Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

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

List of archives

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

Additional notes:

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

Start a new discussion

---

Request for Comment: Reliability of CBS News under Bari Weiss

How reliable is CBS News under the leadership of Bari Weiss? Prior discussion here.

The options are:

1. Generally reliable
2. Additional considerations needed
3. Generally Unreliable
4. Deprecate

Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

CBS News Weiss Survey

• Option 3: Generally Unreliable for any and all United States political (Federal, state, local), United States geopolitical, and related U.S. geopolitical matters related to Gaza, Iran, Israel, Ukraine, Russia, the European Union, and NATO. Anything sourced to modern Weiss CBS News for same needs additional corroborating non-CBS sourcing. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• The case for general unreliability is not made, imo, Pelley resisted whatever thing Weiss wanted. In other words, that shows editorial controls working. And "propaganda palooza" is another way to say very biased. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean? He was fired. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  He was fired in June over things he said to a new show runner in June, who was not there in January. He was not fired in January, he resisted whatever Weiss wanted at that time. You are missing the context for my comment because the beginning of the RFC was changed after I left the above comment on June 23rd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1. - a disgruntled former co-worker is not a reason to make a source unreliable. Also, this statement is patently false. “intentionally trying to kill an ICE officer (though he resisted,” PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please put the text in the right section. Also, I made it clearer. RedDeadGuy (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  It still has the false statement. Pelley alleges that Weiss wanted him to state that Good was,

  "driving toward the officer" PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Whatever, the OP was rewritten. RedDeadGuy (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  But it's still not accurate. PerseusMeredith (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option 3 It does appear that editorial interference is causing chaos at CBS. I would also periodize this specifically to the start of the Bari Weiss tenure. Example sources discussing the problems there: Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  "Causing choas" and declining ratings are not an indicator of source reliability. For those reasons Al Jazeera America I guess we can say was unreliable Longhornsg (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1. Evidence of unreliability has not been established; that the management has experienced problems is not unreliability. The idea of declaring 60 Minutes, one of the most significant news magazines ever, unreliable for delaying releasing something is ridiculous. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sources also report Weiss pressured Pelley to lie on his report about Renee Good. RedDeadGuy (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1/2/too soon we need to wait until the unreliable news has been published. There are reports they have thrown wrenches in the gears but we are by definition, taking a WP:LAGGING stance of the world (yeah i know thats a notability guideline, but we must take a wait and see approach)
  Bari weiss is definitely concerning but we need a smoking gun, not that she did editorail bias. Maybe we state cbs is a biased source now? (Though i feel we need more evn for that) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites below captures my feelings exactly User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Note that we currently have FOX as MREL for non-political/science topics. Are we saying that CBS is even more biased than FOX, to the point that even their non-political/science reporting has to be considered GUNREL? If so, why? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth I suppose that I at least Support Option 2 while reserving judgement on whether or not taking the step to Option 3 is warranted. Granted, I think most news outlets should be thought of as MREL for publications that amount to more than just basic news reporting, considering questionable editorial and Pulitzer Prize winners get published next to each other. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there are allegations of editorial interference and a ton of justifiable criticism directed at Weiss, but where is the pile of links showing uncorrected factual errors or other concrete problems with what's actually been published? There are all manner of news organizations more overtly biased than this that we nonetheless consider reliable because what they don't let that bias erode their factual accuracy. There are claims about efforts to do so at CBS, but to what extent has it happened? In general, while the legal and ideological capitulation of CBS News/its parents suggest a deleterious trajectory, we need to actually see that manifest in factual unreliability. TL;DR seriously premature, and as I've said before I'd love it if we could just stop using this genre of source-bucketing RfC for anything other than extreme cases. It's possible to just talk about what's going on with a source without jumping into a vote. Sigh. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah I also feel like we could have just had a standard discussion instead of reaching for the RfC button. It was about half a year ago since the last discussion about CBS and I'm not aware of widespread disputes about usage of it as a source. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. Option 1. I agree with Rhododendrites. So far no evidence has been presented that CBS News is currently an unreliable source. There has been a lot of upset and a change in leadership that has recieved a lot of coverage. But that does not translate into general unreliability at this point. This survey is premature, imho. --Steve Quinn (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2 with a side of too soon - I agree with others that we don't yet have sufficient evidence of breaching norms reliability, and I think Maltazarian's highlighting of how this case compares to FOX is relevant. That having been said, based on the RS reporting of Pelley's firing, there is a credible allegation that the editorial leadership of 60 Minutes insisted on including false reporting relating to Renee Good, that this was rejected by the journalist, and that the journalist was consequently fired; while I wouldn't throw out any of CBS News's coverage just yet, this incident gives cause for serious pause if we were to come across an example of CBS (and especially 60 Minutes) making WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims that aren't repeated by other RS, especially in relation to US politics. That's not GUNREL, but it's not quite GREL either. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  If CBS is firing journalists who refuse to falsify reports then it raises the question of how many journalists are complying to protect their jobs. Simonm223 (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  I think that's basically the essence of my argument, yes. CBS also tends to cover topics that get abundant attention from other RS, so it should be relatively simple to identify points where they do step out of line if that happens. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, the firing is not tied to the January reporting, much other stuff happened in May, and it centered on some supposed things he said in a meeting to a new producer who was not there in January. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  But the biased reporting wasnt published though.

  we cant judge a source for what wasnt published even if they got really close to having put it out. Im close to an option 2 myself but think we really cannot ding for bias until the trigger is pulled and we see cbs put stuff out we know is unreliabel/undue/biased af User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option 3: Generally Unreliable There is clear evidence of political interference in CBS News output. This goes beyond WP:BIASEDSOURCES and is broadly on-par with a British tabloid newspaper now. Weiss isn't the only person in this story but her appointment was the crossing of the Rubicon marking a decisive shift away from responsible journalism. The decline started immediately after. Maybe there was some interference before that. Maybe there was some successful resistance to interference for a short time after that. Nonetheless, that's where the line should be drawn. I'm not sure if there is anything to gain by trying to set different levels for different topics. It's like the curate's egg. If any part of it is rotten then the whole thing is bad. It's about the organisation as a whole. (BTW, I see the disparity with Fox News. That's probably worth revisiting separately but it's off-topic here.) --DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Bias alone does not make a news source outright unreliable. It's when that bias interferes with their editorial processes to the point that errors are left uncorrected. Could you provide any actual examples of uncorrected errors in its reporting? After all, we didn't downgrade Fox News until we saw a recurring pattern of uncorrected errors in its reporting. SVG-image-maker (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

• Let's also note that CBS News New York does not run the news operations of its affiliates, each have there own editorial staff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Rhododendrites. Should anyone want to read a copy of the letter firing Pelley / outlining the ostensible reasons for his firing, there's a copy here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy close Why was their no discussion prior to this, what evidence is there that the factual accuracy of CBS has changed? It's not until they do published fake news or false reporting that anything changes. Presupposing that change before it happens just makes Wikipedia look biased in the way that people tend to make up about us for money. I've watched with growing concerns the details coming out from within CBS, and the growing hyperbole of it's reporting. But bias doesn't mean a source unreliable, that has to be held onto. So until other sources start reporting on a change in the accuracy of CBS's reporting what are we doing here? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:03, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ok this report from the independent directly calls into question CBS's reporting, so I've struck my !vote, but we should still have discussion this first. Is there any more of this outside of Pelley's firing? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Actively Disinterested. I saw this article from the Independent earlier today. The thrust of the article is criticism of Weiss's behavior but there has been no published anti-factual reporting, so far, that has come from CBS (that I know of). Also, notice that this article from the Independent was published on March 6th. So, that is two and one half months ago, and I have not been made aware of any unreliable reporting from CBS. I am thinking when the unreliable reporting happens other reputable news sources are sure to report on it. I surmise that it will become widely known very quickly. So, maybe Speedy Close is the best option at this point. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree. The independent article (reporting stuff from Zeteo and Semafor second hand) has a total of one (1) example of an egregious omission (an anchor not including mention of 1953 in a timeline of US-Iran relations) and zero (0)

examples of factual inaccuracy BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Also the Independent article is very Iran-specific, so as grounds for a downgrade it would only point to additional considerations about Iran specifically. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

This could all have avoided with some discussion before the RFC started, there really isn't enough here to have to go through the whole RFC process. But with more than a dozen editors already taking part it probably best to let this wind it's course. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah theres a broader issue of everyone being triggerhappy on rfc process on this noticeboard anyways. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I try and kill off as many unready and undiscussed RFCs as I can, but this one was well under way before I noticed it. There have been repeated evidenced free discussion about Weiss and CBS, maybe having a RFC result to point will actually help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no policy that allows

