual source that states that such a flight was created by the company and it also needs to be a reliable source. Silverseren^C 17:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  By that line of reasoning, all meta-analyses are unreliable, because they're just "taking that data from elsewhere". I – and WP:MEDRS – firmly disagree with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm? Meta analysis would be taking data from somewhere else and analysing it, presumably there is analysis in metanalyses. I agree that it's not bad just because data is from somewhere else, but 1) the somewhere else needs to be reliable, and 2) Wikipedia can't analyse the data, as such analysis would be OR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  Taking data from somewhere else is fine. If the source doing the "taking" is reliable, then we don't care where they're taking it from (e.g., nobody says "Oh, that New York Times – they took some data from a source whose reliability is unknown, so that makes them be unreliable" or even "It looks like the Google flight box relies on this Cirium outfit for their data, which is flightstats.com – well, I don't know if they're reliable for that kind of data, so I just have no idea whether my friend/family member's flight is expected to land on time. I probably shouldn't rely on that source to decide when to pick them up from the airport"). I'm also doubtful that this use is a Wikipedia editor "analyzing the data".

  Looking at the debate more broadly, I think we might be in a rule-following vs. practicality bind:

  • If you want to have accurate, up-to-date information in an article (per NOT, which says "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information") more than you want to have Officially Reliable™ Sources cited, then the most efficient way for editors to be able to tell whether the information is up to date is attach a quick look-up mechanism for each flight/destination. That could be, e.g., specific airline flight numbers (NN1234) that could be checked at your favorite web search engine, or a link to one of these flight tracker websites.
  • If you want to have indisputably reliable citations more than you want to have accurate, up-to-date information in the Wikipedia article, then your best bet is probably newspaper articles from the area around the airport. However, a newspaper article is not going to help you determine whether the claim continues to be true (since it can only tell you what was true on the date of the source was published), so checking the article's accuracy requires more time and effort.

  And, of course, there's always the possibility that the real divide is simply an intuitive idea of what "should" be in an encyclopedia article, and that editors who want to exclude the content based on their best editorial judgment about whether it's appropriate at all are using complaints about "reliability" as a way to put barriers up against the content: That source won't do, so you'll have to WP:FETCH me another. I say this in part because editors have expressed the view that this is unencyclopedic, but also because when I've provided formally reliable sources to support individual claims, they've been ignored. If the goal was just to have fancier sources, then I might expect the complainant to put the fancier source in the article, or say thanks, or otherwise acknowledge that their stated problem had been solved. Instead, I suspect that they're being received with the grinding of teeth: "There goes that WhatamIdoing again, proving that this information actually can be sourced to an independent reliable source. Now I'll never get that garbage out of this article!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  I think you can safely strike about half of that comment after you’ve had a good read of WP:AGF… Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'll read it again if you will. The opening line (which I helped write) is "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful". It's possible for editors to be at odds, and to point out the reasons underlying their differences, without anybody "deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia".

  For example: In these discussions, I've provided several newspaper sources to support content about which airline flies between which airports. All newspaper articles are independent of the flights, and some of them are secondary sources, because they provide (e.g.) some analytical or evaluative information about how a new destination is likely to affect the local economy.

  These are the kinds of sources you ask for (and you're welcome to copy them to relevant articles). But I wonder: can you see how these sources are not really useful for someone who wants to know whether the heralded new flight is still in operation today? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No, if its shown that the data is unreliable, no we would probably not rely on the metanalysis in Wikipedia, no matter where it is published. We would likely ignore it or dispute it in text (and await its retraction or correction). And the rest of your comment tries to ignore or minimize the issue of Wikipedia analysing the data as original research, so the rest is a strawman, beside the point, or bad faith. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:57, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

We might use Wikipedia:Editorial discretion to omit it, but editors don't really have any business deciding that the data used by a reliable source (which, of course, this website might or might not be) is actually unreliable.

The rest of my comment is trying to highlight the difficulty editors encounter. If you're an editor who is trying to keep these lists up to date, then you need a source that quickly (because there are a lot of them) and easily shows you whether everything's correct today. An "automatically check this whole list" button might be your preference, but if you can't have that, then clicking to a flight tracking website for every airline and every destination will work. A handful (or sometimes a lot) of browser tabs later, you can be sure that the article's okay today – or that it's not, and you know which one to fix.

