Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

(Sections older than 5 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.)

List of archives

, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459
460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469
470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479
480, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489
490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499
500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509
510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519
520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

---

AZERTAC

Reporters Without Borders caught AZERTAC deliberately misquoting a journalist to the opposite of what he stated.

Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) documented AZERTAC's amplification of a fabricated story from a site impersonating France 24. A separate DFRLab investigation found that an AZERTAC report was the common link in the majority disseminated copypasta messages used in a coordinated campaign against the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). DFRLab also identified AZERTAC as among other Azeri-state funded newsites (apa.az, trend.az) publishing "fabricated claims" against USAID. According to Reporters Without Borders and OC Media, Azeri state media is considered generally unreliable on Azerbaijani state interests, and this view is shared by exiled Azerbaijani media outlets that are forced to operate abroad.

Further evidence of AZERTAC manipulating, falsely attributing, or officially rejected reporting is provided by International Research & Exchanges Board, CivilNet’s investigation and follow-up, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. This is very relevant because AZERTAC is already used on more than 1,000 articles.

According to Vafa Naghiyeva of OC Media, "In the absence of independent journalism, Azerbaijan’s state-aligned media does not report what is happening — it decides what can be seen. The endless repetition of identical headlines gives the impression of knowledge, yet it hides more than it reveals."

In 2024, the DFRLab documented how official AZERTAC reports were utilized as the anchor material for coordinated social media smear campaigns against PACE using networks of fake accounts. Vanezi (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The report mentioned by Reporters Without Borders is still up and uncorrected after over three years, and the one mentioned by DFRLab is still up and uncorrected after over a year. The RSF press freedom index for 2026 ranks Azerbaijan as 171st out of 180 countries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:38, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It's quite concerning that it's used more than 400 times, including for articles like Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Even if it's just to report the Azerbaijani government's position, this can cause due weight issues. It's no better than the state-run media of its northern and southern neighbours and should be treated similarly. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

What is the reliability of AZERTAC?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Vanezi (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Survey (AZERTAC)

• Option 4 as the nominator. Vanezi (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

  Is this necessary? So far noone is of the opinion that the source is reliable so what is being settled by this WP:RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:54, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I thought it was necessary for an official depreciation. --Vanezi (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

You don't need a separate survey section. A simple discussion is fine. You have given zero reason for deprecating a source that is pretty obviously generally unreliable. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Compared with the WP:DEPSOURCES listed for state-sponsored disinformation, it seemed this source should be included. --Vanezi (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Those sources were deprecated due to issues beyond being state owned and unreliable. Deprecation is meant to only be used as a last resort, not a first instance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:06, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a fair point about deprecation being a last resort. At the same time, if everyone agrees AZERTAC is generally unreliable I'm not sure that would keep editors from using it. Is there a middle ground? Or do you think generally unreliable is enough and we should just handle existing uses at the article level? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Nothing stops editors from using a source, not even deprecation. That only adds a warning if you try to use it, but it doesn't stop you. Only blacklisting completely stops the use of a source, and that reserved for spam. Ultimately it's up to editors to ensure that sources reliably verify content, and that goes beyond the source just being coloured green or red. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

The Request for Comments is a process that affords greater legitimacy and is particularly apt for issues that affect Wikipedia itself, as in, for instance, the quality of a source. -The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option 4 as AZERTAC been well-documented in running disinformation campaigns. - Amigao (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Anything but Option 4:Once again we have an RfC that contains EXACTLY ZERO REASONS TO DEPRECATE in any of the responses, but is instead full of excellent reasons to classify the source as being generally unreliable. I doubt that anyone !voting for option four could write a paragraph explaining the difference and when each should be applied. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2026 (UTC) Withdrawn after reading Aquillion's comment below. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Bad RFC There's been no reply to why this is necessary, I suggest this section is closed and editors go back to normal discussion. Also this isn't a WP:RFC as it has not been setup correctly, so it can't be used for deprecation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:55, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  As this seems like it will continue I've actually made this a RFC, please read at least WP:RFC before starting one.
  Option 3 It's quite clear that AZERTAC should not be considered a generally reliable source. Posting an incorrect quote is forgivable if it is corrected when it's noticed, keeping that misquote years after it's shown to be false is not. That these issues seem not to be errors but rather propaganda for the government of the country, is damning. However it could still have use for the views of the government and for uncontroversial local news. It's currently used widely in articles but there's nothing to show that those uses aren't in good faith (there's no evidence that it's being deliberately used to mislead). So deprecation doesn't seem warranted unless the use of the source becomes more problematic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for not starting the RFC properly. There could be uncontroversial uses of the source, but given it's blatant fabrications, it has surpassed a lot of sources already depreciated in general unreliability. Thank you for your input. --Vanezi (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Option 4. A quick search suggests we are currently citing this source over a thousand times, despite being clearly documented spreading plainly intentional disinformation on multiple occasions; these are the textbook requirements for deprecation and the sort of thing it was specifically created for. For avoidance of doubt as to the purpose of deprecation, the main difference between it and general unreliability is the edit filter, which is important when two things are true: First, problems severe and systematic enough to render the source unreliable in virtually all cases; and second, evidence that editors continue to use it despite this self-evident unreliability, to the point where the more clear warning of the filter is needed to alert them to its problems. Both apply here. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4. I had to delete my detailed reasoning as it'd simply duplicate the points made above. Well done. -The Gnome (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4. Fabricated stories and all that. Originally I wanted to !vote for Option 3 but u:Aquillion's arguments convinced me that a deprecation is necessary. Alaexis_¿question? 08:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 – It's the state news agency of an authoritarian regime, so it's going to have to be between WP:GUNREL and deprecation here, and I lean towards deprecation considering how many citations we have to this source. It seems prudent to deprecate it to ensure that editors trying to cite it are aware of its issues, and deprecation is not blacklisting, so if there happens to be a legitimate use editors can just override the edit filter. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 03:26, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 There are compelling arguments here against AZERTAC, and the problems documented above are pretty serious. I'm comfortable with deprecation. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 and WP:SNOW close. We have spent enough time on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
• Since it's snowing, i've added AZERTAC to WP:PREDSCRIPT as depracated. If this closes differently, please ping me and I will update accordingly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:13, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4. I agree with the WP:SNOW close. I won't say more to save space. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
• Option 4 This looks like a pretty clear example of what a source should not look like. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The Next Web (TNW)