rfcs to be “killed” off early automatically. By the time an rfc is started, it usually has to be closed User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:01, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry just short hand, try and persuade that RFCs are closed early and a normal discussion be had instead. RFCs or any other discussion can be closed by consensus of the participation without forming any consensus on the matter as hand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:51, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue of hasty RFCs is an editor issue anyway, rather than an issue with this noticeboard. There aren't that many 'regulars' here, and the few that are wouldn't brush to start a RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:07, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of Scott Pelley this from CBS Evening News the night after he was fired certainly suggests editorial independence from management. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The thing with Pellet is that he's not independent of the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's true. But I was talking about CBS Evening News and what looks like some editorial independence from management, evidenced in the link. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo I don't think the current evidence is sufficient for changing the source's rating. I think that the current evidence indicates that a change will be warranted soon as it seems likely that there will be evidence that the organization's reporting is being significantly undermined and damaged - but we don't yet have that evidence. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo, per Rhododendrites. This is premature, and absent a pattern of specific incidents I don't see how it would benefit editors to change the description at WP:CBS, except perhaps to add a small addendum about political bias. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 or anything that isn't option 3... this is WAY too soon, which has already been pointed out by editors above. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 with an addendum to WP:CBS. I rewrote the RfC question as a courtesy to the OP, since I thought the issue deserved a hearing. In my view Option 3 is not supported by extant reliable sources, though I wouldn't be surprised if we have to revisit in a year or so. Option 2 is workable, and I agree entirely with Rosguill's !vote above. My own preference would be to retain GENREL (for now) but add to the entry at WP:CBS to state that additional scrutiny may now be required for claims related to politics. Generalrelative (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 Obviously we should be watching for any signs of bad reporting and editorial practices by CBS under Weiss, but at this point we really can't point to anything we can call foul on. The bulk of their reporting is in line with all other mainstream sources. They may not be as neutral as they were before Weiss, but remember that bias alone does not impact reliability; it has to be editorial standard going lax or outright failing because of that bias, like with Fox News. Masem (t) 00:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2, unfortunately, but it should be politics- and controversy-related – Now with stuff about Weiss and Trump, we can't treat CBS under Weiss the same as WP:CBS, can we? Now with departures of journalists from Weiss's CBS (People), we shouldn't rush into thinking this is the same CBS as it had been before Weiss and SkyDance takeover. George Ho (talk) 07:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 there has been nothing yet to indicate a change. We might suspect the change but we need some evidence of it being there. Andre🚐 07:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 In reading over the previous discussion I did not see any hard evidence of unreliability. It seemed mostly based on hunches. Slava570 (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 While concerns about CBS at the moment are legitimate, there needs to be evidence of a track record of misleading/inaccurate reporting that actually airs/is published before it is reevaluated. Also worth mentioning that the Free Press is listed at WP:Perennial Sources as being under additional considerations. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo/Option 1. There is growing evidence of bias - which may or may not be worth including at WP:CBS - but no evidence of unreliability in published reporting has been presented here. Astaire (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1: I have yet to see any evidence of widespread falsehoods, or general unreliable reporting from CBS. I'm not opposed to adding a note to its entry at RSP though. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2 Bari Weiss is certainly causing damage, but calling CBS News "generally unreliable" is a bridge too far at this point. We should be careful of editorial bias playing a role in their coverage, but they still have good journalists doing good journalism. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2. There is strong evidence that leadership attempted to change the facts of a story to fit a political narrative. While there is no evidence that the factual changes made it into the reporting, the Paley interview also contains hints that the framing of the reporting had been changed to suit leadership, like portraying protestors to be more violent for example. So, while there is no clear evidence that factual reporting has been slaved to the political narrative, that seems to have been the goal. Caution is therefore advised using CBS for any contentious reporting. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 / Status quo. No evidence has been provided that CBS News has become unreliable, even if a more rightward slant is being imposed. Bias, be it liberal of conservative, isn't defacto reason for unreliablity per WP:BIASEDSOURCES. Acceptable bias include choosing what issues to cover and what not to cover. Mother Jones is considered a biased yet reliable sources, as is the Daily Telegraph and The New Reepublic, although the distinction between news and partisan opinion is often blurred in such sources. It's very fashionable to hate on Bari Weiss because she's not as liberal as many other prominent journalists, and she has made some decisions I'd call bad, but that alone isn't reason for downgrading CBS's reliability yet. What I see is evidence that journalists and commentators assume news media is, and should be, left-leaning by default, and become upset when this worldview is challenged. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Mostly 1 with a dash of 2, much per Muboshgu above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 per others above. Don't see evidence yet that CBS News has become unreliable. Some1 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 Is Bari Weiss a poor manager? Quite possible. Does Bari Weiss have opinions? It seems so. We know/assume every corporate news organization is biased. We know/assume every corporate news organization gets things wrong. What we don't have is evidence that puts the reporting itself beyond the pale, certainly not generally and not even specifically. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1. No evidence for lack of reliability. I've checked the first three links prvided by u:Simonm223 and none of them even mentions reliability issues. Alaexis_¿question? 12:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1. My fellow editors have made the case far better than I could. I think this is premature and I have seen no evidence of decreased factuality CBS' reporting under Weiss. Most of the arguments on the other side here are about bias which is different than factuality. Redvelvetvanilaaaaaaaaa (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1, on grounds of anything else would be going out of our way to prove Larry Sanger's point. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 - no evidence of lack of reliability. DoubleCross (‡) 13:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status Quo/Option 1 The evidence of any issues here is limited at best. Certainly there is no evidence of factual errors for false claims. Even the claims of bias are still in the areas where it can be reasonable differences of opinion vs anything more. With any media source we really should be more careful with how we use them and spend more time deciding if the actual facts/claims make sense rather than using any blanket rule. But within the confines of the simpleton 3 bucket system the status quo is fine here. Springee (talk) 10:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo Decisions should be based on demonstrated problems and not predictions. My crystal ball isn't reliable enough to downgrade a source before the evidence exists. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status Quo/Option 1 I think there is pretty decent evidence that CBS has shifted to the right. I also think that if all allegations made are true, Weiss has created a less-than-good work environment. But there has been no significant evidence of unreliability, no large-scale change in editorial policy, and no other issues in that category. Bad management and right-wing politics, even if many consider them morally bad, are not factors in reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo I'll by saying Bari Weiss has not done CBS any favors she's taken control of the organization. For example, losing Scott Pelley is certaintly an loss to the image and nostalgic CBS and 60 minutes that many grew up with. However, when I look at CBS and its local affiliates they still do good work. I also have to imagine Bari Weiss will not be at helm forever if this dive in ratings continue. I don't want a downgraded rating to impact the ability of us to use the great local reporting affiliates do or rely on the investigative reporting that's still done. You can argue CBS isn't what it used to be and there is certainly a political shift. But we have to think about its actual reliability and the long-term impact of a downgrade.AadamentAardvark (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Status quo Weiss is trying her best to make CBS worse, but bias =/= unreliability and I haven't seen any info presented here that they've outright reported false info a la Fox or OAN (yet). The Kip ^(contribs) 14:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2. Decreasingly reliable on contentious US politics wherever Weiss intervenes. There's a reason we don't consider The Free Press generally reliable. CopyleftEverything (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  We don't consider TFP GREL because they're a start-up publication with a very short/unproven track record in addition to their considerable bias. As much as Weiss is trying to wreck it, CBS has a far longer record. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah thefp is considered a self published substack by bari weiss, isnt it? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Started as a substack, now it’s its own site with a wider news staff iirc. The Kip ^(contribs) 00:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, it's not self-published, at least mostly not. It wasn't in 2024, and is still not today. Bari Weiss is the founder, and but one of several senior editors. She may well be chief editor, and until CBS acquired the FP may even have been considered the publisher, but aside from articles she wrote herself, most articles by the various contributors, staff writers, and columnists are not self-published as Wikipedia defines it. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo/Option 1 What's the rush? Stikkyy (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1 Too soon. No evidence of a pattern of misleading reporting yet. The Inside CECOT scandal doesn't affect reliability since that's what they didn't air. Start this again when there's proof we're actually at risk of getting false claims sourced to CBS in articles. Flounder fillet (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• 1. Generally reliable – there is no evidence to support any other conclusion, other than editors' personal distaste for Weiss. We're not supposed to be guided by such motivations, however. Bravelake (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Uh... You or I may wanna move this vote further down. Don't ya think? George Ho (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Done. RedDeadGuy (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sorted chronologically. George Ho (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Status quo/Option 1. While I'm personally concerned about the direction of CBS under Bari Weiss, no actual examples of unreliability (published false claims) have been provided. CBS is not the same as its editor-in-chief. Plus, being more WP:BIASED in a certain direction isn't the same as being unreliable. Cadddr (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1. While there's claims of editorial inference from malcontents, but no evidence provided that CBS News has become less systematically reliable for factual claims, or that alleged falsehoods have made it into news reporting. Allegations about editorial direction are not, by themselves, sufficient to overturn the long-standing consensus that a major national newsroom such as CBS News, which has over 1,000 employees, is generally reliable for factual statements. Any concerns about bias or editorial judgment should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis rather than used to evolve the source's reliablability wholesale. Longhornsg (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option 3: Generally Unreliable Especially when it comes to reporting on Israel which she admits she's heavily biased about. Scott Pelley, of course, raised major legitimate doubts, and she fired numerous other people for their views on Israel. Given time I could find dozens of sources raising doubt and who she fired. The New owners of CBS are openly biased in favor of Israel, and if it was only based on this subject I might vote for option 3 Deprecate. CBS has become a disaster surprisingly fast, including her killing a story related to ICE. Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  Bias itself does not make a source unreliable. We need a pattern of published and uncorrected factual errors to deem a source unreliable. Just for comparison, we didn't downgrade Fox News until we saw a recurring pattern of factual errors.

