Edge Rewrite
translate Source code View original
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 498

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 495Archive 496Archive 497Archive 498Archive 499Archive 500→Archive 505

Catholic News Agency

Latest comment: 8 months ago56 comments11 people in discussion

Can CNA be used without attribution as a source on controversies relating to the Catholic church? See FBI Richmond Catholic memo investigation which relies on it as the main secondary source for FBI investigations of traditional Catholic extremists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I would not recommend using any of the EWTN publications without attribution in general... On controversies relating to the Catholic church I would avoid them all together. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
In general, a good number of the writers for the Eternally Confused Network seem to have had too much sacramental wine to drink. I would not consider them reliable for anything beyond the weather report. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
I think we should avoid making insulting religious jokes. It looks like about 15% of the world is Catholic, and that means something like 15% of the editors reading this section could be Catholic. We need everyone involved in Wikipedia, not just vocally non-religious editors.
Looking at the FBI Richmond Catholic memo investigation article, it says that the FBI considered adherents of Traditionalist Catholicism to be at-risk for domestic terrorism. According to Traditionalist Catholicism, at least some of these people aren't Catholics any more. Based on that, this sounds like a case of "Media group A investigates former/anti-A members". It's probably a case of WP:RSBIAS, rather than being unreliable.
As a more general statement, I would accept a media org like this for objective facts about the in-group (someone was given an award, became a bishop, or whatever). Sources in the in-group usually know what's happening in the group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
They are still Catholics, just schismatic ones. They are hostile to the church authorities but practice a more extreme (?) version. As there is a left/right issue here and EWTN is to the right they'll probably have some sympathies. Secretlondon (talk) 07:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
That's not what our article says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure which bit you are challenging. If it's whether they are Catholics - they are not in communion with Rome, but practice pre-Vatican II rites. Secretlondon (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
You said "They are still Catholics". The article says "they are not regarded by the Holy See to be members of the Catholic Church". Membership in an organization (any organization) is determined by the organization; therefore, if the organization says they are not members, they aren't. I therefore think it's fair to say that they aren't members of the Catholic church/not Catholics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
You get catholics that are not members of the Roman church at all such as Anglo-Catholics (who are certainly not trads). Catholicism is a set of doctrines rather than a membership organisation. It's a bit like the way Mormon fundamentalists sects are still Mormon. Secretlondon (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster defines Catholic (as a noun) as "a member of a Catholic church, especially Roman Catholic." They give no definitions based on beliefs instead of membership. But even if it's "a set of doctrines", who decides which doctrines matter, and how do we know that these non-members subscribe to the relevant doctrines? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
(This is pretty deep in tangent land; feel free to reply on my talk page if you're willing to keep explaining this to me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
"a member of a Catholic church, especially Roman Catholic." means that you're wrong and Secretlondon is right. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
I've looked closely at CNA's website. It doesn't seem to be a conservative as EWTN itself. Secretlondon (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, I should be very careful not to offend myself then, given that I am Catholic. But I seem to recall something about telling the truth being an element of Catholic teachings. Publications that stretch the truth do not seem to recall that item. By the way, your attempt at stratified sampling logic for the 15% is probably inaccurate. But that is a separate issue. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Per their about us page, it's not clear what kind of editorial policy they have, but they have an editor-in-chief and other editors per their contact us page. The editor-in-chief Ken Oliver is described in his biography as "a former White House director of specialty media, news editor at NBC Radio, and evening news producer at Radio Martí, among other positions in journalism and public policy." The organization also is cited quite a lot by NPR ( . The New York Times cites them too, but always precedes it with "conservative outlet" or otherwise qualifies their citations; . I would attribute their claims about contentious (more exceptional) facts, but as Whatamidoing above noted, it doesn't really need attribution for less exceptional objective fats. Katzrockso (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Should it be added as WP:MREL under WP:RSP? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:RSPCRITERIA, what have you got? And please don't start new rfc:s etc for the purpose of getting it on RSP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not particularly familiar with this noticeboard, but I don't think that a source getting discussed once typically merits an entry on the WP:RSP, per WP:RSPCRITERIA.
However, I did quickly find discussions from September 2025, one from June 2020 and a brief mention here in November 2022, so it might be warranted. Katzrockso (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
The "brief mention" in November 2022 is just a link to the June 2020 discussion, with a claim that it has "been deemed unreliable" that I don't think is justified by the June 2020 discussion. A quick glance over the June 2020 discussion suggests that it is considered reliable (for the claims in the relevant article), and the source is currently used in that article.
I'd summarize past discussions as:
  • June 2020: deemed reliable for serious/criminal accusations, and is used in the article
  • November 2022: incorrect claim that June 2020 said it wasn't reliable, as part of a list of other/unrelated religious media
  • September 2025: deemed reliable for the claim that a bishop said something, but undue and so not used in the article
I don't feel like this is enough to justify an RSP entry, though we may get there eventually. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree with your evaluation, was just collecting the relevant mentions. I'm not sure what the line for including something on RSP is Katzrockso (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
Usually, we're looking both at the difficulty of the disputes, the number of them, and the frequency. There's no need for an RSP entry if it's obvious to everyone that a website is reliable or unreliable, or if a source only comes up every few years. On the other hand, if we've had two separate fights in two months (not just the same WP:IDHT editor twice), then it might be helpful to pursue an RSP entry. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)
It depends, as always, on what you are using it for. They have a US right POV. They will reflect some US right concerns such as traditional masses, which can be weaponised against the church in Rome. Secretlondon (talk) 07:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
They are reliable for mundane claims in the Catholic Church like bishop appointments, writings/opinions of recent popes and bishops, canonizations, canon law... They also seem fine with respect to criminal acts by individual priests and bishops (CSA scandals and others) but I would use other more mainstream sources for this out of caution. They are not reliable for the truth of miracles, dogma... Don't use them for social policies where they are incredibly biased like abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, transgender issues, anticonception... (they will not misquote popes, bishops or priests on these topics but absolutely don't use them for anything else). Rolluik (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
Things like bishops appointments etc you can get from the Vatican rather than from them. They do have a conservative POV compared to some other Catholic media. Secretlondon (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)
I second that they're reliable for the mundane, I wouldn't take it further than that though. Snokalok (talk) 06:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that there was a mini-debate about the term "catholic" above, please be sure you are sitting down before you read the page List of Independent Catholic denominations. That is all long and messy issue, and the resulting debate will produce not much beyond gray hair for those involved. I will have no further comment. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Most academics in religious studies will therefore just use self identification and it is what Wikipedia in practice also does. Rolluik (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for all of the helpful comments. It’s clear there is not total consensus on the limits of its reliability but I think we have consensus that it can be used for mundane facts about the Catholic Church and consensus that it should be avoided for contentious topics. I am interested in the fact that at least one editor felt it should be avoided for US culture war topics. The article mentioned above probably falls into that category as it is a minor focus for conspiracy-minded Trump supporters. The source has been added to a related page, Paul Abbate, and I’m going to assume that because that’s a BLP it’s even more of a red flag. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: Editors involved in the above discussion might be interested to note that this source has now been added to the Southern Poverty Law Centre article, without attribution, in a section about the FBI using SPLC definitions in investigating TradCath extremists. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

So far nobody in this discussion or any previous one has found any evidence of CNA engaging in poor fact-checking practices. Unless I am mistaken, all prior criticism has come from this source being biased in favor of Catholic social teaching and matters related to the church. Per WP:BIASEDSOURCES that is not a valid argument. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

The modern – and little known – miracles of Padre Pio These are the sort of things I mean: most of the article is attributed to their source and it is fine if we do the same but this "Known around the globe as simply "Padre Pio," Saint Pio of Pietrelcina has been called one of the "most active" saints in the Church, and continues to work miracles for those who pray through his intercession." we absolutely can't cite this source to say that Pio continues to do miracles even though this is in CNA's voice.
For abortion: Resource page see also this complications page for example for breast cancer it leaves out context and implies the opposite of our Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis.
In most cases where CNA is used, editors have used their brain so most citations and text in the Wikipedia articles is good. The text of the article FBI Richmond Catholic memo reads fine (reliable and not biased) to me but CNA (and other Catholic sources) does seem overused, so cutting some minor points only sourced to them is certainly possible. Rolluik (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
Finally. Some actual problems. I see the page contains blatant misinformation about abortion and breast cancer. I don't disagree with you in yout analysis of Padre Pio, but the stuff related to abortion is on a resource page, rather than in any articles. Can you find similar misinformation about abortion in their articles? The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
If you can find more serious problems, I would say to use this source with attribution on a case-by-case basis. IIRC, mainstream sources regularly cite CNA, so they are covered by WP:USEBYOTHERS. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
[Tangent] About the abortion–breast cancer thing: If you look into that, I think that you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that. Our article doesn't do a good job of explaining it at the moment, but the effect depends on the population (e.g., age?) and what you're comparing against. The simplest case is if you imagine identical triplets with differing outcomes:
  • A gets pregnant at age 20 and has an abortion: Lifetime breast cancer risk of 100% baseline.
  • B gets pregnant at age 20 and gives birth: Lifetime breast cancer risk reduced to 90% of baseline.
  • C doesn't get pregnant at age 20: Lifetime breast cancer risk of 100% baseline.
The protective effect of B's "early" pregnancy is statistically significant. The statement at the CNA website is therefore not exactly wrong: If you compare matched pregnant women, some of whom get abortions, the ones who give birth will have a lower lifetime risk of breast cancer. Alternatively (because multiplication works in both directions), the ones who get abortions have a higher lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, I think the CNA webpage is also significantly misleading, because the difference is due to the full-term pregnancy, not due to the abortion. (I agree with Secretlondon below that for Wikipedia's purposes, it's also irrelevant, because their webpage is not a WP:MEDRS source.)
BTW, this isn't specific to abortions. The teenage pregnancy rate has declined. Hooray, right? In a few decades, the number of breast cancer cases will go up in direct proportion to the number of teenagers 16+ who aren't having babies now. This isn't an argument in favor of teenage parents, but it probably is an argument in favor of public health planners putting the teen pregnancy rate into their forecasting models. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
The Padre Pio article would be reliable for a statement that Pio of Pietrelcina is another name for the subject. A source might not be reliable for any possible claim, and yet that does not make it completely unreliable for all possible claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
If the statement comes in the context of fringe coverage how could it be reliable? Any claim that miracles are real (and not just beliefs) is of course as fringe as fringe as fringe can get, its generally disqualifying of the source on the topic which in this case would be Padre Pio in-toto... So no good for the "also known as" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Because WP:RSCONTEXT means that sources can be reliable for one thing and not for another. We are supposed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article. This source is reliable for the name. It's not reliable for "____ provably happened through divine intervention". The subject of the statement being made in the Wikipedia article isn't Padre Pio in general or miracles; it's Padre Pio's name(s) alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
In general we wouldn't use a fringe article in that context except for limited aboutself because it essentially backdoors a link to the fringe content in. I think we can use them for a lot, but anything that related to miracles is a no for me... Don't think I'm going to change your mind though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
I can imagine editors preferring to use a different source, but that doesn't make this one actually unreliable for that particular statement.
As an example, I was looking through some sources about sexual harassment allegations. I found several things in them that aren't related to the allegations that I'd like to cite those sources for. As there's a dispute at the article right now about the allegations, I don't plan to edit the article, but even if we decide to exclude the harassment allegations, those sources might be useful for the history and prominent successes of the org.
A while back, an editor tried to get a specific newspaper article banned as a BLP violation, because the headline implied misconduct by a politician, even though the thing the article was being cited for was merely which town the politician lived in. Even if the complaint never makes it in the article, the newspaper article isn't a backdoor to BLP violations.
It's the same principle here: a source is reliable (or not) for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article. You don't have to use it if you don't like the source for some reason and have an alternative at hand, but you shouldn't say that it's unreliable in such a case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Its either unreliable or undue, but there is no case in which it would be appropriate to source any piece of information to that article. If a higher quality source can't be found the info can't be included, we simply don't use fringe sources for claims which no other sources support (especially outside of the context of ABOUTSELF which wouldn't apply to Pio). We are not going to make an exception for this source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
His name is not a fringe theory, so Wikipedia:Fringe theories doesn't apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
It is only being provided in the context of a fringe theory, specifically the miracle theory. If this really is the only source which says that about the name then WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies and this source is nowhere near good enough for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

People's names are not exceptional claims that require extraordinary evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Why would the claim not be exceptional if it isn't supported by any other source? If a single source says that the subject is also known as Tom and all the other sources say only John then the Tom claim is clearly exceptional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
Because saying what someone's name is isn't "extraordinary" or "exceptional" information. WP:ECREE is for allegations about cold fusion or that Wonderpam is a cure for all cancers. It is not about someone's name.
We're not talking about a situation in which other sources disagree. You said If this really is the only source when invoking the idea that his name would be an exceptional claim for which extraordinary sources would be required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
An assertion about someone's name could absolutely be "extraordinary" or "exceptional" information, especially if it comes in a fringe context like the alternate name of an alledged miracle worker or magician. If we're not talking about a situation in which other sources disagree then there is no reason to use EWTN, use one of those actually reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
There are three relevant cases:
  • Other sources exist, and editors may prefer whichever ones they want.
  • Other sources don't exist, in which case editors need to use whichever one does exist.
  • Other sources disagree, in which case editors need to give WP:DUE weight to the various views.
The irrelevant case is the one you're talking about:
  • We have a source saying that a man who lived in the 20th century has a name, and the idea that a person had a name is so extraordinary to you that you beleive we need really exceptional sources to prove that he had a name. NB not "that he performed a miracle". Just that he had a name.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
That a person had a name is not the claim being made, you're repeatedly engaging with imagined text vs what I actually wrote and what we're actually talking about here. I think that the productive portion of our discussion has run its course. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)
The claim I suggested as appropriate for that source is "The Padre Pio article would be reliable for a statement that Pio of Pietrelcina is another name for the subject."'
So, yes, literally "that a person had a name". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Are you sure we don't need an RfC for this? These conversations seem to be extended. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
But hypothetical. RSP entries should only be created when there are real disputes affecting real articles. What we've got here is one editor objecting to any use of a source that says something positive about a religious claim, and another editor convinced that all sources are reliable for something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Oh, so like two opposite extremes? Interesting. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
For abortion and breast cancer we would only use a reliable medical source anyway. Secretlondon (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Warning: I feel obliged to say that much of the discussion here is either incoherent or amateur at best. Readers are warned not to draw conclusions from it. An example is the discussion of causation without reference to the work of the fellow| who dominated the field for a while. His work is now considered so so but the discussion here reflects the fact that some people here need to take a class on evidential reasoning. I do not have time to teach a class here, but all would be advised to take a class before making comments. And before relying on any medical source please consider its Jadad score. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
    WP:MEDPRI discourages editors from citing clinical trials, so editors therefore have no need to apply the Jadad scale, or any of the many alternatives, to evaluate the trial themselves. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Editors should instead, when possible, cite a medical school textbook or a peer-reviewed review article that has already evaluated the subject (not just a single trial) for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
    Then I must have misread the attempt at analysis above. I will go and have a talk with my optometrist. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

(Archived, then re-posted to close) Tech for Palestine talk page discussion around the usage of PirateWires.com

Latest comment: 8 months ago287 comments57 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The median reliability score assigned by editors was 2.5.

If I had to write a blurb for WP:RS/PS based on this discussion, it would be:

PW is occasionally noteworthy for its strong libertarian or right-wing commentary on politics, economics, society, and technology; and interviews conducted directly by a contributor. It does not clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion. Some of its factual claims have been criticized as obviously false (such as the pseudoscientific promotion of bloodletting for all men and some of its coverage of Wikipedia and Reddit) or borderline antisemitic conspiracy theory (certain coverage of George Soros). Claims are often inflammatory and poorly sourced, with no known fact-checking or correction-publishing process. More reliable sources should generally be used to verify or replace PW as a source of fact. PW has a conflict of interest when reporting on Peter Thiel.

Given that this outlet often criticizes Wikipedia, many participants pointed out that it's important not to let our own opinions about Wikipedia or the way it works being good or bad cloud our evaluation. Some editors felt personally slandered by this source, and were able to point to evidence of this. Discounting those instances of personal involvement, there is still evidence that PW simply gets some facts about Wikipedia wrong, often in an inflammatory way that serves the viewpoint of the author.