But if you're not one of those editors, you might well look at this and think these are unreliable sources. Maybe they're not as bad as a comment in Reddit or some influencer tweeting that they flew from X to Y today, but it's just zis guy, you know? We need newspaper articles with editors and publishers and reputations for fact checking and accuracy, not some random air geek's hobby site that automatically copies official data sources. However, those sources are pretty much useless for determining whether the information is still true today. The first transatlantic passenger flight was in 1939. A newspaper article announcing its success is not useful for telling you whether it's still possible to fly from New York to Southampton via Pan Am today (answer: no). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

All of which means we return to the basic fact that something being the only source for something doesn't make it a reliable source. If something can't be sourced reliably, then it just has no place on WP. I'm sorry if adding this information to WP is a hobby for some.

When people say this isn't encyclopaedic information, this is part of the problem they're engaging with. FOARP (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think that trying to have a single source in the articles might be the problem. Maybe we need two sources – one that is an Official™ Reliable Source (with risks of being outdated), and another that is guaranteed to be up to date, for the convenience of editors who are maintaining these lists. For example:

| Super Air Jet | Balikpapan[newspaper][quick check] |

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• Not useable Ignoring anything about reliability of the data aside, FlightRadar maximum retention time for paid plans is 3 years so after that point the content would fail WP:V/WP:PUBLISHED. And the public feed which could be archived only goes back a few days which isn't usable for anything as others have mentioned. Jumpytoo Talk 19:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

  If the goal is to say what's true and verifiable right now, then why would it matter if past data isn't available? The Wikipedia articles aren't saying "Lion Air started flying from Lompok to Balikpapan on 4 July 2024". It's just the name of the airline and the name of the destination airport, without any dates or any other information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

• I agree with WhatamIdoing that I'm not sure that the use of these sources within articles is actually trying to substantiate that any particular airline route is a "regularly scheduled route". Editors might make this claim in edit summaries or talk pages, but those are not subject to WP:OR and aren't particularly relevant here. I agree with editors that say it is WP:SYNTH / often WP:OR to conclude from this source that a route is "regularly scheduled" or "regularly flown". But again, these claims are not being made in the article text, and if they are, this is resolvable.

I don't see any substantive issue with how the source is being used, otherwise. It is completely reliable for sourcing whether a route is currently/recently chartered, which is how I have seen it used.Katzrockso (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

A WP search for articles mentioning "FlightRadar24" shows that FR24 is used to show what routes are flown from Kuala Lumpur International Airport. For example the Flight history for OD638 (currently blank) is used to demonstrate that Batik Air Malaysia flies a service from KL to Guilin. Similarly The flight history of YI-ASJ (again, presently blank) used on List of Iraqi Airways destinations to show that a "Seasonal charter" is flown to Medina. It's also used on Air Corsica as the source for their routes, and on List of AirAsia Group destinations, Air Cambodia, Qantas Freight, Caicos Express Airways, EVA Air, List of Air India destinations, (etc. etc.).

Outside of the scope of this discussion, but I also see many, many instances of the transponder data from it being used to write what is essentially OR about air disasters. FOARP (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The use of the source on Kuala Lumpur International Airport isn't being used to show that a "route is flown", it is being used to list a destination. A currently blank page is a dead link.

Using the flight history to state that something is a "seasonal charter" indeed is SYNTH, but as I noted above, this is "resolvable". Katzrockso (talk) 05:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

"this is "resolvable""....by deleting the inappropriately sourced listing, because it is in a table that people clearly understand as being a list of regularly-flown routes. Unless you really believe these lists should be a list of all destinations ever flown to ever? FOARP (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

It is resolvable simply by removing the words "seasonal charter", no? Katzrockso (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think a list of "passenger destinations" should include a place that was flown to, once? FOARP (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't. Where have I said that? Katzrockso (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You're saying that we should keep a listing of a destination which the source only says was flown to once. FOARP (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a good example of the double-sourcing idea I'm thinking of. @FOARP gives an example of an article that says Batik Air Malaysia flights from KUL to KWL.

Here's a proper reliable source for that statement:

• Mikil, Florey D. (2024-04-23). "Batik Air will begin flying to Guilin, China from KLIA starting June 4". The Star.

This tells you that the flight/destination was a real thing. But it can't tell you whether it stopped. The FlightRadar24.com website indicates this isn't happening any longer. A quick trip an airline ticket website indicates Batik is not currently offering non-stop service between these two airports (during January; I didn't check for seasonal routes). Therefore, I'd be inclined to remove that information because of the so-called "unreliable" flight tracking website.

This makes me think that the best way to cite these airlines/destinations is to have both types of sources: one for the historical fact and another for the current status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

1) None of this says that the route was ever flown regularly. A source saying it will fly the route, and a source saying it doesn't fly the route, doesn't add up to sourcing for the route ever having been flown regularly.