  (PS: Many scholars now use the terms "pseudo-journalism" or "pseudo-news", instead of the now-weaponized term "fake news".) SVG-image-maker (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't collected all the stories about this, but I know there are a lot, including many reporters claiming they were fired for political views, and reports of her killing credible stories. Pelley mentioned some of them, others which I'm not sure he mentioned include Former ‘60 Minutes’ Staffers Unload on Bari Weiss: ‘Everything She’s Touched Has Turned to S—’, CBS News chief Bari Weiss pulls '60 Minutes' story, sparking outcry, Bari Weiss faces blowback for spiking ’60 Minutes’ segment: What to know and of course, one of the things Scott Pelley reported is that she wanted to make it look like a protester killed by ICE was trying to run the officer down even though Pelley and other sources claimed the evidence showed this was false. If this can be verified it alone would be evidence of trying to falsify News. Zacherystaylor (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1, nothing has been shown that I have seen indicates the source under consideration does not meet WP:IRS; just because the source no longer is blatantly biased towards a certain part of a political spectrum as it was in the recent past does not mean it's generally unreliable.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:09, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2. I don't think CBS News is generally unreliable at this point, but additional considerations apply when it comes to US politics and especially Israeli politics after they installed Weinstein as a political officer thinly disguised as an ombudsman. Cortador (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why Israeli politics? And source that describes Weinstein as a "political officer"? Longhornsg (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is no sourcing or basis for most of the opinions expressed here. Its mainly a reflection of their personal distaste for Weiss. Bravelake (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 or some form of "additional considerations apply." I would first of all encourage editors to review our own CBS News page, as it does not seem like many of the editors dismissing reliability concerns at CBS are aware of all of the reported evidence, which goes beyond the concerns that their comments demonstrate an understanding of. That being said, much of the strongest evidence of CBS's editorial bias that would affect its reliability relates to what it did not publish, due to political interference. Many editors have said that what an outlet does not publish has no impact on its reliability, but I do not think this is exactly true. If we are using GREL sources to evaluate notability, then CBS cannot be used (at least not on its own) to determine notability on-Wiki. If CBS doesn't publish on a topic, or doesn't publish certain material on a topic, that cannot be used as an argument that the material is non-notable, as we can no longer be sure that CBS's evaluation of its notability is based in an objective, journalistic analysis. I also think it's important to call for some standard of consistency here. Having participated in the above discussion on Democracy Now!, I've noticed several editors making what strike me as ranging from somewhat to blatantly contradictory comments on these two RFCs. Whether or not the evidence against CBS is compelling, I think it is clearly more substantial than anything brought up about DN. On Democracy Now! Springee says The source is very biased and we should be careful about both what facts they cite as well as what they may have left out. (Emphasis mine.) On CBS, they say The evidence of any issues here is limited at best. Certainly there is no evidence of factual errors for false claims. I do agree with their subsequent statement that With any media source we really should be more careful with how we use them and spend more time deciding if the actual facts/claims make sense rather than using any blanket rule., but I would say that applying that principle consistently would require a downgrade to parity with their view of DN. Alaexis believes that Democracy Now's being financed by various nonprofit foundations impacts its reliability, by virtue of a lack of independence, but seems to think that CBS being purchased by an oligarch who installed a loyalist director to axe longtime journalists amounts to No evidence for lack of reliability. Other editors (on both sides) are blatantly ignoring WP:PARTISAN and, in my assessment of their comments, are substantially influenced by their own biases in determining their votes. Altogether, I think that reading these discussions in the context of each other demonstrates that the way discussions on the RSN noticeboard are currently being conducted is not working. A largely vote-based ranking system gives editors too much of a chance to leave drive-by comments based on their subjective assumptions that are difficult to substantively engage with. Consequently, the perennial sources list is tainted by its being in large part a reflection of the pro-Western, center-left systemic bias of Wikipedia editors. My assessment is that we need a system where the discussion of a source (or a compilation of discussions) rather than a vote on it serves as the precedent for its future evaluation. This reform would mean that editors need to apply past discussions to the specific context in which a source is being evaluated for on-Wiki use, leading to more granular, contextual guidance for use of sources rather than sweeping generalizations about them. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  I believe that my words have been taken out of context. I wrote that DN is "financed by various nonprofit foundations" in response to the claim that they don't have "government funding, corporate sponsorship, underwriting or advertising revenue". So to clarify, I do not think that non-profit funding (or ad funding for that matter) by itself bears on the reliability of a source. I see the point you're making but I don't think the two outlets are comparable, given the more pronounced bias and minimal original reporting of DN. Alaexis_¿question? 16:13, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  Appreciate your clarification. As your comment is primarily clarifying your stance on DN, I'll reply there when I have some time. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  If CBS doesn't publish on a topic, or doesn't publish certain material on a topic, that cannot be used as an argument that the material is non-notable, as we can no longer be sure that CBS's evaluation of its notability is based in an objective, journalistic analysis. I think this argument is not based in policy, represents a massive innovation in how we apply notability, and couldn't possibly be consistently applied. In part this is because when an outlet chooses not to cover something, we can never be sure whether they've made a principled, objective, journalistic decision.

  There's no history of downgrading sources for sins of omission in what they choose to cover. Potentially if within a particular story, omissions were so glaring that the coverage was misleading, that would be something to look at. However, even that would be a stretch - generally we can only use a source for something it directly says. If we were to start doing this, we would have to do evaluations of basically every outlet, and maybe even academic sources that can be shown to have "ignored" particular viewpoints/ideas/findings. It's a rabbit hole we shouldn't even think about entering. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  On re-reading Monk's comment (specifically If CBS doesn't publish on a topic, or doesn't publish certain material on a topic), we never say that because a particular source didn't write about something, it's not notable. Notability is established by the sources that exist, not by those that don't. There is no "indispensable" source, and CBS is no different from any other source on this basis. If all this is is to say that we should treat CBS just like any other reliable source, let's just say that. Otherwise, the whole analysis is fatally flawed. Samuelshraga (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  I hear you about the difficulty, even impossibility of evaluating a single source based on what it hasn't said. I'm not advocating for the sort of assessment you are describing. I am thinking of a determination of notability in the context of a comparative analysis of reliable sources, which is regularly invoked when deciding on a content dispute and is, to my understanding, rooted in policy. For example, in determining the title of a controversial article such as Israeli invasion of Syria (2024-present) [1] [2], arguments about what some sources have said are weighed against what other sources have not. In this discussion, use of euphemistic language by a chunk of the most reliable sources presents a problem where a plausible WP:COMMONNAME goes against WP:EUPHEMISM and is incongruent with the facts on the ground. This is a context in which I believe bias, especially the systemic bias of a collection of sources usually deemed acceptable, can affect reliability. These cases most often arise in instances where media covers an issue of perceived existential importance to one or more nation-states that have power or influence over their operations, and whom the media outlet depends on for things like source access, broadcasting licenses, or in cases of overt or soft censorship 1 2. In the case of CBS News, what's going on must be understood not just as a shift in its perspective, but as a coordinated attempt to coerce a shift in its perspective by powerful actors. The evidence of its bending the knee to the Trump administration includes editorial pressure to make unverified assertions, granting a preferred interviewer to government officials, uncritical repetition of false claims, and conflicts of interest. I consider that sufficient to warrant a reliability consideration in the context of its weighting during a comparative analysis. I don't consider myself a policy expert, but I am experienced enough in discussions on content to know that this is a common practice. It's a predominant way that controversial content questions are decided. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  Altogether, I think that reading these discussions in the context of each other demonstrates that the way discussions on the RSN noticeboard are currently being conducted is not working. A largely vote-based ranking system gives editors too much of a chance to leave drive-by comments based on their subjective assumptions that are difficult to substantively engage with. Consequently, the perennial sources list is tainted by its being in large part a reflection of the pro-Western, center-left systemic bias of Wikipedia editors. My assessment is that we need a system where the discussion of a source (or a compilation of discussions) rather than a vote on it serves as the precedent for its future evaluation. This reform would mean that editors need to apply past discussions to the specific context in which a source is being evaluated for on-Wiki use, leading to more granular, contextual guidance for use of sources rather than sweeping generalizations about them.

  This statement is spot on. As I have ventured into RSN more and more, I have supported discontinuing the three-tier "Option 1/Option 2/Option 3" system entirely. The problem with this system is that it assumes that a single publication/website is a monolithic entity, when it really isn't. News websites are frequently divided into "journalistic reporting" and "opinion/editorial" sections with the first being more reliable than the second. When publications change ownership, editors-in-chief, and so on, this may also increase or decrease the reliability of subsequent articles. We learned the hard way with Red Ventures and Valnet. And many other factors play a role. SVG-image-maker (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

  Pasting in some of my comment in the above discussion that pertains to CBS, to ensure it is read by the closer of this discussion:

  The postponement of the Inside CECOT story came as the result of direct political pressure from the Trump administration, and calls into question CBS's independence, its commitment to truthful reporting, and its willingness to stand up to government intimidation. Furthermore, the justifications for postponement are lacking; Weiss said that the government had not been given an adequate opportunity to give their side of the story, but in fact government officials declined to be interviewed. Arguably, this demonstrates that Weiss intended her editorial intervention to go beyond omissions of fact to distortions of fact. Sharyn Alfonsi, who was fired over her efforts to retain the story's independence, said she was penalized for "refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting." ... If anything can be considered a clear-cut criteria for a designation of unreliability, it would be a documented distortion of fact. The debate over CBS seems to hinge on whether or not it has crossed this threshold, and specifically over whether or not the documentation of its crossing this threshold is sufficient. I should not have said that much of the strongest evidence of CBS's editorial bias that would affect its reliability relates to what it did not publish, due to political interference, because there is actually quite a bit of evidence that Weiss's editorial interference is closer to factual distortion. First, in the example of the Inside CECOT controversy, Weiss wanted to postpone the airing of a factually accurate story because she felt that not just any government, but a government that has demonstrated its willingness to lie viciously and brazenly on this very topic, only relenting when forced to by contradictory evidence, was not having its perspective adequately represented. In other words, she wanted to give the government more of a chance to inject factual distortions into the story. Katie Couric similarly criticized CBS coverage of January 6th on the grounds that editors had allowed the Trump administration and its supporters to repeat falsehoods about the events without adequate scrutiny, creating false balance in an attempt to appear unbiased ... I should have put the editorial pressure to make unverified assertions, granting a preferred interviewer to government officials, uncritical repetition of false claims, and conflicts of interest front-and-center in my first comment, as this is the strongest evidence in favor of a downgrade. Upon reflection, I would add to this list the uncritical airing of Trump's "election security" speech the other week, which other networks refused to do, due to his absurdly false claims about the 2020 election. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  Replying here inasmuch as it's about CBS, I replied above about DN.

  It's rare that blanket statements should be made at RSN, but honestly it should be obvious that we don't downgrade a source for reporting a government's comment on political controversies. Repeating the commentary in its own voice? We'd have a problem. But this level of argument gets to WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory: CBS aired a Trump speech in which he lied, so we should downgrade it? Are we going to apply that standard to all politicians? Or if we live in the cosy American echo chamber where Donald Trump lives in his own unique character of mendaciousness, are we going to apply it to any source that ever airs a speech by Donald Trump? I'm assuming they all have at some point anyway.