Participants also pointed out PW is rated "mixed" for factual reporting by Media Bias / Fact Check, which also notes an unserious tone in some of its editorializing and prioritization of commentary over objective reporting. The citations to PW in reliable sources generally treated its assertions as claims, not facts (but didn't question interview quotes); unreliable sources tended to repeat PW claims as facts. Some PW contributors previously worked for outlets that have promoted misinformation. -- Beland (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

discussion is mostly about piratewires, which is affiliated with michael solana.
previous discussion here:

appearing to be cited in a few other articles, but hasn't been used much yet. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Obviously not a WP:RS; they don't seem to have any editorial policies, but beyond that they clearly lack a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They're a personal website usable only for WP:ABOUTSELF description of their own activities. The only in-depth coverage I could find is here and here. The Atlantic piece describes them as eg. participating in something with the trappings of a classic pump and dump. Also note the description (there and elsewhere, including on its own site) as a "media company", which is very vague in a way that seems to specifically avoid anything that might claim an actual responsibility towards fact-checking. Business Insider describes their outlook (in a quote) as "information warfare of one tribe versus another." Trae Stephens, a partner at Founders Fund (where Pirate Wires' founder works at his day job), described Pirate Wires as a kind of daily affirmation for Silicon Valley. None of this suggests that they are actually doing any fact-checking or that they care about accuracy, and certainly not that they have a reputation for either of these things. --Aquillion (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
There's a previous discussion in archive 465. Personally, publishing Soros conspiracy theories disqualifies a source from being generally reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Definitely not a reliable source, per consensus in previous discussion. Their reports might be noteworthy though where there is reliable secondary coverage of it, eg "'Wikipedia editors colluded to delegitimize Israel'". JNS.org. 2024-11-03. Retrieved 2025-09-04. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Pirate Wires' reporting on this story has corroborated other reporting, has been corroborated by other reporting, and has been widely cited by reliable sources. Editors should consider it WP:RS both on this topic and in general.
The article in question, by Ashley Rindsberg, "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative," 24 Oct 2024, confirmed and expanded reporting from the prior June 26 by Gabby Deutch, "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia" at the *Jewish Insider*.
Since then:
While this was going on, Rindsberg produced two related reports at Pirate Wires, "Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” Enforces Sweeping Ban on Pro-Hamas Edit Gang," 27 Jan 2025, and "Portrait of a Digital Propagandist," 26 Feb 2025.
I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting.
Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages for Jack Dorsey 827 days ago and Bluesky 633 days ago without apparent contention. The page on Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 617 days ago, also without apparent contention.
Consequently:
  • To the criticism that they "don't seem to have any editorial policies" and related, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The notion that neither does any other news outlet listed above would be absurd.
  • Pirate Wires in fact does "have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," as evidenced by the citation and corroboration above.
  • "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors for commentary and reporting.
  • The Atlantic article cited above as criticism suggests that Pirate Wires may have become unwittingly involved in a crypto pump-and-dump. Even reliable sources sometimes act on a bad scoop. The Atlantic's characterization, assuming that it's correct, it is not disqualifying given the realities of journalism.
  • Wikipedia describes The New York Times as "a mass media corporation." "Media company" means that the company works in a range of media. It is not a suspicious label.
  • The Business Insider quote cited above as criticism indicates only editorial slant, which does not contradict a positive assessment of Pirate Wires' reliability.
  • The suggestion that the site is "publishing Soros conspiracy theories" is unfounded. Pirate Wires published another report by Rindsberg, How Soros-Backed Operatives Took Over Key Roles at Wikipedia, on 6 Jan 2025. I am unable to find a RS characterization of this report as a "conspiracy theory"; judgment to that effect constitutes WP:OR.
Pirate Wires has accomplished WP:RS-quality reporting here and deserves due credit for it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't constitute OR, as that deals with article content. It's literally in the first sentence of that page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The 'evidence' the give is that there was connections between Soros and people at the WMF, but absolutely nothing to show that Soros actually backed them to get into those positions or that those people acted in Soros' interest. The typical connect the dots even if there is no prove of anything that comes from conspiratorial thinking. So again that they published such an article should disqualify them as a reliable source. That they might be right at times is beside the point, even a stopped clock. Sources are meant to have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Publishing what amounts to lots of connected pins in a notice board is hardly a good sign of that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the policy which says that if a media outlet publishes an article about Soros that you believe unsound, then none of their reporting on any topic should be regarded as reliable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The policy would be WP:V reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I described the issue with there reporting and showed why it shod be considered conspiritorial. If you agree with it you should show how the source has the reputation that policy asks for. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I did, documented overhead. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I think this discussion should have been linked on the T4P talk page so the people discussing there could have had the opportunity to comment here. Anyway, as far as I can tell there has been a lot of opinion expressed about PW not being viewed as reliable by some editors, and even some opinion saying essentially, "Look! They said a thing I disagree with about Soros" or some similar expression, but no real evidence of other reliable sources discussing Pirate Wires in such a way as to deem them unreliable. The extremely detailed review above on the reliability of PW I believe would serve to place PW in an RfC as GREL or at the very most they might need attribution. PW is doing some excellent reporting in the truest journalistic sense, and it seems as if that makes some uncomfortable, but until it is demonstrated that PW is actually unreliable, with specific evidence from a reliable source, then PW is reliable and can be used and cited without attribution. Lastly, bias in a source, if there is even such bias here, does not constitute unreliability. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I never said I disagree with what they posted about Soros, I said it was conspiratorial rubbish and then gave specific reasons why it was. Reliable sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, posting conspiracies whether that's about Soros or Trump (and whether we personally agree with it) isn't an indicator of a generally reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Lacking other sources disparaging such a reputation, we cannot come to our own assumed opinion that such a reputation is unreliable, especially not based on one story. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The first and most important check of a sources reliability is an editors own good judgement. Blindly restating everything you find online is the thing that would be against policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:22, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • The default is no reputation; as RS says, anyone can create a website and claim to be a reliable source - that doesn't make them one. None of the sources provided above really establish that Pirate Wires has a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; most of them are WP:BIASED and aren't WP:RSes themselves, and some of them don't even mention Pirate Wires. A single brief story in a hot-button cultural dispute that was picked up by a handful of friendly outlets and blogs is obviously not enough to establish that a source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Aquillion (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    The default is not GUNREL. As I've said, I think I could be persuaded that attribution should be required for PW, but other than that, there is no evidence of unreliability beyond some WP editor's opinions expressed in this thread. What PW has said might hold bias as well, but there is no reporting on their having been factually inaccurate or failing in terms of proper fact-checking. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
The default for websites with no reputation is indeed GUNREL; anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. Do you genuinely believe that a random website with no reputation could be cited for anything? We don't usually take the time to formally categorize every non-WP:RS, of course, but most webpages are non-RSes, and certainly Pirate Wires is unusable. The fact that you feel that you might be persuaded that a low-quality website with no reputation, no indication that they have any sort of editorial controls, and a single story to their name that most mainstream press dismissed as more back-and-forth allegations between partisans might require attribution falls under WP:SATISFY. They're a low-quality partisan blog who has done nothing but flood the zone with unverified allegations, a single one of which was picked up only by similarly biased sources. That's not enough to satisfy WP:RS. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and every discussion has clearly indicated that they're not an RS; I will, obviously, remove them instantly on sight any place I see them cited directly. If you disagree and somehow think they pass WP:RS, start an RFC, but you'd be wasting your time - you would be better off looking for actually usable sources instead. --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I have already addressed all of these criticisms, having mapped out the corroboration and citations between Pirate Wires and several other news outlets, including two green WP:RSPS and others deemed acceptable. I repeat that no one has challenged Pirate Wires' reporting on this story, which should be part of the context required by WP:RS considerations. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
As I already said, a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources isn't really an indicator of WP:RS. And one of the sources you listed there does in fact challenge it; Bloomberg covers it as follows: Conversely, an initiative named Tech for Palestine allegedly began in the spring of 2024 coordinating editing of Wikipedia pages on its Discord server. The allegations were first reported by the Jewish Insider. Note two extremely important points. First, they frame it as unproven allegations (and they put it in the context of back-and-forth allegations between two sides accusing each other of misdeeds on Wikipedia); that is, in fact, a challenge. The wild disconnect between the way it's framed there and the way it's framed by Pirate Wires itself is what a challenge looks like. And second, note that they studiously attributed it to Jewish Insider, which implies that they do not consider Pirate Wires itself to be a legitimate source. WP:USEBYOTHERS isn't just about whether other sources are discussing a source, but who is using it, and how they frame it. And finally, of course, the lack of a published editorial policy is still fatal; we do, in fact, have to assume that it lacks one, especially given the lack of any real indication that they have a reputation otherwise. Lots of topic areas have these low-quality partisan blogs that flood the zone with sweeping unproven allegations; I think that we should take the perspective that Bloomberg has, as the most high-quality unbiased / independent source that has covered this, and only touch things from them via secondary sources. Even then, it is important to contextualize any allegations they make according to the bias of the sources reporting them - again, actually read the Bloomberg piece. Try reading it from the perspective of someone who is seeing it as the only source on this topic. It doesn't say or support what you're implying at all - it covers it as one of a list of unproven allegations pumped out by squabbling partisans. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was cited by Aish, Jewish News Syndicate, The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, and Jewish Journal. Unpacked cited The Algemeiner. Describing PW reporting on this as "a single unsubstantiated accusation that was only picked up in any depth by WP:BIASED sources" hinges on all of those outlets being WP:BIASED and indifferent to PW's supposed lack of substantiation. This is not a responsible description of either the initial or subsequent journalism.
Several others picked up on the Jewish Insider material, one of them being Bloomberg, and a couple more drew from both. This establishes that the account of T4P's abuse is WP:DUE. Between the confirmed reliability of Pirate Wires' reporting and the DUE nature of the story, it should be included in the T4P article at substantive length and Pirate Wires given deserved credit.
Regarding the "lack of a published editorial policy," again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not only is it not "fatal," it's not even relevant to determining reliability. WP:RSEDITORIAL: "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies."
Repeatedly calling PW a blog will not turn it into one. Rindsberg is obviously not self-publishing. The site lists Harris Sockel as "Lead Editor," which implies the existence of subordinate editors. The site describes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture," emphasis mine. They have made a strong case for accepting that description at face value. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Pirate Wires is a blog, and not a very good one at that. It should only be considered for use in line with the restrictions of WP:SPS and frankly its writing staff has no great expertise in anything so WP:EXPERTSPS is unlikely to come up. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    WP:USESPS: "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." Pirate Wires employs multiple reporters, and the author of the reporting in question is not the editor. Pirate Wires describes itself as "an American media company reporting at the intersection of technology, politics, and culture." Even The Atlantic article cited overhead as criticism of PW concedes that the editor aspires to hard-hitting journalism. The citations and corroboration documented overhead indicates that they have succeeded. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    According to this logic all I need to do is get a friend of mine to write some guest posts for my blog to make it a reliable source. Pirate Wires isn't hard-hitting anything. It's ideologically motivated twitter-churn. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    That would only establish that your friend wasn't self-publishing. How much of the reporting in the Rindsberg article under discussion was sourced to Twitter? Also, how are you privy to his motivations? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, since this has dragged on off-and-on for a while now, perhaps we should just have an RFC. --Aquillion (talk)
I'm usually the one telling people not to open RFCs, but I can't see the two sides of this coming to any consensus through normal discussion. The perspectives are just too dissimilar. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:17, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. I'm not convinced by arguments above defending the site's integrity or prominence, & despite previous attempts to explain what a conspiracy theory is, refusal to see one as such does not change the reality of the case. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    You neither established that the reporting on Soros sunk to the level of "conspiracy theory," nor explained why, if it did, that would disqualify unrelated reporting that was cited by multiple WP:RSs and a couple of solidly reliable WP:RSPS. If there was a RS describing Pirate Wires reporting on Soros as a conspiracy theory to put up against its solid and cited work on T4P, that would be something. But your opinion versus that work is not persuasive. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Per Butterscotch Beluga should be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF and via reliable secondary coverage (e.g. their interview with Jack Dorsey which was rereported elsewhere) but probably not reliable for much else.
    I used to listen to their podcast, though haven't for probably a year or thereabouts. They clearly have some form of editorial controls and a gatekeeping process, though I'm unclear if there are conventional firewalls between the owner and the reporters or the reporters merely function as scribes for the owner's ideas. I see no evidence they have been specifically identified for uncorrected errors in reporting, which is to their credit. That said, their approach seems to be a style of quasi-gonzo journalism which is probably not appropriate for use as referencing for the limited purposes of our encyclopedia. That fact is not a slight on them, just a point of observation.
    Most importantly, however, searching Google News for the unique phrases "according to Pirate Wires" and "Pirate Wires reported" I don't find solid examples of WP:USEBYOTHERS outside of a very small handful of instances. (For full disclosure, their "senior editor" has cited me by name to make unflattering and, in my opinion, erroneous representations of my actions on WP in his writing in other publications so this should be taken into context in weighing my comment.) Chetsford (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    i suspect consensus for piratewires would find it somewhat reliable, but have concerns about establishing dueness.
    at best, they probably should just be attributed if they need to be used. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with @Bluethricecreamman that attribution should likely be required, but otherwise I think PW has been well documented in this discussion to be generally reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Reliability of Pirate Wires

Relevant WP:RFCBEFORE: The section above, Talk:Tech_for_Palestine#2025-08_Pirate_Wires, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#Pirate_Wires?

What is the reliability of Pirate Wires?