I propose The Next Web (RSP entry) is deprecated as an unreliable source for articles published after they were acquired by Tekpon in December 2025. I can no longer find any information on the website about any editorial practices whatsoever, so it no longer really even claims to be a reputable news site. Many (most? all?) articles are entirely promotional and appear to be 100% AI-generated, e.g. , , . This article is only 44% AI according to Pangram, but if you compare it to the BBC article it cites all the non-AI segments are copy-pasted from the BBC. This seems to be another sad example of tech websites and services that used to be good being bought up and sloppified.

Previous discussions of The Next Web:

• "The Next Web" (2014)
• "Popcorn Time" (2016)
• "About The Next Web" (2018)
• "The Next Web for ProProfs" (2019)

Lijil (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

It's definitely seems to be a generally unreliable source, but is there any reason that this AI slop needs to be deprecated over the thousands of similar sites? Would a consensus that it is no longer even marginally reliable after the December 2025 takeover not be enough? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:34, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean? I meant that TNW is no longer reliable so I think we agree - did it seem like I meant something different? Lijil (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Deprecation has a very specific meaning, it doesn't just mean describing a source as generally unreliable. It's a whole process that is meant to only be used for the worst of sources that are actively causing disruption to the encyclopedia. Nearly ever source, whether good or bad, can be dealt with by general policy and guidance without having to use the Deprecation system. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:10, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Updating the RSP entry to note that the source is no longer reliable after December 2025 is probably needed, it's just that deprecation isn't needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps an analogy would help. Being declared generally unreliable is like life imprisonment for a site, with the remote possility of parole. Depreciation is tantamount to the use of the gulliotine and is rather messy. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the distinction is important here, between general unreliability and deprecation. The details presented may support treating post-acquisition TNW material with caution, but deprecation has a narrower purpose and threshold. @ActivelyDisinterested has described it well.

If there is evidence of persistent misuse that meets the deprecation criteria then that would be more directly relevant to the proposal. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I had probably misunderstood what deprecated means. Just generally unreliable is fine by me. Lijil (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

GBNews

GBNews is currently listed as generally unreliable. However, as we all know, consensus can change. In the light of OFCOM's recent reporting that GBNews is the most trusted news source in the United Kingdom, I propose that GBNews now be designated as reliable. Mjroots (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

That's not exactly what Ofcom said the distinction matters. Per The Telegraph, GB News is more trusted by its viewers as compared to the BBC and Sky News and their viewers. You could also read that as GB News viewers being less critical/more credulous. Mackensen (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Reliability isn't a popularity contest. Perhaps Britons trust GB news more than other outlets. That doesn't mean it's trustworthy. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The chart in that Telegraph report shows that GBNews is seen as more trustworthy than the BBC, Sky, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, all of which are considered reliable. My original proposal stands, strengthened by that. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully then. See @Black Kite's comment below. This isn't "GBNewsViewersPedia" and our basis for deciding whether a source is reliable has nothing, at all, to do with the extent to which GB News viewers trust it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Public opinion has nothing to do with reliability for the purposes of Wikipedia, there's nothing more to be said. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not, because the metric that says GB News is trusted by GB News's viewers (which is hardly surprising for most media outlets, frankly) is not a valid metric.

Meanwhile, in the last major survey that counted the views of all viewers, GB News was the second most-distrusted news source in the country (27% Trust and 46% Distrust), and only wasn't the most distrusted because of the existence of The Sun. Source: Reuters Digital News Report 2026 . Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely no for same reSon User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:15, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the Ofcom report, I see that GB News reaches 12% of British adults according , compared to the BBC which reaches 77% of British adults. The extreme selectivity of the GB News coverage of this report is a good example of why we don’t consider it reliable. Thank you MJroots for drawing our attention to a data point which confirms the existing consensus. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

So the article that was supposed to demonstrate GB News's reliability is itself misleading. Ironic. Cortador (talk) 06:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust GB News as far as I could throw it. It's a propaganda station for Nigel Farage and his merry band of right-wing nutbags. Don't take my word for it - some sources are here, here and here. As for the remark that GBNews is the most trusted news source - that source is from GBNews itself and well they would say that, wouldn't they? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• And this was less than a year ago, too. You can't get much worse than that one. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Building Magazine (UK) / building.co.uk

Is Building Magazine (UK) / building.co.uk suitable for establishing notability per WP:TRADES?

This came up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arada (company) (2nd nomination) The specific question is whether Arada bought the dip in the UAE and reaped the rewards. But will it work in London? can be used to establish the notability of Arada (company).

