Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 495

< Wikipedia:Reliable sources | Noticeboard
Latest comment: 14 days ago by Howardcorn33 in topic The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, and The Progressive
Archive 490←Archive 493Archive 494Archive 495Archive 496

BBC: Alleged deceptive editing of video, bias and censorship

Latest comment: 21 days ago177 comments49 people in discussion
RFC STARTED
See the RFC at WP:RSN#RfC: reliability of the BBC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

The Daily Telegraph, a right leaning British tabloid, has published a story claiming that the BBC deceptively edited film footage of Donald Trump's controversial speech on January 6, 2021. These claims are sourced to an internal BBC report that the DT asserts was quietly ignored by their management. Further, the DT claims it will be publishing additional internal BBC documents demonstrating bias and censorship on other hot button topics such as the Gaza crisis and the debate over transgender issues. There have been numerous and longstanding claims that the BBC is politically biased. The DT has likewise faced similar claims and has been the subject of discussion on this forum in the past. As of this post, the BBC has declined to comment on the allegations, something which I do not find encouraging. Should these allegations be confirmed, would it be sufficient grounds to revisit the BBC's community based ranking as a generally reliable source? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The DT has a strong right wing bias and a longstanding axe to grind against the BBC. This just seems like mudslinging unless this is considered significant by less partisan publications. The BBC is regularly accused of being politically biased by all sides in the UK, both right and left, so I really don't think we can downgrade the BBC just based on this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the point in asking this until the "allegations [are] confirmed". Katzrockso (talk) 02:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Given debates we've had here about the reliability of DT on trans issues, I think we can disregard their culture warring on the issue. TarnishedPathtalk 03:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Facts are coming pretty strong right now and even BBC itself published articles [1] about the doctored Trump video or the deceptive pro-Hamas nondisclosure. Seems clear that at this point we can't consider it mere mudslinging but actual malicious tampering. Alves Stargazer (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Second what Hemiauchenia said. We'll see if there's any legs to their claims, but for now they're just allegations by a tabloid against a far-more-respected outlet. The Kip (contribs) 04:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
but for now they're just allegations by a tabloid against a far-more-respected outlet I'm personally no fan of the Telegraph, but it's not accurate to call them a tabloid. The Telegraph is still a traditional broadsheet in format, and most Brits would still consider it a respectable paper on a level with the Guardian and Times. These days it's maybe not quite as respectable as it once was – especially on right-wing culture war issues – but frankly these days the BBC isn't as respected by the general public as it once was either! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Just because it’s broadsheet in format doesn’t change the fact the Telegraph has arguably become rather tabloid in terms of its journalism. Ever since the dispute over its ownership and possible sale its standards do seem to have slipped somewhat, and editorially it can be seen to have become increasingly reliant on culture wars (of which the BBC is a frequent target of) to maintain its own relevancy. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I would say that the Telegraph is no longer as reliable as the Guardian and BBC, but it is still not reasonable to classify it as a tabloid. This is both my opinion and the conclusion of many, many debates on this page and elsewhere.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The 2021 speech was aired by us networks as well. What exactly was editted incorrectly ? Donald trump did encourage rioters to act and his actions that day are well documented. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Bluethricecreamman
That's an incorrect assessment of an hour long plus, Trump speech. Two parts of the speech, an hour apart were merged/edited by BBC, Panorama, wrongly implying it was one continuous statement. Furthermore rioting footage was wrongly included, even though the rioting footage was recorded prior to President Trumps speech, yet again wrongly implying Trump, through his public address was inciting supporters to break the law. Quite the opposite was true, he had urged supporters to act peacefully. The Guardian has reported on the BBC's difficulties in defending the claim. "BBC accused of selectively editing Trump clip from day of Capitol attack | BBC | The Guardian".
The BBC hasn't been a reliable source for several years, which is why in part, they set-up BBC Verify. Dotsdomain (talk) 06:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/nov/03/bbc-accused-selectively-editing-trump-clip-capitol-attack Dotsdomain (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Both this and the Telegraph story are reporting on a leaked report by former Sunday Times political editor Michael Prescott. It's not a conclusion, just an allegation made by a person whose history as a journalist at a right-leaning outlet, and whose appointment to the oversight board by the Tories, could mark him as an unreliable narrator. Oblivy (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The BBC hasn't been a reliable source for several years.
Community consensus is the opposite of what you state. TarnishedPathtalk 09:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Err I am confused, are you saying that they did not in fact edit the video, just drew the erroneous conclusions from it? Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
It's high-time that the BBC's entry was slapped with a bias disclaimer. Despite major criticisms, such as those contained in the Hutton Inquiry on its misleading of the British public over the Iraq war, and a litany of other causes of criticism over the years, it has improprly continued to be treated as some sort of gold standard. Its effective state capture, in which it is two-thirds funded by a tax collected and distributed only at the discretion of the government, also makes it little removed from other "state-owned" media that draw far greater criticism. These two facets are currently treated like they are unrelated, when they are anything but, when rather, for want of a better phrasing: "The BBC, as a publicly funded entity, aligns with British foreign policy objectives".[2] The BBC's entry should be upfront about this and note the outlet's typically submissive coverage when uncomfortable news collides with UK foreign policy, in just the same way that the entry for AJ and others note this or related facets. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Also instructive here is The BBC: Myth of a Public Service by Tom Mills (2020), for which the parsed Google books summary explains: Despite its claim to be independent and impartial, and the constant accusations of a liberal bias, the BBC has always sided with the elite. As Tom Mills demonstrates, we are only getting the news that the Establishment wants aired in public. Throughout its existence, the BBC has been in thrall to those in power. This was true in 1926 when it stood against the workers during the General Strike, and since then the Corporation has continued to mute the voices of those who oppose the status quo: miners in 1984; anti-war protesters in 2003; those who offer alternatives to austerity economics since 2008. As noted, the pattern extends beyond foreign policy, though that is often where the most egregious historical instances of bias have lain. The BBC's long-term censorship by omission in its coverage of domestic protests, in 2003 and at other times, is well documented. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this proposal. The BBC’s continued ability to provide more balanced (albeit of course imperfect) coverage than other sources is well illustrated by the fact that left-wing attackers like Mills call it right-wing while right-wing attackers like the Telegraph call it left-wing. They logically can’t both be correct. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
That's supposing that political positions are binary left/right, and that not being left/right makes one neutral and without bias. The BBC has a political position which broadly supports the British establishment, and as such follows what is the "acceptable mainstream" in the UK. Hence it is supportive of private property rights, monarchy, a limited state, strong links with the US, military and political support for Israel, strong controls on immigration etc. This is not neutrality, it is bias. However, it occasionally allows platforms for more left-wing voices, especially in its creative programming. That said, bias is not evidence of factual inaccuracy. The editing of this one speech is probably a bit dodgy, but it does not have wide implications for the BBCs overall accuracy.--Boynamedsue (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I also don't think that there are any wider implications for the BBC's accuracy, though I do think that a slightly sterner note on the BBC's government-aligned bias, along the lines of the above, is well merited and long overdue. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree the BBC is biased in favour of the monarchy and private property rights. I would add it is biased in favour of patriotism, veterans, nature conservation, the education of girls, parliamentary democracy, and the efficacy of vaccines. However, I don’t think many neutral observers would agree it is biased in favour of a a limited state, strong links with the US, or strong controls on immigration, and would be surprised if you could provide compelling evidence to show this.
I know many people think it’s biased in favour of military and political support for Israel, but far more people believe the opposite (with examples posted in this thread) suggesting to me it’s about as neutral as source can be on that hot button topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The Telegraph and other right-wing papers like the Mail have long had a problem with the BBC and are quick to jump on any perceived failings. Given their own failings in actually managing to print the truth much of the time, we should treat this as more of the same unless the BBC can be shown to have a pattern of persistently and knowingly transmitting false stories, which we don't have here. Black Kite (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
The issue here should not be the BBC but Panorama, one of its products. Has Panorama been used for anything related to Trump or anything at all on Wikipedia? It's generally difficult for us to use broadcast media, as we are text based we usually rely on what's been written about what was broadcast. Also, news-magazine/documentary is very different from straight news. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Is Panorama a BBC published show but not part of BBC news? Something like Dateline NBC was to NBC and it's news program? If yes, then this would really be a question about a BBC show rather than all of the BBC. As for the edits, that's a hard one to classify. It is misleading to present a quotes and actions out of their true sequence. Selective quoting is always something we should be careful about and is exactly the sort of thing where we should consider bias of a source. This appears to be a case where bias may have resulted in context being omitted leading the viewer to draw their own, possibly false, conclusion. But it also appears this isn't BBC as a whole, rather a single show. I don't think this justifies any change to BBC News but I would be an issue if we are trusting this particular program for anything resembling analysis of facts/information. Springee (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
And we could never take a clip of Panorama stock footage and interpret it just from the clip in our articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that is also very true. Springee (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
For an academic take on the long-term arc of decontextualization in video editing at the BBC, see: De/Contextualizing Information: The Digitization of Video Editing Practices at the BBC (2015). Iskandar323 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Panorama is not part of BBC News, but a separate current affairs documentary programme broadcast by the BBC. The BBC produces a truly vast array of programming, most of which is not BBC News. There was a post awhile ago about a BBC Travel programme making fringe historical claims, just because BBC News is generally reliable doesn't mean the entire output of the BBC should be regarded the same way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker Political programming on the BBC is not different from the news that they produce. They use their own staff journalists to work on both products, they even lede the news, with content from their own unverified output such as Panorama, Question Time, Politics Live, Laura Kuenssberg Sunday Politics etc.
We may be text based here but the links we provide give access to almost everything available media-wise to the public.
(This comment by Dotsdomain (talk · contribs) has been removed as a violation of the extended confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC))
Oh, my, are there reds and illuminati too, perhaps some international conspiracy! At any rate, bias is what we generally expect from all sources, and it still has not been shown we have used Panorama for anything, so, we can no doubt calm down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you call The Telegraph a "tabloid."
The accusations are clearly notable considering that they've been covered by media outlets with opposite bias [3].