  You've written a lot but you haven't answered my point. All sources are biased. We don't need to agree on which of these sources is more biased. As your point 3 says, factual distortion is a reliability issue, but your examples of factual distortion are one story that was postponed, and some times when CBS aired the US government's comments on stories. I assume these comments were attributed to the US government? No reliability issue. Correctly recording the government's comments is pretty basic and standard. Samuelshraga (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2 per Rosguill. While it doesn't seem like we have clear evidence CBS under Bari Weiss has actually falsified information, we do have clear evidence that the higher ups have attempted to and failed, which bodes poorly. Loki (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

  I should probably add that I am more sympathetic to Option 3 than Option 1. Loki (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option 2, Oppose 3 or 4 The reliable source page frequently takes stances of caution in the time between an acquisition and the confirmation of deterioration (e.g. WP:POLYGON, and I believe that there is sufficient cause to view the takeover as warranting a similarly cautionary message at most. Relm (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option 2 Option 2 for now but circle back after another 6 months to see if it gets worse. Right now its clear they have lost a lot of their neutrality from past but not all of it; yet. ContentEditman (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Soft Option 2 per User:Monk of Monk Hall, I think the changes to CBS appear to be more in the omission than the commission. We should take that into account when evaluating overall newsworthiness, but individual stories are likely fine. Deckocard21 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option 1 - They are still a major broadcaster and we don't depreciate sources just because we disagree with them. Weiss having a viewpoint (which is not shared across the newsroom) is not germane to whether the source's reporting itself is accurate. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Option 1 Its a major American broadcaster along with ABC and NBC. Directors of news rooms come and go just because Weiss's ideological leanings (and I have issues with some of them) are different than the previous newsroom's "politics" should not impact the reliability of a news source and there has been no evidence that Weiss's politics have skewed the reporting. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Option 2

• Scott Pelley said he was asked to inject falsehoods into reporting about Renee Good and was fired when he refused
• Inside CECOT undermines their editorial integrity
• Cecilia Vega said she felt like she was being pressured in a way that came from a place of [wanting to spread] misinformation
• This CBS video feels like state propaganda with an obvious political agenda. Being WP:BIASED isn't grounds for a downgrade, but when a previously liberal network suddenly starts publishing North Korea-esque pro-Marco Rubio puff pieces after a closed-door meeting with Stephen Miller, there are serious questions about their editorial integrity, and trust must be rebuilt if they wish to earn back a WP:GENREL designation.

I haven't seen very much evidence their factuality has taken a hit outside a few individual cases which is why I said 2 rather than 3, but the few individual cases presented are rather egregious and go beyond what WP:GENREL are permitted to get away with. WP:NYT has systemic bias and editorial interference, but not to the point of suddenly doing a 180 and pushing out favorable reporting for Trump. Additional considerations for US politics related to Trump I think are appropriate. Enough blunders have been made recently that I do not think WP:GENREL is appropriate until they rebuild our trust. Revisit in 6 months, WP:MREL for now. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The Inside CECOT scandal, where CBS pulled publication of a segment, then aired it four weeks later with minor modification to include government comment in a story about the government. Deprecate the bastards.

And insult to injury, they did a fluffy 1 minute segment about Marco Rubio memes. Was there anything incorrect in that segment? Are you concerned that people will cite it for false information? Is CBS unique in running short and silly segments relating to politicians? I note that in the UK Nigel Farage is running in a head-to-head election against one Count Binface - I dearly hope no GREL outlets have been light-hearted about this race at any time.

You've said numerous times above that bias doesn't mean unreliability, and you haven't pointed to anything they've published that's in any way incorrect. Samuelshraga (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

A better analogy would be if members of Count Binface's cabinet had secret meetings with a news outlet and the outlet suddenly started pumping out pro-Binface news segments. Would I consider that news source reliable? Probably not, because it suggests their journalistic integrity is seriously compromised. If they are in bed with Count Binface, that is relevant to what we can assume about their capacity to engage in factual reporting going forward relating to Count Binface, hence an additional considerations designation.

you haven't pointed to anything they've published that's in any way incorrect Multiple 60 Minutes reporters have explicitly reported that higher-ups implored them to engage in inaccurate reporting. This raises concerns about what kind of reporting we can expect going forward.

Inside CECOT is an example of the Trump admin exerting pressure against CBS. Can we trust them to report factually on Trump going forward when they have demonstrated they respond to external pressures directly from the Trump admin?

I agree though this may be a bit premature since so far CBS has not published much I've seen that is factually incorrect like you mentioned, so my expression of support for option 2 is more of a prophylactic measure than anything else out of an anticipation of a degradation of factual reporting quality. Is that inappropriate? Honestly I'm not sure, and maybe my vote should soften until better evidence is presented. I'll change my vote to support for option 1 or 2 because you raise a fair point in your final sentence, but I'm still not encouraged by the recent allegations by Pelley and Vega. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Observation - The concerns raised here seem to be heavily centered on one program: 60 Minutes. Before we downgrade an entire network, I think we need to examine CBS’s reputation beyond that one program. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option 1, per Rhododendrites. Also, I haven't heard any complaints about 60 Minutes broadcasts beyond the stuff about Ms. Good being shot, and I think CBS was accurate about that, CBS didn't say anything different about that incident from what other reliable sources said, AFAIK. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

CBS News Weiss Discussions

Added these subsections. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. RedDeadGuy (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

As I see, the RFC tag is removed because the OP isn't written neutrally. I'm thinking about writing a more neutral statement for the subsection "Written for RFC tag". Would that be all right? —George Ho (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah this was not formulated neutrally and should not be an RfC in its current form. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Can I readd the RfC tag while George rewrites it? RedDeadGuy (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

No, you should wait for a neutrally worded RfC statement before adding the tag. Otherwise you're wasting other editors' time. Generalrelative (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Go ahead, then. RedDeadGuy (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• RedDeadGuy I have rewritten the RfC statement myself, and posted your original non-neutral statement below. You may wish to move this to a !vote in the Survey section. If you do so, feel free to delete this comment. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  The combination of Generalrelative's and my statements was attempted, but then Generalrelative changed it back. (Could've been mixed better, IMO, if Generalrelative let it be, but...) I didn't realize how important deadline or timing may be more than patience. Sorry for letting you both down a lot. Still, I did wanna post right away, but edit conflicts interfered. BTW, Generalrelative's statement is... very, very brief. Too brief perhaps? George Ho (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Guess we just have to live with it. RedDeadGuy (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@whoever uninvolved closes this RFC discussion: please note that headcount alone does not constitute consensus. Indeed, IMO, arguments should weigh more than mere votes. George Ho (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Any closer that's not doing that shouldn't be closing discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I just now (re-)read WP:SOURCEBIAS, and I can't help wonder whether others have read and then enforced that policy. CBS under Weiss may have bias, though bias alone doesn't make sources inherently disallowed. Nonetheless, I really wish other aspects of CBS and Bari Weiss were further explored or researched before this RFC. George Ho (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I am going to toss in this new report from this week from Cecilia Vega, a fired journalist for 60 minutes, who said she was pressured to include misinformation within reports (which she refused and was fired for) . Now, that doesn't mean that what CBS is pushing now is necessarily misinformation, we need sources to point to specific stories that contain such, but this needs to be kept in mind. Masem (t) 11:21, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Dont think this changes fhe needle, but this is why premature rfcs are problematic as well. Need all these reports to comeout, we need a smoking gun not smoke to change a well worn consensus from decades past User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem I see is that if all of the people refusing to engage in factual distortion are being fired, it's going to be harder and harder to know which facts are being distorted in the future. Should firing basically the entire staff of 60 minutes after they each pushed back against distortion not carry the presumption that future reporting will be distorted? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Again not yet solid evidence of bad reporting to make CBS questionable, but it has been announced that 60 Minutes is pulling in a number of known conservative journalists. Purportedly this is to help the show reach a younger audience. Making it all the more to watch for actual demonstratable bad reporting. Masem (t) 20:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Previous OPs (CBS News)

There are currently accusations from reliable sources saying Bari Weiss has turned CBS into a Donald Trump propaganda machine. Inside CECOT was just one of the issues. Former 60 Minutes member Scott Pelley accused her of demanding him to alter the story regarding the killing of Renee Good to show her as intentionally trying to kill an ICE officer (though he resisted), something that is false but in line with the administration's claims, and has been accused of running a "propaganda-palooza" regarding the 2026 Iran War.

Sources:

• https://zeteo.com/p/bari-weiss-cbs-iran-war-dukoupil
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/cbs-bari-weiss-iran-war-trump-b2933098.html
• https://www.ms.now/news/scott-pelley-cbs-news-60-minutes-firing-statement
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/07/magazine/scott-pelley-interview.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/07/arts/television/scott-pelley-60-minutes-interview-takeaways.html
• https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/01/media/scott-pelley-nick-bilton-60-minutes-cbs-bari-weiss

RedDeadGuy (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

There goes my (other) statement:

The reliability of CBS News has been discussed, e.g. prior discussions from December 2025 (with a conclusion) and from January 2026 (archived without closure). Recently, its reliability has been debated and questioned, especially with the management of Bari Weiss and now ex-CBS anchor Scott Pelley's statement about CBS under Weiss trying to favor President Donald Trump and his views and statements.

As-is, WP:CBS labels CBS News as "generally reliable". However, is CBS News under Bari Weiss also "generally reliable"? If not, then which of the other following options: (2) "additional considerations needed", (3) "generally unreliable", or (4) "deprecate"?

Well... which one is better? George Ho (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I think yours has less bias. Putting it up! RedDeadGuy (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Propose speedy close (CBS News)

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

---

This RFC was created in good faith. However, it is too soon. I think it would be better not to waste people's valuable time and have people come here as they see the RFC in the feeds. I suggest that this RFC be speedily closed. So, this begins a survey, with the question: Should we Speedy Close this discussion? Support, Oppose, or whatever you want to post. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Oppose-- As the OP. RedDeadGuy (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This shouldn't have been started from scratch. As per the header and edit notice RFCs shouldn't be opened without prior discussion. That discussion could have laid out any new evidence of issues at CBS, rather than the muddle we're currently in. But as so many editors have already engaged with the RFC it has become a bit late to stop it now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 07:23, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• What would be useful, is to come up with a kind roadmap for such discussions especially of organizations with long-standing decent reputations, like we had one of these on the BBC awhile ago. Such as, 'pattern of serious erroneous reporting or fabrications'; 'management turmoil is not enough'; multi-program/production outlets require some discussion of each separately; limits due to severe bias have to clearly define what the bias is, and examples, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - If this is speedily closed for TOOSOON, I think a warning should still be placed at WP:RSPS that recent changes would suggest we look for an additional source for anything political. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seconded. RedDeadGuy (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Conclude this subsection and let this RFC run its course – Apparently, as ActivelyDisinterested said, it's too late to speedily close, so continuing the proposal to speedily close doesn't help much except... expressing emotions merely. George Ho (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Agree. Conclude this subsection and let this RFC run its course. As the person who opened this sub-section, I don't have a problem with closing this section, based on the arguments that have been presented. I guess we are stuck with a running RFC until it's over. So, any volunteers feel free to close this section, imho. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• I concur. Let this RfC run its course. RedDeadGuy (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

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

Is one closer enough?