Building Magazine (UK) is indeed a trade magazine, but they have been doing it since 1843 (See Building (magazine)) and are the organization behind the Building Awards.

So, does this source fit the "must be used with great care" / "leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear" exception at WP:TRADES? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely a well established and reputable trade magazine. Having got hold of there media pack they don't offer advertorials, which could have been another concern. I do note the TRADE is talking about feature stories, and Building class the article as an interview. However most of the article is a report by the author, with only small parts being interview. The intent ieq parts would be primary, and parts written as a report would be secondary. How that leaves the overall independence of the article? I would say it's mostly independent, it's certainly indepth and reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the source is usable here because the article provides analysis of Arada's business, market activity and expansion rather than merely repeating information which was provided by the company itself. Its editorial framing and discussion of the company's prospects give it value as an independent coverage so I would suggest it be treated as a secondary source for notability rather than a simple trade-directory mention. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

CNN and MS NOW

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.

---

Hey everyone, I think we should re-look on CNN's and MSNBC's reliability especially regarding politics, both of these news outlets are decently biased and I believe we should add restrictions on how much they can be used as "fact." Pachu1 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

A news source being "decently biased" isn't a criteria for WP:RS.

Should any source "decently biased" politically equally in the opposite direction of CNN and MSNBC be treated the same? — VPP (t/c) 15:28, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

If they are publishing opinion then that's handled by WP:RSOPINION, otherwise bias isn't relevant to reliability WP:RSBIAS. If they're publishing factually incorrect information then examples, or even better other reliable sources calling them out, would be beneficial to the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:52, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

While I understand your point, particularly related to opinion pieces; the issue is that being biased and reliable are separate things. One can be biased and reliable at the same time. Usually think tanks fall into this category, they are generally thorough with research, have rigorous processes for verification and publication of their work, and often ideologically aligned (not all, of course). If you have specific instances that these portals have reported incorrect (not incomplete or biased) information, do share and that would be a ground to reconsider them. As AD has pointed out, an opinion has to be attributed as per WP:RSOPINION Ar1201u1 (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

There's been 20+ discussions of CNN, always closing with 'reliable for reporting, opinions must be attributed", and another 4 discussions on MSNBC/MS NOW. What new fact has been uncovered/what has changed since those? If nothing, this can be closed and archived. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:25, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

+1 Ar1201u1 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2026 (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.

Public Storage

A quick summary of the issue:

Page: Public Storage

Talk Link: Talk:Public_Storage#Recent_Edits_2

Disclosure: I have a disclosed conflict of interest (I work for Public Storage)

Issue (from my view): Repeated content-blanking of well-cited content and adding of uncited content. Previously posted at NPOV but got no response.

Request: @Czarking0: has already started some conversation. Would love for more editor(s) to get involved to form a clear consensus. Geoffreyvee (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

What are the issues with RS? Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This is more of a WP:DUE issue Czarking0 (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Newly-published Sinjar Academy textbook — مدخل إلى الإيزيديولوجيا (Introduction to Yazidiology)

Authors are Majid Hassan Ali, Hadi Ta'lu Pir, Rezan Shivan Aysef, and Shukr Khader Murad Al-Aldakhi, published in Baghdad by Dar Al-Mada, 2026 and produced under Sinjar Academy, an US-Based educational nonprofit. Dar Al-Mada is a general Iraq-based publisher of Arabic literature, politics, and general nonfiction. The title page credits multiple scholars under "Consultation and Verification": Dr. Khalil Jindy Rashow, who has taught Kurdish at the University of Göttingen since 1996 and co-authored an academic monograph on Yezidism with Philip Kreyenbroek (per the acknowledgments, he reviewed and revised the manuscript's content), Haji Qasim Khder, a lecturer at the University of Zakho, who revised individual chapters and researcher Hoshang Broka. Separately Dr. Alda Benjamen, an Assistant Professor of History at the University of Dayton specializing in Iraq's minority communities, is also acknowledged for her educational expertise. Three of the four contributing authors hold PhDs in relevant fields.

I'd like input on whether this meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP for use at List of genocides for the inclusion of Genocide of Yazidis by the Soran Emirate (1832-1834) to the list, as the page's criteria requires classification as genocide by scholarship vetted by the scholarly community, in the author's own voice. I'm unsure whether this clears that bar, as the publisher isn't an academic press on one hand, but on the other hand has had multiple academically credible persons involved in its authorship and review.

Chapter 3 (pp. 69–80) is titled "تاريخ حملات الإبادة الجماعية (الفرمانات) ضد الإيزيدية" ("History of the Genocide Campaigns (Fermanat) Against the Yazidis"). On p. 69 the authors write, in their own voice, that these campaigns constitute "عمليات الإبادة الجماعية (الجينوسايد) حسب المفاهيم الحديثة" ("genocide operations, per modern concepts"). The 1832–34 campaign of Muhammad Pasha of Rawandiz against the Yazidis is included as part of the list of these genocidal operations (on pp. 76–77). Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

This is probably reliable, but may not be WP:DUE. That something can be reliable sourced doesn't necessarily mean it must be included (WP:VNOT). Instead it's WP:NPOV that handles what should or should not be included in an article. Particularly that means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." If this is a novel description not found in prior works then it might be best to attribute the details (WP:INTEXT). Articles are meant to show what the currently accepted consensus is on a subject, rather than up be up to the minute with new publications.
So this looks to be reliable, but the real question is what do other sources say about the same matter and has this work been widely accepted by other scholars in the field. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:17, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, ActivelyDisinterested. This is one of numerous sources for the entry, and will be the third to meet that list's criteria so it wouldn't rest on this book alone.