I think we should wait and see - maybe the accusations would be refuted. Maybe BBC will end up responding to the leak, this will also impact our assessment. Alaexis¿question? 13:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Always assuming every source is biased is a good way of doing research. The BBC is British and funded by the UK license fee, so of course, that's going to influence their reporting. Their reporting on US politicians is going to be based on what they think is good for the British. Sometimes that distance makes it more objective, sometimes not. Per WP:RS "Each book, article, or other source needs to be credible for supporting the particular claim(s) it supports." There shouldn't be a blanket "this news source is always trustworthy" because news in general is produced quickly, by individuals with own points of view. When we're looking at sources, we have to go beyond "this generally reliable news source confirmed it" and look at the article or news story itself. We shouldn't use WP:NOR as justification to include a 'fact' that was 'reliably reported' if it's obviously not true and easily shown to be false. I haven't dug into this enough to make a judgement, but we can look at an individual news story, determine "eh, they missed the mark on this one" - and go with the best, most reliable sources... on an article by article basis. Conclusion: You don't have argue the entire BBC is unreliable to say "this one news report wasn't accurate". Denaar (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Alaexis The BBC Corporation have said today in their own inimitable way, "we don't comment on internal leaks".
How pathetic is that? Dotsdomain (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
To answer your question, no, this is not grounds to revisit the BBC's reliability status. We should not be basing general reliability assessment on individual failings. Every source gets it wrong occasionally. What is more important than a failure is the reaction to the failure. Will they issue corrections, make apologies, launch internal investigations etc.? If so, we should probably consider them to be a more reliable source than we did previously.
Any talk of downgrading sources is massively premature if the only evidence is one or a handful of bad articles.
I would like this board to return to its purpose of discussing reliability of sources in context. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I mean, let's be clear here. We are not talking about falsifying a story, we are talking about spinning it to pursue a particular POV, at the very worst. If we deprecated any media that were guilty of doing that, then ironically the Telegraph would be one of the first on the list. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Selective editing to make someone appear to say something that they did not say is definitely falsification. It's just that in the scheme of things, this is a very small amount of bathwater in which a very big baby sits. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
What did the BBC say that Trump said, that he actually didn't? Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Did you watch the video in the article? It's right there. They arranged his words to form a sentence that he didn't say. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
  • WP:RS is about a source's overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; given the breadth of the BBC's reputation, one article from one source isn't going to be enough to change their overall reputation. The thing to do is to see if it gets followup elsewhere in a way that implies that the BBC's reputation has changed. With state-run media there's always some reason to be cautious about potential changes (especially anything that indicates that their independence has been breached, or that the fact-checking and editorial controls that gave them their reputation have shifted) but it would take more than a single article to establish that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
    Aquillion I'm wondering what date were the BBC given permission to merge videos of the Trump speech to give the impression that what was presented, worldwide was true, when in fact it was false? Only last week a left wing celebrity had to apologise in court for trashing a respected University professor's reputation. Will Trump bankrupt the BBC? Time will tell. Dotsdomain (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, if those accusations are true, I'm sure they'll get a lot more coverage; and if they're significant, perhaps it will impact the BBC's reputation. But right now it's just a single piece from a single source; that's not enough to impact the overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of a source this high-profile. It's a reason to, like, keep an eye out, maybe, but it's not enough to change things on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
So the accusation is that Panorama took two statements by Trump that he definitely made, as part of a rallying speech, prior to his supporters attacking the Capitol... and its "deceptive" not because of what was said, but because it made the link between the statements and outcomes more explicit because it didn't play the full 2 hour rambleothon? This is blatant WP:COATRACK from the DT so they can launder their full list of grievances for their other media friends. Koncorde (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Koncorde I'd urge you to read the entire thread before jumping to those conclusions. The BBC included riot video clips that were filmed prior to Trump's speech and deleted his words urging protesters to behave peacefully. Dotsdomain (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Read it before I commented. Its still gibberish. Incited a riot. Riot took place. Was impeached for it. Everything else is just wild flailing trying to rewrite long settled narrative. If there had not been a riot, or impeachment for said riot, maybe some point may be gleaned. Koncorde (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Lucky that we are blessed to have so many impartial editors. Dotsdomain (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest you take a minute and read the page on WP:ASPERSIONS and rethink how you plan to go about this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
(This comment by Dotsdomain (talk · contribs) has been removed as a violation of the extended confirmed restriction in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic. — Newslinger talk 09:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC))
Koncorde I don't disagree that part of the content of Trump's speech could be construed that way, you described the uttering as "gibberish" however the issue is whether a "respected" media outlet should knowingly splice two seperate parts of a speech (an hour apart) together, as if it was one sentence, to give the false impression that Trump was urging protesters to riot in the Capital. The deception was further compounded with the BBC broadcast, of earlier footage of rioting, recorded before Trump's speech was ever made. There is a very long catalogue of publicised BBC blunders which I am barred from sharing with you on here but which have been raised in Parliament. Dotsdomain (talk) 14:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Not construed. Its what happened. They didn't turn up armed and equipped only after his speech. They didn't try to overturn multiple results only after his speech. They did storm the Capitol after his speech where he exhorted his followers to not give up etc. Suggesting the BBC Panorama edit of two comments or a video was meaningful years after the event, when the crimes had long been committed and litigated. Koncorde (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
As long as the resulting edit dud not create a complete new and factually incorrect narrative, there's not much that can be done. Editing video clips all the time us SOP for network news outlets. Omitting certain segments but other still staying to the truth of what happened is well within the scope of journalism. Only if it can be shown that the edit of the footage falsified a completely different story that what other sources have already collaborated, as often done on Fox, then maybe something can be said. Masem (t) 22:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
BBC should be downgraded to WP:MREL. Just last month, Britain's media regulator sanctioned the BBC for a "materially misleading” documentary pertaining to the Gaza war. This isn't an isolated mistake, the Daily Telegraph's allegations appear credible, and while bias is not actionable in itself, the bias at BBC is resulting in the reporting of falsehoods. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
“ The BBC said that the independent production company, Hoyo Films, bore the most responsibility for the failure because it didn’t share the background information regarding the narrator’s father. Hoyo Films apologized for the lapse.”
From the AP News article. So it wasn’t the BBC that made the mistake, but that the BBC had failed to take due efforts to ensure it wasn’t made.
There’s zero reason to move it to MREL based on unevidenced claims made in the Telegraph nor misrepresenting a different controversy as being caused by “falsehoods” when it is demonstrably a different issue entirely. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Ofcom evidently did not concur with that cowardly delegation of responsibility. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
This is civil in nature, but given your current ongoing, quite passionate disagreements on multiple articles to do with Israel-Palestine as a subject, may I suggest that you may lack the distance on this topic needed. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
I hope you'll accommodate some civilly expressed passion on the topic. DT's evidence has been corroborated; see BBC accused of ‘pushing Hamas lies’ after whistleblower report found Gaza coverage ‘minimised Israeli suffering’ and Jewish leaders slam BBC after boss praised Arabic service as ‘almost as trusted as Al Jazeera’. If a conservative outlet was fostering such animosity about another ethnic minority, WP editors would blacken their RSP listing. That the BBC also fabricated a narrative about the US president should open a reconsideration about their reliability. These aren't errors amenable to correction; they're revealed policy that certain kinds of lies and distortions are acceptable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
They haven't been "corroborated", you've just linked the Jewish Chronicle, a source itself found to be unreliable when it comes to the topics of Israel-Palestine (WP:THEJC) and is in recent years regarded with increasing suspicion following a still anonymous buyout and a rapid decline in quality amid a fabricated stories scandal, simply repeating the allegations as fact and citing "Jewish leaders" that openly operates a pro-Israel campaign group unsurprisingly being "outraged" by unevidenced claims that the BBC are "pro-Hamas".
As I've said in the subsection below, it's kind of interesting that the more that's come out about this "leaked report" the more it's entirely complaints from a very specific part of the political spectrum and involves people (including the memo writer themselves) who have deep ties to the Boris Johnson administration that spent much of its life actively trying to dismantle the BBC at every turn. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It should be unsurprising that the people whose interests are most injured by the BBC's malfeasance have done the most to expose it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Your assumption there that people associated with one of the most corrupt British governments of modern times should be trusted when it comes to their non-evidenced accusations that are the usual things about how the BBC is "woke, pro-trans, and pro-Palestine" which are things that funnily enough it's attacked for not being at all at the exact same time... Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone dispute the DT's evidence. Have you? I'm open to reading it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The DT hasn't presented any evidence. That's why everyone's shoving the word "alleged" or "accused" in front of their reporting. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
They rather have. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
A YouTube video from the DT showing a couple of clips of a Trump speech which the report's author claims is "deceptive", screenshots of said report that if you read the entire thing is very unconvincing (and funnily enough they fail to disclose was written by someone linked to the widely-believed to be rigged attempt by Boris Johnson to impose Paul Dacre as Director-General of the BBC in 2021[4][5]), and going "remember that trailer from 2007" is not what many would consider "evidence".
What they're doing is the same old spiel that's become "journalism" the last few years, making unsubstantiated, emotive claims on issues to which the intended audience is already receptive on taking at face value and seeing what sticks and running with it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The DT quite plainly compared the BBC's fabrication to the source material from which it was confabulated. They've presented their evidence. Barring someone claiming that the BBC did not fabricate the video or that the Prescott memo is a fake or somesuch, that evidence stands. You seem to be objecting to how the evidence has been interpreted, which is beyond the scope of this discussion. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to repeat what I said initially to you at this point. Given you're throwing emotive words around like "fabricated" (which isn't even what's being alleged) and are insisting the mere making of allegations (which means without evidence, which is what the report stands as given it's simply presenting the view of its author) is compelling evidence simply in being, I believe that you're not distanced enough to make fair judgement on this due to your involvement in other discussions.