  1. Generally reliable
  2. Additional considerations apply
  3. Generally unreliable
  4. Deprecate

Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 2: making this per aquillon. editorial controls for PirateWires is mostly the wealthy benefactor/Silicon Valley investor Michael Solana, and the Soros story seems concerning. I think this is an SPS source regardless, and usage should be by attribution only. In general, PirateWires by itself cannot establish dueness, and relevant policy WP:BLPSPS should apply if they do any gonzo-style hit piece on a person. When it is cited by other mainstream sourcing, that could indicate dueness, like in the TechForPalestine canvassing coverage, but only as much as the mainstream sourcing is mentioning it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2.5 if there is a 2.5 option, i'll vote same as chetsford and bob. At the end of the day, it seems hyperpartisan opinion, and its framing is hard for use in a neutral way on an encyclopedia article by itself. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Option 1: @Tioaeu8943 made a compelling argument for its reliability here, and I endorse it. The arguments against its reliability lack substance or actual claims of factual inaccuracies, and seem motivated by ideological differences (which shouldn't guide reliability discussions). Jcgaylor (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Option 3 Publishing Soros conspiracy theories is not the sign of a generally reliable source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
You keep repeating this line. What, specifically, in the article is a "conspiracy theory"? Jcgaylor (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I explained this in the section above, you're free to disagree with my assessment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 05:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I read that above discussion (and the archived one discussed in it). You did not articulate specifics about what made the article conspiratorial. You asserted a similarly conclusory statement. Even the bare bones you do provide isn't accurate, though. The article lays out, in-depth, how leading figures of the WMF and Wikipedia have received funding from Soros and his many ventures throughout their careers. That substantiates its headline. The article also argues, using direct quotations from Soros and WMF/Wikipedia executives, and fact-based research on events, that the governing philosophy of these executives aligns with the policies openly-championed by Soros.
Whether one agrees with the comparison between WMF/Wikipedia ventures and the governing/political philosophy of Soros is a matter of personal opinion. It simply isn't true, however, that the article is "conspiratorial" or fails to explain how key WMF/Wikipedia leaders have received financial support from Soros.
If the basis for labeling PW as unreliable hinged on this one article being "conspiratorial", it lacks a strong or objective foundation. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
As I said you can disagree if you want, but nothing you've said changes my mind in the slightest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
My goal isn't to change your mind. As part of this RFC, I'm making the case for finding that PW is reliable, and explaining why arguments against a finding of reliability lack credibility or foundation. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
As I said in the before discussion I think opinions on this source are so dissimilar that we basically talking at odds with each other. Your argument showing how all the little lines add to to something is the exact issue I have with the article, but for you it's why it's reliable. If you wish to add anything more to your own comment please do, but I don't see anything useful coming from further discussion happening under mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 06:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
In the above discussion, you claimed the PW article failed to demonstrate how WMF/Wikipedia executives received funding from Soros. A simply read-through of the article demonstrates that isn't true. Therefore, your argument that PW isn't reliable because this specific article is "conspiratorial", doesn't hold water.
This discussion, while not aimed at persuading you or I to change our positions, does contribute and is germane to the larger purpose of this RFC. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
It does hold water because it is quite self evidently true, any simple reading of the article shows that to be the case. This is my point - are opinions are so wildly different and to make discussion pointless, we both look at the same thing and see something quite different. Nothing I say will ever be satisfactory for you, and nothing you put forward will change my opinion. No, in your opinion my description doesn't hold water but you arguments only serve to firm up mine. So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show. That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow, or that they have been corrupted by the bad money man maybe? Absolutely nothing in the article shows that they are "Soris operatives" or operatives of any kind. Nor does it show that Soros backing is the cause of any of the initiatives at the WMF that the source is so ideologically opposed too. What it does do is hold up connection between those individuals and Soros and than say that other things are e because they are his operatives. That's conspiratorial thinking, the exact issue I have with the source. You see this very different, and will dismiss and diminish my comment but I will find your points as unconvincing as you find mine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
"So what if they received funding from Soros at some point, what exactly is that meant to show[?]"
"That they have similar view points and that's wrong somehow . . .?"
As I stated earlier, one's viewpoints on the value of the similarity between these executives and their ideological/philosophical alignment with Soros' views is a matter of personal judgment that you are improperly attempting to elevate to a matter of Wikimedia policy. Your personal views on the matter do not negate the fact that the article substantiates the factual allegations of its thesis: that people who have received financing from George Soros now work in leading roles at WMF/Wikipedia. That is indisputable, and, based on your reply, a point you concede.
As defined by Merriam-Webster, an "operative" is "a person who works toward achieving the objectives of a larger interest". The article, using the own words and actions of these executives, demonstrates what these individuals are working to achieve: various DEI initiatives, the Knowledge Equity principle, etc. Again, one's views on the author's condemnation of these efforts does not diminish the reality that these executives are working toward their own stated goals.
All of this to say, your and other's opposition to a finding of reliability for PW is not rooted in the lack of fact-based reporting, but in your opposition to the judgments of this one author of this one article the outlet published. In other words, it does not hold water under the policies and guidelines that are supposed to guide these reliability determinations. Jcgaylor (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Not my opinion, just an observation of the nature of the article they published and how it doesn't substantiates anything unless you consider guilt by association prove of wrong doing. But this is going nowhere we're just repeating arguments, and adding nothing to the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I read the article about Soros, could you address the following points?
  1. And the effort to delegitimize Trump’s presidency by falsely labelling it the product of Russian disinformation. Is it really appropriate to outright call it false? Surely, the overall effect was very small, but it still could be large enough to flip a few battleground states.
  2. Maher’s emphasis of ... word — “open” ... was about making “the world” an open place. ... Soros built a global political machine ... on the concept of openness I guess, Rindsberg tried to tie Maher to Soros via the word "open", but this is a post-WWII concept whose prominence is hardly related to Soros. Ngram
  3. Another attempt at the same connection is done via Maher → Minassian → Clinton → Soros. This is standard conspiracy thinking.
  4. Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid, giving nearly $10 million — has played a leading role in her ability to pursue this ideological platform. Per Open Secrets, Clinton received $770M in total, including $22M from Paloma Partners and $17M from Pritzker Group.
  5. Democracy Alliance, a mega-donor fund co-founded — and primarily funded — by George Soros. I failed to fact-check, but I suppose it is very dubious that at least half ("primarily") of the contributions came from Soros. For instance, in this Politico article, it says, "The donor clique, which counts George Soros and Tom Steyer among its members."
  6. Zack Exley is framed as a Soros operative, but the article failed to mention that he was the Director of Online Communication for the 2004 Kerry campaign.
  7. The article claims that the WMF endowment is connected to the Tides Foundation, stating, Since Tides is a donor-advised fund, Soros could have used it to funnel money to the Wikimedia Endowment without any trace. The context is that the organization is a mainstream progressive one that spent $620M in 2020, which is far more than the $10M yearly from Soros.
  8. We get to the direct link, Soros doubled down on his commitment to the Wikimedia Endowment with a direct $2 million donation. But Wikimedia received $120M that year.
  9. But Soros’ statement spoke loudest. “My gift represents a commitment to the ideals of open knowledge — and to the long-term importance of free knowledge sources that benefit people around the world,” he said. Looks like an empty platitude to me.
  10. While her repeated echoing of Soros’ language of openness may seem coincidental, in truth Maher has nurtured deep ties to Soros’ views Buried at the end of the article.
  11. More on Maher, Her first real professional experience in NGOs began around 2008. The Wikipedia page about her said she worked at UNICEF from 2007 to 2010, at the National Democratic Institute (which got 97% (p.9) of its funding from the government in 2024, so she was akin to a civil servant) from 2010 to 2011, and at the World Bank from 2011 to 2013. Hardly a career of a professional NGO activist.
  12. Ethan Zuckerman is also framed as a Sorosite, but the article failed to mention that he headed the MIT Center for Civic Media. The MIT isn't a Soros organization. Among other people mentioned, there were Melissa Hagemann, Eileen Hershenov, Rebecca MacKinnon, and Cameran Ashraf. Maybe some of them are professional Soros types; I don't know.
  13. WMF recently noted that Wikipedia is among the most important content sources being ingested by LLMs, with one analysis showing that the site is one of the three most important sources for training data and among the highest for reliability. Doesn't explain that content ingested into the LLM is written by the editors, while the Foundation has relatively little control. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  1. There is no evidence to support Clinton's assertion that Russian disinformation determined (in a fashion required for the presidency to "be a product of" such interference) the outcome of the 2016 (or 2024) presidential election. The DOJ, Mueller's report, and the Senate report on the subject all agree that Russia did make efforts to influence the election, but did not find evidence of such success, and did not make that conclusion (1.). Some experts have said that it would be impossible to make such a determination, due to the countless variables that drive voter behavior and election results. We do know, per an NYU study, that despite the complexity of Russia's online disinformation efforts, its impact was very limited to highly-partisan right-wing citizens (2.).
  2. As I stated in earlier responses on this thread, one's views on the nature of the parallel or similarities between the rhetoric of WMF/Wikimedia executives and Soros is mainly a matter of personal opinion. However, No one here is disputing the facts of what they said or the quotes the article uses. That is all sourced and verifiable.
  3. Or, it is context to substantiate the professional proximity of the article's subjects. Again, you're discussing the bias or merits to the reporting, not the factual accuracy of the connection.
  4. I'd note you cited organizational donors, not individual donors. Other sources cite Soros as the highest, or the near-highest individual donors to Clinton's 2016 election efforts, depending on how they associate donations between hedge-funds and other groups. (3. (corroborating the "nearly $10 million" claim and that this makes Soros a leading donor) ; 4. (this source places Soros' contributions at $25 million); 5. (noting that Soros and Sussman, founder and Chairman of Paloma Partners, donated roughly the same amount)) In any case, the amount claimed is corroborated, while the claim that Soros was the "biggest donor" is used by some other sources, depending on how they count and organize donations.
  5. I, too, was unable to source the "primarily" portion of this claim, mainly because the clique is so opaque about its funding and donation history. The rest of the quoted portion is verifiable and widely corroborated.
  6. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
  7. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
  8. An irrelevant observation as to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. This fact does provide context to the association between WMF/Wikipedia and Soros (the premise of the article).
  9. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
  10. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims.
  11. Started working at UNICEF in 2007 --> "experience in NGOs began around 2008". Seems like a fair claim. If I was being nitpicky, I'd want to know what month in 2007 she started working at UNICEF. She has worked in the NGO sphere for 17 years at the time of the article's publishing. Calling her a "professional NGO activist" has a sensible foundation (though the article doesn't call her that). I'd dispute calling her a civil servant, though, but (like most of your points) that is a matter of personal opinion.
  12. An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims. That he worked for that center has no bearing on the factual claims the article does make about him, nor would the addition of that piece of information substantially alter the information that is included.
  13. Missing context. The article is discussing the implementation of Wikimedia's "Movement Strategy", which aims to alter Wikipedia's (among other WikiProjects) policies, guidelines, and practices. The author asserts that the Strategy is a manifestation of Maher's (and Soros') focus on concepts like "equity" (like altering notability guidelines to remove "barriers of access to content related to underrepresented communities" (6.)). The author then highlights the impact the Strategy would have by referencing the increased importance of Wikipedia itself. The author uses the WMF quote you cited to demonstrate the importance of Wikipedia in the modern world, not to say that WMF makes editorial decisions over Wikipedia articles. But your comment misses the crux of the article's (and the Strategy's) point. The MS, sponsored by the WMF, openly aims to alter the policies and guidelines that determine what makes it into articles (and all Wikimedia work product) in the first place. You may feel the Strategy and its goals are positive developments. But, the article doesn't make any factual errors on the subject.

In sum, none of your comments undermine the factual accuracy of the article's claim, which is what we're hear to discuss. Again, if the only argument against a finding of reliability is the canned line of "peddled Soros conspiracy theories", then that position lacks any credibility or foundation.