Also to confirm, does that mean you consider the book to meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this list's criteria? Nobedarê Dunav (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Whether it meets the lists criteria for inclusion is a matter for that articles talk page, but I would say it's reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Time 100 sublists?

Maybe there's a better place for this; I'm editing Covista to get rid of the usual cruft that tends to accumulate in corporate articles, and I see this claim in their leadership section; [the company's CEO] was included in Time magazine's 2025 "Time100 Health" list of influential people in the healthcare industry. I'm inclined to remove this as an overly promotional namedrop of a non-notable award; but I'm wondering whether we do consider such an award to be notable? We have an article on Time 100 in general, and obviously an award like Time Person of the Year would be notable, but would placing on a sub-list like Time 100 Health considered a 'notable award'? Athanelar (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

If it was for a biography I'd say it's fine to include but if there's a lot of stuff already there I don't think it should be mentioned on the company. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd say its a legitimate recognition from Time, rather than just a company accolade, so I don't think it should be dismissed as non-notable outright. Whether it belongs in the company article is a separate question. Farhanansari1994 (talk) 04:18, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.com and the sources it cites

Encyclopedia.com (which I had been only peripherally aware of) came to my attention via this discussion about Public Storage above. The Public Storage article cites the article on the respective company.

Last year, we had an RfC on the reliability of Encyclopedia.com, an online encyclopedia. The result was that if Encyclopedia.com is used, it should be used with an "via encyclopedia.com" addition. A example one editor gave during the discussion was the article on the bullhead shark, which cites "Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia – via Encyclopedia.com" based on this article.

There's a few issues with this. The Public Storage article cites the International Directory of Company Histories at the bottom... which doesn't mention Public Storage or its predecessor, Private Storage Spaces. To be fair here, the Encyclopedia.com article doesn't seem to have been updated since the early 2000s, so this reference is probably an older edition of International Directory of Company Histories. Which one? Which page? Who knows. It's not mentioned. I found a few editions via The Internet Archive, and none mentioned Public Storage. Likewise, the Heterodontiformes/bullhead shark article references Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia. Which volume or which edition? Nobody knows. As it turns out, it's probably volume 4, the one on fishes (not too surprising), which I could borrow from The Internet Archive. The issue here is that there's lots of information in the Encyclopedia.com article nowhere to be found in Grzimek's Animal Life Encyclopedia e.g. that those sharks live in caves.

But maybe that is from some of the other sources that these Encyclopedia.com articles mention before the (presumably) main source at the very bottom? Both article I linked to have a host of "Further reading" and "Resources" mentioned. Yet inline citations are missing, so if Encyclopedia.com does use these sources as well, it's impossible to tell what piece of information comes from where. Now admittedly these are just two articles. But I find it unlikely that I happen to stumble upon the two articles that happen to have issues.

TLDR: I think that slapping "via Encyclopedia.com" on a link to Encyclopedia.com doesn't do the job. The sites doesn't clarify where exactly it gets its information from. As per the closer of the RfC I linked to, a Encyclopedia.com article's main sources is given "under the horizontal line following the article", but I don't buy that e.g. for the article on South America, that would be the Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (again, no volume or edition mentioned).

I believe this needs another RfC, and the solution here is to simply require users to cite whatever Encyclopedia.com cites and evaluate the source/verify the information. I get that some of those sources are old and may not be available online, but if it's too difficult to verify a source, we simply can't use it. Input is welcome. Cortador (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

As I said before, it's entirely possible to verify all of these. Anything in there is from some Gale Encyclopedia. The thing about Gale encyclopedias is that there are frequently dozens of editions of their books, with sometimes hundreds of volumes. Google Books is usually more effective for searching for this , and numerous editions do show as mentioning Public Storage. The Encyclopedia.com entry for the Bull shark is apparently from the 2003 edition , which is not the one on IA, hence why it has more content. (Every time I've seen an entry in this that appears in multiple versions of the encyclopedia, it's always from the latest version of the encyclopedia that has it, fwiw)

As I said, all of these are verifiable. It's as much of a pain in the ass as citing any multi-volume multi-edition work which changes over the editions (which, encyclopedia.com or not, people do all the time). You can be 100% sure anything in Encyclopedia.com is taken from a Gale Encyclopedia and which one. It's basically just a courtesy link. Sure, people should do more due diligence, but people should do that about all their sourcing (and they never do), there has never been an example of something in there not being in one of their print encyclopedias. Print encyclopedias do not have inline citations as a rule- we do not require inline citations for sources to be RS. Neither of the articles you mention have any issues, they are standard for these kinds of things. There are frequently dozens of different articles on the same topic from different encyclopedias from the Gale website - and yes, there is an entry on South America occultism is in the Occultism encyclopedia (edited by J. Gordon Melton), as there a general entry on South America in The Gale Encyclopedia of Science, which listed separately. The way the display works is that similar topics are listed together.

What would an RfC even entail? Banning one of the few legal ways we have for our readers to read encyclopedia material for free? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, the 2003 bull shark one is on IA (mentions the caves). If people check the 1972 edition instead of the most recent ones I wouldn't be surprised if they found less updated content! PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

The entries they cite are always from the latest version of the respective book, as evident by Public Storage no longer being mentioned in the latest version of the International Directory of Company Histories. Encyclopedia.com also doesn't cite Gale-published books exclusively e.g. the article on the Pyrenees cites World Encyclopedia, or the one on Tibetan Buddhism also cites Contemporary American Religion, neither of which are Gale books. Their front page even says that they cite other publishers.