The fact there are now reasonable, evidenced grounds to suspect both the memo author's motivations (links to the Paul Dacre BBC bid affair) and claims (minutes of meetings casting a different picture) just weakens the likelihood it will lead to any re-evaluation of the BBC as a source. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The Guardian: The words were taken from sections of his speech almost an hour apart. It did not include a section in which Trump said he wanted supporters “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. It is reasonable to call this fabrication. Also: Concerns about the cut were raised in a memo by Michael Prescott, a former independent external adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee (EGSC). The Guardian is stating these items as fact. No one is disputing the existence of the Times's evidence, only its meaning. Suggesting that I'm insufficiently disinterested to discuss this is ad hominem. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It's not reasonable in the slightest. To "fabricate" would mean that they invented those quotes, which nobody is suggesting are they? It's not an "ad hominem" to suggest a lack of distance on your part when your argument is constructed using a level of highly emotive language not even being suggested by the Telegraph's reporting even if you were to take it at face value (fabricate, cowardly, lies just as examples), so isn't a comment on your character.
All The Guardian has done in that link you've provided is report there are claims made in a memo. It does not pass judgement on whether they are credible or not, and instead as I've linked above they have since reported that are grounds to challenge the memo's credibility as an account. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
If not for the gaslighting, there'd be no light in here at all. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
See, now that is a personal attack and emphasises my point.
Clearly there is no point in engaging further with you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
The statement that All The Guardian has done in that link you've provided is report there are claims made in a memo is glaringly false. But Signore Brandolini and I have other stuff to do. Peace out. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I recognise the BBC quite obviously censors some things by simply ignoring them. However they do seem to try to make sure they don't put out obviously wrong stuff like joining up two bits of what a person says to say something they never really said. I think we should wait for the inquiry into this and if that is really what happened then yes what the BBC says will need much more careful checking. The Daily Telegraph has lost any reputation for straightforward clean news where it might suit its agenda. NadVolum (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
At least Ofcom have acted to seek out the truth, according to the Telegraph
"the head of the broadcasting regulator Ofcom Michael Grade has told Mr Shah that he must “seriously” examine allegations of bias, censorship and doctoring uncovered by The Telegraph.
Lord Grade, who leads Ofcom, has written to the corporation’s chairman, seeking reassurances that he is investigating the claims made in a leaked internal dossier."
The leaked 19-page memo was originally sent to the BBC Board by Mr Michael Prescott. Dotsdomain (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/05/lord-grade-ofcom-bbc-bias-inquiry/ Dotsdomain (talk) 20:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
You mean the same Lord Grade that funnily enough even we ourselves document on his very own article was appointed by Boris Johnson's government (who were explicitly not fans of the BBC), was a Conservative life peer up until that appointment, and has made previous public interventions in regards to the BBC and its coverage including Israel-Palestine.[6][7]
Yeah, for all the BBC's faults, it's not the BBC who are the ones here who I'd consider to be the biased party. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Because the BBC broadcast Panorama on the World Service, the implications are worldwide but as the Foreign Office part-fund the Service, the duplicity also goes to the heart of UK Government.
UK taxpayers and licence fee payers are funding a BBC fake news attack on the UKs closest ally.
It is well known that the BBC use subsidiary production companies to hide away payments they make to talent, journalists and production staff, while retaining full editorial control, but most importantly it is their BBC inhouse staff lawyers who signs off (approve) each and every one of the BBC subsidery programmes prior to their broadcast.
The buck starts and ends with the BBC, there is no getting away with or from the outpour and depth of evidence that Wikipedia prevents me from sharing. I'm not even a Trump supporter, but if the BBC can manipulate a Trump speech in plain site, everyone else is fair game too.
The BBC is no better or worse than GB News it is just that the BBC have been around for so much longer, that some think they are an institution to be revered rather than a news outlets to be scrutinised.
How ironic that Wales chose to appear on the BBC last month, to say, "We're living in an era of a massive lowering of trust" while at the same time blocking some editors from editing on important subjects. Dotsdomain (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
The BBC has significant bias issues, especially around the issues of Israel and transgenderism. This has been reported on by many reliable sources, and the BBC itself. This is just the latest example of that problem.
I support re-considering the reliability of the BBC, especially as it realtes to Israel/Gaza and transgenderism coverage. Jcgaylor (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
You may wish to reconsider how you phrase that second topic, as the term you've used is considered by many to be derogatory. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
It should be added that the Director General and the News CEO have no resigned over this incident, per BBC. Jcgaylor (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
BBC should definitely be reclassified as unreliable at this point; the evidence is so strong that even left-winged media as CNN and NYT have covered the whole story in the same way the Telegraph did, not to mention the very same BBC. Prescott has been director-general since 2020 and we can't take for true anything that was published under his rule since there's an high chance of being doctored. Considering that no one under the leadership even reported this malicious editing and we had to wait for a four-years late whistleblower we also have to consider that most of the BBC reporters were likely on board with it and since they're not leaving the news company we'll have no guarantee of reliability for quite a few years. Alves Stargazer (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Many editors here argue that the BBC should stay a “green” source, but given recent developments, that position feels increasingly difficult to justify. When senior leadership, including the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, steps down following significant public criticism and backlash over dubious editorial decisions (aka Trump’s video), it naturally raises questions about the stability and reliability of the newsroom’s internal processes. We don’t need to assume bad intentions to recognise that these changes point to deeper concerns about how content is being reviewed and approved. These leadership shifts also come after years of criticism of the BBC’s coverage of Israel. The pattern includes repeated mislabelling of attacks, uneven language choices, framing that many observers describe as slanted and that’s on top of the Gaza “documentary” fiasco. When an outlet shows the same type of problem again and again on several highly sensitive topics, it becomes hard to treat those issues as isolated accidents. This isn’t an argument that the BBC should be entirely discarded as a source. It’s simply a recognition that blind trust is not supported by the evidence. A yellow rating reflects a fair approach that better fits the current reality. ScottyNolan (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
We should specifically be looking at their reliability in covering US politics given this scandal and their internal review of the situation. LDW5432 (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes. I think it would be grounds to look at the BBC's reliable source designation. This is more than just a "right leaning" publication making baseless claims against the BBC-- the BBC has also now had to go in front of parliament over the doctored footage and is facing a governmental investigation based on not just this incident but also their reporting regarding the Middle East. Agnieszka653 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
None of those things are the case. It's been asked to make comment to the culture select committee to present its response (which are rather typical talking-shop affairs) and beyond that the Culture secretary has just mentioned that transparency is something that will be discussed in the upcoming Charter renewal of 2027.
So yes, it is still (despite the press bluster from quarters who already didn't like the BBC) overall a collection of allegations made by a single individual. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Here is why the BBC is an RS [[8]]. They at least try. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Two point in response to the OP - apologies if they've already been made. First, the DT is right-leaning (to out it mildly), but it's not a tabloid - it's a broadsheet, and one of the most respected news outlets in the country (albeit an openly and exceedingly opinionated one). But no, this one story does not mean we need to revisit the beeb's status as RS. This is breaking news. There will be an investigation, and likely if there is merit to the story, a retraction, as we expect from RSes. We don't need to jump at these things, but by all means we need to keep an eye on them. No news sources are free of dodgy reporting, it's how they deal with it when it's discovered that matters. Girth Summit (blether) 20:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
    While not a tabloid, it’s a long time since the Telegraph was one of the most respected news outlets in the country. I’ve reached the point it should be regarded as unreliable on culture war issues, and in the UK the BBC is a core culture war issue. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
It seems to me that at this point it's the BBC that should be considered unreliable and that the Telegraph spearheaded the biggest news media scandal of the decade. ~~ Alves Stargazer (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
The BBC should be considered unreliable because of a single programme that they didn't even produce? Can't think what's led you to that conclusion. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
More importantly:
"The one-hour programme, Trump: A Second Chance?, was broadcast last year and was made for the BBC by independent production company October Films Ltd, which has also been approached for comment."
There seems to be multiple core misunderstandings to the issues at play here:
  1. Despite the editorialisation by the Daily Telegraph, none of the errors raised are actually production decisions made by the BBC (many "BBC" shows are in fact produced by outside companies), but rather instances where it's suggested the BBC should've caught and prevented the transmission of.
  2. The entry for BBC (WP:RSPBBC) already contains the disclaimer that it shouldn't be applied to "BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight".
At most what may be needed is a more obvious separation of core BBC items (such as BBC News itself) from those that are aired by them but are not in fact BBC editorially-controlled such as having two distinct entries for the perennial source list, but that would in my view require a far wider discussion than this one. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the rest of the series from the telegraph most of the other complaints are claims of bias because the BBC doesn't give enough article (or push notification) attention to the typical culture war issues the telegraph likes to devote itself to (apparently they don't report enough on immigration and anti trans issues like the WPATH files). It seems to me that whilst there are one or two examples here of times the BBC got it wrong (to be expected given the time frame considered), the majority of this complaint is about bias and that the BBC doesn't share the same bias as the Telegraph. If this is the worst they can find, the BBC is obviously a GREL source. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Some historical perspective: It took more than one or two instances of flawed reporting for us to downgrade Fox News - we didn’t do that until a pattern was established. The same should be true for the BBC or any other major outlet. Yes, the flawed panorama story is a fairly major scandal for the BBC, sparking coverage in other news outlets and resignations within the Beeb… but it doesn’t establish a pattern… yet. Indeed the resignations can be seen as an indication of reliability. So my advice to those who want to downgrade: Watch and wait. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    It's not even that much of a scandal that the DT and mates of Boris Johnson (who it keeps getting linked back to) want it to be. An episode of Panorama showed two clips of Donald Trump and some have argued it's "deceptive" because they're shown together and didn't show the one sentence of him saying the word peaceful. In terms of "BBC Bias" controversies this is small-fry.
    I get the feeling from the way the Labour government have now suddenly come out defending the BBC after the resignations[9] makes me suspect they were quite happy to let it play out to rid themselves of a Conservative-linked DG (Tim Davie's prior standing as a Conservative was a source of controversy when he was given the job) and will now look to see someone more amenable is put into the role given the upcoming Charter negotiations. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