2) I'm getting whiplash from you going straight from saying "Where in the Wikipedia article is any editor actually making a claim that this is a regularly scheduled route by this airline" directly to saying that it's a good source for sourcing lists of airline passenger routes flown regularly. FOARP (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• FlightRadar's data can be considered reliable, but it is not suitable for citing the existence of regularly scheduled commercial flights. As I said in the previous discussion, [i]f FlightRadar24 shows a particular airline and flight number as having flown from airport A to airport B on a particular date, or being scheduled for a particular date, we have no reason to doubt the data point. But can we conclude from that data point that there is a regularly scheduled commercial flight between those airports? Can we conclude that the flight is marketed by the airline that operated the aircraft (as opposed to being operated on a wet lease or similar basis on behalf of some other airline)? Can we conclude from the absence of a data point that a previously scheduled flight has been suspended or terminated? All of those would be WP:SYNTH. At best, it could be an acceptable source if for some reason you needed to cite that a particular flight took place on a particular date – and even then, an archived copy would need to be available for verifiability. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Medical News Today - a mirror publication of Healthline (blacklisted)

Medical News Today published by Healthline Media is a sister website to blacklisted Healthline, publishing nearly identical misinformation on innumerable topics in medicine, nutrition, and foods. Like Healthline, its articles are written by non-expert freelancers and "medically reviewed" by non-experts, such as nutritionists, nurses or dietitians.

See this for the 2021 RS discussion on MNT, with no conclusion.

An example article on the assumed benefits of popular foods discusses nutrient abundance and disease reduction (differing from the actual USDA nutrient database, e.g., apples, which have low nutrient value and no MEDRS-confirmed health benefit), identifies the problem with MNT to be identical to the 2023 RSP review when Healthline was blacklisted. By simply searching for a MNT article on a health, food, nutrition, or medical topic, then checking it against a valid WP:BMI source, editors will be convinced that MNT should be deprecated. Zefr (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Eating fruits is good, mainly because fruits don't have many calories. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, MNT should just be added to the Healthline blacklist filter. JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

If they really just mirror the content, blacklist them. Cortador (talk) 06:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Cannot find consensus for ABC Australia reliability

Hi, I have been searching for a consensus on the reliability of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, expecting something as it is a major news source for Australian and Pacific topics, as well as a national broadcaster, and has had debates on Australian outlets about a perceived left-wing-bias. While I am not currently using it on a contentious topic, nor have any suspicion of inaccuracy in what I have used it for so far (the current bushfire season), I expect I will use it for almost all current events within Australia, and assume that it is likely already used by many other editors. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:58, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

ABC is reliable in every context, there should be no considerations around contentious topics, beyond those which would apply to every source. It has a bias in favour of what you might call "acceptable mainstream" Australian politics, so it is generally pro-capitalist, pro-American, anti-immigration, pro-fossil fuels. However, every single source we ever use has bias.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you coming here because someone is arguing (Australian)BC is not a reliable source? If not, you can treat WP:SILENCE as a form of consensus. Jumpytoo Talk 21:46, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure I had not missed any prior discussions. I do think it is generally reliable, and just wanted a second opinion with how much I am likely to use it. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The first and most important check on a source's reliability is an editors own good judgement. Unless you're unsure of a source, or another editor contests it, then there's no need to discuss it. That no prior consensus exists for a source just means that noone has seen any reason to contest it's reliability.

As to a source being leftwing or rightwing it's completely unrelated to whether a source is reliable or not, sources are allowed to be biased (see WP:RSBIAS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Cosmopolitan's 30 Best TV Shows of All Time

Hi, I am currently expanding Wikipedia's List of television shows considered the best, which requires finding publications that have post best TV shows lists. One list I have come across is from Cosmopolitan, which is considered situational and to be used on a case-by-case basis by WP:RSP. Could Cosmopolitan's list be used for Wikipedia's List. Lazman321 (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I would advise against expanding that article, it shouldn't exist.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Not what I'm asking. A similar Wikipedia list, the list of video games considered the best, had an AfD back in 2015 that ended with the list being kept, and I'd argue that since then, the list criteria has actually become clearer and less arbitrary. There's clearly precedent for this type of Wikipedia list. I just want to know if Cosmopolitan could be used for this type of list. Lazman321 (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

We don't always get the answer we want, sometimes we get the answer we need. The article is, and always will be, a crap list that is a synthesis of opinions selected by our users, the definition of WP:OR. Burn it down and salt the earth where it stood.--Boynamedsue (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't use it, basically because it's not, as it claims, the "30 Best TV Shows of All Time". It's one person's "30 Favourite American TV shows that people who read Cosmpolitan might like from a very narrow time period". In fact, you're going to find that problem with a lot of sources...