The solution here is to just cite the actual source so we (and readers) actually know where this information comes from. If they are all verifiable as you say, then we should skip vague references and just do that, as I've said above. Cortador (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

As I said every time I've seen an entry in this that appears in multiple versions of the encyclopedia, it's always from the latest version of the encyclopedia that has it. If an older version has an entry, and later versions do not, it will be from the latest entry that has an entry on it, as I said. If a topic is in edition 1 to edition 4 but then is removed from edition 5 to save space, the entry on the site will be from edition 4. If it's added in 4 and stays in 5 the entry will be from edition 5. Sometimes these volumes will cover totally new material every edition.

Yes, there are a few in there from OUP and Columbia University Press. The vast majority of them are Gale though, and every example you gave was Gale. I was perhaps oversimplifying.

Why? It tells you what the encyclopedia in question is, which is really the only other reliability consideration. A free link is obviously more verifiable for everyone than an offline print book source. There has never been an instance of there being something on that site that is not in the print source, so I wouldn't say it's required. Sure, in an ideal world everyone would have fully formatted beautiful citations citing the exact page, volume, edition, editor, location, publisher, section, chapter, of the source, etc, but that isn't the case and it isn't a reliability issue. I could do this every time I cite it (and afaik I have), but most people aren't so great at searching for offline sources and it would create an unnecessary hassle for something that has 0 impact for reliability. If you're citing like, Contemporary Authors New Revision series, it does not really matter for reliability whether the volume is from 1990 or 2007 or it's volume 1 or volume 990. We can't even get consensus to mandate URLs, ref templates, or page numbers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Indian cinema box-office trackers

I am opening this discussion to examine the reliability of major Indian box-office trackers, specifically regarding theatrical box-office figures. There is currently no clear consensus on their reliability, particularly for ALL India theatrical figures, and I would like to seek a consistent assessment of these sources.

Indian cinema and its major industries (to set the context)
Cinema of India consists of multiple language-based film industries. The five major industries relevant to this discussion are Tamil (Kollywood), Telugu (Tollywood), Malayalam (Mollywood), Kannada (Sandalwood), and Hindi (Bollywood). There are also many other regional industries such as Marathi, Bengali, Bhojpuri, Punjabi and others.

For context, Indian box-office figures are commonly expressed in crores, where 1 crore = 10 million.

Major box-office trackers
The following are among the major dedicated Indian box-office trackers commonly encountered in Indian cinema reporting:

Tracker	Main coverage	Current Wikipedia treatment	Discussion history
Bollywood Hungama	Hindi	Reliable	No clear consensus 2020 RSN discussion; nevertheless, the source has been used as a reliable source.
Sacnilk	All India	Unreliable	2026 reassessment; 2022 discussion
Box Office India	Hindi; occasionally covers South	Reliable	2008 RSN discussion
Koimoi	All India	Unreliable	2022 discussion; 2016 discussion; 2015 RSN discussion; 2014 discussion
Pinkvilla	All India	Unreliable	2025 RfC - RSN; 2025 discussion

For comparison, two major Hollywood box-office trackers are Box Office Mojo and The Numbers.

Disclaimers
The major trackers carry similar disclaimers. For example, Bollywood Hungama, Sacnilk, Koimoi, and Pinkvilla.

Secondary sources and indirect use of trackers
A related issue is the relationship between the dedicated box-office trackers above and the secondary publications listed in the table at the Indian cinema task force source table.

These publications use box-office figures directly or indirectly from the trackers, or from primary sources such as producer/distributor announcements and social-media claims (which can sometimes be exaggerated in Indian cinema reporting).

A few examples are given below (these are only a small sample).

• Hindustan Times - The Paradise: uses figures from the producers and Sacnilk.
• India Today - Laalo – Krishna Sada Sahaayate: uses box-office figures from both Sacnilk and Koimoi.
• News18 - Spider-Man: Brand New Day: uses figures from Sacnilk.

For an illustration of how box-office figures and sources are currently being reported for Indian films on Wikipedia, see List of highest-grossing Indian films.

For transparency, I also initiated the 2026 reassessment of Sacnilk, which led to this broader discussion. The reasoning and detailed discussion are available there.

Need for a consistent review
I am requesting that all five sources be analysed in the same manner, with a fair assessment of their accuracy, sourcing, methodology, transparency, and other relevant parameters, similar to established box-office trackers Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I've touched up your formatting a bit. When you use section headers in discussions it adds new reply options to each one, which could cause a mess with comments. It's also best practice to use internal links for any wiki content whenever possible. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 18:25, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Having stumbled into this topic as an outsider attempting to combat constant edit warring over box office figures (often from SPAs), I found my attempts to discern which sources are actually reliable frustrating, because even when I delve into previous discussions the outcomes seem to be largely based on vibes - editors' personal opinions rather than industry standards or actual methodology. It turns out this is a very heated subject area with a history of manipulation. Despite the outcomes of our previous discussions here many otherwise reliable sources utilize the figures from Sacnilk (with or without disclosure) leading to WP:FRUIT removal. I suggested this wider review in response to the above re-evaluation of Sacnilk, because as Tony stated they should all be evaluated neutrally by the wider community to try to ensure consistent standards are applied. If anyone else knows of additional sources that utilize independent figures not sourced from any of the above options, please add those for consideration too.