It feels worth noting that this discussion was heavily bludgeoned by Dotsdomain, who has since been community banned primarily for their subpar conduct on this noticeboard. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

  • Probably worth considering downgrading them to yellow (additional considerations apply) to world politics given their falseification and misleading publications as of this recent.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    Why? At best we have two resignations and an apology over the Trump clips, and then a series of non-corroborated allegations by a non-neutral party (Prescott) that the Chair of the BBC has strongly refuted.[10]
    In his response to Prescott’s memo, Shah pushed back against the broader allegations of bias. He said Prescott “does not present a full picture of the discussions, decisions and actions that were taken”. He also said that some of the problems raised by Prescott were not new or had been previously examined by the BBC.
    “Some of the coverage of Mr Prescott’s memo has implied that he has ‘uncovered’ a list of stories and issues that the BBC have sought to ‘bury’. That interpretation is simply not true,” said Shah. “There is another view that has gained currency in the coverage that the BBC has done nothing to tackle these problems. That is also simply not true.
    “During the three years Mr Prescott was an adviser to the committee, the BBC produced thousands of hours of outstanding journalism: on television, radio, online, nationally, regionally and internationally. This does not diminish the importance the BBC board places on addressing the issues that Mr Prescott has raised. But it is also important that a sense of perspective is maintained.”
    I think it's important to note that despite the wide-array of claims made in the memo, at present not a single other member of any of the committees where Prescott claims all this was happening has come forward to back them up and that the wider reporting is more or less restricted to repeating what has been stated in the Telegraph rather than other publications exposing further evidence which you'd expect for something of this scale and with how many people work at the BBC. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    As you state, "...we have two resignations and an apology over the Trump clips...". That is enough for me, the BBC should be reclassified from GREL to MREL. ~2025-32105-67 (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    If someone taking responsibility for an error and someone else apologising is good enough for you to consider something unreliable you clearly haven’t read our reliability policy. Taking responsibility and apologising are generally positive not negative signs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    Link to the apology: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gw001kw97o
    "The Panorama edit had been discussed by the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee in January and May this year as part of a wider review of the corporation's US election coverage, he said."
    I am not sure if the BBC is reliable to cover American politics. LDW5432 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    Followed closely by:
    Shah added he "also heard from BBC News that the purpose of editing the clip was to convey the message of the speech". This was so Panorama's audience "could better understand how it had been received by President Trump's supporters and what was happening on the ground at that time". The point was not pursued further "given it had not attracted significant audience feedback and had been transmitted before the US election," he explained.
    So not a case of "concerns were suppressed" but that it was raised appropriately internally and some had misgivings but these weren't widely-agreed with. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Further Coverage

-Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Having done a scan through of the full text as printed by the Telegraph, I'm actually now more sceptical of the rationale behind the memo and its "leaking". To be quite frank it reads like a greatest hits of right-wing complaints with the BBC going back the last half decade, especially given how non-apparent complaints made by more progressive/left-wing groups are in this memo (which funnily enough included how the BBC's coverage was anti-trans which we have an entire article on). For instance one of the complaints is that the BBC didn't take the group "History Reclaimed", that Michael Prescott deems to be "reasonable" and intones are a non-partisan collective of scholars, seriously despite the fact it's very clear from their own website[11] that the group are one of the various "anti-woke" pressure groups that've popped up over the last few years in the UK (such as Restore Trust for the National Trust).
Beyond that I also did a quick google and for those who may remember there was a big storm in 2021 when Boris Johnson was angling to place Paul Dacre (a notable Tory press ally and former editor of the Daily Mail) in charge of the BBC through a much criticised recruitment process that was regarded as designed to give him the job. Turns out Michael Prescott already had links to the Tories and was brought in to aid the process.[12]
Despite the headlines the more that comes out about this memo, the less it seems like an explosive expose by an independent advisor unfairly ignored and more it seems uncannily linked to people and groups with longstanding political axes to grind regarding the BBC. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
Upon seeing it, that splice was deceptive but not so deceptive it deserves this level of press coverage. Or us downgrading the BBC. This is an elaborate version of taking a quote out of context, a thing publications do all the time. In print with an ellipsis this wouldn't even be an error. Loki (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Noting that “Yahoo News” here is actually WP:MEDIAITE not a reliable source. Its hysterical coverage, like that of New York Post, should not be read as a source of useful analysis but as artefacts in the Trumpian attempt to throw mud at a trusted independent news source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • There is not enough weed in the world to make me take this complaint seriously. The allegations are the typical mountain-out-of-a-molehill reach to try and criticize any institution perceived as leftist, and aren't worth consideration by anyone with more than two brain cells (or even anyone with only two, so long as they're not currently fighting for third place). If anything, this makes me re-evaluate how seriously I will ever take the the Daily Telegraph again. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
    It’s shocking to see people act so blasé about this serious story. The Director General and the News CEO resigned over this, per the BBC. Do they have few brain cells, too? Jcgaylor (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
    People are not "blasé" over it. The simply fact is there's very little to the report outside its author (who is very much not a neutral party to this) throwing a lot of mud. And if you knew much about the BBC over the last couple of years in particular his resignation was inevitable regardless of the provenance of this report. He was installed by the Conservatives and the government is now Labour, and during his period as Director-General the BBC has lurched from crisis to crisis and he has few if any political friends left to support his continued placement in what is at the end of the day a small p "political" role. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
    I'd say that this is getting a great deal of attention, and I would hardly call the New York Times a righting publication. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
    And this from the Guardian... Tim Davie resigns as BBC director general after accusations of ‘serious and systemic’ bias in coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
    Allegations and resignations getting a lot of attention is not the same thing as proving said allegations.
    A lot of publications in multiple countries have covered the claims of a Polish woman to be Madeleine McCann. That weight of coverage hasn't made them have merit though. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
    You don't resign if the allegations are false. Let alone two people resigning, and the BBC chair apologising to Parliament.
    Then there's today's email from the person standing in for the resigned CEO of News which includes "our trusted, impartial and agenda-setting journalism is more important than ever". Agenda setting is not impartial; the BBC refuse to acknowledge how corrupt they are. ~2025-32558-15 (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    The Beeb gets held to a higher standard because it’s a public broadcaster with higher expectations for neutrality. These things inevitably get overblown with outside groups and parties trying to apply pressure. Kowal2701 (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    The resignations make this an important story. Do we reevaluate the reliability of the BBC in how they cover American politics? LDW5432 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    Pardon me for not being hysterical enough to suite your tastes. I have a nasty habit of being... [checks notes] rational. Yes, that's the word. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • This is even more interesting. I wonder where that pressure on the BBC is coming from (don't all shout at once). Black Kite (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    I wonder where that pressure on the BBC is coming from (don't all shout at once)
    @Black Kite ...The Communist Party of Great Britain... Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
  • A lot of complaints are about the bias, which is a big deal for a public broadcaster but not automatically a reliability issue. Downgrading would be an overreaction but we could note potential biases in the RSP summary. Alaexis¿question? 19:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    The problem would be which bias? They have been regularly accused of right wing bias, and of left wing bias, and not being hard enough on Israel, and anti-Israeli bias. Putting in a warning just about a bad edit to one of Trumps speeches and the current blow up in the culture war wouldn't cover everything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
    Well, the memo definitely describes a left-wing bias. I don't see a lot of accusations of right wing bias in Criticism of the BBC, especially if we focus just on the last 5-10 years. Alaexis¿question? 10:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    That's a user defined list so is subject to confirmation bias. Just on the very issues of this memo there's been plenty of criticism from "the other side" so to speak on many of the examples in the memo. The fact the memo fails to mention any of this and instead paints a one-sided narrative is one that's coming under more scrutiny already.
    For example, the "Hamas documentary" has seen plenty of criticism for being removed as being evidence of the BBC having a pro-Israel bent.[13][14]
    When it comes to coverage of trans topics, the BBC has seen serious criticism for being anti-trans in tone,[15] with one article claiming transwomen were pressuring ciswomen into sex seeing large-scale backlash.[16]
    So the idea it has a clear ideological bias one way or the other seems hard to justify in reality, because from the last decade in particularly it's been a common fixture of political life that everyone is claiming the BBC is biased against them. Anyone who was politically engaged during the Corbyn years of Labour leadership will know how often they raised claims that BBC News biased against the left,[17][18] yet at the same time was also an enemy of the right for being biased against Brexit.[19] Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    It's not peer reviewed but Mills (2017) is probably reasonable as a source, and Mills also published a book with Verso Books a few months earlier (again, not a top publisher, but it's a reasonably well established press). Wahl-Jorgensen et al. (2017) is a journal article that was first published online a few months earlier, so quite close to the 10-year cutoff also. Lewis and Cushion (2019) say there are a number of recent studies, all of which suggest that the BBC has, in recent years, moved its centre of gravity to the right. Mills again (et alia though, 2021), etc, etc.
    Realistically, their actual bias is probably something more like a pro-British bias (so pro-Tory when the Tories are in charge), plus a pro-whoever-is-on-the-board-leaning-on-them-politically bias (which is, *checks notes* Robbie Gibb apparently). So yeah, there seems to be a decent amount of people complaining about Gibb specifically interfering with editorial independence.
    Mills, Tom (March 2017). "The Myth of the BBC". Viewfinder Magazine. No. 106. Learning on Screen. ISSN 2634-8179. Archived from the original on 2025-02-01.
    Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin; Berry, Mike; Garcia-Blanco, Iñaki; Bennett, Lucy; Cable, Jonathan (August 2017) [30 June 2016]. "Rethinking balance and impartiality in journalism? How the BBC attempted and failed to change the paradigm". Journalism. 18 (7): 781–800. doi:10.1177/1464884916648094. ISSN 1464-8849. PMC 5732589. PMID 29278243.
    Lewis, Justin; Cushion, Stephen (March 2019). "Think Tanks, Television News and Impartiality: The ideological balance of sources in BBC programming". Journalism Studies. 20 (4): 480–499. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1389295. ISSN 1461-670X.
    Mills, Tom; Mullan, Killian; Fooks, Gary (January 2021). "Impartiality on Platforms: The Politics of BBC Journalists' Twitter Networks". Journalism Studies. 22 (1): 22–41. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2020.1852099. ISSN 1461-670X. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    Though not News, platforming of the Tufton street lot on every panel was a big one, culminated in Liz Truss Kowal2701 (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    I tried to make this point earlier, but it was drowned out by the OP's bludgeoning. The long-term bias of the BBC is towards no particular wing of the political spectrum, nor any particular cause, but towards the vested interests of the government, its policies and the British establishment at large. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