Jcgaylor (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I think your dismissal of several points with "An irrelevant observation in regard to the reliability or veracity of the article's claims", misunderstands what constitutes a conspiracy theory.
A collection of technically correct, but misleading statements are the connective tissue of conspiracy theories. The article's content is mostly stringing together a web of guilt by association - Someone worked for someone that Soros has given money to, therefore "[S]oros-linked operatives have spent the past eight years embedding themselves in top roles at wikimedia foundation and transforming the site into a tool for radical social engineering".
It recreates several hallmarks of other Soros Conspiracies, such as being behind a migrant crisis, globalism, attacking various NGOs as part of his "global political machine", & general fearmongering about progressivism & DEI.
If this is their "Editor-at-Large" &/or "Senior Editor", I fundamentally mistrust the quality of their editorial process & certainly consider them a WP:QUESTIONABLE source. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I do not believe the "points" raised above show the article to be misleading. Take number 6, for example. The fact that the article "failed to mention" that this individual was a comms director for the 2004 Kerry campaign has no bearing on the information presented, and would not substantially alter the context or meaning of the information that was included. It is an irrelevant aside that was, correctly, left out. If anything, its inclusion would have aided the author's point, considering that Soros spent roughly $27 million on Pro-Kerry/Anti-Bush spending that election cycle (1.). Likewise with 7 and 8. Those claims were included to demonstrate that Soros has spent significant capital on WMF/Wikipedia. The amount of money Tides or the WMF raised/spent is irrelevant to that claim. Points like 9, 10, and 13 are personal gripes the commenter has with the article, not examples of misleading statements.
I think your dislike for the factual claims the article makes doesn't elevate the article to a conspiracy theory. If the article didn't mention specific quotes and initiatives from these individuals that are aligned with the governing philosophy of Soros, then, yes, it would be merely a string of guilt-by-association arguments. But, lays out specifics for the association, from the subjects themselves. This isn't a claim of a secret plot by powerful individuals. It is an article detailing the public statements and efforts of WMF/Wikipedia executives.
Likewise, citing Soros' open and proud support for wide-scale migration, global connectivity and interdependence, and his well-documented and significant funding of NGOs from across the globe does not make someone a conspiracy theorist. It merely means they did research to find his position on those topics.
One may not agree with the author's views on progressivism or DEI. One may not like that they cited Soros' support for migration and globalism. Neither of those positions have any bearing on the factual reliability of this article, let alone PW writ large. Jcgaylor (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
1. The article claimed "falsely", while your links support only a "no evidence" claim, adding that it "would be impossible to make such a determination". Hence using the word "falsely" is factually inaccurate.
4. Soros — Clinton’s biggest donor for her presidential bid. None of your sources corroborated the claim of Soros being the biggest donor. Two out of three named S. Donald Sussman as such. Calling Soros the biggest donor is factually inaccurate.
13. With the concept of Knowledge Equity shaping not just Wikipedia but the LLMs that shape our future, there’s little doubt that the Movement Strategy has been a success. Based on the context of that paragraph, I interpret this "success" as an ability to significantly influence the content of Wikipedia articles. I don't believe this is factually accurate in the sense that the content would have been significantly different if the strategy had never been adopted.
In terms of people and funding, the issue is a framing which highlights the connection to Soros and downplays the connection to other people or organizations. For instance, misleadingly implying that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies by donating less than 2% of its total revenue. However, the claim is never made outright so the author maintains plausible deniability. While not outright inaccurate, I don't consider such reporting appropriate for WP:RS. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  1. Exactly. That is why it is false to for Clinton to claim that Trump is president due to Russian interference. We typically call claims that have no factual support "false".
  2. That isn't right. The second source you cited clearly states that Soros gave me to Clinton and her election efforts than Sussman. $25 million > $13 million.
  3. As I laid out above, the Movement Strategy does and has impact the content included in Wikipedia articles, just not in the way you ascribe only to try to dismantle.
No, the author does not misleadingly imply that Soros is significantly driving Wikimedia policies. The author does state that executives with a financial connection to Soros are driving Wikimedia policies in a direction that mirrors Soros' political ethos, and cites specific quotes, initiatives, and histories to substantiate this claim.
When you take away the strawmen, there is no reason to not support PW as appropriate for WP:RS. Jcgaylor (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  1. As seen by the linked article, Hillary Clinton never "claim[ed] that Trump is president due to Russian interference", she said that there is an "epidemic" of fake news (PirateWires' exact quote of "fake news epidemic" is not found in the article they're citing), referring to an incident involving the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. The way the article presents the matter though misleadingly implies she was referring to election interference, as seen by your assumption that she was.
  2. You are misreading the number from the CNBC article, it says $2.5million, not $25 million .i.e. $2.5 million < $13 million.
Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  1. That is incorrect. I did not "assume" she said that; I know she said that. Clinton has repeatedly claimed that Russian interference, like the server hack, cost her the election. Here is one instance of her making that claim.
  2. Perhaps you need to re-read the article. Here is the exact quote, "Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle." Again, $25 million > $13 million.
Jcgaylor (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  1. In the context of rape; There is a difference between a false report and an unfounded report. A false report refers to someone intentionally making up and reporting an experience of sexual violence ... An unfounded report means that a victim makes a report to a criminal punishment system, yet the system does not find enough evidence to support the claim So the article should have used the word "unfoundedly", not "falsely".
  2. The top five donors together contributed one out of every $17 for her 2016 run: hedge fund manager S. Donald Sussman ($20.6 million) and Among Clinton’s most devoted backers, Sussman, who has given $13 million to Clinton’s Priorities USA PAC, according to data from the FEC and tallies from the Center for Responsive Politics, has emerged as perhaps the biggest. Context for the 25M: Overall, Soros reportedly expects to give a total of $25 million to Clinton and other Democratic causes during this cycle. So this includes causes other than Clinton's presidential bid. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Let's try to keep to discussing the source and not each other. Unless editors have prove they want to submit to the appropriate venue let's drop the "all these arguments are ideologically motivated" comments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I am discussing the source, while challenging the asserted arguments against its reliability as ideologically motivated. Jcgaylor (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry Jcgaylor, this was a reply to my original comment about the general conduct of the RFC. I didn't mean to direct it towards you personally. But I stand by what is said either evidence should be posted at an appropriate forum or such personal comments should dropped, otherwise they could be seen as WP:ASPERSIONS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Option 3: As I said above, I don't think they should be treated as generally reliable for any controversial topics & should only be used for WP:ABOUTSELF or, at best, through reliable secondary coverage. A site peddling Soros conspiracies shouldn't be given the time of day (Thank you Kelob2678 for the in-depth analysis). - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
The notion that the site promotes Soros conspiracy theories or critiques Soros's influence is not an uncontested fact. Please substantiate your claims with an example of the latter if possible from an RS. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm having issues finding anyone discussing Pirate Wires at all, besides themselves & a single interview with their founder & editor-in-chief Mike Solana from The Atlantic.
As most reliable sources haven't even acknowledged their existence, let alone analyzed their output, the best we can do is argue over their quality. Arguments for if their coverage of Soros reaches the point of conspiracy theories have already been laid out in detail in this RFC & above, so if you are unconvinced by those, I don't believe further discussion of the matter will be very productive in determining Pirate Wires' reliability. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 There is very little daylight between ownership and editorial and it functions effectively as a personal blog with a small clique of guest authors rather than a news site. It also tends to blend news and opinion freely. In addition to this it's sensationalist trash. I don't think deprecation is necessary but this is a generally unreliable source for anything other than WP:ABOUTSELF statements. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
    Can you point to anything to substantiate the claim, "there is very little daylight between ownership and editorial"? Does the fact that it has two staff editors alter that? If not, why not?
    The site has staff writers, and a long list of regular contributors. These are the trappings of a news outlet, not a personal blog, as other commenters noted in the above discussion when you brought up this point. Jcgaylor (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 I've no qualms about an organisation being called a 'media company' and there isn't a problem on WIkipedia with news services being owned by billionaires (or we'd have very slim pickings). However, there's no mention I can see of an editor or editorial board, or standards. There's no explanation I can see about how content of Pirate Wires is generated. More so, their terms and conditions scream in capital letters "WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SERVICES' CONTENT" - clearly 'read/use this content at your own risk', Pirate Wires is dodging the responsibility of fact checking. All that being said, their content is clearly followed and reported by undoubtedly reliable news outlets, in which case it's fair enough to use it. Certainly in the Tech for Palestine article there was a tendency towards over-reliance on one Pirate Wires article, which I wouldn't see as balanced coverage. Sionk (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
    To be fair to Pirate Wires the "We make no warranties..." text is standard boiler plate legal text, it just means "You can't see us for being wrong". Most websites have something similar posted somewhere, for instance the disclaimer at the bottom bofnthis page. It doesn't make a source reliable or unreliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
"Most websites", like Wikipedia, aren't fact checked. Wikipedia is written by any Johnny/Janey-come-lately that fancies editing it. One would expect a journalistic news site to have fact checking and stand by the content ofits articles. Sionk (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
AP has the same language in its TOS (§4.4). Like AD said, it is boilerplate language you'll find in most news outlet's TOS and shouldn't be considered in this RFC. Jcgaylor (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I was trying to link similar language on nytimes, wapost, etc. Not really enough to dismiss reliability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
There is at least an Editor-in-Chief and a Lead Editor. The existence of a "Lead Editor" implies that it is highly likely that there are more editors under the "Lead". What, according to you, is necessary for you to understand 'how content of Pirate Wires is generated'?
Do similar norms exist for another site to which we could refer? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1.5/2 The source appears to have the correct parts to be a RS. However, it is also a rather new source so I would be careful how it's used. As a relatively new source we should be cautious about it's use and evaluate things on a case by case basis. In particular we should see if the evidence the source provides supports the claims being made. We should be cautious about conclusions, especially in cases where the presented facts could reasonably support a conclusion that is different than the one claimed in the article. Of course such caution should be used with many sources that include a lot of information interpretation/processing in their reporting vs just the facts news. Also, as a new source we shouldn't declare the site to be "unreliable" simply because we feel there isn't enough evidence or we dislike one of the relatively few articles they have published thus far. It appears it has a small amount of used by others thus is moving in the correct direction to become a RS. But, let's not kid ourselves, it's still a small, new source so it's probably best used as a supporting source or as an acknowledged dissenting view without that view being given Wiki voice. Springee (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 per @Tioaeu8943 and @Jcgaylor and for the general reason that some of the complaints seem to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT and less focused on accuracy of the reporting (or simply assert inaccuracy without demonstrating it). Coining (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Option 3 (preferred) - I'm apprehensive to actually place a label on the site for how new it is, but if we must have a decision, as others have highlighted there are questions around the editorial standard employed, which seem to support what I opened with in that there seems not to have been enough time to see the editorial team it says it has enact any sort of editorial action on its articles. The bias expressed through many of its articles, including what seems to stray way too close to the conspiratorial line, would indicate that any usage with need explicit attribution to the article author.
Now, I originally intended to go with option two, but after a perusal of some of their recent articles, spouting pseudoscientific nonsense such as advocacy for regular non-necessary bloodletting as it's what "men evolved to do in combat", should encourage nothing but derision of the site. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Option 3 - Pirate Wires does not appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS for a reliable source. It operates more like a personal commentary or opinion platform than a traditional journalistic outlet, with limited evidence of editorial oversight, a published corrections policy, or a consistent record of fact-checking. The tone and content sometimes leans toward sensationalism or coverage of fringe topics (including conspiracy theories), which may raise concerns about neutrality and reliability. Additionally, its coverage is primarily amplified by sources that themselves have questionable reliability. Overall, it falls within the scope of WP:GUNREL. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Option 3. Ultimately, the site's tendency to publish pseudo-scientific articles like the bloodletting piece Cdjp1 mentioned demonstrates that this is not a RS. When judging sources, we need to know that the sources rise to editorial standards, and Pirate Wires does not seem to meet any. As Aquillion noted, their one semi-notable story was not treated as credible by any high-quality independent RS. Bloomberg technically did so but even then they did not credit them directly. Which in turn says a lot about how Pirate Wires is seen. Genabab (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 - but noted with it's bias/editorial concerns. I think this is a good example of how the RS policy is broken. Is this genuinely a source that is constantly being brought up and used inappropriately by editors on various articles? I would use it the way PinkNews is, it's not a primary News Source, not really giving us notability, but it presents a point of view that may be appropriate to include occasionally in articles, or to flesh out the details of an article. Most the examples I've seen listed above seemed decently appropriate uses of this as a source. Denaar (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Option 2-3, context dependent. I wanted to take a look at the on-Wiki uses of PW to assess the impact of its content on the reliability of our articles. I found that in general, it is not used to support material in the main article space. Most of its uses are in back-of-the-house discussions about Wikipedia's policies and procedures. This is because a PW contributor, Ashley Rindsberg, frequently writes opinion/analysis decrying what in his view amounts to a left-wing conspiracy to influence Wikipedia. Others have already analyzed Rindsberg's flirtation with Soros conspiracy theories, and in general I agree that this is cause for a reliability concern. I want to do a bit more analysis to illustrate why. Take a look at this recent Rindsberg article titled "Wikipedia Declares Trump an Authoritarian", a version of which was cross-published by Fox News. Rindsberg's contention is that the Guardian article cited in support of this designation is unreliable because it was written in partnership with an Open Society Foundation-backed nonprofit. This funding, in Rindsberg's view, makes the Guardian article a priori unreliable, regardless of its factuality and crossover with other reliable sources (See 1 2 3 4). This is not how Wikipedia evaluates sources, and I think we are right to use criteria that takes factors like editorial standards and independence and alignment with other sources into consideration. Rindsberg's criteria for (un)reliability seems to be guilt by association with liberal media and lobbying circles or, in the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the mere unsubstantiated assertion that groupings of Wikipedia editors are "pro-Hamas".
He makes no effort to evaluate the arguments put forward by Wikipedia editors or the sources they cite, because his argument would be much weaker if he substantively engaged with the opposing argument instead of point-scoring with an audience primed to distrust liberal media inherently. The reality is that the acceptance of the Guardian article as a valid source for the claim that Trump's administration has been described as authoritarian was based on editors' assessment of the article's contents and an analysis of the general media environment, not because of the covert and malign influence of Soros. I think this is a strong illustration of the reliability concern with conspiracy theories which some in this thread have struggled to grasp: Conspiracy theories make a logical leap from an assortment of true but inconsequential information to a conclusion unsupported by the information they present. They fool people by glossing over their logical leaps to present a case that is on its face factual and appears to support a conclusion which does not follow logically from the facts. This is a clear reliability concern, and I don't think Rindsberg's articles should be used to support the claims contained within them in article space related to Wikipedia and its governance. That being said, these articles seem to mostly be used in talk page discussions and the like. I also find it concerning that Rindsberg targets editors he disagrees with, while seemingly refusing to participate in the on-site process of deliberation. This isn't really a reliability concern, but there is clearly a mounting effort by the political right in the United States to circumvent Wikipedia's governance in order to change its policies or the material that appears on the site.
Moving on to other article space uses, I found very few. In one instance, PW content was used in an article called "Transmaxxing" which editors overwhelmingly voted to delete. I think there is reason to be cautious around the use of PW to promote fringe or novel theories and analysis. On the other hand, its use in covering interviews with Jack Dorsey and Sam Altman seems appropriate. That being said, it's not clear to me that this is the best source out there for this content, or that there would be any great loss to Wikipedia if the source were determined to be generally unreliable. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 as just about every argument against reliability does appear to be "motivated by ideological differences" as user:Jcgaylor pointed out in an earlier comment. The factual accuracy and reporting integrity of Pirate Wires appears to be top notch, and has not been questioned by other reliable sources. No evidence has been presented to question this, just aspersions and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. The "Soros conspiracy" claim for instance could not point to any actual evidence of wrongdoing or reported factual inaccuracies on the part of PW, such weak arguments simply attempted (sloppily) to state that this was part of some broader false argument (again with specific evidence against anything specifically claimed by PW). I'd consider possibly requiring attribution, as I don't think there is much harm there, but otherwise as a source generally speaking, PW appears to be exactly in line with any other "Generally reliable" source as listed in the RS/P list. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 for reasons I cited at the noticeboard discussion, which I recapitulate here with adjustments to account for the topic turning to the reliability of Pirate Wires per se rather than the WP:DUE character of its reporting.

Pirate Wires reporting on T4P was extensively cited by reliable sources

The article in question, by Ashley Rindsberg, "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative," 24 Oct 2024, confirmed and expanded reporting from the prior June 26 by Gabby Deutch, "Inside the war over Israel at Wikipedia" at the *Jewish Insider*.

Since then:

No one has contradicted the above or subsequent reporting

While this was going on, Rindsberg produced two related reports at Pirate Wires, "Wikipedia’s “Supreme Court” Enforces Sweeping Ban on Pro-Hamas Edit Gang," 27 Jan 2025, and "Portrait of a Digital Propagandist," 26 Feb 2025.

I cannot find any source contradicting any of this reporting. Not even editors seeking to deem Pirate Wires unreliable seem willing to point to any fault in their reporting on this topic.

Pirate Wires has been cited elsewhere on Wikipedia in the past without argument

Pirate Wires' interview with Jack Dorsey was cited on the Wikipedia pages for Jack Dorsey 827 days ago and Bluesky 633 days ago without apparent contention. The page on Wikipedia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sourced Pirate Wires reporting by Rindsberg via Weiss at The Algemeiner and Sander at Berliner Zeitung 617 days ago, also without apparent contention.

Addressing criticisms

  • The above citations constitute a reputation for accuracy as expected by WP:SOURCE, pace editors insisting that it has not established one.
  • To the criticism that editors cannot find stated editorial policies, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any case, WP:RSEDITORIAL notes that "Some news organizations do not publish their editorial policies." The aforementioned citations constitute adequate editorial judgment on their own parts and of Pirate Wires.
  • The criticisms that Pirate Wires is a personal web page or blog do not comport with WP understanding of what those designations mean. "Personal web pages are World Wide Web pages created by an individual to contain content of a personal nature rather than content pertaining to a company, organization or institution." Pirate Wires is not a "personal website." It features numerous authors engaged in a wide variety of reporting. Blogs, with respect to WP, are associated with policy regarding WP:SPS. Rindsberg obviously is not publishing himself. Moreover, one of the staff at Pirate Wires is listed as Lead Editor, implying the existence of subordinate editors and an editorial review structure. WP editors can confidently regard Pirate Wires as a news organization.
  • Several challengers to the reliability of Pirate Wires have invoked its reporting on George Soros, characterizing it as "conspiracy theories." I have three objections to this.
1. The characterization is not convincing. Rind'sberg's reporting on this topic is sourced, credible, and moderate in tone. I might ask for examples of long-form, sourced criticism of Soros's influence that they regard as non-conspiratorial upon which we might base a comparison, except that...
2. The criticism is not salient. One can find examples even among solidly reliable WP:RSPS where editors acted on bad scoops and pushed untenable editorial angles as opinion journalism. Even if the reporting by Pirate Wires on Soros was unsound, and as far as I can tell it's not, I don't see the rationale for dismissing all reporting by any reporter on the site as unreliable as a consequence. I concur with the remark overhead by Jcgaylor that some editors are improperly trying to elevate their opinions about this subject to the level of policy.
3. They are, after all, opinions. It would be another matter if a WP:RS had analyzed Pirate Wires journalism regarding Soros and deemed it conspiratorial. But none exists, so there's nothing to put up against the track record described above except the disputed judgments of these WP editors.