...which is probably why List of television shows considered the best is a terrible article which should probably be called List of American television shows (with a couple of British ones thrown in) considered the best by a load of almost exclusively American websites. If you want to improve it, I suggest your time would be better spent deleting it and starting again, to be honest. It might even fail AfD at the moment because its content simply doesn't match its title. Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

• What does "best" mean anyway? Based on List of American television awards or number of viewers or longest running? Given that major ambiguity, I would support an Afd immediately. This is not encyclopedic. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

  The lead has an inclusion criteria modeled off a similar one at list of video games considered the best, which has been standing for about a decade now. A TV show is included if it has been listed as one of the best of all time, regardless of year or genre, by four separate reliable (or in some cases, situational) publications. Lazman321 (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree on AfD. Please ping if this goes ahead. The fact we have one bad article does not mean we should have two.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Ping. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

• Kill it. Kill it with fire. ADF List of television shows considered the best. Then see how many other "best" pages we can nuke. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television shows considered the best. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Is "The Good Men Project" unreliable?

In a recent edit by @User:Kuru, on the Shipping (fandom) page, they stated that The Good Men Project is "non-WP:RS : unmarked paid placement / vanity blog; PR placement." There was a discussion back in 2013 where @Itsmejudith said it is "Not reliable for history" and @Little green rosetta called it "an online magazine" which is not "a crackpot blog" but should not be trusted "as a contradictory source unless the article in question had a byline that indicated the author was appropriately credentialed." Although I have since removed this source*, I would like to know your thoughts on whether this source is reliable or not, as it could impact if I use this source in the future or not. Thanks.

• Here is how The Good Men Project was cited in the article:

Some fans speculated that Leia had sex with Luke and Han Solo "after the battle of Yavin" in A New Hope,Historyday01 (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Undue springs to mind. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I think if the source was reliable, and the sentence was rephrased, it could be fine. I said as much in my other comment. When adding this sentence fragment, I wasn't aware of the other discussion about the source before, nor had anyone, as far as I can recall, told me it wasn't reliable, so... Besides, I started this discussion because it has been 12 years since the source was assessed, so I wanted to see if people had different thoughts on it. Having sources reassessed is one of the purposes of this noticeboard. Historyday01 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Whatever "The Good Men Project" used to be, it's now a brand/advertorial blog. The site's 'media kit' is explicit in soliciting branded content and 'co-created' advertorials by whatever passes for staff at this point. I've seen countless examples of obvious brand paid placement that is completely unmarked, and there are many third-party SEO spammers that offer unmarked 'guest posts with backlinks' on the blog. It's just an open-access blog that is frequently used abusively. In this particular case, I can't imagine how a single primary example of a blogger supports the "some fans speculate" claim. You'd need an actual reliable source that notes this aggreged claim, not just a single example of a blogger's hot take. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps. I don't know what "aggreged claim" means, but *if* the source was deemed reliable, I could have easily rephrased the sentence from "Some fans speculate" to say "[author of article] of The Good Men Project speculated" rather than "some fans speculate." However, to be absolutely clear, I have no intention of re-introducing it to that section of the article, or anywhere in the article itself. None at all. In any case, I wanted to hear other people's views on it, because I've seen it around before and I think I used some time ago in other articles (although I can't exactly recall which ones off hand). While saying that, I don't have any fidelity to keeping the source or anything. As I've learned over the years, editing on here is almost a process of negotiation, so these discussions are certainly helpful in that regard. Historyday01 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

I will say, based on your comment, it may be time to reassess it's use in the over 100 articles it is currently cited in. Historyday01 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC) Update: Due to this discussion, and as a precaution, I removed it as a source on the List of lesbian characters in animation, List of animated series with LGBTQ characters: 2020–2024, and Supa Team 4 articles.Historyday01 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

'Aggreged' is spellcheck doing it's best to mop up after me. 'Aggregated claim' is referring to a collective claim that a group is doing this, when there's one primary example given. I get that you're exploring the inclusion and do not intend to reintroduce without alteration. As to the other articles using this, I'm working my way through the list but I tend to do this in small batches in case there's an objection (like this). Also, I evaluate each usage to see if there's a corner case, which takes time. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm always willing to learn if sources aren't as reliable as I thought they were, which is the value of this noticeboard. I didn't see any other sources discussing "Leia had sex with Luke and Han Solo "after the battle of Yavin" in A New Hope" section except that article, when I did some edits on that page today. I understand working the way through the list in small batches. The articles I mentioned were ones that I tend to frequent/edit more than others, so it was easy enough to remove those sources and replace it with other sources. Historyday01 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

References