As of this morning:

  • No one disputes that shortly before the US elections, the BBC aired doctored footage that caused Trump to appear to call for violence at the capital by splicing together clips separated by 54 minutes.
  • The Prescott memo warning about this was ignored.
  • Director general Tim Davie and CEO of news Deborah Turness have resigned over the scandal.
  • Other materials were "raced to air" on BBC Arabic without checks because they were damning to Israel.
  • The BBC has spent a half-million USD to prevent publication of the 2003 Balen Report investigating its coverage of Israel.
  • In February it aired, then removed, a "documentary" starring the son of Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture.
  • BBC Arabic has been the source of multiple anti-Israel and anti-Jewish statements.

The Prescott memo also charges the BBC with airing "ill-researched material that suggested issues of racism when there were none," withholding migration stories from push notifications on the app, "celebrating the trans experience without adequate balance or objectivity," and inflating the proportion of Palestinian women and children killed in the Gaza War. And the whole memo hasn't even been released yet. An inside source to The Guardian said of the situation, "It feels like a coup. This is the result of a campaign by political enemies of the BBC." And not, "We couldn't find journalistic integrity if we were alone with it in an otherwise empty closet," or something likewise indicating contrition. BBC brass continue to deny editorial bias in spite of all this. So we have both a pattern of inaccuracy and an unwillingness to correct, hence failing the two markers of reliability according to the encyclopedia. BBC should be lowered at least to MREL, and if not, a lot of GUNREL sources should be made MREL for committing far milder offenses. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The BBC has been accused of both left wing and right wing bias, as well as anti and pro Israel coverage. Lower it's relating because the current issue is a major US culture war issue doesn't seem appropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:08, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
+1 BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The issues from the standpoint of the encyclopedia are inaccuracy and unwillingness to correct, not bias as such. This is explicit in WP:RS. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Not just owner up to their errors, but reporting non it extensively is a sign of a reliable source. Unreliable sources go to court to protect their lies, and having lost the court case act as if the lies where never told (this is a real world case). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:36, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Indeed it is. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
It has still reported on itself in regard to allegations of bias around the I/P conflict, even if it hasn't released one particular report. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
One particular report that they sat on for a year until the story about it was broken for them. This is the opposite of a track record of corrections. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes one report, on a topic they had otherwise already reported on about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
...as if said report didn't exist. This is malpractice. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Is it noted that the New York Times wrote that the BBC Is Facing Its Gravest Crisis in Decades? I know titles alone might not be the most reliable, but this is something I think potentially worth noting, that this isn't treated as some small hiccup, but rather as a major scandal. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Per the Free Press [20] Trump said "And after this, we’re gonna walk down, and I’ll be there with you. We’re gonna walk down, we’re gonna walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re gonna cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not gonna be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." but the edit is "We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you and we fight. We fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not gonna have a country anymore." That's... hugely different. Denaar (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The BBC tried it on, and it got caught out. It should be transferred from WP:GREL to WP:MREL, else WP begins to lose its credibility. ~2025-32105-67 (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Rest assured, Wikipedia has never been. Mist1et03 (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
A major crisis is not a major scandal. The crisis is it’s under attack by the global right after a Conservative government restructured it to hamstring it in a fight of this kind and due to the two resignations it’s rudderless at a crucial time. The actual “scandal” is manufactured and pretty minor. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
+1. Andreas JN466 20:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Is that the New York Times which gave us weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? TarnishedPathtalk 07:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
This is largely irrelevant anyway, this is Panorama which is separate from News. Panorama outsource their production, which is why you also had the "Hamas leader's son" controversy. We could add something about Panorama, but no doubt the lesson learnt will be for the BBC to bring all production under its control Kowal2701 (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Useful reading: this article by highly respected news media veteran Alan Rusbridger in the centrist Prospect on the context of the assault on the BBC. And this poll from 2023 on how trusted the BBC is with the UK public (eg compared to the Telegraph, the least trusted broadsheet). BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

If we are to determine the reliability based on this poll we should deprecate HuffPost and Vice immediately as both of them are way below GB News. Alaexis¿question? 10:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The more "untrustworthy" outlets in the poll actuallly line up rather well with what's deprecated. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The net (trustworthy - untrustworthy) is probably a better indicator of public opinion, but then again public opinion isn't part of policy or guidance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn’t determine reliability from this poll but it’s one indicator of reputation for fact checking and correlates quite well with WP consensus. Note HuffPost and Vice have high “don’t know” responses as aren’t well known in the general public compared to legacy media or GBNews, and so don’t have high NET untrustworthy ratings compared to GBNews. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
People should also remember that the reason The Jewish Chronicle lost its "generally reliable" ranking at WP:RSP last year is that Prescott's mate, BBC board member Robbie Gibb (who was appointed to the BBC by Boris Johnson and was also an editorial adviser to the populist, right-wing GB News) took over the Chronicle on behalf of an anonymous owner – a unique case in UK media, I believe.
Rusbridger wrote about that, too: [21] A few months later, the formerly venerable Jewish Chronicle was mired in a scandal over fabricated stories placed by Netanyahu's office, leading some of its leading Jewish contributors to leave in disgust – see e.g. New York Times.
Gibb, who BBC insiders say is the driving force behind this news story, lacks a recent track record of journalistic integrity but has form when it comes to media manipulation in the service of right-wing interests. Andreas JN466 20:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
This fallacy is guilt by association. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, not really, because it's the same gentleman who appears close to the centre of all these stories – the launch of GB News as a populist alternative to the BBC, the political shift to the right and loss of journalistic standards at The Jewish Chronicle, and this current, noisy attack on the BBC for being too left-leaning.
The Panorama edit was stupid and wrong, but I don't think this is just about standards (the BBC can be and has been criticised from the other end of the spectrum as well). YMMV. Andreas JN466 21:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
People keep bringing up that criticism has come from both ends of the political spectrum, but it's beside the point. The BBC broadcasted faked evidence and unchecked claims, they've produced stories so one-sided as to fail journalistic basics, and they're not recognizing that they have a problem beyond "mistakes were made" kinds of admissions. These are reliability issues, leaving bias aside. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
That's why I always say news sources are ONLY as good as the journalist/reporter working at that institution who wrote/narrated the story. If the journalist/reporter(s) let things slide the whole org. can look bad. Also in a world of press entities like Associated Press corps. and things like that which write each-others stories without sometimes further review (in order to make sure everything is factual), sometimes stories can get picked up by other journalist bureaus and then it tarnishes other agency's news images as well. The BBC has had some of their high level staff allegedly depart due to this blunder.(Skynews) I would add this to the BBC's "criticism" section. CaribDigita (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Agree that we add it to their criticism section at minimum. LDW5432 (talk) 22:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
It’s there. Nobody is disputing that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
It’s beside the point if the only topic of discussion is are they honest about facts. But if the allegation is they are “ so one-sided as to fail journalistic basics” (in your words) then that claim is easily refuted by the fact that the criticism comes from partisans of left and right and pro- and anti-Israel advocates. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
As demonstrated at Talk:Gaza genocide, anti-Israel activists are disappointed that pro-Israel perspectives exist. They won't be satisfied until the BBC is as bereft of pro-Israel perspectives as that article. That perspective can't be accommodated within the expectations of responsible journalism. Their criticisms prove nothing. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Please refrain from casting aspersions against other editors, which I believe your comment on "anti-Israel activists" active on a specific talk page would count as. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I was the subject of aspersions cast by an editor on that page who admitted in so many words that he had targeted a somewhat pro-Israel item for removal with utter disregard for the state of the rest of the page, and nothing was done about either the aspersions or the blanked item. Does it count as aspersions to express how sick I am of the double standards? The same goes for this discussion; if the BBC were a Murdoch property and had committed these offenses against journalism, editors would deprecate it. I'm just asking for MREL for them. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I'll note that admin ScottishFinnishRadish told both of you to knock it off, and that includes the other editor. Therefore, saying nothing was done about their aspersion is false. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
And I discontinued conversation as requested. But it wasn't clear that was about the aspersions, and in any case the item remains blanked. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
This is getting very off-topic for this discussion, but I'd be happy to discuss the blanked item with you on the Gaza genocide talk page. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree, and I would welcome that. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