To save people having to dig through the previous thread to find it, here is Tony's original correspondence with Sacnilk requesting additional disclosures of their methodology:
Redacted email correspondence (PDF) ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 18:35, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

Read through the email correspondence with Sacnilk and it now makes it clear that their response is due to the company's underlying motive that remains self promotion and gaining visibility. They actually had to ask you for instructions on what exact information to provide that would help them gain reliability status on Wikipedia. Now my decision is clearly unreliable for Sacnilk. Bollywood Hungama, maybe the only most reliable here on the list. Their disclaimer also says about their data, However they are adequately indicative of the box-office performance of the film(s). BoxofficeIndia is also reliable but rest remain unreliable as per previous consensus on WP:RSN and WP:ICTFSOURCES. RangersRus (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

In the PinkVilla RfC I said this isn't just a pinkvilla / cinetrack problem Hollywood Accounting is also a thing. We know budgets and box offices are both manipulated by film studios. This simply isn't valuable information - it's too prone to deliberate error and I stand by this. My personal opinion is that we should be treating most box office trackers as unreliable, not just in India, unless they can be demonstrated to have access to information that didn't go through corporate hands first. Furthermore I think box office returns, with the exception of record-setting films, are almost never due information as, excluding record-setting films, there's nothing really to learn from a number like that in an infobox. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

People are still obsessed with it though, and we'd have to protect a huge number of articles to stop the info from constantly being warred in. It's enough of an issue already, but if we can provide figures that we deem reasonably reliable that helps mollify people. I had to take Hanuman Ansh all the way to ECP, especially because we didn't have a reliable source reporting a worldwide gross until yesterday so there were constant insertions of Sacnilk-derived numbers. I don't think the additional workload is justified for the minor issue of numbers maybe being off by a few percent. Remember, we can't guarantee accuracy - we only report what reliable sources claim.

I do think it's better to give a range if we have multiple acceptable sources instead of a single firm number. It might also be a good idea to add a datestamp when they're still in theaters, so people are aware it's not updated to the minute. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 12:10, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

But they don't disclose their methodology either, do they? So we're still just taking their word on it. The figures from both do seem to at least stay fairly similar, and the difference in timing of reports could factor into minor discrepancies.

Maybe @Tonyy Starkk would be willing to put together a table comparing the figures given by these sources across a selection of movies. I know they already did one for Sacnilk vs our values on Wikipedia, but those utilize various sources (sometimes unreliable ones or even unsourced if no one else catches and corrects it). Wide ranges like ₹605–650 crores and ₹1,642–1,800 crores are definitely suspect. They seem to trend on the lower end of these ranges, which seems to me a good indication that they aren't manipulating figures. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 11:59, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Before concluding that Bollywood Hungama is reliable, was it itself ever properly analysed using the same criteria?

• Where is the historical discussion establishing a clear community consensus that Bollywood Hungama is reliable for box-office figures? I could not find one (hence I opened this discussion).
• Where is the documented methodology explaining how its figures are obtained? The disclaimer states that “The figures are compiled from trade sources and market estimates”. Is that enough to constitute a methodology, or should it also explain the tracking process, sources used, and verification methods, as described by Box Office Mojo - About Box Office Tracking and The Numbers - Data Services?
• Does that one line stating that the figures are “adequately indicative of the box-office performance” by itself establish reliability? If so, couldn't any tracker simply add the same statement and claim reliability?

Tonyy Starkk (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

didn't I share with you that the methodology is shared at the bottom of every boxoffice in Bollywood Hungama? . Shows box office report covers domestic (India net) collections, worldwide gross, and overseas earnings, along with lifetime totals once the film completes its run in cinemas. You can also check occupancy trends, show counts, and how ** performs day over day. The figures are compiled from trade sources and market estimates and refreshed frequently, giving fans, trade analysts, and film enthusiasts an accurate and adequately indicative picture of **’s box office performance. RangersRus (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That's just a statement - it doesn't prove anything. How does it compare to what we know about accepted western sources? ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 13:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Let me break this down line by line:

• “Box office report covers domestic (India net) collections, worldwide gross, and overseas earnings...” --- not methodology; this only describes what the report covers.
• “You can also check occupancy trends, show counts, and how [film] performs day over day.” --- not methodology; this describes the information displayed.
• “The figures are compiled from trade sources and market estimates and refreshed frequently.” --- this is the methodology-related part, but only at a high level.
• “...giving fans, trade analysts, and film enthusiasts an accurate and adequately indicative picture...” --- not methodology; this is a claim about the accuracy/usefulness of the figures.

Where is the methodology here? For a documented methodology, I would expect an explanation of how the data is tracked, which sources are used, how the figures are calculated or estimated, and how they are verified. Please also see the documented examples from Box Office Mojo and The Numbers linked above. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

this is actually good enough to rely upon unlike other sources that do not provide such methodology at all, even at high level. If this is not enough at all, then the next option that Simonm223 suggested during Pinkvilla RFC is to just avoid boxoffice figures on all Indian film articles. Simonm223, please correct me if I am wrong. RangersRus (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Any source could copypaste an identical claim. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 14:40, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually I said to avoid box office figures on all film articles regardless of geography and have subsequently added the caveat except where box office figures are significant as record breaking, etc. with the expectation that there should be a preponderance of high-quality sources for films that break records. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

That should probably be raised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 14:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Alternative solution - we report all box office figures from any source and flag all of them as {{dubious}}.
*Ducks* ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 17:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