I maintain that Pirate Wires has demonstrated reliability and editors should regard it as WP:RS. It may be a relatively recent project and the editor may not be to everyone's taste, but it exemplifies everything that one would want an independent media company to accomplish. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Tioaeu8943, could you please re-format your post to better comply with conventional talk page layout? The pseudo-section headings disrupt the flow of threaded discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 14:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I was trying to create clarity, not disruption. What formatting changes would you like me to make? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I would not include any bolded text other than your stated !vote, and would generally follow the format of other editors, who have been much more concise. If you need to make extended arguments, consider summarizing them in your !vote statement, and then either start a Discussion section for more detailed back-and-forth, or utilize {{hat}} templates to collapse details on the page so that the flow of discussion is easier to follow. As a lot of this appears to be re-stating the arguments you presented in the pre-RfC discussion, you could also just point to that section, or link to the diffs where you first presented the arguments. signed, Rosguill talk 15:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I unbolded the bolds. I'll study hat templates for use on another occasion; thanks for the reference. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
These references all seem to be opinion pieces complaining about Wikipedia's documenting of the genocide in Gaza. None of these speak to Pirate Wires as reliable - merely as ideologically convenient. Simonm223 (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
That is a wholly incorrect reading of the articles in question. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I went and double checked. No. It is not incorrect in the slightest. Some of the editorials are also in contextually non-reliable perennial sources such as the Jerusalem Post. Simonm223 (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
"Contextually non-reliable perennial source" is an interesting way of describing WP:JERUSALEMPOST. Is this one of those contexts? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I think it is. Claims about anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia are extraordinary claims about the Israel/Palestine conflict. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. When I said that the Jerusalem Post was contextually unreliable what I meant was that it was unreliable in this context as this context is closely related to IP conflicts. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
The guidance on WP:JERUSALEMPOST says it "should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict." Anti-Israel bias at Wikipedia is not an extraordinary claim. Just look at what's happening in this RFC to responsible reporting that found it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2.5 Appropriate to directly cite for WP:ABOUTSELF, to cite with attribution for non-extraordinary claims about uncontentious matters that are not BLPs, and to indirectly cite via secondary coverage (for instance, coverage of their interview with Jack Dorsey could be used to the extent that it's covered in a conventional RS).
    A Google News search of the phrases "according to Pirate Wires", "Pirate Wires reported" and a few other variations finds limited WP:USEBYOTHERS. A search of Snopes and all the other usual places finds no instances of what it publishes being cited for errors or omissions. It has a one-year or greater publication history, a gatekeeping process, and a physical presence by which it can be held responsible for what it reports. Those three factors would generally put me at about a 2. However, I can't ignore the fact that I've heard (in listening to their podcast) some statements that cause me to question whether their reporters are pursuing unfettered reportage or merely acting as scribes for the site's owner's ideas. Moreover, it practices a novel style of digital gonzo-like journalism that, while fine, may not mesh its output well with the different needs of encyclopedia writing. Chetsford (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per my arguments above. They don't have a published editorial policy, they've published conspiracy-theories and other clearly fringe material, and most importantly, they simply don't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They've published only one story that attracted any attention at all, and based on the links above it was only really given credence in WP:BIASED sources, which is not a good way to establish a strong reputation; while biased sources can be used, we have to take their biases into account when considering how much weight to give them. Partisan blogs like this pump out poorly-vetted stories that are then picked up in slightly more reputable press that agrees with their biases; but if all they've managed is one story, and it isn't treated seriously outside of that bubble, that doesn't really speak to enough of a reputation to outweigh their clear limitations. Note that in eg. Bloomberg, the story is given only a brief mention, which clearly treats it as an unsubstantiated allegation that forms part of a back-and-forth partisan allegations from both sides - and crucially, Bloomberg doesn't even credit Pirate Wires as the source, suggesting that Bloomberg doesn't consider it reputable enough to even mention; the story there is that the biased secondary sources picked up on it (and it is still treated as an unsubstantiated allegation.) This isn't how high-quality sources handle a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, even before we get to the fact that source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy would presumably have more than one unsubstantiated story to its name. --Aquillion (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2/2.5 per Bluethricecreamman and Chetsford. Some reports might be due if enough decent secondary coverage and we don’t have enough RS criticism or failed fact checks to consider it generally unreliable, but it’s a hyperpartisan source that has not established a reputation for fact checking or editorial rigour. I have read the Soros article carefully as someone with some familiarity with the issues discussed there and I see several factual errors and a conspiratorial frame. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
    I've just been spending a bit more time looking at the PW site. I'm struggling to find much content that might be called news. It's overwhelmingly opinion. On today's front page, looking for some actual piece of information, I see the (false) claim by someone identified as an "editor" that Charlie Kirk's shooter "was a deranged leftist". But everything I can see on the front page is an opinion item, including many reposted from other blogs (e.g. from Matt Orfalea' Substack - Orfalea is a YouTuber who has bylines in Zero Hedge, GlobalResearch and the Lew Rockwell site, and in no legit news sources).
    Staff writer Riley Nork has never written for any other publication. The editor, Harris Sockel, went from being a Medium blogger to writing three inconsequential pieces for Slate before starting at PW. The idea that it's a news source cannot be based on actually looking at the content. The only staff writer with any real experience is Blake Dodge, who does have previous bylines at Business Insider. But that's it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3. After examining USEBYOTHERS, both the links here and in-depth searches online, it's clear to me that PirateWires isn't widely cited by reliable sources, and it lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In fact, it's quite the opposite, as the publication is prone to pushing conspiracy theories and is mostly cited by other unreliable sites. I suppose we could use it for ABOUTSELF claims, but we have to seriously consider whether they are DUE. Woodroar (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
    Please indicate which of the sources mentioned including The Algemeiner, The Jerusalem Post, Aish, Jewish Journal, and Unpacked are not WP:RS's? Please also indicate where they are "pushing conspiracy theories"? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
    No need to bludgeon. Other editors have indicated at least one article many editors classify as conspiracy theory. Aish is not an RS for news; it’s a Jewish culture site. Re Unpacked: “The organization says its mission is to increase support for Israel and Zionism among the Jewish diaspora and "explore [Zionism's] complex history and achievements so that young people will recognize that Zionism is a story that every Jewish person can proudly embrace and cherish."” So at best a highly partisan source. RSP urges caution re the JP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was only aware of Pirate Wires via their article How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative. I don't see the article marked as opinion and yet it seems to be purely conspiratorial/fantastical, alleging without evidence that "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors has worked to delegitimize Israel, present radical Islamist groups in a favorable light, and position fringe academic views on the Israel-Palestine conflict as mainstream". So I'm surprised people are here suggesting it is a reliable source. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3, as this seems to be effecivly a WP:BLOG with little obvious "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per others above. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:57, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1, Pirate Wires is a reliable source per WP:RS and particularly under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which requires an editorial team "checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing," which Pirate Wires has.[1] There are objections on the RFC that say it should not be reliable due to the publication's biased viewpoint and framing (like the Soros piece), however, under WP:BIASED a certain political slant is allowed as long as the publication asserts, "editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering," which applies to PW. Therefore, I would say that PW should be generally reliable for non-extraordinary claims and I think it would be reasonable to attribute when their bias comes into play per WP:BIASED but the default assumption should be that they are reliable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2/2.5 per above, in particular Bob and Bluethricecreamman. Far too partisan/opinion-based and not enough editorial oversight to be GREL, but seemingly enough USEBYOTHERS/attention to their reports and interviews to not quite be GUNREL. The Kip (contribs) 15:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1/1.5 I am seeing a lot of IDONTLIKEIT here. Its important to be cautious and a little lenient in sources evaluating or criticizing Wikipedia. The Soros article, from what I skimmed, does not strike me as factually incorrect, altho I did not look into each claim. It is somewhat insinuating, but is it wrong to point out that A worked for B and B also contributes money to As new employer? Soros like many wealthy people does do shady stuff, even if it is ostensibly well-intentioned. There are legitimate criticisms of Soros, and there are bat guano insane conspiracy theories of Soros. I find it a bit ironic that there are complaints about a website backed by a billionaire(?) influencing it, which is itself complaining about a website which has received money from another billionaire.
From what I can see, Pirate Wires is not perfect, but they seem to be trying to be an independent outlet for investigative journalism that they feel mainstream media is not covering. This cannot be tucked into SPS, but isnt fully out there yet, which is unfortunate. They have work to do, but I cant entirely dismiss them as unreliable. And given the profile, it seems no RS has contested their work, albeit few have cited it either. But as a comparison, a newspaper in some random country would not be dismissed out of hand unless they have showed a continuous case of being unreliable. RS being evaluated by RS is somewhat circular. Much of their reporting should be attributed, however.
And its worth noting that much of the work in question to be used is that of Ashley Rindsberg, who previously worked for Internet Archive, and seems to be for open information access. He has contributed elsewhere with more clear editorial review, and been more widely cited than Pirate Wires. So he has been subject to editorial boards. He has been taken seriously by a number of sources, altho mostly yellow classed ones. So in that case, I would say his work is 1. Solana and others may be different: looking at the last discussion, the site is all over the place, but impossible to GUNREL. Metallurgist (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
Since you mentioned it, I was interested in what he'd done with Internet Archive, but, besides helping build a bookmobile in Egypt (which was great) I'm having issues finding much else. (I'm not saying he hasn't, I'm just curious if you know of a way to see what else he's done for the Archive & when/if he stopped working with them)
All I can find when I search his name on the site is his book, archived appearances of him on a variety of conservative libertarian podcasts (The Rubin Report, The Andrew Klavan Show, & The Libertarian Institute) & a few videos he did with PragerU. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
I thought I read he did a little more than just the Alexandria one, but I cant find it now of course. Metallurgist (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 or Option 1.5; it is extremely juvenile to punish sources with derankings for saying we suck. It's obvious that they have an editorial bias, and that they think we suck, and on this basis I would contest them being used to source in-depth analysis in the voice of the encyclopedia. Pirate Wires should not be taken as gospel for everything it says, and its claims (especially if they sound strange) should be verified. But this is a pretty basic part of competent editing; you should be doing this anyway. jp×g🗯️ 00:11, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per Aquillion. Like Woodroar I also looked at the sources cited for the use by others claim, and they all fail RS or are very questionable. For example: the Jewish News Syndicate was cited multiple times to argue PW is option 1 or 2, yet JNS is primarily funded by Sheldon and Miriam Adelson. Adam Milstein, who is tied to Canary Mission, also funds it, resulting in positive coverage of him in the outlet in an apparent quid pro quo, as noted in that Intercept piece. It also has an exclusive publishing deal w/the Adelson-funded Israel Hayom, which is set up to advance Netanyahu's political interests per RS reporting. Aaron Bandler runs the "Campus Watch" updates at Jewish News Journal which is routinely reposted by the CAMERA Israeli censorship operation, and worked for the far right Tucker Carlson founded Daily Caller and Ben Shapiro founded Daily Wire before he took up this gig. Others that have been for some reason cited to make the use by others claim are all in the same orbit of hawkishly pro-Israeli billionaire funded outlets of dubious reliability. I don't know why other editors are listing these names under the pretence that they are legitimate RS citing and using PW's reporting when that's not the case, and this is not a good basis for a use-by-others case. For that we would require RS reporting from credible RS outlets, and only Bloomberg fits this description, but they only made a vague general reference to Pirate Wires w/o validating its claims. This is clearly a WP:BLOG funded and run by Silicon Valley tech billionaires, and should be deemed GUNREL. Smallangryplanet (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
    These allegations make the ones by Pirate Wires of Soros look like they came out of Reuters. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
    Re Aaron Bandler runs the "Campus Watch" updates at Jewish News, that’s incorrect. It’s at Jewish Journal. Jewish News is UK-based and very reliable. I also note that the Forward describes JNS as biased but not unreliable. It’s true that much of the use by others mentioned in this thread is week, but don’t need to overegg the pudding. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    Good point, inadvertently mixed that up – fixed now. Bandler/Jewish Journal was cited for USEBYOTHERS, and imo it's not overcooking the egg to point out that a person who worked for Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller, and runs "Campus Watch" is not RS for these purposes. The same for JNS, which again is funded primarily by Trump donors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson and has an exclusive deal with Netanyahu's house paper Israel Hayom. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:37, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    I agree that a background in Daily Caller/Daily Wire is an indicator of unreliability. But right-wing, pro-Israel or hawkish funders isn’t necessarily an indicator of unreliability, just of bias, so unless there’s other grounds for dismissing JNS I’m not sure we can. I’m on the same page in that use by others is very thin here, just that we need to not overstate the case. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    I don't believe JNS is reliable source. They state as a fact that Anas Al-Sharif was a "Hamas terror cell leader posing as ‘Al Jazeera’ journalist", based only on the claims of Israeli military. Anas was indisuptably a journalist working for Al Jazeera and there is no evidence he was any sort of "Hamas commander [...] directing rocket attacks on Israel." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Opt 1 - quick question - was this forum and/or process for determining what is or isn't a credible/reliable source ever formally adopted by the community? It's possible that I missed out on that discussion, but I think it's important to know, especially now that there are word limits. Link please? Atsme 💬 📧 16:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC) Apologies, I forgot to iVote before asking my question. Atsme 💬 📧 17:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Important add-on to my iVote: See The Atlantic endorsement of Pirate Wires: "Mike Solana, a Peter Thiel protégé, has made his Pirate Wires newsletter a must-read among the anti-woke investor class—and a window into what the most powerful people in tech really think. By Christopher Beam Atsme 💬 📧 19:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
    This is not a vote. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
    ^^^ This user's comment is out of order. Of course my vote is an iVote. We don't have to keep repeating the same convincing argument. I made my choice. Atsme 💬 📧 00:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    The criteria for determining whether a source is reliable or unreliable adopted by the community are whatever is written in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources. The primary criteria would be reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, with each of those words presumably taking the plain dictionary definition. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    There is no question about the criteria laid out in our PAGs, which were properly adopted and accepted by the community. Historically, we had WP:RSN created and maintained per our PAGs for this very purpose. This forum, however, significantly diverges from those policies and, to my knowledge, was never adopted by the wider community to replace WP:RSN. The unilateral redirect of WP:RSN to this forum effectively empowers a shifting consensus of whoever happens to participate at the time, resulting in the wholesale deprecation of sources at will. The arguments here are based on he said/she said and not rooted in factual, corroborated facts, but on individual opinions, an approach that stands in contrast to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and the long-standing principle that reliability must be evaluated with respect to specific content, not by dismissing an entire publication outright. Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility, which inevitably rest on subjective epistemological assumptions, political leanings, and personal beliefs. Thank you. Atsme 💬 📧 15:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    Given that the page that you are on is, in fact, RSN, the three letters of which stand for "reliable", "sources" and "noticeboard", and has done so since 2007, I fail to see how the community could adopt its replacement with itself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    The header makes clear While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy. So if there is disagreement between editors over whether a source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (per policy WP:V) this is one venue that can be used for consensus building. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is part of the reliable sources guideline, that helps explain the WP:SOURCE part of the verifiability policy. Context matters is an important point, but it doesn't mean any source can be used just because one part of it is doesn't appear to be junk. The point of sources is that we can trust them without double checking their content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    I appreciate the clarification, but WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS require source reliability to be judged in relation to how it is used, not by deprecating entire publications. Consensus discussions are valid, but per WP:CONSENSUS they must remain consistent with policy and cannot substitute for it. Using this forum to eliminate sources wholesale shifts us away from case-by-case evaluation toward blanket bans, which neither policy nor past community practice supports. Atsme 💬 📧 19:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    Deprecation has had community support in widely advertised and well attended RFCs. Policy follows practice, if what you say is true then policy needs updating. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • @Atsme may i ask, did you make this reply with an LLM? I know we are not supposed to test texts with gptzero due to the high false positive rate, but this text is unintelligible enough i checked, and its triggering a hit.
  • per alpha3031, WP:RSN always pointed to here.
  • this complaint about RSP process being made by shifting community consensus is literally applicable to every process here on wikipedia
  • " Few, if any, contributors here are in a position to make such sweeping determinations of credibility" - what? that sounds like AI.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I won't dignify your question with a response, adding that your talk page and editing patterns ironically resemble the work of earlier stub creating bots and early phases of AI, which speaks volumes to your question. Atsme 💬 📧 13:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Please stop sniping about this. Neither of you appear to be contributing machine generated glurge. Atsme's arguments are incorrect with regard to past practice and deprecation but in a very human way. As far as credibility we have multiple instances of PirateWires engaging in unsubstantiated conspiracy theories (the article originally in question and the Soros dogwhistles). It doesn't take an expert to make a determination that conspiracy theories are not credible. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, Simonm223. Let's consider the facts: legacy outlets like the NYTimes & WaPo are known to publish contested narratives, and my comment is supported by this CJR review of Russiagate. If we’re going to downgrade PW for the arguments we're seeing here, that would mean downgrading quite a few legacy outlets as well. Also keep in mind, as WP:Systemic bias points out, narrowing the pool of sources only reinforces bias instead of addressing it. WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS call for evaluating reliability in context, not blanket bans. Deprecating an entire source because some editors dislike its coverage goes beyond what our policy allows, yet here we are trying to eliminate yet another source, instead of focusing on content. It speaks volumes. Atsme 💬 📧 19:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Also sources should be assessed with total disregard to their political positions, to do otherwise would definitely be against policy. And again deprecation has community backing, if you personally dislike it you should try restarting that discussion separately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm really the wrong person to suggest that we should use a conspiracy theory rag because sometimes NYT AND WaPo publish "contested narrative" since I'm generally among the harshest critics of use of news media on this platform. All this argument does for me is suggest we should be slower to use news media sources and more careful to ensure factual accuracy before treating them as reliable. It certainly does nothing to suggest we should use this conspiracy blog. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
@Simonm223 made ANI thread for Atsme's AI usage. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I believe attacking Atsme is inappropriate and believe Atsme's remarks about PAGs are appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • In this quote The Atlantic is not endorsing Pirate Wires. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Opt 2-3 Where is their editorial oversight? Mike Solana, seems to consistently allow "blogish and sub-stackian" opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments. Are their news reports from accredited journalists, or venture capitalists? There was also some controversy over their reporting on the launch of Trump-Token DJT. Not a great look. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. Fwiw the atlantic seems to indicate PirateWires evolved and continues to act as mike solanas personal newsletter. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
    I read the piece you just shared from The Atlantic and it says, "[Mike] Solana stresses that the site is separate from the investment firm—[and that, Peter] Thiel has no editorial control". I think if anything, we should consider that Solana pieces might need far more scrutiny. However, other writers for Pirate Wires would appear to be perfectly reliable and we have not seen reliable sources countering that claim. The Atlantic does admittedly question the degree to which editorial independence is entirely happening in the case of Solana, "Whether [Solana's editorial independence is possible] while conducting friendly interviews with allies and taking orders from Thiel by day is an open question." Though again, even then they say "...is an open question", not simply "is not possible" or something more affirmative.
    Solana's background in helping Peter Thiel to get his book Zero to One published may show some conflict of interest directly when covering Peter Thiel or Thiel owned companies or ventures (See Palantir at the very least). So I would likely restrict Pirate Wires (Solana or otherwise) from being able to cover those directly, most especially when supporting sources do not exist. Solana does express resistance to the more typical right-wing Trump adulation though, "Solana was never exactly a Trump fan", so I think Pirate Wires just appears to offer a more "Libertarian" flavor of reporting here which, while biased, ought to be welcome and does again seem to be generally reliable when not reporting on Peter Thiel owned businesses or investments.
    As for bias in other ways, one factor that might be beneficial is that Pirate Wires does not take advertising dollars. We do not talk about this enough, but what if a source takes a lot of money from a big fossil fuel company for example, might they then go a bit softer when covering some climate change related reporting perhaps? I think it is certainly possible, and worthy of consideration at the very least. In the case of Pirate Wires though, again according to The Atlantic, Solana explained that, "news organizations went from comfortable businesses subsidized by classifieds to click-hungry digital-content machines reliant on display advertising" to far less relevant and even began going out of business or becoming consolidated into central behemoths because, "[social] media companies turned down the traffic spigot". In other words, their distribution channel was cut. Pirate Wires on the other hand has, "Paid subscriptions [which] are $20 a month or $120 annually—fairly steep".
    Lastly, "What makes Pirate Wires distinctive, [Solana] says, is its point of view, which leads it to report stories that liberal-leaning outlets might not." I hope we would not label a source less than "Generally Reliable" due simply to bias. That would not be right, nor aligned with the Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective", and I hope that the above demonstrates why at least when not coming directly from Mike Solana, or covering Peter Thiel for the COI reasons already stated, that Pirate Wires is generally reliable as a source. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
  • reliability comes from the editorial structure. there are dozens of NYTimes scandals and misinfo printed, same for any traditional paper with a long enough history. But we say its reliable because it has a well-established editorial structure. When we point out Solana is the editorial structure, we mean there is no real editorial structure, author=editor, suggesting WP:SPS
  • if PirateWires is biased, its biased. that would probably go into option 2, where we note that they can be biased and piratewires coverage won't determine if it is WP:DUE. If they cover a story/slant nobody else covers, then its probably not due for inclusion in a wikipedia article.
Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4 FYI; Ashley Rindsberg has called me a "pro-Hamas" editor(!) in a Pirate wires article . I have never supported Hamas in my life. I am a non-believer and firm feminist, I find the claim that I am "pro-Hamas" highly libellous, Huldra (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
    Are personal attacks against Wikipedians a factor for deprecation? Im legit asking, i think i recall someone saying breitbart did similar stuff and i know its deprecated. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