A couple more pieces of writing that I wouldn’t think are due for inclusion in WP articles but are very much worth reading in considering how much the current BBC “scandal” affects reliability. By veteran investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed in the reliable if partisan Byline Times: (a) on Michael Prescott and his leaked memo, (b) on the supposedly “neutral” sources Prescott accused the BBC of not using. By former BBC staff member Lewis Goodall on the manufacturing of a scandal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Also out today, an excellent article by David Aaronovitch in The Observer:
Essential reading. Andreas JN466 12:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • BBC (Arabic) forced to correct two Gaza stories a week. If they can't have their own news in other languages be unbiased what makes you believe that they are unbiased in English? Yilku1 (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    BBC News, BBC Arabic and Panorama are all different entities, and it's also important to note that some of the controversial programmes were made with or by independent companies (October Films in relation to the Trump documentary, Hoyo Films in relation to the Gaza example) and just invoking reports which relate to one of these may not help sort out how the company's output as a whole should be viewed. This Telegraph article is specifically about BBC Arabic, and its source is CAMERA, a pressure group this noticeboard does not consider reliable. It primarily documents the zealous correction of minor errors, which is actually a sign of reliable oversight although chaotic news gathering in a war zone. For instance, examples of so-called inaccuracies the BBC corrected include Hamas described as "guarding" hostages or communities where Israeli Jews settle are described as "settlements" and their inhabitants as "settlers". I'm sure some editors would actually regard the "correction" of those "inaccuracies" as the introduction of pro-Israeli bias. The Telegraph is throwing as mud as it can. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    The Trump footage deception was BBC, though, not BBC Arabic. I think the germane point is that there's a problem of reliability across the network. To point at the motivations of them who disclosed the issues strikes me as misdirection. The BBC wouldn't be vulnerable to the criticisms if they had been doing their jobs all along. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A self-published blog is not a reliable source for a BLP

Latest comment: 20 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

It is being claimed that the personal blog of Tony Ortega is a reliable source for the article Massimo Introvigne. I do not how to evaluate Tony Ortega's academic expertise in Scientology criticism (I see his article describes him as a self-published author and sometime editor of alternative weekly newspapers), but I think it is unacceptable to describe his non-peer reviewed personal blog as an expert source on the topic of Introvigne's life and work, and this is a violation of WP:BLPSPS. NotBartEhrman (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Applying WP:USEBYOTHERS to Ortega's blog would seem to suggest that it falls under WP:EXPERTSPS for matters pertaining to Scientology.
In this particular case, where the blog is being cited to cover the contents of the blog, it's verifiable, however, being verifiable is not sufficient justification for inclusion. Unless others have covered Ortega's blog posts about the Journal of CESNUR, there would be a serious question of WP:DUE.
I would suspect that this content would be DUE for the article CESNUR, but it's quite arguable at a BLP article.
@Feoffer:, if you could find any third-party coverage of Ortega's blog, I believe that would settle the matter. Without such coverage, I would suggest forming a consensus at talk. This doesn't actually seem to be a question of reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Personal blogs are never reliable sources on BLP's, unless it is written by the BLP in question. The content in question is actually about CESNUR and should be proposed there instead. But it is not approropriate on the Massimo Introvigne article. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
It says something about an academic book. WP:CITE that book and everyone is happy. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

User:PARAKANYAA found an academic source which helpfully balances Ortega's criticism against the more measured responses of academics. However, despite this compromise solution, User:Feoffer is continuing to add links to Ortega into the article and has ignored my request to discuss this here. Since Feoffer does not want to discuss this I will now adhere to WP:BLPREMOVE, which states that I can continue removing the personal blog above and beyond 3RR. NotBartEhrman (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Feoffer does not want to discuss Hey NBE -- the topic has been under active discussion over Talk:Massimo Introvigne#Tony Ortega and the Underground Bunker, we should have explicitly invited you to participate. Apologies on that. Feoffer (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Is church of quake are reliable source for Quake Gamemodes

Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://churchofquake.com/wiki/clan-arena/

I am making an Article about Clan arena and want to know if it is a reliable source

My Clan arena article Zuake (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source, no. All of the staff are pseudonymous with no apparent background in games journalism or experience at reliable sources, and I'm not seeing any reliable sources using their content. You can read about sources for video game content at WP:GAMESOURCES. For more general guidelines about source reliability, there's Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

RfC: reliability of the BBC

Latest comment: 20 days ago67 comments38 people in discussion
Closed as per WP:SNOW. There is no indication whatsoever that there is consensus to change the status of the BBC as a generally reliable source, neither based on the above discussion nor based on this RfC. Cortador (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

It's recommended you take a look at this previous discussion before !voting: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BBC: Alleged deceptive editing of video, bias and censorship

Which of the following should apply to the BBC?

Option 1: Generally Reliable

Option 2: Additional Considerations Needed

Option 3: Generally Unreliable

Option 4: Must Be Deprecated

Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Survey (BBC)