One uninvolved closer should thoroughly and completely evaluate the whole thread. Practically, however, this would be very time-consuming for an average closer, and a closure at this rate may happen very late, i.e. some time after a latest comment. In other words, the longer we await an uninvolved closer, the rarer an uninvolved, neutral solo closer may be anymore, IMO. —George Ho (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC: ARY News

How should we assess the reliability of ARY News? Gotitbro (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• A) Generally reliable
• B) Additional considerations apply
• C) Generally unreliable
• D) Deprecate

Survey (ARY News)

• Option C/D Building on from the discussion above (#ARY News AI journalist) and suggestions to formally address the reliability of this source through an RfC. With mutiple instances of this source using not only undisclosed LLM-generated content but further deceptively creating fake AI journalist profiles (presented as real) to go along with it, a deprecation or gunrel (generally unreliable) appears apt. I'd be willing to circumscribe this to international coverage and entertainment as suggested by one editor above but comments by others there convince me that deceptive AI usage such as this does not make us extend good faith to any area. Gotitbro (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  ARY News was founded in 2004, so what would the reliability for pre-2022 articles be? SVG-image-maker (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  While ChatGPT became available in late 2022. I don't think a cutoff date like that possible, ready text/content generators have existed ever since SEO has and I haven't seen any reason to believe otherwise here as well. Gotitbro (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Have they said when they started to use AI content? Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Of course not. They don't disclose AI usage at all which is what leads us to this discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  So we canot have a cutoff point until before the use of AI globally. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• option C as we do not know what is and is not AI-generated, so we do not know how many of its great reporters are using (or actually are) AI. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Option C/D - Per my comments in the previous discussion, any identified repeated LLM use and beyond that creating fake AI reporters taints everything. There is no ability to trust them to have any editorial standards as a result. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. Not only are they using LLM slop, they are trying to hide it. Cortador (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option C. (Summoned by SodiumBot). No apparent apology or indication this was an isolated incident. Generated content seems to be their current strategy. So we cannot generally rely on this source. It’s a somewhat longstanding source that predates LLMs so if we could scope the GUNREL to a recent period we could perhaps continue to use the older articles. Can we tell if there has been any recent change in owner or chief editor? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• Option C The reports of undisclosed AI-generated content/AI-altered audio clips and concerns about editorial oversight and transparency are a significant concern. Even with a major news outlet like this, those issues make it difficult to assess which content has received adequate editorial review. I think a generally unreliable rating is appropriate until and unless there's evidence the problems have been addressed. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (ARY News)

@Newslinger, M.Billoo2000, ActivelyDisinterested, Cortador, Willthorpe, and Slatersteven: pinging participants from the discussion above. Gotitbro (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler: Forgot to ping. Gotitbro (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this snow close time? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

General question on RS

Directed here from another Talk Page. I can't seem to find "yea" or "nay" on the following sources, Diario AS, Wales Online and News.com.au. A quick "engine search" claims that the former two are RS and that the latter is a "base-by-base". The WP list doesn't include them. Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

News.com.au is a tabloid news site run by Murdoch's News Corp Australia. In my view, its journalism is on par with that of Sky News Australia and Fox News, so it should not be considered a reliable source. A regular alternative is The Australian, which has a similar political alignment and is also owned by News Corp Australia, but is not a tabloid, and its journalism is viewed as being of a higher standard.

Wales Online is a local news paper, so unless other evidence is presented in a discussion here, it would be considered generally reliable. Prior discussion in 2019 seems to say the same. Though personally, I would be careful, as the presentation of some of their articles has the indicators of a tabloid.

Diario AS I can't comment on as I have no knowledge of it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

A LOT depends on what you are trying to verify by citing these sources… context matters. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I've found Diario AS reliable. We use it a lot for football articles so most of my experience is with that, but they have paid, full-time journalists by region. I find that they don't report rumors or hearsay and stick to factual claims, but either way we advise editors to exercise caution for transfer news since those can change quickly. Diario AS also do a lot of historical overview reports and I've found them helpful when cross-checking their facts elsewhere. I've reached out to them before via their contact page to ask if they allow guest posts and they do not so they have an editorial team that protects that (this is excluding op-eds which they do allow). Morogris (✉ • ✎) 23:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Diario AS Generally reliable for sports news especially football. Staticspector (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

thegunzone.com

Hello all, pursuant to this discussion, I would appreciate some additional input on whether thegunzone.com is a reliable source. The specific articles that were being discussed are:

• https://thegunzone.com/product/magpul-d60-pmag-5-56-ar-15-drum-magazine-60-round-review/
• https://thegunzone.com/product/promag-1911-45-acp-40-round-drum-magazine-black-drm-a25-review/
• https://thegunzone.com/how-much-ammo-is-in-an-extended-ammunition/
• https://thegunzone.com/which-semi-automatics-have-the-largest-magazine-capacity-among-handguns/
• https://thegunzone.com/best-home-defense-firearms/
• https://thegunzone.com/product/magazine-ds-prodigy-9mm-20rd-9mm-caliber-oem-origin-review/

Stikkyy (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

My take is that it is not. In its terms and conditions, it writes, TheGunZone does not warrant that product descriptions or other content of the site is accurate, complete, reliable, current, or error-free.

I can't see any evidence of an editorial policy, a masthead, and many of the articles seem to be straight up advertising for a gun store. It also seems like that the site has been inactive for more than a year at this point. From a brief scan, all I see is content farm-esque, SEO product review churn. Stikkyy (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that part of the terms and conditions is relevant. The New York Times (along with most news websites) have that legal boilerplate. Katzrockso (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

We also have that disclaimer, and have a page dedicated to why that disclaimer doesn't necessarily make something unreliable. See Wikipedia:Non-Wikipedia disclaimers. But regardless, I agree with the latter point. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

One of their authors, Mike McMaken, alone published over 500 reviews on 27 December 2024. There's no way they're human written. Fences&Windows 22:38, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like that they've been experimenting with AI, see Stikkyy (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It feels a bit like WhatMojo sort of content. I wouldn't be surprised if it's AI generated. I might be OK using it for some basic facts about a particular pistol but not much else. If this is the only cite that has the information, it might not be worth having. Springee (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't claim we use unreliable sources, only that not all sources have to be experts. Nonetheless, the sheer number of reviews in one day looks fishy. The only way that could happen, outside AI, IMO, is if the reviews were written/published at different times but were imported all at once. I am not an expert in firearms, so my question is, were the products in the reviews all released within a short period of times, or did their release dates cover years?

Still, I agree it's fishy. Are there tools to identify AI generated content? Lightbreather (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Generally unreliable I hesitate when I see a blog being used as a reliable source in any instance. The number of writers they purport to have versus just the number of reviews they put up for January 31 2025 is absurd and likely not organic. My understanding may be incorrect but the original owner no longer runs the site. This is not reliable or organically the content it used to be. There would nothing stopping one of the brands mentioned from paying for these reviews. No indication or transparency on their process. This is an advertising page more than a reliable source I wouldn't use it for anything. AadamentAardvark (talk) 03:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• I would say no? After looking through the website it seems more like a gun store than a news source as they seem to post reviews about guns and have a section called "deals" where you can browse prices of guns.Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

globaldatabase.com

globaldatabase.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

User reported the use of http://globaldatabase.com at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Vandalism_of_country_category_articles about an old incident where a spammer is alleged to have added it to articles. (Most of these additions were removed soon after they were added in December 2025–February 2026.) However, it is alleged that the site uses AI-generated content, which would warrant removal of the remaining external links. It is used in about 50 articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:35, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

From the user contributions it certainly looks like spam, but is there anything to back up the AI allegation? They, again least, claim some respectable customers (AWS/SAP). So it would be a little surprising if they're fudging their reports. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:01, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It does look spammy as it sells reports to businesses. It takes/scrapes from government databases like Companies House, so use as a source is essentially as a primary source - which isn't great, especially for living people, e.g. John Teeling. I think sourcing a birthdate to this database goes against WP:BLPPRIMARY. Fences&Windows 22:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Does it seem AI-generated to you (or that some of the material it scrapes is clearly AI-generated)? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The John Teeling reference also appears to fail verification, as it doesn't appear to include his birthdate at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• I clicked on the website--I wouldn't be surprised if it used LLM generated content but either way the first thing that pops up is an add asking you to pay because a certain number of other companies have already to me this just seems like straight up spam and shouldn't be used either way on Wikipedia. Agnieszka653 (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Does it deserve the spam blacklist? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

reelstreets.com film locations

• reelstreets.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

reelstreets.com is a list of movie/tv/video locations. If you look at the about us page you will see that it started as WP:SPS and is now WP:UGC. I don't believe it to be a reliable source despite being used on so many articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Its not WP:UGC, people can request changes and provide images but can't edit the site themselves. Still I would say it's of low reliability. Although some contributors are named there's no indication they're anymore than interested amateurs, and there's also minimal use by others that I can find. It's not used very often, less than 400 articles really isn't that many. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• I think if you are just using it as a backup source to confirm the locations of shoots for TV and Movies it's probably fine but I'd probably use it in conjunction with another supporting source. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Tweets from journalists at reputable sources

Hi everyone - I'm a new editor so please forgive any shortcomings with this post.

I am looking at the creation of an article for a business I've read a lot about. There is one reference I've found that I am unsure how to handle. The reference is a Tweet/X post from a journalist working at The Times. The journalist has posted a screenshot of an article they wrote, saying the story is in 'the paper'. However, I cannot find any online reference to this article and I don't have a way of accessing the archive of the physical newspaper.