    I vaguely recall reading through the Breitbart stuff at somepoint but IIRC that was due to doxxing an editor, not simply disparaging one. The Kip (contribs) 16:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    Editors involved in the canvassing effort described by PW have a COI with respect to this RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    ludicrous. And suggesting huldra is canvassing is a personal attack Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    If Huldra is not one of those editors, then no harm done. But she denies that she is pro-Hamas, not that she was involved in the activities described in the link she provided. If that reporting is accurate, then she's not a disinterested commenter in this RFC. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    WP:COI doesn't forbid participating in RfCs or other behind-the-scenes activities on Wikipedia. In fact, it encourages them: adding suggestions and sources to Talk pages, or using their COI to get quality photos and media. There's nothing wrong with Huldra adding her perspective here, especially since she's mentioned her connection. Woodroar (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    Taking a step back, an unsubstantiated attack piece by a third party does not give an editor a COI. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    If we designated this situation as COI it would be a licence for sources to attack personally editors in order to neutralise their voices in discussions like these. While it is proper to inform the community that they’ve been personally attacked by the source (as Huldra did), we must give them the right to defend themselves. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    At least they're being very open and honest about it. It's up to the closer how heavily to weight their comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    I certainly has not taken part in off-wiki canvassing/TfP, but that article I linked to claim that I do. They have simply looked at how many articles I have edited in common with certain other wiki-editors. But that only shows we are interested in the same field! You could easily contruct similar charts with other groups of editors, say people interested in railways, mushrooms or castles. Or overlap with pro-Israeli editors. In fact, I have a huge overlap with....Icewhiz. Funnily enough, Rindsberg doesn't mention that. Rindsberg makes a lot of serious allegations, but shows absolutely zero proof. Huldra (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's remarkable that @Tioaeu8943 is able to look at Pirate Wires literally manufacturing a conspiracy theory about our colleagues on Wikipedia and instead of saying "that's pretty clear evidence that Pirate Wires is unreliable" instead tells those people who were subject to this conspiracizing that they should keep their mouths shut. This is clear proof of Pirate Wires' unreliability. This is all that we see here. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved. I am not surprised that some editors are now retaliating against being exposed in this way and appear to be trying to silence Pirate Wires reporting through deprecation.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    "PW was reporting on collaboration between editors on Wikipedia. Even the Arb Com agreed that the editors were acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and swiftly punished this collaboration and topic banned many, but not all, of the editors involved." This isn't true at all. You should probably strike/retract this comment and I'll remind you that competence is required to be editing in this topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately there was a lot of bad reporting (as with so much of the reporting about Wikipedia) and hyperbole about the Arbcom case, so there is a lot of misunderstanding about the outcomes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    It's generally not advisable to respond to criticism of a conspiracy theory targeting people with whom you might later be collaborating by saying "but it's true!" Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    The article barely mentions you, only in passing related to Nableezy and Onceinawhile, plus the table. It doesnt accuse you of being pro-Hamas, or even really insinuate it. Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not. If you think Rindsberg libelled you, have you pursued action against him? The article only uses "pro-Hamas" in the headline, while using "pro-Palestin(e/ian)" 13 times, so saying he libelled you as pro-Hamas is quite a stretch. Metallurgist (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    It says so in the head-line "How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"; and I am not going to violate WP:LEGAL (and earn myself an instant ban). As for "Anyone could have been in that table if they had a lot of edits with those people, agreeing with them or not" that is exactly my point! (hence my example that I have a lot of articles in common with Icewhiz). Btw, he calls us the "gang of 40" ..google it (+ wikipedia, pro-Hamas). He writes things like "To evade detection, the group works in pairs or trios, an approach that veils them from detection. They also appear to rotate their groupings for the same reason" Huh?? I think most wikipedia-editors will see it for what it is: people interested in the same field happens to have a lot of overlapping articles. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    Pseudonyms are used to protect one's identity. I'm not aware of any libel cases filed by a pseudonym; please enlighten me. This venue is used from time to time to eliminate sources that go against WP's systemic bias, specifically conservative sources, be they on the left or right. All it takes is one article or two to start what I observe to be a logical fallacy downgrade in a forum that was never approved by the community - the proof is in the pudding. All the misinformation published by liberal mainstream media or legacy media is overlooked, like the NYTimes, WaPo, etc. What happened to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS? Atsme 💬 📧 15:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Where does the headline or body label you as a pro-Hamas editor? WP:LEGAL is about internal threats. How does it prevent you from pursuing an external libel case? Who is "us"? Metallurgist (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    No, it is not. Read WP:LEGAL, it is for any legal threat. And it is clear from the article, that it labels all 40 of us "pro-Hamas editors", and the "gang of 40" has become a fixture among pro-Israeli "twitterati", like Dr. Shlomit Aharoni Lir , Huldra (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    This is getting off topic, @Metallurgist, @Huldra, @Atsme. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    I believe my comments are relevant to the discussion on source legitimacy. The core issue is whether this forum’s process for deprecating or downgrading credible sources risks unfairly dismissing them due to a dominant consensus, potentially sidelining valid perspectives. This raises concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:RS, and conflicts with our PAGs. I'm focused on how we address this to ensure objectivity in our selection of sources. Atsme 💬 📧 14:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    Yes this forum has community consensus, and in particular deprecation has had at least one major RFC if not more. If you have questions about any particular source you can raise them here, but if you have questions about the validity of the noticeboard I would suggest the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you, ActivelyDisinterested. Let's go back to this discussion. Provide the supporting diffs that clearly state WP:RSN is the venue for deprecating and downgraded sources in their entirety when there is no evidence that the use of a particular source that was cited to support material in an article is what is being challenged here now. Show me the article wherein PW was used to cite a particular claim or comment or material? If you cannot provide that information, then this discussion needs to be closed so that we can move on. I'm aware that WP:RSN is the venue for removing content per the consensus model, but unless you have a valid misuse of PW as a source in one of WP's articles, this discussion needs to be closed. I will state that separately rather than make it part of this thread. Atsme 💬 📧 21:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    I do not need to provide diff context is one aspect of RS not it's one absolute defining characteristic, and it doesn't overule what is found in V. That you have a personal distaste for how the community works is obvious, go read the documentation for depreciation it has all the links you require. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry... but you do need to provide the diff, otherwise you're just a talking text message that carries no weight. I have the policies and guidelines backing my comments. You have your opinion. Refresh your memory about the purpose of WP:RSN, and the purpose of citations used to support material; i.e. CONTEXTMATTERS, which is not about deprecating or downgraded entire sources just because the prevailing consensus at the time doesn't agree with a particular position, or what that source has published that was cited in an article – and that is exactly what this RSN is supposed to be about - not whether or not the majority likes it as a reliable source. There's no article in question here - this discussion is personal - and it has to stop. Atsme 💬 📧 22:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    You know full well how consensus works, and your IDHT about context matters won't change that all of this has community support. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
    How is it off topic to ask for evidence of a claim made by a !voter? I dont see how one can read that article and conclude that Huldra is labelled as a pro-Hamas editor, rather than mentioned in passing, as any editor could have, which Huldra even reiterates (eg Icewhiz, etc).
    @Huldra WP:LEGAL says "that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself". How does this apply to pursuing action against a non-editor who you believe has defamed you? And again, who is all "40 of us"? You seem to be collectivizing 40 editors while denying that they should be collectivized? Which is it? Metallurgist (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    User:Metallurgist: I am just quoting what off-wiki sources say, "Pirate Wires' article, How Wikipedia’s Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative, named 40 pro-Hamas editors." . Or Wiki Wars" I identified a network of more than three dozen editors—whom I dubbed the “Gang of 40”".
    Rindsberg named us "pro-Hamas" and "Gang of 40", on the basis of having edited the same articles. To repeat: I have equally large overlap with some pro-Israeli editors, but Pirate Wires just doesn't mention that. Huldra (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    You may want to tag Shlomit Lir if you're bringing her up, as she as an en Wikipedia account, and actively edits in this area. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
    Isnt that bordering on canvassing? Metallurgist (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    Had to look them up. They arent related to piratewires at all? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    @Metallurgist: It may border on canvassing but I don't know. My reasoning is that if you are going to bring up someone who edits in the community, it would be courteous to allow them to argue their actions. @Bluethricecreamman: no Shlomit Lir isn't involved with PirateWires. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    What is the username of the person? They have been sufficiently discussed wherein a ping might be appropriate. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    Huldra, did Pirate Wires ever contact you for comment before publishing "How Wikipedia's Pro-Hamas Editors Hijacked the Israel-Palestine Narrative"? — Newslinger talk 11:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Newslinger Of course not: And the "sneaky" thing Rindsberg does, is that he
    A: list the most active "non-Israel-friendly" editors he can find, and how's that we edit lots of the same articles (so does a lot of "Israel-friendly" editors, but he doesn't list those), And since most of us have edited for years -we have lots of edits.
    B: list the off-site collusion by "Tech For Palestine" (TfP)
    C: combines A +B to make it appear as if there is a massive off-site collusion. But, as their own "investigation" showed, on p. 3 (out of 244): "The current conservative edit impact estimate for the group (based on available evidence) is 260 edits on 114 articles.(link) (bolding in the original)
    The simple, boring truth is that there is no major "off-site collusion" to edit wikipedia in an "anti Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" way. The one exception is TfP, and they managed a whopping 260 edits, before they were all banned, Huldra (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    WP:QUACK Iljhgtn (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    "The duck test does not apply to non-obvious cases. Unless there is evidence which proves otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, editors must assume good faith from others." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 (2nd choice Option 2, 3rd choice Option 4); with no evident editorial policy, a lack of sources discussing the reliability of its output as a whole, and an apparent willingness to publish conspiracy theories and inflammatory accusations with little evidence, Pirate Wires falls squarely into the generally unreliable category. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 02:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2.5 - they're clearly biased but at the same time seem to be doing relatively serious journalism on some topics. But they're mostly a magazine of opinion articles, the closest example on the Left I can think of would be something like Current Affairs, so I'm not really sure how much they could be used in an actual article. Ideally Wikipedia would have some sort of proper policy on these sorts of things, because it feels like the real question about them is "are their views notable", and their reliability isn't really relevant.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I am disinclined to consider valid an RFC the preceeding discussion(s) of which fail to provide the context required by the editnotice, more specifically, the part where it says and the claim it supports. That said, in general, we require positive evidence of both structural elements (non-SPS) and reputational elements, rather than the lack of evidence to the contrary, and in quick overview said evidence seems singularly unimpressive. For example, one article referenced above says the following: The existence of the TFP channel has previously been reported by Jewish Insider (JI), "The Wikipedia Flood" blog and a Pirate Wires piece that went viral. The publication is placed in the same sentence as a news organisation. It is also placed in the same sentence as a blog. Unfortunately not being psychic, I cannot say for certain why the Journal chooses to mention PW, the simplest reading in my opinion would indicate the 4 words following that mention give a clue. There are plenty of news organisations that mention subreddits with posts that go viral, I hope those proposing a GENREL RSP entry do not suggest that is the standard for "reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" we adopt. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 PW functions more as a pro-tech, anti-establishment opinion platform than a neutral news source. Its coverage often targets high-profile figures and institutions, often in inflammatory terms, framing its mission as a rebuke to "modern publishing giants" and what it portrays as ideological conformity in legacy journalism. The outlet began as a Substack newsletter before becoming a venture-backed site with a small staff. Editorially, it remains centered on Mike Solana, who has no background in journalism or editing yet retains near-total control. A Founders Fund partner has said the site largely mirrors Solana's personal views, with its content described as like "being inside [his] brain". Editorial independence seems minimal. Instead of following conventional reporting standards, PW tends to push narratives opposing regulation, progressive movements, and liberal institutions. The Guardian has referred to it as a "conservative newsletter". Media Bias / Fact Check rates its factual reporting as "mixed", citing reliance on opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments instead of consistently well-sourced journalism. PW drew scrutiny last year when it published an unverified claim that the Trump campaign was launching a cryptocurrency. This was posted directly to social media, included a contract address and was presented as a scoop but lacked corroboration. No RS confirmed the story, and PW offered no sourcing transparency. Solana later admitted that he had not spoken to anyone in the Trump campaign and characterized the post as merely sharing information "via sources". This kind of reporting falls well short of basic journalistic standards. As for Ashley Rindsberg, the author of several cited pieces, he also fails to meet RS standards. His claims about a supposed "Hamas network" running Reddit and Wikipedia are demonstrably false, as are many others across his blogging output. He has repeatedly pushed fringe narratives, including far-right talking points on COVID-19 and its origins, and has amplified anti-vaccine rhetoric. He is also closely tied to PragerU and other fringe right-wing outlets. Combined with his frequent use of culture-war terms like "woke", his work clearly lacks journalistic objectivity. Neither PW nor Rindsberg should be treated as reliable, with the exception of WP:ABOUTSELF. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    Can you show me the RS which supports this? Since it is 'demonstrably' false? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    According to Mediabias report you quoted the PW have had no failed fact checks in the last 5 years , their criticism has to do with bias which should be irrelevant.
    As to Rindberg's supposed anti-vaccine rhetoric, I didn't see vaccines mentioned in the 3 pieces you linked. The lab leak hypothesis is hardly fringe, considering that even the head of WHO called for further investigations into it . Being right-wing is again a matter of bias and nor reliability. Alaexis¿question? 20:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    Mediabias Fact-check assessed Pirate Wires as the following:
    "Pirate Wires often prioritizes editorializing over facts, reinforcing its ideological perspective. The site does not heavily rely on investigative journalism, often concluding opinionated commentary and industry perspectives rather than objective reporting.
    "We rate its factual reporting as Mixed, as it relies on opinionated framing, provocative headlines, and speculative arguments rather than consistently well-sourced journalism."
    Whether you consider PW a reliable source given this assessment probably hinges on how much weight you put on the value of speculative arguments vs consistently well-sourced journalism. My position is that a source with a strong right wing bias can certainly be reliable, provided that the stories they choose to cover are factually reported on, with good sourcing, and with formal editorial oversight. TROPtastic (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    I dont think we use media bias websites when ranking these sources usually User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Primarily due to WP:USEBYOTHERS (Berliner Zeitung, TechCrunch, NDTV, Gizmodo). A lot of !votes above do not mention any inaccuracies and imo should simply be dismissed. I've carefully reviewed the list of issues u:Kelob2678 posted above but I find u:Jcgaylor's arguments convincing. Note that the (rather unsympathetic to the Pirate Wires) Atlantic article does not accuse them of publishing falsehoods. It's definitely biased but I found no reasons to doubt its reliability. Alaexis¿question? 11:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    The conspiracizing about a "gang of 40" is obviously false reporting on its face. Not only would the inclusion of this as a source be repeating such falsehoods, it would be enshrining, in our articles, WP:ABF statements about other Wikipedia editors in good standing. Simonm223 (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    I assume you're referring to this investigation which has been mentioned in other sources that I linked. Which part of it is a lie and what makes you think so? Alaexis¿question? 12:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    Regarding WP:ABF, how is it relevant? Are you suggesting that our sources should abide by Wikipedia guidelines? Alaexis¿question? 12:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    The arbitration process exonerated many editors on that list of the collaboration and collusion that PirateWires accuses them of. WP:ABF is relevant because we would have to both assume that Arbcom got it wrong and we would have to be assuming bad faith in our colleagues in order to treat the assertions made by piratewires as factually correct. We have competing sets of facts. It ultimately comes down to a matter of trust. I trust my peers on Wikipedia more than I trust Ashley Rindberg. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    The Arbcom, as a subset of Wikipedia, is not a reliable source per WP:UGC. Even if it were, it didn't (and couldn't) "exonerate" anyone. The lack of evidence and the evidence of absence are different things. Alaexis¿question? 13:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    Well there's no evidence of "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" other then editors existing that the author ideologically opposes. While sources don't have to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, you certainly do. So regardless of your personal opinions, I hope you can at least WP:AGF & give fellow editors the benefit of the doubt until actual evidence exists. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    I give my fellow editors the benefit of the doubt and follow WP:AGF. However this is WP:RSN and not AN and the idea that our assessment of sources should depend on what they wrote about Wikipedia strikes me as unserious. Alaexis¿question? 20:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not arguing that we should dismiss sources because they're critical of Wikipedia/its editors, but their coverage should be accurate & well supported.
    The claim of "A coordinated campaign led by around 40 Wikipedia editors" is simply not true, their assertions are built entirely of the fallacious idea of "correlation = causation". An investigation without proper evidence to support their conclusion is nothing but an accusation, something unbecoming of supposedly reliable sources.
    So we return to @Simonm223's point above, PirateWires accused these editors of conspiracy without actual evidence, but you are defending the article's accuracy. I'm having issues parsing the idea that you can give editors the benefit of the doubt, while also defending an article that attacks those same editors authenticity with unsubstantiated claims. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
    "is simply not true" is your personal opinion. The evidence is certainly not strong enough for Arbcom sanctions but it's not zero either.
    By way of analogy, if an editor adds promotional material to a company article I assume good faith in my interaction with them, explain the policy, etc. However I do keep in mind the possibility that they have a CoI based only on correlation.
    Considering the 1000-word limit I don't think there is a point in continuing this thread. Alaexis¿question? 20:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
    I have edited as many articles together with User:Icewhiz, User:Davidbena, User:NoCal100, User:Tombah, and User:Gilabrand, and their socks, as I have edited articles together with most of the "gang of 40". Would you also say ... "The evidence is [] it's not zero either" that I have off-site collusion with any of them? Huldra (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
    PS: when I mention "and their socks", that does not include User:Davidbena, (who I have never suspected of socking), but all the others are notorious "sockers".Huldra (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure you're not colluding with any of them. Alaexis¿question? 07:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Well, thank you. But the "evidence" that I colluded with all of them, is as "strong" as the "evidence" that I colluded with any of the other members of the "gang of 40". So why do you say the evidence there "isn't zero"? Huldra (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Personally, I also don't find their correlation analysis particularly convincing (which is the same thing as saying that the evidence is not strong). However, this is irrelevant. I disagree with and can find flaws in many articles published by RS but it doesn't mean they are not reliable. Alaexis¿question? 09:05, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
    So the "not convincing evidence" → reliable? I don't understand your logic here, Huldra (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1.5: Reporting is cited by multiple WP:RSPS per WP:USEBYOTHERS. It is a newer source and should be diligently monitored, and Solana's eidtorials treated with caution, but its other writers are not WP:SPS. A public statement of editorial policy is not required per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Remarks about Soros do not rise to the level of WP:FRINGE. We should of course do our due diligence with individual cases of proposed use of this source, but I see nothing here to convince me that any kind of blanket warning is warranted. Marquardtika (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3: This is a blog that as others have noted has only been cited by other fringe outlets in the heavily partisan pro-Israel camp misrepresented by those going for option 1 as being legitimate to argue WP:USEBYOTHERS. What makes it all the more egregious is that they have published supposed "reporting" by an author who made videos for Prager U accusing editors in good standing here of being associated with Hamas and spreading their agenda, and that is the content editors want to cite it for on various pages here.--Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Per Aquillion and Smallangryplanet, who put it better than I could. Parabolist (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 4: Per the many users pointing out conspiratorial content (Soros! Hamas!). Inflammatory, incoherent, non-journalistic blog. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:USEBYOTHERS is a pretty relevant piece of policy here. The reporting conducted by Pirate Wires has been covered by The Atlantic[2] (multiple times),[3] The Jerusalem Post,[4][5][6] The Times of Israel,[7] JNS,[8][9][10] The Jewish Press,[11] The Free Press,[12] The Times of India,[13] and more. If anyone says that the Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, or any other Israeli based reliable publication that is covering this should not be included because it pertains to an "Israel Palestine topic," this is not a standard that would be upheld in any other context. Even if the only reliable coverage of Pirate Wires came from a single nation, which is not the case, it would be unreasonable to dismiss that reporting merely because the outlets are based in a country involved in conflict. Reliable Ukrainian sources are not rejected for covering a war zone, and the same principle applies here: the fact that much of the coverage is from Israeli publications does not undercut the applicability of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Some editors have suggested that WP:USEBYOTHERS carries less weight here because much of the secondary coverage is ideologically aligned or quotes Pirate Wires only to note its claims. Those points don't negate the policy. What matters is if the other reliable sources reporting on PW's work express doubt of PW's reliability or bolster it's reliability. In all of the reporting I found, even the ones not ideologically aligned with Pirate Wires, the reliability of PWs is not put into serious doubt. Reliability is what is at the heart of WP:USEBYOTHERS. Absent clear evidence of fabrication or systemic inaccuracy, these objections do not override the policy. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    Unless I'm missing something, the two Atlantic articles presented aren't "using" or relying on the reporting of PW, but are mentioning/commenting on PW's reporting. For example "Pirate Wires, a publication popular among the tech right, has published at least eight stories blasting Wikipedia [...]" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    I think a few of the use by others examples in this thread are more just examples of PW being mentioned rather than used. Musk responded to their “report” making it noteworthy, so RSs summarised its contents, but that doesn’t mean they back its reliability, hence they use words like “the report alleged” (Times of India) BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    +1 Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3: It's a blog. Nothing has been presented to show how it's any more reliable than any other blog. That its reporting panders to what some people want to believe is true does not miraculously make it less unreliable. And there is considerable irony inherent in calling out perceived anti-semitism in criticism of the IDF or Likud while simaltaneously indulging in George Soros conspiracy theories. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    Ironic how? Soros is known to have mixed to critical views on Israel and has funded numerous outfits critical of Israel and promoting BDS. It does not surprise me that a source would be investigating both alleged anti-Israel activists, and Soros. This faff about conspiracy theories is ridiculous as everything presented in those articles appears to be true. At what point is an investigation not a conspiracy theory? Wealthy people fund things they like and against things they dont like. Others may disagree with that. Doesnt make it a conspiracy theory. Soros, Gates, Koch brothers, Musk, etc. They all do it. Metallurgist (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    The irony being that constructing elaborate theories about how an extremely elderly European Jew is behind everything the conspiracists see as wrong in the world today is much, much more antisemitic than is calling out deliberate targeting and bombings of schools, hospitals, homes etc. of Indigenous people in Palestine. Daveosaurus (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    His organizations fund it. Do the research. Atsme 💬 📧 15:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    Atsme is not wrong. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    I am of the understanding that doing one's own research is frowned upon around these parts. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    its frowned upon in article space. Talk and project spaces use original research to weigh what to include, and whether something is verifiable or not. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    • Question only, please don't count this towards words* @Bluethricecreamman Can you show me where that OR distinction is made explicitly in policy?
    Iljhgtn (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    The policy page. In the lead. Just read it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    Right, the issue with accepting "do your own research" as an argument in projectspace is not because it violates COPO, but because it can be attached to literally any proposition regardless of truth value, in either direction, and thus has no epistemic use. Did space aliens build the pyramids? Do your own research. Is two plus two equal to four? Do your own research. Is ΛCDM the correct representation of the structure of the universe? Do your own research. It's not science unless you write it down and share it with the class, folks. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Pirate Wires is more of a well funded blog than a proper newspaper. Although it has an 'editor-in-chief' and also an 'editor', PW is very informal, click-baity and pushes its ideology with no pretence at balance or fact-checking. While it is fun to read, in no way is it a reliable source in the way that a proper newspaper with proper journalists would be. Dualpendel (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 - Per WP:BLOGS the following are identified as forms of blogs: personal webpage, self published book, claims of being an expert, patents and newsletters. One can see that Pirate Wires is discernibly none of the above. It is ludicrous to call it a blog when it so obviously shares no characteristic features of one.