Option 1: Generally Reliable - The current controversy regarding the BBC is largely based on what continue to be unsubstantiated allegations made in a memo written by an individual whose own credibility has already come under significant scrutiny since for substantial links to the political right.[22] In the days since the initial leak there has been no corroboration of any of the allegations of "systemic left-wing bias" that were made nor original reporting from other publications that you'd expect from such a scandal (i.e. say The Times publishing new allegations from another party) which further suggests there isn't material here to support what's been alleged.
The only item of note that saw a response, the framing of two clips of a Trump speech that some consider to be misleading from a documentary that was released a year ago without any prior controversy over said edit, has seen an apology and admittance of error from the BBC along with resignations which is the sort of things we'd expect from a source we'd consider generally reliable.[23] It's probably also worthwhile to note that the BBC themselves have rather strongly denied the wider allegations at the same time.
After a week of wider reporting at this point I feel confident in saying this has already become a damp squib, and instead groups are in complete bad faith reporting very one-sided allegations as true simply from existing to fit their existing preferred narratives. i.e. many pro-Israel outlets/groups are pointing at mere allegation of pro-Palestinian reporting as conclusive proof the BBC is pro-Palestinian even as the memo completely ignores frequent ongoing criticism from other quarters that consider the BBC to be pro-Israel[24][25], or that the BBC are in the grasp of a "pro-trans" ideology even though it has been widely criticised by LGBT+ groups for reporting they consider to be anti-trans.[26] While not a scientific measure, I do personally place worth on the fact that for many years now most BBC "controversies" over bias amount to claims by groups that the BBC is biased against them for the simple reason it doesn't just present back their preferred view of the world and this current incarnation doesn't appear to be much different to that.
When we consider a source to be "Generally Reliable" we don't expect it to be perfect, which seems to be a misunderstanding amongst some demanding its reduction in judgement. Instead the BBC, from all demonstrated evidence presented at this point, appears to have done is make a single mistake that they re-assessed and apologised for when placed under wider scrutiny (which we'd expect) and faced a bunch of right-wing mud slinging without evidence to back up rather serious accusations. Therefore there are no grounds to warrant a designation of reduced reliability compared to what it currently has. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Snow close as option 1 what was the point of this rfc? This is a reliable outlet and even great sources are sometimes wrong. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 17:20, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • It's not just any outlet which is perceived as having a left-wing bias. A thread was started about The Times a couple of days ago. I don't think anyone would accuse its owner of having a left-wing bias. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    @Phil Bridger a decade ago I might've agreed with you, but these days I think there's probably many who'd take a good shot at claiming Rupert Murdoch was left-wing regardless of how lacking in evidence it is... Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    I've literally had a right-wing troll insist that Murdoch is an 'antifa-funding Soros wannabe' in an online debate less than a week ago. Regardless of that, I do believe that any thread arguing to downgrade the reliability of a GREL source should be able to present numerous instances of unreliability in the opening post, along with accusations of unreliability by third-party RSes such as to demonstrate a pattern of unreliability, and any thread which relies upon a single instance should be shut down by an admin without consideration. In fact, I'd be willing to start an RfC to find a consensus to implement such a rule here. I think these discussions are a ridiculous waste of time, and generally disruptive to the function of this noticeboard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1: Generally Reliable per Rosguill. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, I don't know that my own position here is really option 1, but I think that the pre-RfC discussion has neglected to do the homework that actually matters with relevant academic sources. I also suspect that any good faith attempt to downgrade BBC and other papers of record should really be arguing for a change in approach to news publications as a whole. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    Ah apologies, I had thought that the "Option 1" from Muboshgu's comment was part of your comment upon first glance. Regardless, your comments still mirror my thoughts on why we should retain Option 1. Sorry for the "misquote" of sorts though. Sergecross73 msg me 18:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 (Summoned by bot) - Option 1 is "Generally Reliable". It isn't "Always Reliable", which is more than can be asked. We aren't seeing evidence of a long-term decline in reliability, but only a possible error. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 - I am concerned about their reliability on covering American politics. LDW5432 (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
There’s literally one evidenced misstep relating to that topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Option 2. The organization quashed an internal report detailing multiple, damaging lapses of editorial judgment, the most serious of which was the fabrication of video released days before the 2024 presidential elections in the US that deceitfully showed Trump calling for violence at the capital. Other problems mentioned in the memo are listed here. Culpable leadership have issued responsibility-avoidant "mistakes were made" apologies but detailed no plans to improve the reliability of coverage. There is an argument for a pre-2024 designation of GREL and a 2024-present of MREL, dated to the issues documented in the Prescott memo. Defenders of the BBC in these comments have enthusiastically attacked the motives of the reporters and news organizations that broke the story of the memo, but have not dealt with the lapses themselves except to dismiss them. The BBC has been broadcasting false and narrative-pushing material akin to, perhaps worse than, the false and narrative-pushing material that prompted editors to designate the NYPOST GUNREL, for which no amount of correction or staff firings were deemed adequate to remedy. Designating the BBC MREL would demonstrate something like consistency of standards. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The source you've used to demonstrate its "other problems" when it comes to anti-Israeli bias is a story written in the Jewish News Syndicate (a source of no established reputation or reliability, but is clearly pro-Israel in terms of editorial view) by someone who their by-line describes as "a former fighter and counterintelligence analyst in the IDF". That is definitely not someone whose second hand reporting we'd consider likely to be credible when it comes to the subject of Israel-Palestine.
Also the link you've provided about the NYPOST quite explicitly doesn't show the NYPOST being declared WP:GUNREL but was a discussion closed as inappropriate (The result of the discussion is procedural close. As the header on this noticeboard suggests, whether a source should be deprecated should only be decided through a project-wide RFC. It's not like the discussion is heading towards a consensus anyway). Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
As I said, Defenders of the BBC in these comments have enthusiastically attacked the motives of the reporters and news organizations that broke the story of the memo, but have not dealt with the lapses themselves except to dismiss them. Thank you for the demonstration. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
What do you think there is to address?
Shall we stop claiming that the BBC didn't edit those clips? Oh, wait, nobody's claiming that.
Shall we berate the BBC for failing to acknowledge that they edited the clips? Wait... They didn't do that, did they?
Nobody's 'dismissing' anything. It's just that those of us without an axe to grind against the BBC don't see a single fuckup as evidence that the whole org is unreliable.
I mean, if all of your evidence comes from unreliable sources, and all of it is attacking a source with a long-standing reputation for reliability, that's a pretty damning state of things for your argument. The fact that your unreliable sources produce a single valid datum doesn't really change that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
None of my sources are unreliable. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The Jewish News Syndicate is less than 20 years old, and is literally a right-wing "we'll make our own wire service, with hookers and booze!" to the Jewish Telegraph Agency. They've barely been touched upon at this noticeboard, and when they have, the responses have ranged from a suspicious narrowing of the eyes to a half-hearted shrug. If you want to establish something as a fact, you absolutely need a better source than that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Congratulations on having opinions. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Something something ...but have not dealt with the lapses themselves except to dismiss them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
Examples included the BBC’s main news website posting 19 separate stories about the hostages taken by Hamas on the day of its terror attack in which 1,200 Israelis were murdered in October 2023, while there was none on the Arabic service. “By contrast, every critical article about Israel that appeared on BBC News English website was replicated by BBC Arabic,” said Prescott.[27] But the problem here is JNS for some reason. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 A source making a mistake, reporting on their own mistake, and taking responsibility for their own mistake , is the absolute best that could be hoped for from a source. That the BBC has long been criticised for bias by the right and left wing speaks volumes, and even then bias is not a factor in judging reliability (WP:RSBIAS). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    That a organisation didn't release an internal report is of course nothing to do with reliability, if it was every source would have to be rated as unreliable as they certainly have reports that they haven't made publicly available. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    If I didn't know better, I'd swear that those internal reports were meant to be... You know... Internal... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and close per WP:SNOW. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 All sources foul things up occasionally. Some spectacularly. The BBC doesn't come out of this particular incident looking good, but then it is fully aware of the fact. We can't however, reject the entire output of the organisation on the basis of this one incident. I'd have to suggest that it is only the BBC's general prior reputation for objective reporting (or at least an attempt at it, within the confines of its own societal limitations) that has led to this story getting so much media attention. If it had been some obscure tabloid, or a mouthpiece for some random kleptofascist media tycoon, nobody would have taken much notice. So yes, don't always take their word on anything. But that should apply to any source. All the same, I'd say that rejecting the BBC as a source would do a darned sight more damage to Wikipedia content than continuing to use it, appropriately, with a reminder to ourselves that no source is infallible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1, per ActivelyDisinterested and others. They continue to have an overall reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and when they make a mistake, they acknowledge/correct it and hold people to account. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 and close per WP:SNOW. - Amigao (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Too Soon - The accusations are pretty terrible; you've got the Trump quote, reports of anti-Israel bias, [28]] and silencing of discussion on trans issues, [29] which lead to an attempt to block an interview with JK Rowling [30]. And per the BBC [31] it's being formally investigated by the government, "Culture, Media and Sport Committee will hold an evidence session with members of the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee". So this is much wider then "they edited one quote" even though that was a wild edit. Denaar (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    Note - The Culture, Media, and Sport Select Committee are not the government. Select Committees are standing bodies in parliament made up of MPs who regularly ask questions of various bodies. It's not a government investigation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    "Silencing discussion on trans issues [by promoting a pro-trans agenda]" is definitely a way to describe the outlet that brought us "'We're being pressured'". LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    How does the JK Rowling thing suggest unreliability? BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    Mr Urban added: “Thus I was in a meeting where one producer with strong views on trans issues tried to veto an interview bid for JK Rowling, saying she was ‘very problematic’ (she didn’t want to come on anyway).”
    Yeah that Evening Standard article is hilariously bad journalism. Starts off with an implication that "staff" in general attempted to block an actual planned interview and then eventually quotes the actual substack to reveal that oh it was a singular individual who voiced opposition to it in a meeting and it was entirely hypothetical because there was no interview scheduled. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1, maybe sliding partway to Option 2 on some topics, but not so far that I'd want to move them out of generally reliable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1, and we need to note that they are under political attack. Secretlondon (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Top drawer as media organisations go. It is, of course a biased source. It has the biases one would expect of an organisation deeply enmeshed in the British establishment: pro-capitalist, pro-monarchy, supportive of the British model of parliamentary democracy, pro-NATO, atlanticist, pro-Israel. However, these biases are usually less pronounced than in most British media sources.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 This is an independent company who have been RS for decades and the fact that they are now under attack from the usual suspects at home and abroad should be completely irrelevant to whether they are still an RS. We never change the status of RS when they admit that they have fucked up on a single occasion and admitted it, and whilst some might suggest that they haven't done that here, the fact that it has been admitted should be the end of it. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 all media companies have missteps but BBC is as good as virtually an major outlet. The resignation is evidence of taking responsibility for what seems to be overblown criticism. Oblivy (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per arguments in previous discussion, but also Bad RfC, the consensus of the previous discussion was clear and it was well-attended, this is a time waste (why isn't there an essay on community time?). Can someone uninvolved close this please. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    You're looking for WP:EDITORTIME, a shortcut which was only recently made. Loki (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    Even if there was majority consensus for option 1 (which I'm not 100% sure of), you should see my essay WP:OAFA.
    And I think that this topic is a perfect example for why the essay is necessary; this was heavily discussed before the RfC, but after this'll conclude such discussions of this will largely quell, overall saving editors time. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 per Rambling Rambler and per arguments in previous discussion, where consensus was already clear so this is a bad RfC and would clearly be due a SNOW close if it wasn’t. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 I don't wanna be fully credentialist and go "come on it's the BBC" here. But also the "scandal" in question is very silly. A contractor of the BBC spliced two things that Trump actually did say together, which created a stronger impression than the thing he did say... but the quote was things he literally said, the gist was also accurate (Trump really did try to do a coup), and all this was not done by the BBC but by a contractor anyway. This "scandal" is no worse than taking a quote out of context, which news organizations do all the time. Loki (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
    Option1 when the you know what is hitting the fan the beeb is my go too Jp33442 (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 logic the same as Oblivy.Red Fiona (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Snow Close Option 1. If the BBC isn't WP:RS then nothing is. Knee jerk pandering to political opportunism should be off the table. DeCausa (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1 for facts. It's clear that evidence of bias is there. We need to be careful about using the source for subjective claims stated as fact. The edit in question is deceptive but it's not something we would cite for a fact. It seems unlikely anyone would transcribe that video as a source for a quote. But it does show a clear political bias at least in that area. Of course, this is basically the same way we should be treating most news sources when covering politics. We presume the basic facts are correct but also keep bias in mind when dealing with characterizations. Springee (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 1.5 - Too soon, still mostly reliable. Specific reports (such as the Panorama program that caused the most recent scandal) can be deemed unreliable - but these are rare and do not (yet) rise to the level of demoting the entire outlet. There is cause for concern, but not (yet) cause for action. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (BBC)

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.
Discussion about RfC closure should continue here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

Since you called me out I'm going to reply within the close. I don't think this is a bad RfC. It's clear meant who think the BBC is still generally reliable (myself included) are concerned about the evidence raised in the discussion above. The new close fails to reflect that. The close I reverted was done by an editor who's account is ~7 months old and isn't much beyond the extended confirmation limit. The RfC was less than 24hr old. There is no harm in allowing more replies. Basically, the close was premature. Springee (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
So you reverted because the closer didn't have enough social capital? It's ridiculous that the two closes I've seen Gramix13 do were good ones yet were reverted, only to be re-closed immediately after by someone with higher social capital. Can we do better please and not strongarm newbies just because they're new. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I reverted because I think the discussion was still productive and I don't agree this is a bad RfC. I also do think it's an issue when a relatively novice editor takes it upon themselves to close a discussion. However, if you want to say that's not a strong reason and I should have reverted with the other reasons, sure. I think the current close should be reverted both because the reasons above and because the close is not a good summary of the discussion. A number of editors who said 1 also noted concerns with bias and that the recent issue is a concern. The current closing suggests there is nothing here but a lot of editors, myself included, feel there is something here but we aren't at the point of a downgrade. Springee (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
I would have let the RFC run for longer, but I can see the reasoning behind a SNOW close. Editors wanting to contest a close should know the process for doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Their close was still reasonable even if you disagreed with it, discussing it on their user talk page would have been better Kowal2701 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enspires as paid PR firm

Latest comment: 20 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Enspires is the parent company of The Washington Mail, The Boston Courier, Texas Reporter, Tycoon Herald, The Michigan Post, New York Today, Wall Street Publication, American Age, California Recorder, and Dawn. The company website sells article spaces for each publication to, "Build Trust & Credibility" "Drive More Sales" "Boost Online Presence" "Gain Enormous Publicity" per the first link. Looking at the front page of each site and random articles, it seems to be a blatant PR firm masquerading as a newspaper and should be viewed as no more than a corporate blog. Groups such as the New York Today use a slightly edited New York Times logo and blatantly rely on recognition of bigger newspapers to manipulate. GGOTCC 03:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@GGOTCC: I've run into this group several times and have them on my drama list. I usually go through it once a week to remove any of those fake SEO blogs, but I'm just getting back into the swing after some time off. At some point, when I see enough obvious bad faith additions (good faith editors can fall for these sometimes), I'll put the entire farm on the blocked domains list. Your analysis is completely correct.Sam Kuru (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
That is great to hear, thank you! You are doing great work, and I am glad to see that I am not alone. GGOTCC 23:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Closure of RfC about the BBC