Would I be able to use this Tweet as a reference, or would you suggest another way? SirSiliconBones (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

A screenshot could not be used to cite a newspaper article. What is the author, publication and headline? Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The author is someone called Daisy Eastlake, a political reporter at The Times. The headline is "Tories practice debating with cabinet clones". The link is here. SirSiliconBones (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It's available from The Times epaper archive, but it requires a subscription.
Eastlake, Daisy (24 December 2024). "Tories practice debating with cabinet clones". The Times. p. 2.
You could include a courtesy link to tweet after the cite but before the closing ref tags. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This was really helpful - thank you. Was able to find another article about the business that wasn’t published online via the epaper archive. Useful resource! SirSiliconBones (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• A good concern raised. What about the reputable journalists who have only tweeted but there is no publication with their byline? But there are similar publications with other bylined journalists. For example, see Talk:Ab Khel Jamay Ga. Thank you. M. Billoo 15:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  If they have never been published with a byline, how are they "reputable journalists"? Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Please, I did not say "never". I may rephrase for clarity. What about the reputable journalists who have only tweeted about a particular thing but there is no news outlet publication with their byline about that thing? But there are similar publications about that thing with other bylined journalists. M. Billoo 16:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If "there are similar publications about that thing with other bylined journalists," use one of those. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Their tweets would be considered selfpublished, and as they have not been published about the subject by other sources they would probably not be considered a WP:EXPERTSPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:58, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a personal opinion of the journalist (assuming no other coverage)? Ar1201u1 (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's just the journalist selfpublishing their own opinion (which is covered by WP:SPS). Unless they've been previously published as an expert in the field by other independent reliable sources, their selfpublished posts wouldn't be considered reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Correct. It can be used as a source verifying that the journalist made a particular statement. That statement might include the journalist's opinion. We would make sure to properly attribute the opinion if we included that material and would not publish the statement in Wikipedia's voice. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Attribution isn't a work around for all issues, it's very useful but if some random person says something attribution doesn't make it reliable. On top of that if the person has no background in the subject then their comment, attributed or not, is unlikely to be due inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I concur. Just making the distinction between ways we might use primary vs. secondary reliable sources. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with Simonm223 that since the article does exist in the e-paper archive, the article itself should be cited. Then the tweet could serve as a courtesy link if you'd like.

I also agree with ActivelyDisinterested that a journalist's verified social media post would be treated as a self-published, primary source. There may be some limited purposes for it, for example when verifying their own statements, but it generally would not replace independent secondary reporting when that type of sourcing is expected. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• I have read every reply and understood, and so I have also linked the talk page. Now, my concern is, that there are tweets by the journalists, which are said to be personal opinion and not expert. And that, I have also used secondary bylined publications which are also confirming the same statement but by different journalists. In short, the subject song is regarded best and favourite among other similar songs. But, at the talk page, the disagreements exists. What should I do now? Any specific reply there or here about it is most welcome. Thank you! M. Billoo 06:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  If your published, independent secondary sources already support the statement, I'd rely on those. The tweet is unlikely to add anything essential and any other disagreements on the talk page are probably about content or weight and not reliability. If your concern is about how to apply the sources in the article, it's probably better to discuss that on the article talk page. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Staufen protein and cancer, neurodegeneration and viral infections

Dear all,

There are many scientific articles published in prestigious journals that link Staufen protein and Staufen-mediated mRNA decay to several important diseases like cancer (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-01883-6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-021-03965-w, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-020-2267-9, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13875, https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.15.6201), obesity (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagrm.2013.07.004, https://doi.org/10.1080/21623945.2021.1948165), neurodegenerative diseases (https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.26515, 10.1038/s41419-025-08067-0, ), viral infections (10.1261/rna.069351.118, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1138864) and so on. There is full scientific consensus on the involvement of Staufen in these important diseases. There is already a remarkable literature on this topic. Obviously, involvement does not mean cure, but Wikipedia cannot deny this involvement and cannot hide these papers.  For these reasons, I would like to ask you to have permission to shortly describe this involvement and to cite relevant papers on Wikipedia. Worldsbk (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Sources making medical claims are held to a higher standard than other sources, I suggest reading WP:MEDRS carefully before writing anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thorough discussion on the Worldsbk talk page about this wild conjecture from in vitro research of anti-disease activity. This is apparent WP:ADVOCACY, with the user ignoring that staufen research is conspicuously at the bottom of evidence quality - a decade plus from proof of any disease relevance. Zefr (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Of the many links presented here, only two appear to go to WP:MEDRS-compliant review articles. Of those two, Liu et al (2015) doesn't appear to mention Staufen at all. Guan et al 2023 () does state Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) significantly inhibits SG formation by assembling the Staufen1-containing HIV-1-dependent ribonucleoproteins (SHRNP) in host cells and cites Abrahamyan et al 2010 ; I'm not sure that coverage rises to the level of a systematic review or meta-analysis as specified by WP:MEDASSESS, and its suitability would be further contingent on exactly what claim it is intended to support, as this is obviously a much more specific claim than stating that "Staufen is linked" etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill, I agree with you. The statements need to be strictly consistent with the statements made by the authors of the linked papers. That's fine. Is it please possible to write such statements strictly consistent with the papers? ~2026-42085-05 (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)--Worldsbk (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, there's still a question of WP:DUE, which is contingent on which article you're even considering adding material to. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

No. Just inserting statements stricly consistent with the papers. Yes, I also may find other articles. Worldsbk (talk) 04:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I was just about to add that they should be looking for sources from the top of the pyramid shown in WP:MEDASSESS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and considering the process of bringing a drug candidate through the preclinical and clinical trial process with many possible failure points, at an overall cost of perhaps $1B (needing dedicated sponsors), a staufen candidate is 10+ years from being a serious anti-disease agent. Zefr (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear Zefr, please do not try to manipulate my words. I have written that Staufen is involved in important diseases, as described by scientific papers that Wikipedia cannot ignore. However, I would like to underline that I have NEVER written that Staufen is a drug or even a drug candidate. For these reasons, I would like to suggest to cite these studies in Wikipedia stating the undeniable link between Staufen and diseases, obviously without writing anything that may look any curative effect of this protein. Ok? Worldsbk (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

the undeniable link between Staufen and diseases That alleged "link" is hardly "undeniable." As suggested to you above, please read WP:MEDRS. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the undeniable involvement of Staufen in HIV, I also would like to cite This paper, also this paper, this paper too. Ok?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldsbk (talk • contribs) 09:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)--Worldsbk (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't appear to be taking on board what other editors are saying, or a willingness to understand the issues explained WP:MEDRS. I suggest you don't edit in the area until you have a better understanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear JoJo Anthrax, I linked here 14 papers, not 1 as you wrote. All 14 papers are research articles or even reviews. Therefore, yes. It is UNDENIABLE that Staufen is linked to important diseases. As already stated, link does not mean cure. I am sorry. These are the papers and these papers NEED to be reported in Wikipedia, especially when considering that no cure or medical treatment is suggested. ~2026-42085-05 (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)--Worldsbk (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

All 14 papers are research articles or even reviews. Therefore, yes. It is UNDENIABLE that Staufen is linked to important diseases, statements like this, which hyperbolically insist on your own case, and ignore that almost none of the sources you've provided are reviews or meta-analyses, are more likely to result in you being removed from this topic area than winning your way here. I would strongly suggest that you re-evaluate your rhetorical approach. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:32, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Worldsbk, please tell us what specific content are you proposing to add to which specific article(s), citing which specific sources. This isn't a forum for abstract discussions von sourcing, and nobody is going to give you 'permission' to make edits you have failed to specify. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

In this Special:Diff/1363518500 revert on the staufen (protein) article, Worldsbk had mentioned staufen "involvement in important pathologies", including cancer, neurodegeneration, Alzheimer's disease, immune disorders, and inflammation. Worldsbk takes the leap from in vitro studies to interpret staufen as a factor in the onset mechanisms of multiple diseases.

This example in Annals of Neurology and its provocative title, Staufen1 in Human Neurodegeneration, was first cited by Worldsbk in the staufen article.

As stated in the abstract (my modification of acronyms): "Staufen1 overabundance in neurodegeneration is a common phenomenon associated with hyperactive rapamycin in fibroblast cells. Targeting staufen1 with mRNA viral vectors may represent a novel, efficacious therapy for neurodegenerative diseases."

This illustrates the wide gap between early-stage in vitro research (bottom of the WP:MEDASSESS pyramid) and attempt to associate - by exaggerated conjecture - to interpretation of a disease mechanism (top of the pyramid). Zefr (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Dear Zefr, if you want that according to in vitro studies such involvement exists. I mean, all Wikipedia statements need to be strictly consistent with the papers. That's fine. Worldsbk (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL)

HELLO

There appears to be conflicting information on whether the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. The article on JVL states that "in 2021, the Wikipedia community reached a consensus to prohibit the use of the JVL as a source for most situations", but the citation provided links to a 2024 discussion about the ADL, not JVL. A comment on Talk:History of the Jews in Peru states that JVL is "not considered a reliable source", but this appears to be a single editor's opinion. A WikiProject note also mentions JVL is "generally considered unreliable". I wanted to know the general consensus on whether JVL is eligible as a reliable citation. YosefKT (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_295#RfC:_Jewish_Virtual_Library

this is probably most recent consensus. From my understanding, is it just another wiki? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If memory serves, it's not an actual open wiki but its referencing practices are largely indistinguishable from one. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:15, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

thank you ! YosefKT (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It frequently copies content from Wikipedia. Not a reliable source. (t · c) buIdhe 06:04, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Has there ever been evidence presented that JVL articles copy from Wikipedia without listing Wikipedia as a source on that article? It seems like it would be very easy to say that those JVL articles which are explicitly sourced to Wikipedia are not for us. But if a JVL article does not list WP as a source, do we have any reason to assume that it used WP as a source? Mikewem (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

There are usually better sources available. JVL is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED sourcea with limited editorial oversight that primarily compiles material from elsewhere, so the original or an secondary source should be cited instead. Longhornsg (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Even when they reprint information from other sources, they are liable to silently add their own spin. Highly unreliable. Zero^talk 08:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's common for WP:BIASED sources. AL Jazeera, both in Arabic and English, does this quite often. Longhornsg (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I would use it as a behind the scenes research tool… while we should not cite JVL directly, it can point us to reliable sources that we can cite. Blueboar (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Label for Count Binface?