Besides their writers have a hierarchical structure, they are divided into 'editor in chief', 'editor at large' and 'writers'. What blog has a full-on editorial team as described above? Does WordPress? Medium? Any number of individually-written blogs?

No source has labeled them a "blog nor have they referred to themselves as such. Insisting on the descriptor "blog" seems to be a misguided effort aimed to discredit Pirate Wires and/or undermine the legitimacy of their content without reason. Kvinnen (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Option 1/Option 2 Per the Atlantic article on Pirate Wires, The Atlantic mentions that journalists read the publication saying in the piece: "It has become a must-read among Silicon Valley’s anti-woke crowd, including some of tech’s most influential figures, and a grudging should-read for journalists and some on the left." The fact that journalists read Pirate Wires regularly makes the website more prestigious than that of a blog. In addition Solana has said his explicit goal is to report the news, once again per the Atlantic article: "Pirate Wires itself is a mix of opinion essays by Solana and others, interviews with major tech figures such as Jack Dorsey and Palmer Luckey, and reporting on tech and San Francisco politics largely from a left-critical perspective." While I do think anything Solana writes about Peter Thiel should be treated skeptically, I do not think every article Pirate Wires produces should be tarred with the same brush. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - I haven't seen widespread examples of WP:RS using Pirate Wires as a source itself, with most other mentioned sources using it as an example of polarized debates, not ascribing reliability to particular stories. It can still be situationally reliable for specific topics or investigative works, but I take a dim view of considering anything Media Bias Fact Check assesses as "mixed factuality" as a "generally reliable" source (for example, Daily Kos or Electronic Intifada).TROPtastic (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - This is certainly a very biased source and we need to be careful attributing the many articles that are obviously opinion and not reporting, we're more concerned with reliablility than bias, and the latter is a care we always have to take. I certainly don't think the journalistic bonafides to say Option 1, but as long as we're careful, there are niche things that can be taken from their reporting. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    Few are not biased. This one leans opposite our systemic bias which is why we need to keep it. Atsme 💬 📧 14:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    Is this what you consider to be policy based logic? DN (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    Absolutely. WP:NPOV states "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias (re: WP editors being biased), all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Bias in a source doesn't make it unreliable. Editorial bias comes from not choosing sources objectively. Atsme 💬 📧 15:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    Obviously this is not a discussion about NEUTRALITY, though. It is a discussion on RELIABILITY. How does that reconcile your earlier statement of "This one leans opposite our systemic bias which is why we need to keep it"?
    In the context of this discussion, it seems to imply that you would label questionable sources as "reliable" under the auspices of neutrality, which is obviously not the intended purpose of NPOV. DN (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    I think Atsme was just saying that they might be biased, but that they are definitely reliable. She is free to correct me if I misinterpret her comment, but that is what I think she was saying. That also is true here. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 3 we need less hyper partisan garbage on wikipedia, not more. (t · c) buidhe 18:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if PW is "hyper partisan", however, any statements which might convey a tilt can always be attributed. That is not a sufficient reason to question the reliability of a source. Kvinnen (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    That is a good point, and a good reason for "Option 2" requiring attribution, but their actual reliability has yet to be proven to be anything but perfectly reliable. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    Whoever closes this discussion should take notice of how many Opt 3–4 iVotes are rooted in partisan bias and self interest–not a valid reason to downgrade or deprecate. Atsme 💬 📧 18:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    For sure. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    The opposite is obviously quite true as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    Jokes on you because if it were up to me the vast majority of news sources would be rated option 2 or worse, since they are only reliable for current affairs and statements from organizations/people (i.e. not generally reliable for historical or scientific/technical subjects), and even then with significant caveats. This source engages in conspiracy theories clearly make it less reliable than the typical news outlet. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Option 2-3...maybe - I've stepped away from my busy schedule as a pro-Hamas Wikipedia narrative hijacker and powerful "Gang of 40" member as "documented" by PW. 

  • I'm not sure which option is best suited to PW, whether case-by-case works best for this kind of source in practice rather than trying to categorize it, but it surely can't be 'Option 1', 'generally reliable'. That is very far-fetched, inconsistent with the evidence, the kind of claim PW might write in one of their stories. If I'm to believe that PW is reliable, I also need to believe things that I know to be false about myself, editors I know, how Wikipedia works etc. and I need to unironically forget the Gell-Mann amnesia effect.  
  • Now, to be fair, getting things wrong about Wikipedia isn't very unusual, we've all seen it, and it's possible that only one of the PW writers struggles with things like fact checking, inference, casual defamation etc. But I don't think it makes sense for content generated by human writers prone to hallucinations, inference errors etc. to be labeled by Wikipedia as generally reliable given that we don't make that mistake for generative AIs prone to hallucinations, but perhaps less prone to the kind of inference errors and hysterical conspiracy-minded foolishness present in PW's stories.
  • I'm also not impressed by use by others arguments in this case. As USEBYOTHERS says, "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not unduly represent contentious or minority claims." PW appears to resemble a disinformation vector, at least in part. Or perhaps an enshittification vector might be a more fun label. As a potential enshittification vector, perhaps it can help identify other vectors that credulously or maliciously spread disinformation as part of the outrage economy (or the booming Gaza war related distraction economy) or whatever for those interested in such processes. But for Wikipedia, perhaps its utility is limited to opinion. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2 (or Option 1) - per User:Gjb0zWxOb. Clearly biased, and given the proportion of editorials it should be used with care (as with any source) and attributed for published opinions. I'm not convinced by arguments that a more extreme assessment of this source is appropriate. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Pirate Wires)