The fact that they even replied to their email in the first place is something. Since Tonyy Starkk mentioned we need a consistent review, I think it's only fair if we tried to email the other news outlets about their methodology, if they currently don't have one or is currently questioned by the community. If they don't reply at all that really shows the outlets' accountability (or lack therof). Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 15:34, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thats a fair point. I can definitely do that, but some concerns were raised about contacting Sacnilk earlier, I just want to confirm again that if its okay for me to email the other trackers as well, on behalf of the Wikipedia community. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

More of a peanut gallery comment, but given how Indian cinema frequently appears on the Top 25 Report (looking at you List of highest-grossing Indian films), I will be watching this thread pretty closely since it might affect our reporting. No comments on reliability of the sources, though, since I'm (admittedly) not very familiar with cinema in general. Hason-LEK-SIN ● 💬 ● 🧱 ● 🧪 13:54, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see films like Hanuman Ansh, Vishwanath & Sons, Toxic (2026 film), and many other Indian films popping up here from week to week. Tonyy Starkk (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I'm extra glad I got that protection! I suspect Hanuman Ansh is going to to remain popular as long as the box office keeps pouring in. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 14:21, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

this is very typical on Indian film articles where fans cause disruption, inflating figures without sources or by using unreliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that out, but I'm sure the issue is inflated even more when the article is this popular. The protection covers the extent of the theatrical run (and should probably be implemented more often in these cases, regardless of the outcome of this discussion). ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 15:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Possible laundering of a deprecated source in Wikivoice?

In the article Stop Asian Hate, there appears to be a case of the use of WP:GRAYZONE in WP:WIKIVOICE and it would be helpful to get other eyes on this. Page 280 of the following open-source book is cited for a controversial claim:

• Sautman, Barry (2026). Telling Tall Tales: "Uyghur Genocide" as a Political Strategem (PDF). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishing. p. 280. ISBN 9789004756106.

Page 280 cites https://mronline.org/2021/04/05/wipe-out-china-u-s-funded-uyghur-activists-train-as-gun-toting-foot-soldiers-for-empire/ as Barry Sautman's source for the controversial claim. That is a direct re-publication of the WP:GRAYZONE, a deprecated source. Is it permissible for a claim originating from a deprecated source to be used in Wikivoice here? - Amigao (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

It depends. I think the editors of a Brill book and the author Barry Sautman can critically evaluate the source of information. If you follow this logic to its end point (and I have, at times) it becomes inherently impossible to say anything about anything that is itself unreliable or which involves unreliable actors. Anything about Grayzone is at least partially based on material from Grayzone, so then would it inherently be impossible to have any reliable source on Grayzone, because by your logic we would be laundering material from the deprecated Grayzone? Grayzone is like it or not rather influential (or, was) and if they break something that turns out to be true of course they will be referred to. Of course, if the piece, specific allegations or book in question is known to be wrong I'd consider that different, but a whole outlet... eh. It's a factor to be sure but the idea of "laundering" can be taken in strange directions very fast. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I’ve attributed his source. He’s an increasingly fringe voice and his book cites several Grayzone pieces as if they’re reliable sources so it’s questionable how reliable it is. My main doubt is whether it’s due - it’s a passing mention in his book, which is on a different topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

In addition to WP:GRAYZONE, Sautman cites other unreliable sources like WP:BREITBART, WP:GLOBALTIMES, and WP:CGTN for factual claims. The book has also been called out for sloppiness that indicates a lack of basic fact-checking (e.g., referring to Tren de Aragua as "Tren de Arena" on page 1). - Amigao (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The only Breitbart citations are referring to exclusive quotes from exclusive interviews they were given, which seems, to me, to be totally unobjectionable.

As far as I can tell, Global Times is cited alongside ceicdata a singular time, to support "in 2013 it was Y13,700, but grew at an average of 7% annually, to reach Y30,899 in 2024 or 75% of China’s national figure." There are a bunch of Global Times links in the extended bibliography which is not a citation.

On CGTN, which is cited quite a bit, CGTN is cited extremely frequently by academic works, and given the media freedom in China if you're working with media primary sources that is basically unavoidable.

I don't think its case is great, seems he should be attributed for controversial things at minimum, though I think concerns about "laundering" unreliable sources leads to nonsense very fast. Speaking more broadly, whether the book is or is not reliable, no publisher is infallible. 2 or so years ago Oxford University Press published a book that argued in favor of Tariq Nasheed's conspiracy theories about slave owners and homosexuality. Book-specific reception is usually best for determining reliability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

On page 161, Sautman cites an op-ed piece in yet another unreliable source, WP:ALMAYADEEN, for a sweeping factual claim. On the same page, Sautman cites this article from Aeon magazine for a quote ("The WUC is probably the only Muslim-dominated organization in the world to stand with Israel in the Gaza conflict") that does not appear at all in the article. The quote actually comes from elsewhere. - Amigao (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

It's important to remember that whether we consider a source reliable, unreliable, or deprecated is all in the context of it's use on Wikipedia. So a author using something we would consider unreliable is fine, as long as the author is considered reliable. Instead it's the content of the authors work that should be in question. Other academics calling out the work, or obvious factual inaccuracies in the work, are far more important then whether the author cites Grayzone. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this source can be considered unreliable *because* it cites Grayzone, but it seems to espouse a rather fringe view and hence should not be given undue weight. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

How to deal with hijacked journals?