Over at Count Binface, we have a dispute as to whether the label "political activist" or "democracy advocate" could applies to Binface. We see the label "politician" being used applied to many articles about novelty candidates. In addition to launching a populist manifesto, Binface has stated inter alia: “My job is to celebrate and defend the wonders of British democracy". Can we not take that assertion, together with his other pronouncements/manifesto pledges as a badge of political activism or advocate of democracy? Do we need/have to be literal as to find a source that uses that exact terminology?  Ohc ^{revolution of our times} 07:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It is a rather strange term and one I'd say is POV. Especially if it's not stated in sources. Almost every politician would describe themselves as an advocate of democracy. We need independent sources, and we certainly can't make interpretations based on his manifesto per WP:OR. — Czello ^(music) 07:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Taking that comment as being supporting of either "political activist" or "democracy advocate" would be very much straying into original research. TarnishedPath^talk 08:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Of the two options, "political activist" is the most neutral. Zero^talk 09:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Concur - he's certainly a political activist. Terms like "democracy advocate" are somewhat non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 11:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's neutral if sources use it. Do they use it? Cortador (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Little to no sources use that term, which makes it non-neutral. Cortador (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Neither unless reliable sources actually use that specific descriptor. The current article opening is fine. Cortador (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Articles should be mostly based on secondary sources. Wikipedia is always more interested in what independent sources say about a subject rather than what the subject says about themselves. So neither should be used unless they are other sources that use them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

In a world where we have some very prominent "free-speech advocates" and "free-speech absolutists" suing people for their speech, we should not base our descriptors on such statements unless we are quoting directly and adding the phrase self-described before it. And someone who tells you that their name is "Count Binface" in particular needs some caution as a WP:ABOUTSELF source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I checked the first twelve non-primary sources the article currently has. Not a single one referres to Binface as an "activist" or "advocate". Cortador (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

So we don't, we go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If editors are discussing the merits of labels on their own, then they're probably doing it wrong as far as OR and NPOV goes. As has been said above, it's about the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Can't see much of a dispute here - one editor wants to add arguably POV terminology not found in the sources and was reverted. The article as it stands, 'novelty candidate', is bang on the money. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

News article that mixes Wikipedia-mirrored content with a recent event

1lurer.am: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hogots Monastery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

At Hogots Monastery, I was pointed to a 2021 news article from First Channel News (1lurer.am), about the building having been recently vandalized, that contains an exact copy-paste of a paragraph from Hogots Monastery#History (never cited) that was present in the first revision from 2011. It does not have a byline. A TA has repeatedly reinstated a part of the History section about the building having been burned down during a massacre in the Armenian genocide, based on this source, and recently directly informed me of this. First Channel News is currently cited for the statement that Hogots Monastery was vandalized in 2021, as well as on 184 other articles.

There was recently a paragraph added and repeatedly removed by same user that was cited to an Armenian genocide-era New York Times archive describing several massacres in Anatolia involving burning buildings, none of which are about a stone monastery that matches the location of Hogots. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It always seems odd to me to rely on modern news reporting for historical events. But it doesn't appear easy to find sources for what happened. The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia (1980) is available on hy.commons, it's entry says the church was abandoned in 1915 during the Armenia genocide. It doesn't mention it being burned down. I can't find anything to back up the 1946 shelling either. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the vandalism claim is second-hand, so from WP:USEORIGINALSOURCE and WP:RSCONTEXT it should beindependently corroborated, plus the copied history is not usable per WP:CIRCULAR. NicoR8 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't find it. Is it in Armenian or Turkish? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Update all SB Nation fan blogs to WP:GUNREL or at least WP:MREL?

Hello. Consensus for SB Nation fan community blogs is that they may not have serious editorial oversight. Although they operate under the same umbrella editorial guidelines as Vox Media and SB Nation, we have raised questions about whether they actually follow this in practice. It would be good to move these to WP:GUNREL. I saw that all of these fan pages have a submission form for freelancers, which then goes to the fan page mod for review. This is "some" oversight in this process, but not as stringent as other professional media outlets, and many of these writers are volunteers, unpaid, or amateur reporters.

Consensus was established in 2023 (discussion here) and 2024 (discussion here) that SB Nation fan pages should not be used to establish notability, and should be used sparingly when the author can be identified as a subject matter expert.

I'd be open to WP:MREL for non-controversial, factual claims in non-BLP articles too, if anyone else is open to that. They appear to have good game coverages (see here) and historical/statistical overviews (see here), but unsure how other may feel about this. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 19:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

These are covered by WP:BLOG, SB Nation have no real editorial control over them (see the previous discussion in the archives). Some of them might be usable as an exception due to WP:SPS/WP:USEBYOTHERS, but otherwise they should be considered generally unreliable. I'm not sure we need any stronger consensus than prior discussions, is there se new discussion or disagreement that would make it necessary?
I've removed RFC from the section title, as this isn't a WP:RFC, and it will only cause disruption. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, SB Nation does show the red highlight when adding it as a ref, but the other blog pages do not, and editors may not be aware of this unless they see it. I certainly wasn't aware of them until I did some digging on my own. Not sure if this is the right place to request that change for the dozens of fan pages they have. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 20:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The scripts that highlight sources aren't controlled by this noticeboard, even if the editors who do maintain those scripts may take into account what is said here. If an SB Nation blog appears at a different url it's still covered by consensus about SB Nation blogs. We don't have to have a discussion about every new url, as the reliability relates to the source not where the source is found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:19, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Where can I go to request that those URLs be highlighted? Many editors do not appear to be aware that these fan communities are owned by SB Nation since it is not obvious when looking at it and the sources look professional to the untrained eye. At least having it highlighted would make some editors look into it. Trying to understand if the consensus for that should be WP:GUNREL or at least WP:MREL too. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 18:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

RateYourMusic (Sonemic interviews)

RateYourMusic is deprecated, which is completely understandable given it's primarily a user-generated site. However, I feel like similarly to WP:GENIUS, there should be a note about how the site also publishes artist interviews that are perfectly usable under WP:ABOUTSELF. This list contains all of the interviews - plenty of artists with pages here such as Black Midi, Lil Ugly Mane, Black Country, New Road, Panchiko, Candy Claws, Sweet Trip, etc. They have a decent handful of use in articles, so it's strange that there's no mention of them under the RSP entry at all.

The previous discussion supported this, but no note was made of it. (Though the discussion wasn't too in-depth) ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I would support this, as a subject is reliable for their own words. The only issue is being certain the words are being reported accurately, but I would take that on good faith for but the worst sources, or sources of an unknown quality. Not everyone agrees though.
The RSP is just another page. I wouldn't suggest changing an entry based on your own opinion, but if you believe an entry doesn't properly summarise consensus then WP:BEBOLD. Anyone disagreeing can always revert you and start a discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Can a species that has not had a conservation status assessment by the IUCN be marked down as "unassessed"

Hello all, there is a discussion around the article Austrovenus stutchburyi. It has been suggested to add to the infobox the IUCN assessment of "unassessed". The issue is that because it isn't assessed, there's nothing to reference for doing so, which creates a bit of a loop. I'm leaning towards not adding this to the article, but wanted to see peoples opinions on this.

Many thanks. AxonsArachnida (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Undue issue, not RS. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know the general sentiment about the reliability of SeaLifeBase, but they say that Austrovenus stutchburyi is "Not Evaluated" by the IUCN. So they could be used to verify that the IUCN haven't assessed the species. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:50, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Going through their advice for how information can be added (requesting people get their data published in journals so it can then be added to the database), that it asks that people citing the database cite it to two specific named editors (M. L. D. Palomares and D. Pauly, both scientists within Marine Biology), that it is operated and hosted by the University of British Columbia, are indicators that we like to see. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's original research to say it is unassessed and undue if not reported as such by the IUCN or reliable secondary sources.

Bias can be put into articles by the selective choice of facts and the emphasis they are given, which is a reason UNDUE exists. TFD (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Reliability of Clodfelter

User:Acrkiyyy has replaced secondary academic casualty estimates in the infobox of Shimabara Rebellion with the term "Unknown" and continues to reject the inclusion of Micheal Clodfelter's estimate of 70,000 Shogunate casualties (p. 62) based on personal skepticism of its accuracy. (See discussion) Fróis (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

'Personal skepticism' isn't necessarily an invalid reason to reject a source: indeed one of the purposes of this noticeboard is to apply our own judgement as to the reliability of sources. I don't think we are going to be able to arrive at a sensible decision without more input: I suggest you notify the participants in the dispute of this thread, and ask that they explain their perspectives. The source itself is accessible online (), but beyond confirming what it says ("Total Edo losses in the campaign were 70,000 killed, wounded, or dead of disease.") it's hard to assess much. I note however that it has been suggested on the article talk page that the book exagerates casualty numbers: if there are sources which make the same assessment of the book, scepticism might well be merited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

To add to the above, I'd recommend reading Clodfelter's own 'A note on statistics' on pages xxi and xxii, where he makes it clear that there are inherent difficulties in arriving at such numbers, starting with a statement that "This volume may contain inaccuracies." The book is very much an overview of a huge topic (global casualties in warfare, 1492 - 2015), and I'd have to suggest isn't the best source to base figures around - it might be preferable to give no figures rather than rely on a brief passage from an author with no obvious period/location-specific academic credentials. Are there no Japanese-language academic sources available? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The New Arab

The New Arab claimed that Israel was using bombs disguised as soccer balls in Lebanon.

They failed a fact check by Funk, the youth-oriented service of the German public broadcaster. While failing a singular fact check is not per se an indication of unreliability, I am concerned that the way it happened is not aligned with good editorial practices:

a) the journalist seems to have taken the picture from a third party without verification, and the journalist and the third party can’t seem to get their story straight

b) they refused to respond to the fact checker when the specific source was requested

c) they did not issue a correction (link)

Are there any other instances? FortunateSons (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Do we deprecate a source due to one error? Do they have a history of errors?

Does anyone else beyond these Funk people dispute that article? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

No, we don’t, but we do reduce the reliability of a source if the error is evidence of systemic issues or if it’s part of a pattern (which does not necessarily mean depreciation, but could also mean not using anything from this author, on this topic, or applying other additional considerations).

They failed at least one other fact check by Misbar here.