  • Notice: This discussion is covered by the 1000 word limit on formal discussion in the WP:ARBPIA topic area. If you're at or near that limit then you're done.
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish Is that per RFC discussion, or per comment? Iljhgtn (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Per discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Noting that as of this comment, the participant word counts for the RfC are as follows:
signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Revised count for Kelob2678 given their amendment. signed, Rosguill talk 21:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
@Jcgaylor, you may want to trim your comments then down to 1,000 words or less in order to be in compliance with this, also I'm assuming this comment in its entirety is not counting for me towards my own 1k word limit? And any questions that are purely seeking clarification etc? Iljhgtn (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, somewhat bizarre question, but I think that Jcgaylor made some great points. Given that I made only 157 words of argument, in essence I have 843 words "left", could I "gift" him some of my "words" to be able to use towards the limit so that he does not need to cut back as much or anything depending? Otherwise, in theory, I could copy and past his replies in some cases, and just give him credit for the point, and effectively get to a similar result anyway, but I just wanted to see what the best course of action is in that case. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Given that most of Jcgaylor's comments have already been responded to and that they are significantly past the word limit, I would suggest that trying to cut them down at this point would do more harm than good and Jcgaylor should just step back from this discussion. The closer may choose to address this discrepancy of one editor having been afforded the opportunity to speak more than the rest however they see fit.
The question of gifting word count to another editor should probably be addressed to ARBCOM as an amendment/clarification of the word limit restriction. My gut inclination is that we probably don't want to go down this road as a community: having participated in formal debates outside Wikipedia where this was allowed, it introduces a lot more bureaucratic overhead, drama and gamesmanship, which I think would be counterproductive to the original intent of the word limit, which is to keep discussions focused and to the point. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense, it had honestly not occurred to me until now, so I thought it would be prudent to ask. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Also, realizing I hadn't answered your other question: As for word count methodology, I've been excluding signatures and procedural questions. That having been said, I'm not aware of any ARBCOM- or community-mandated methodology, so I can't make promises about how other admins (or ARBCOM) will review counts when asked, although I expect that most of us will look to the spirit of the sanction rather than bean-counting words over the line (and this has essentially been the existing practice for AE word limits: no one gets sanctioned for going a bit over the line, but repeatedly and/or excessively going over the line does become evidence of a pattern of disruption if together with other problematic behavior). signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I imagine especially after having been warned or notified. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Current word counts for Tioaeu8943 and Iljhgtn? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
ignoring the procedural responses, Tioaeu8943 is at ~1002 words.
Iljhgtn is at ~796 words. using the "~" because the word counter is slightly off and might be slightly overestimating based on formatting
admins likely won't care about going slightly over, but will get pissed off if there is a 500 word response that goes way overboard. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
word count in the poll as of sept 24th.
Jcgaylor: 2,048 words, 13 comments
ActivelyDisinterested: 1,160 words, 21 comments
Tioaeu8943: 1,037 words, 10 comments
Atsme: 1,035 words, 14 comments
Iljhgtn: 998 words, 12 comments
Kelob2678: 981 words, 3 comments
Bluethricecreamman: 788 words, 15 comments
Butterscotch Beluga: 713 words, 10 comments
Huldra: 640 words, 8 comments
Metallurgist: 637 words, 8 comments
Bobfrombrockley: 535 words, 7 comments
Simonm223: 530 words, 10 comments
Rosguill: 491 words, 6 comments
Gjb0zWxOb: 471 words, 3 comments
Alaexis: 358 words, 7 comments
Smallangryplanet: 349 words, 2 comments
Paprikaiser: 349 words, 1 comment
IOHANNVSVERVS: 312 words, 10 comments
Alpha3031: 286 words, 3 comments
Aquillion: 265 words, 1 comment
Chetsford: 215 words, 2 comments
Springee: 210 words, 1 comment
Sionk: 189 words, 2 comments
Woodroar: 125 words, 2 comments
Eldomtom2: 93 words, 1 comment
JPxG: 91 words, 1 comment
Raskolnikov.Rev: 91 words, 1 comment
Marquardtika: 88 words, 1 comment
Hemiauchenia: 62 words, 2 comments
The Kip: 57 words, 2 comments
Darknipples: 52 words, 1 comment
Hatman31: 51 words, 1 comment
Coining: 36 words, 1 comment
NotJamestack: 32 words, 2 comments
ScottishFinnishRadish: 30 words, 2 comments
Cdjp1: 25 words, 1 comment
Cakelot1: 21 words, 1 comment
Newslinger: 19 words, 1 comment
Gamaliel: 16 words, 1 comment
Peter Gulutzan: 14 words, 1 comment
Parabolist: 13 words, 1 comment
Visite fortuitement prolongée: 10 words, 1 comment User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Deduct 186 words from what you calculated as my word count. I was falsely accused of using AI & had to respond, & someone tried to cancel my iVote and I had to respond. These BS kid games are making me weary. Atsme 💬 📧 23:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Im copying and pasting from the word count tool, im not enforcing anything or trying any count correction like that.
also doubt admins care unless its clearly hundreds over limit User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Where is this tool? I'd like to try it too. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
SFR showed it to me. User:L235/wordCountsByEditor.js
it took me a while to figure out how it works and i dont think it does sections that well, which is why i use my sandboxes talkpage to paste the blob of text i actually wanna analyze User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 00:59, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Here's a novel idea, keep a word count for the initial statement in the iVote section, but create a talk page for editors to actually collegially debate the issues for a set time frame rather than silencing productive discussion. Imagine that! Atsme 💬 📧 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
A good idea. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
You would have to take it up with ArbCom as they placed the restriction. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
I believe you, but do you have a link to the 1,000-word cap policy so I can read up on it? I don't see it at WP:ARBPIA. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Word limits (1,000 words) Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to bank my remaining ~800 and exchange them for the gift card, if no one minds. Chetsford (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Word counts are explained by Brandolini's Law. Atsme 💬 📧 15:23, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • As a general note for those who failed to read the header, "While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy." This is a noticeboard for third opinion and advice, but it might also be used as a place to form a consensus and WP:CONSENSUS is policy. That could be done here, on the village pump, or as a subpage of WP:RFC the location is unimportant. As to the perennial source list it also isn't a policy or guideline, the WP:RSP is an information page - a log of prior discussions and any consensus that came from them (and again where a consensus is formed is irrelevant because WP:CONSENSUS is policy). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
  • It's important for editors who wish to "teach" others about our PAGs to actually become well acquainted with them. For example, there are levels of consensus, and the location is important, so please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Levels_of_consensus. The seriousness of RSP and RSN making local consensus determination to deprecate or downgrade entire sources requires a much higher level of consensus. Atsme 💬 📧 13:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
    Well attended and widely advertised RFCs are not local consensus, (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If you believe the entire way that the community finds consensus about source reliability is wrong you should raise it on the village pump. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Local vs WP:Village pump (policy) – see Wikipedia:CONLEVEL. Atsme 💬 📧 19:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Ah! yes the many places that CONLEVEL mentions the village pump. If you think that this community practice that thousands of editors, if not the majority of active editors, have taken part in over the last decade doesn't have community support you can raise it at the village pump, you should have no difficulty convincing other with your arguments. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I do have to say I wish these were structured like AFDs, which are probably the best and most streamlined system for community input. Metallurgist (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Have there been any discussions on Pirate Wires before the above one? If not, this is a bad RfC. NotJamestack (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
"Pirate Wires?" - Discussion from earlier this year. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I don’t think this would constitute “frequently discussed” if it’s only two discussions. NotJamestack (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Their reliability was also a subject of conversation in WP:ARBPIA5. Edit: Actually, as you aren't EC, you should probably opine from this discussion.Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
NotJamestack, for any discussion broadly construed as israel palestine you need WP:XC (gave the prereq ctop alert just now but also this seems like a good faith enough comment)
personally did not care to start this rfc but the discussions beforehand kept alluding to needing an rfc.
Kinda doubt rfc is heading towards a conclusive consensus either tbh, good luck to whoever closes User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry NotJamestack I've removed you comment from the survey, as Bluethricecreamman said discussions relating to certain topics areas require extended confirmed rights (automatically obtained by an account being over 30 days old and having 500 edits). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Atsme, Iljhgtn, noting that you were basically at the word limit on September 24, you're clearly over the line at this point, please refrain from further comments. That you're doing so to defend George Soros conspiracy theories is also noted. signed, Rosguill talk 19:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    Thx Rosguill – this is a question, not a comment: how did you tabulate the word count? Does it include iVote comments & the Discussions below? Atsme 💬 📧 22:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    My methodology was to look only at the RfC section (not including this discussion section), to exclude signatures/timestamps, and ignore anything collapsed. By this metric you're at 1,115 words as of my prior post. signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    That count isn't fair because I was accused of using AI & had to defend against it, and was taken to ANI anyway. Do what you've gotta do, matters not to me. Atsme 💬 📧 22:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    As far as I can see, your response to AI concerns here totals at 36 words. signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    For the record, I highlighted my user name, & copied my comments less my sig and the AI claim, but not the claim that my iVote was not a vote, which I responded to, so including the latter my total is 1010 words per word counter. Subtract my response to the claim that my iVote wasn't a vote, I actually did not go over the limit. Policy-based comments and facts that dispute misinformation should not be silenced. Atsme 💬 📧 02:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    Atsme, I have been subscribed to this discussion for weeks now and have been glancing at it as it progresses. While I am interested in this, I have been trying to refrain from participating as I don't feel like I would be a good fit for this discussion. Despite that, I have taken note of your comments prior to this weekend along with the word counts. Regarding your word counts, you are correct that it is around ten words over, but are incorrect with regards to your last sentence.
    The Arbitration Committee has imposed the word counts restriction for a reason. It has nothing to do with facts and policy being silenced, but a remedy to attempt to resolve bludgeoning. To quote twice from WP:ARBPIA5: "The role of the committee is to act as a final binding decision-maker for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. Content areas the committee has previously ruled on are sometimes designated as contentious topics or subject to ongoing special restrictions. As necessary, the Committee may revisit previous decisions and associated enforcement systems in order to review their effectiveness or necessity." ＋ "When the community's extensive and reasonable attempts to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed, the Arbitration Committee may, as a last resort, be compelled to adopt robust measures to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, disruption to the editing environment and to the community." The word limits are a remedy to try to resolve the bludgeoning that has occurred in the topic area. To add, violations would not be taken to ANI, but AE.
    (Speaking of your comments, why is one of them outside of chronological order? You have your second comment from the 21st under your comment from the 14th and it looks like IOHANNVSVERVS replied to it seven days before it existed. Would you fix the order?) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    Hi, Super Goku V, first thank you for your polite reply, for sharing your thoughts, and for helping confirm the word count. Honest opinions are much appreciated. The reason my comment's chronology doesn't align w/the dated iVote is why I stated "Important add-on to my iVote:" I wanted to ensure the closer sees it right alongside the original, rather than risk it getting buried in the thread. Chronological order is secondary. Atsme 💬 📧 14:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    I was trying to avoid participating in this discussion despite my interest in it, (due to being a poor fit in my opinion), but here we are. While I don't have a positive opinion on the user here, Atsme is pretty much correct on her word count. I did my own count and got 1,012 words total. (56+12+28+166+69+36+122+106+66+142+129+7+19+24+30=1012)
    My best guess at the moment for the counts being different is that her quotations were counted against her and that some of the symbols used were counted as words. (The quotes were decent sized, but I think it is 50-ish words off the top of my head, so quotes alone can not account for this discrepancy.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    ActivelyDisinterested, you're (just) over the line too. signed, Rosguill talk 22:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'll stop. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

References (Pirate Wires)

References

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.

Justice Denied

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm planning to make an article on Clarence Boggie, a lumberjack who was pardoned in the 1940s. I want to use this source for info on Biggie. How reliable is this source? Nighfidelity (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

According to About Justice Denied, it is “produced by volunteer writers, editors and other persons located throughout the United States and other countries. Hans Sherrer is Justice Denied’s editor and publisher[.]” (The final period is missing in the original.) These do not seem like strong indications of reliability.
There are other, better sources on Clarence Boggie. For example, try searching on Google Scholar and WP:TWL. John M Baker (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

should this source be reliable?

Latest comment: 8 months ago19 comments8 people in discussion

https://biblehub.com/ Stackper (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

No. Just cite the bible (with the version) for any quotes from the bible. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
isnt biblehub more than website with bible verses? Stackper (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
It almost certainly lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so it cannot be cited for those things. While in theory we could link to it as a host for Bible verses, better hosts for that exist, so there is no reason to do so. Even for attributed opinion, it is unlikely to be WP:DUE given how much higher-quality commentary about the Bible exists. --Aquillion (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
How about following the instructions at the top of this page and telling is what you want to cite it for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Can be used as christian studying tool
https://biblehub.com/q/Matthew_22_21_on_church-state_divide.htm
can also be used as definition of words in Greek/Hebrew Bible
https://biblehub.com/greek/1.htm Stackper (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
That last one is just Bible Hub copying public domain works like Strong's Concordance and Thayer's Greek–English Lexicon. Don't cite Bible Hub. Cite the original works. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
how is biblehub telling definition of Greek words copy of that Stackper (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Please read WP:RS. Like Wikipedia, Bible Hub isn't a reliable source, but the sources it cites may be, so use those instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I am confused as to why we even need to use this Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
what about the fact biblehub feels like encyclopedia about christianity?
https://biblehub.com/q/Matthew_22_21_on_church-state_divide.htm Stackper (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Please tell us the article you are proposing to edit, the specific text you are proposing to add, and the citation you intend to use. This noticeboard isn't a forum for vague ramblings about what you 'feel' about a possible source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump you rang? Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
https://biblehub.com/q/how_does_deut._6_4_align_with_the_trinity.htm
wanted to cite this as intrepretion of deut 6:4 of proof of trinity in old testament
Trinity#Old Testament Stackper (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
No. Not unless you can find evidence that biblehub.com's own analysis is being widely cited in recognised WP:RS sources. And I'd have though that it should be possible to find much better sources for a statement like that. If you can't, it is almost certainly undue anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
will you add biblehub in perennial sources list Stackper (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
No. It's not perennial. win8x (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
If a source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion. That may be because the source is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable, or it could mean the source is so obviously poor it never merited discussion. It could mean that the source covers a niche topic or that it simply fell through the cracks. If you're concerned about any source being used on Wikipedia, you should review the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN), following the instructions at the top of that page, where you can "Search the noticeboard archives":
is biblehub frequenlty discussed Stackper (talk) 03:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
i get it, instead of using biblehub for defintion of greek words use some greek english lexicon
but which websites are reliable for greek english lexicon, hebrew english lexicon, and aramaic english lexicon of the bible Stackper (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

temp editor request

Latest comment: 8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://alchetron.com/Nikki-Hornsby is this reliable online source for Nikki Hornsby — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37610-23 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

The information is user editable, such sources are not reliable per WP:USERGENERATED. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Are Encyclopædia Iranica and Wing (2016) sufficient for stating that Shaykh Uways Jalayir and the Jalayirids had Twelver Shiʿi sympathies

Latest comment: 8 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Jalayirids Han5570 (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Both sources are great, so if they actually say that, and it's not disputed by other sources, then yes. But that's not why you're being reverted... Can you please read the reasons this time?
Also, this quote about them being Shia was not mentioned in the Iranica link . In fact, the Iranica link disputes the Jalayirids being Shia says this;
  • "Although certain scholars have imputed Shiʿite sympathies to the Jalayerids, the strongest grounds for this view lie in the dynasty’s preference for names such as ʿAli, Ḥasan and Ḥosayn and in the expressed desire of Ḥasan-e Bozorg to be buried in Najaf. It is true that Ḥasan-e Bozorg was also on excellent terms with Shaikh Ṣafi-al-Din, the ancestor of the later Safavid dynasty, at Ardabil, and that friendly relations with Ṣafi-al-Din’s successors persisted under Šayḵ Ovays. Yet at this early stage it is doubtful whether the Ardabil order itself can be described as Shiʿite in any real sense. The evidence of Jalayerid coins, on the other hand, suggest a more Sunni stance: the overwhelming majority carry the names of the Orthodox Caliphs, and only rarely does a coin, like that struck by Ḥasan-e Bozorg at Āmol in 741/1340, bear the names of the Twelve Imams."
HistoryofIran (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
j Han5570 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the House of Commons website a primary or secondary source?

Latest comment: 8 months ago9 comments8 people in discussion

Hi, is this the right place to ask whether a source counts as primary or secondary?

Is the House of Commons website a primary source or a secondary source when it comes to how many MPs sit for different parties? The specific page in question is here. We are discussing this at Talk:Your_Party_(UK)#How_many_MPs_does_Your_Party_have?. I contend it is a primary source and we should prefer secondary sources. Rambling Rambler contends that it is a secondary source in this context. Some broader input on this question would be of value. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

  • I would say it's a secondary source. MPs do not belong to the HoC as such, they are employed by the Government and merely work there. The HoC website is reporting on which party the MPs have indicated to the HoC that they officially represent - thus, I would say secondary. An MPs own website, for example, would be primary. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. My perspective would be that I look at WP:SECONDARY and it says, "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." I don't see the HoC website as doing that: they're repeating what they've been told by MPs, they're not reporting on the MPs. If you see what I mean. Bondegezou (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes there is nothing to synthesize, analyze, evaluate, or interpret. Or sometimes that operation of synthesis/analysis/evaluation/interpretation isn't explicit in the text, but occurred in the production of the secondary source. For example, Mariah Carey's birth certificate gives her date of birth and is a primary source for her date of birth. A journalist interested in writing a cover story about Mariah Carey may find her birth certificate on a genealogy website and use that as the basis for stating her date of birth in a newspaper article by saying Mariah Carey was born on 27 March 1969 in Huntington, New York. Obviously I think we would all consider this a secondary source, even though the factual statements found in the secondary source are indeed the same factual statements found in the primary source. Katzrockso (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
It does not matter. It is a reliable source for it. Rolluik (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Primary, if not an SPS. However, it is about itself, so is usable. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
Primary and not selfpublished, but this is WP:ABOUTSELF so it's completely reliable. Note that although secondary sources are preferred that's doesn't mean primary sources can't be used, or preclude that a primary source might be the most reliable source to verify a certain piece of content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
I think it would be primary as it is compiled and produced by the UK government--but I do not think that should be a reason to disqualify it or demote it. Anything government related and publicly shared should be considered a strong source. Agnieszka653 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
I recently raised a similar question on the original research noticeboard about a statement by US politicians published on congressional websites but which are basically press releases, which I noticed were used heavily in a couple of articles. I think this kind of thing is reliable for uncontroversial facts but per ABOUTSELF. But the particular case at hand is slightly more complicated because the official primary source contradicts secondary reporting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_498&oldid=1326921421"