Or more broadly, sources that were reliable at some point but not others? We have scripts that highlight unreliable sources, but they don't seem to be time sensitive. For example, a hijacked journal citation was just added here. What tools can we use to figure out if the journal was or wasn't unreliable at that point, and how to flag it for other editors? Auto rejecting/reverting all hijacked journals, for example, risks removing content from the time they were reliable, less than ideal solution. Ideally, we would need a list of all such journals with time periods that we could check a source against (then we could automate removal of such sources for the periods after they became corrupted). FYI I use User:Headbomb/unreliable for relevant color flagging of sources. Here also @Headbomb _{Piotrus at Hanyang| reply here} 08:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by hijacked journals in this context? I presume it's not the same as usurped URLs that now link to spam.

FWIW I use WP:CITEUNSEEN, which not only flags based on WP:PRS and WP:NPPRS but links there so I can check the associated discussions myself. It can be a bit of a slog sometimes but I don't know that there's much of a way around it in situations where reliability is circumstantial. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 12:17, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't find any record of WJARR having ever been considered reliable. What are you basing that on? ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 12:23, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Yup, the mere title - 'World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews' rings alarm bells from the start. Reputable journals rarely have vague all-encompassing titles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

In one training I sat through, "World," "Global," and "International" were highlighted as things to use caution with. Others included descriptors like "Advanced," as most reputable journals don't self aggrandize like that (They do self aggrandize, but usually not so on the nose in their name). Others included both ends of the spectrum when it comes to scope: extremely broad or specific topics are a red flag. This journal is literally raising most of the red flags I saw in titles. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I presume Journal hijacking means exactly what you said. Apparently this is common enough to warrant reporting. LkL-70547 (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

But there's no evidence of it here. By all appearances it's been a low quality predatory journal from day one. All I see from the diff is an inappropriate insertion of an unreliable source. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 14:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm mostly commenting on the general case :) LkL-70547 (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

In the case of journal hijacking (with an imposter site set up at a different url), my script will highlight the shit site. There is no time component to that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Primetimer

As the first GA reviewer of Jeff Sneider, (see review page), we've discussed the inclusion of the source Primetimer, which has a promising editorial policy but is also owned under Sportskeeda, which is generally unreliable. At the section in Jeff Sneider, it's used to cite Sneider scrutinizing some commenters who defended CAA and calling the agency "notoriously one of the biggest bullies in the world" for its association with Harvey Weinstein. This is contentious information, but it's also a summary of Sneider's own statement he posted. Does this source have a case for inclusion? In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:52, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm the GA nominator of Jeff Sneider, and a fellow editor who graciously has been helping out the process of the GA review was the one to add that source aforementioned; I know that Sportskeeda is considered unreliable for the "little or no editorial oversight over the website's content, which is largely user-written", while Primetimer is indeed owned by the same company, Nazara Technologies. If the editorial policy of Primetimer is true, they've got editorial process unlike Sportskeeda; It's not unheard of for one media company to own one source that is unreliable because it is run a bad way, and all at once own yet another that is considered reliable because it is run well. BarntToust 16:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Lambert Academic Publishing, lap-publishing, lap-publishing.com, via morebooks.shop

I see publications like "Heideggerian meaning of prostate cancer" (https://www.morebooks.shop/shop-ui/shop/product/978-3-659-23633-4] and "Buttoncity:The New Frontier of Buttonology:Research, Theory, and the Science of Pressing Questions" (by I. M. Shittinyu) (https://www.morebooks.shop/shop-ui/shop/book-launch-offer/35cb48935fabdf80b6bae293b385ac44b1e9aba4 ) makes me suspect the publisher has no academic merit. Per OmniScriptum article:Lambert Academic Publishing has also been described as the "most dominating" among "predatory publishers that seek out authors of new theses", a vanity press which does "not apply the basic standards of academic publishing such as peer-review, editorial or proof-reading processes". -Bogger (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC) Bogger (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

What I am not seeing is whether Wikipedia uses this source as a reference, and if so for what and on what page. This is an important part of any RSN report. Could you add that information, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

References

wikifur.com

Not notable and reliable. Above ru:Википедия:К оценке источников/Архив/2015/3#Wikifur, ru:Википедия:К_удалению/15_сентября_2007#WikiFur, ru:Википедия:К_удалению/3_августа_2015#WikiFur, ru:Википедия:Часто_используемые_источники#Прочие_источники, ru:Википедия:Политика_русской_Википедии_по_авторитетности_источников_(2007—2026), ru:Википедия:Политика_русской_Википедии_по_авторитетности_источников_(2007—2026)/Вымышленные_миры. ~2026-52547-47 (talk) 10:40, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

What has any of this to do with us? Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Nomos-TV

Hello, I was recently informed that the French-Canadian online website Nomos-TV (linked here ->Nomos TV) may be unreliable due to most of it's articles being self published opinion pieces by it's co-founder, Alexandre Cormier-Denis. I want to bring this to the attention of the Wikipedia noticeboard so that the reliability of Nomos-TV can be properly judged by community consenus Lazarbeem (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Why do you think it should be considered reliable? Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's reliable for certain topics. I'm saying this here because I couldn't find a Wikipedia:Unreliable sources/Noticeboard Lazarbeem (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

If another editor thinks it isn't reliable, and you don't have any reason to think it's reliable, don't use it. There's no need for discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok good to know. Thank you Lazarbeem (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The first and most important judgement on a source's reliability is an editors own good judgement. If you don't believe it's reliable then that's good enough, it's only if other editors disagree that a source needs to be discussed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Can I make my own list on my user page so I don't forget? Lazarbeem (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, it is your user page, do as you please Ar1201u1 (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)