I haven’t found another source, but Funk (and other German public broadcasters) are considered to be generally reliable. Is there any evidence against this specific piece? FortunateSons (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Nowhere in the article does New Arab claim that Israel used bombs disguised as soccer balls. They report two quotes by people who make that claim, and report that Israel has been accused of doing so. The most explicit statement theh make is "A suspected unexploded cluster bomb shaped like a small football has been reported in southern Lebanon", and from the pictures it does appear to be roughly football shaped. Although even then they say they can't independently verify the image.
News reports can only be used to verify what they actually say. New Arab here are reporting on the claims and statements of third parties, not making statements of there own. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This exact article has come up before as part of a discussion about a different source, see archive 519. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

That’s a good find, thank you. So the article could be cited for the attribution to officials/activists, but not to say that the New Arab claims that as a suspicion/fact? FortunateSons (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, you could use it to say that someone has made those claims but not that the New Arab are making the claim or that the claim is true. You could say that the New Arab reported claims that Israel had used football shaped cluster bombs, but nothing more. Newspaper are generally very careful in the language they use. If they attribute a report or claim to someone else, then they're doing that deliberately. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you. Can it still be considered for questions of WP:WEIGHT for the main claim, or only for the reported statements? FortunateSons (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

It would give WEIGHT to the inclusion of the allegations, but not that Israel deliberately disguised cluster bombs as footballs. New Arab are only reporting the former not the latter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much FortunateSons (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

the New Arab reports that there is a claim on social media that a photo shows an Israeli bomb disguised as a soccer ball in Lebanon but does not actually claim it in its own voice. additionally, New Arab states that it could not independently verify the photo. if that counts as unreliable, then we would have to categorize a lot of news sources as unreliable because they often report claims while noting that they could not confirm them. (e.g. )

the Funk website is factchecking a social media influencer named Ullas_momlife, not New Arab. Funk notes that: "'But for toy camouflage, she [Ullas_momlife] only sends us the "New Arab" article instead of a receipt, which we also have in the video - which even says that the accusation could not be verified.'

The Misbar article you linked says that New Arab "initially posted false images of the strike". if you click on the linked New Arab article, the photo is no longer there, so it seems they followed correct editorial procedure and took it down. Rainsage (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree on the target of the fact check, but it does state by proximity that the claim in the article is at best unverified and not particularly plausible. Primarily, I don’t like a) + b) when it comes to transparency of sources and journalistic conduct, although neither of those directly impact reliability. But yes, as @ActivelyDisinterested stated above, they did not put it into their own voice.

For Misbar, I can’t see a correction being issued, just an undisclosed removal, but that might be the mobile view of their website, which isn’t great. FortunateSons (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The New Arab article questioned by Misbar is still up. They removed an image that turned out to be fake, but didn't take down the article itself. They don't appear to have noted the remove of the image, but they did then publish an article calling out the fake images. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with ActivelyDisinterested. This is generally an excellent source and in this case they seem to have behaved in a mostly exemplary way apart from not noting the correction. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Elevation of an otherwise fact failed claim is still an issue and not a good look User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Masters thesis on Freakbeat

Hello, I have questions about the reliability of this thesis. It's published from a university and the supervisors are relatively notable academics in their field. It's also crucially the only piece of academic writing on freakbeat that I have been able to find whatsoever. It covers key details on the sonic features and cultural context of the genre that are practically impossible to find elsewhere. I've used it very sparingly in my recent edit of the page however the initial version which got reverted had it used much more extensively. Most of the changes I've made since then are improvements, but the two areas I'm most concerned about are the details and specificities on the performances and production techniques, and on the underground cultural context the music is situated in.

In cases like this where there is truly no other information available (I've spent the entire past few days doing this) would this source count as reliable enough? It's a niche subject so absence of reproducible information doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of consensus, more likely a lack of academic interest. Can I get any guidance on this? Sleambean (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:THESIS, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. Can you find cites to it? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

We had a somewhat long discussion on that somewhere but I can not remember where, @GeogSage: was involved and may remember. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that was at the Village pump, but I'm not sure which specific page. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 12:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it was. Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 80. Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If the only piece of academic writing you can find on something is a thesis, then it probably isn't notable. I really think Wikipedia policy is too relaxed when it comes to thesis as it is, they are not really the kind of source we should be using and are essentially self published (even though some people will argue till the heat death of the universe that they aren't. The University does NOT act as a traditional publisher, and does not take any responsibility for the content of a thesis). GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 12:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

World population review

The website World Population Review has come up on the article for Superpower, specifically their list World Superpowers 2026. Based on looking into it, it seems like a data aggregator that provides commentary based on the data they have collected. Websites are not the best source, so individual claims have been cited separately, but the list is useful as it has everything in one place. There has been a dispute on the page for months, and one new claim is that this source is not reliable. On Media Fact Check, it appears as least bias, mostly factual (according to Media Bias/Fact Check, due to the occasional use of poor sources), and highly credible. Again, not the best source, but better then some I've seen on Wikipedia in terms of secondary sources that are not peer-reviewed. Is there a consensus on World Population Review not being reliable for these kinds of claims I'm missing somewhere, or is it safe to use? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 12:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The second source at the bottom of the page is Wikipedia's article on Potential superpower, so WP:CIRCULAR. It's not possible to tell which parts were or weren't based on Wikipedia, so use the other sources they list instead. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:46, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

(ec) Firstly, what constitutes a 'superpower', and what criteria can be used for ranking, is subjective. Accordingly, we shouldn't be using any source to assert such things as fact: they need to be attributed. As for the World Population Review, while it may be useful as an aggregator of demographic data, I can't see any obvious reason why we should see it as having any specific subject-matter expertise on superpowers, and I note that the 'World Superpowers' page cites Wikipedia amongst its sources, which likewise makes its use questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! The main issue is how to approach the topic of contemporary superpowers. There are a lot of sources discussing individual entities, but not as many that are taking a high level approach comparing multiple, which creates an issue of lots of verifiable opinions on the matter and not a lot of authority on what opinions to include. You can see Talk:Superpower for more about this. Fair warning, it has been a very active discussion for the past few months. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 13:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I would look at using academic handbooks and encyclopedias from the big name academic publishers, as they would likely be trying to take a broader and longer outlook on the topic, instead of individual case studies.

Choosing to limit a search to the past five years, two immediate potential RS are:

• Supernovas: How Survivals of Empires Impact on Geopolitics in The Palgrave Handbook of Contemporary Geopolitics (2024)
• Superpowers and Great Powers in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2021)

Looking for other such sources would then allow a basic analysis of what countries come up repeatedly and the assessments of them in this materials, which can guide us on which to include specific mention and discussion of within the article. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. I believe we are already citing Superpowers and Great Powers, Supernovas: How Survivals of Empires Impact on Geopolitics is paywalled, I'd need an inter library loan and I'm not sure it's worth it based on the abstract not mentioning "superpower". The issue is that "basic analysis" is WP:OR per WP:PRIMARY policy #4. This has been a very frustrating article for me the past few months. I'm a geography professor, I have a few lectures on international power relationships I give for classes, and have deployed my research resources to try and comb from various angles. I've found that all conclusions on this matter, including what constitutes a superpower in the first place, are opinions, and that multiple reliable sources sit hold opposing opinions on multiple states/supranational organizations. People with a POV on what is or is not a superpower can easily find sources to push that POV, which leads to pretty serious content disputes. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The "basic analysis" is "does this source mention country A as a super power", and "how many sources say country A is a super power" which is very much within our purview to do. Or have the policies and guidelines changed to where we now can't say if a source makes a statement or not, and that we are no longer allowed to determine due weight of content for articles? As to the notion of primary sources, there is a reason I suggested using handbooks and encyclopedias, and that is because these are explicitly not primary sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

As a note specifically on "Superpowers and Great Powers", yes it is cited, once, in the lede, for the fact there is no universally determined qualifier for what a super power is. It is not used at all for any of the listed super powers in the article, where multiple of them are discussed in "Superpowers and Great Powers". -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I it's inclusion was a recent addition I made, it needs to be mined further for content. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

"Do Not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." A Systematic review is the formal type of research that would count the sources and conclude what the academic consensus is, and these are Original Research. Unfortunately, we have multiple reliable sources that take different sides of the issue, and trying to come up with a way to "count" them would involve some pretty involved methods for screening sources and ensuring we aren't over/under sampling. We would need a source saying what the majority of sources say, and that could only be attributed to the source. "According to ___, most sources agree ____ is a superpower." It would not allow us to use Wikivoice to say something IS a superpower, especially as we have reliable sources that argue against each case. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh you seem to be labouring under the incorrect assumption that I'm saying we provide analysis and synthesis in the article. Well, it is a good thing isn't it that I did not suggest we do so, just like I did not suggest we use primary sources.

Or if I'm wrong and you are reading the policy to say we can not make such assessment and deductions when discussing sources, as I have been saying, then this noticeboard, alongside all the discussions on the article talkpage need to be shut down. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the confusion is, just saying we have contradictory sources and lack one that definitively summarizes them and declares a consensus. The source that I opened this for was one of the closest I've been able to find that does to some extent, but the issues brought up with it have caused it to fail. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Three months of arguing about "Linux family"

At Talk:Linux#I dispute the existence of "Linux" as a family of operating systems the discussion has been going on for over three months without any resolution. Could someone who isn't involved please write up a summary and close the thread? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

All I can say about that debate is: Amazing, what a way to waste one's life. I am not involved in that discussion (lucky me) but will not attempt to close it. The REAL point is that whether Linux is a family or semi-family will make no difference to this world. Zero. But the people involved are obviously too excited to agree to that. Is there an administrative way to close that or will it be a Beatles vs The Beatles debate that will show up in NY Times? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This was previously discussed on the village pump (Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 211#Is the phrase "the Linux operating system" acceptable in articles, and to what extent may it be modified?). As I said there "Linux operating system" is found everywhere, including it being repeatedly used on the homepage of Linux.com. Whether that's technically correct or not doesn't really matter when so many reliable sources use it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not their argument. They argue about Linux "family". I commented there but now will run for the hills to avoid more waste of time. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

It's coming after you! The Thread That Will Not Die. It is too late for me; I have already lost my soul and my mind and now wander the Internet arguing about Emacs and Vim. Save yourself before it is too late! (Zombie Guy shambles off into the sunset moaning "Rust! Ruuuuuust!!) --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Very good point. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)