Latest comment: 20 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion
WRONG PROCESS
There is a set process for contesting a RFC Close. For the first step editors should question the closer on their talk page, and then start a review at AN if necessary. See WP:CLOSE#Challenging other closures. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:51, 13 November 2025 (UTC) Additional note: this has moved to this page. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

@Springee has requested that the RfC be reopened, their reasoning is it is good to leave these things open for at least 24hr. Additionally, the editor who closed the RfC has limited experience and did so unilaterally. There is no harm in getting more input even if the final outcome is likely unchanged. (Which can be found here.) What do you all think; do you support this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

No. Clearly snowing. Rfc was waste of editor time. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
No. It's quite obvious which way it was going to go with only two votes in favour of any change in designation with 10x as many in favour of the current designation. Very clearly a WP:SNOW situation. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Contrary to claims above, this wasn't a "bad RFC" (claims made by some in the RfC, not in this section) and having been opened for less than 24hr there was no reason to close. More importantly, even though it wouldn't change the color, it was generating useful feedback regarding BBC bias and issues. There is no harm in following the standard RfC process and giving more editors a chance to weigh in. Additionally, once the close was reverted it should have been left open. Finally, the closing doesn't summarize the discussion since it makes no mention of the issues/concerns raised by a number of editors. Springee (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@Wikieditor662 @Springee @Rambling Rambler @∆t
This was extremely hasty. It was opened, and speedily closed in less than 24hrs. As far as I can tell with no notification of any of the participants in the original discussion, including myself (the OP). A number of the participants in the original discussion expressed serious concerns over this. Opening and speedily closing an RfC based on another discussion, w/o even the courtesy of notifying the involved parties looks pretty dicey to me. Add to that the original discussion was then summarily shut down based on the speedy close of an RfC that no one told us was going on. All of which said, I doubt that as worded the RfC would have gone anywhere. I would have argued for another option in the survey in which the BBC would have been acknowledged as generally reliable in facts, while acknowledging a history of concerns over editorial bias in its coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MarketLine

Latest comment: 20 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MarketLine is a publisher that provides information about businesses. It is available to eligible editors via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library through EBSCO's Business Source Complete. If you log in to TWL first, then this link might work. Otherwise, try searching for microsoft marketline in the main search box, and then open the PDF for the first item ("MarketLine Company Profile: Microsoft Corporation.").

They produce reports called "Company profiles" about large publicly traded businesses, with a description of the business, founding dates, the names of key employees and a (very) little information about their previous positions, a timeline of product launches, mergers and acquisitions over the years, etc. For older companies, most of the information is in this timeline, which provides a short statement about key events (e.g., "Year: 1978 The company started its first international office in Japan as ASCII Microsoft"). The reports seem to get updated each year. The idea is that large businesses will subscribe to the reports, so they can figure out who their competitors are, find potential partners, write mind-numbing slide decks about the competitive landscape in their industry, etc.

It includes a separate section called "Company View" that copies information taken directly from corporate publications, and a SWOT analysis that does not appear to be anything a company would wish to publicize ("Microsoft faces threat from unauthorized access such as hackers, computer viruses and other related issues. Security breach could be a major threat to the company...") and which I therefore assume is independent analysis. It ends with the statement that "Copyright of [the company name] Corporation MarketLine Company Profile is the property of MarketLine, a Progressive Digital Media business" (which I first misread as "Copyright of [the company]").

These company profiles appear to me to be:

  • independent sources (except for the "Company View" section, which is labeled as being copied from corporate materials)
  • secondary sources (particularly the SWOT analysis section)
  • non-self-published (MarketLine is in the business of publishing these reports)
  • significant coverage (hundreds or sometimes thousands of words of prose, most of which is at least potentially usable in an article)
  • not biased (they're not trying to either hype the businesses or to denigrate them)
  • potentially better than WP:PRIMARYNEWS articles, especially if the news article has little more than a passing mention of a company.

They also have "industry profiles", e.g., a report titled "MarketLine Industry Profile: Foodservice in United Kingdom".

I'm not looking for some sort of WP:RSP-lite here, but could someone else poke around and tell me whether you agree with me? And should we recommend it for general use to editors (e.g., a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#RfC on gender exploratory therapy as a form of conversion therapy

Latest comment: 20 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is an ongoing RfC at NPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment. TarnishedPathtalk 05:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Check source: Journal İmgelem and article Dead Internet Hypothesis: AI, Censorship, and the Decline of Human-Centered Digital Discourse

Latest comment: 20 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This source has come up on the Dead Internet Theory RfC, and it looks pretty suspicious to me. First, the article cites a journal that has already failed Reliable source noticeboard, and it repeatedly states "Source: Author’s own work" within the text. The journal website looks like several predatory journals I've seen. Using Grammarly, large portions of this article resemble AI text. Looking for opinions, as this article could have significant impact on the discussion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

It's a paper from 2025. Have others cited it? Secretlondon (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if other papers have cited it yet, is that relevant? New sources that are reliable are reliable regardless of citation metrics. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes, if they're cited, the way that other sources use it can give us information about whether it's reliable (e.g., if it's cited favorably, or as an example of nonsense being published on a subject). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Rudolf Steiner

Latest comment: 20 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Collin-Smith, Joyce; Wilson, Colin (2004). "Introduction". Call No Man Master. Authors On Line Ltd. p. v. ISBN 978-0-7552-0116-7. Retrieved 7 November 2025. for the claim "Rudolf Steiner was a guru".

On one hand, citing Colin Wilson would be okay. On the other hand, it's WP:SPS. So, I have doubts about this source. Please chime in. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the statement in the article, I feel like at some point past a dozen sources for the same claim you'd start to run into diminishing returns? Like, any more than 4 or 5 and you should probably start considering what is novel/different about this one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;" from WP:NPOV. That's my reasoning for wanting many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I think I would interpret that clause as encouraging a focus on quality over quantity. After all, while "reference texts" is in the plural, the adjective used is commonly accepted and not, say, many reference texts. One or two books from George Guru et al., who are each really important people in guruology, would beat five, ten, or really any number of sources from just anyone, really. Ideally you'd be looking for secondary sources that take a look at the sources calling him a guru and describe how the term is used, but those are probably going to be rare, and it's not an explicit requirement unless you want to establish an academic consensus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
agree with the above. See also WP:OVERKILL —Rutebega (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
When NPOV says that it's talking about finding the balance in an article, rather than a need to add lots of references to an article. If someone questions that balance, then as part of a discussion you should be able to show that's it's "easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts" that the balance is correct. For very controversial statements that are commonly challenged putting 3-5 of the strongest sources can help stop repetitive discussions, but it's not required by WP:V or WP:NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
There is an idea that the lead should be a summary or an article, with the references included in the article below. For the lead, I'd go beyond "is it sourced" and ask "is this what the person is notable for"? There sure is a lot of labels throw in the lead, and I don't think they are useful, educational, or add anything to the article. I notice later on it says "An author stated that Steiner was a guru" I would change it to "Colin Wilson described him as a guru..." but go beyond the label, and talk about what that means and why it's significant. Does it really matter if he's a guru or a master or a teacher or another synonym? Denaar (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
If you have multiple sources saying the same thing, you shouldn't give WP:INTEXT attribution to just one of them.
Another thing to consider is whether there are sources explicitly disagreeing with this claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Not in Hall of Fame

Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is the site Not in Hall of Fame reliable? Mk8mlyb (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Per [33], seems like a WP:BLOG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Journal Publisher Reliability ???

Latest comment: 19 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Does Inernational Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT). Reliable or Not. ??

I have seen many Journals on site which may helpful in future for My New Drafts/Articles. 獅眠洞 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

It is certainly unreliable. The website seems like a joke and has spelling errors. I think for a fee they would publish anything. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
The International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts seems like a predatory journal. I'd be wary of using them to city any information, especially for BLPs. ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
@Headbomb, @SuperGrey, do you have this on your lists? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. Added it to the predatory journal list. SuperGrey (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Creative Bloq - creativebloq.com

Latest comment: 19 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is creativebloq.com a reliable source? Specifically I ask in relation to its usage at You Wouldn't Steal a Car, where it is currently used as secondary coverage reporting on several statements originally made in a non WP:RS YouTube video. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to this article. It does not state whether they have independently verified the facts, but my presumption is that they have (many news organisations do this, for some reason). You may view the author Joseph Foley's LinkedIn for his credentials; he has previously written for the Guardian and the Independent as a freelance journalist. Creative Bloq's about page features editors and legitimate journalists. It also states that they are a member of the IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation) which regulates the UK print and digital news industry and that they abide by the Editors’ Code of Practice and are committed to upholding the highest standards of journalism. Their headlines do seem a bit Buzzfeed-esque, but their coverage otherwise seems fine. Google Scholar shows that many of their articles are cited by reliable sources. They seem to be generally reliable, but whether the article in question is appropriate for You Wouldn't Steal a Car, I don't know; if other reliable sources haven't written about it, then it may be undue. ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Karl's Betrayal... again

Latest comment: 19 days ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Sorry for turning up again, but I failed to follow the instructions. These are the specific statements attributed to Jonathan Karl's Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show in the article on Jonathan Swan:

Is Karl reliable in this context? DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Is he really the best source for these claims? Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking. DannyRogers800 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
In fact "upwards of 100,000 Americans ", out by a factor of 10, so not reliable. Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
No, the sentences refers to the total deaths up to August 2020. Sorry for not providing the full context. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Ahh, the problem may then be less about RS (he does seem to be a respected journalist) and more about due. Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your comment. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Jonathan karl seems like a journalist, was president of White House Correspondents' Association, seems reliable enough.
what statement are we trying to discuss? Trumps big lie is well documented, doesnt seem too controversial to state he was aiming to claim victory no matter what User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:23, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
The two statements marked by bullet points are the objects of discussion. DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
In general all of thats true. If we dont use that book, we could use any other. Maybe we need to attribute, but dont think we necessarily need to User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks! DannyRogers800 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
It seems like the book is a reasonable source to, if you will, set the stage or suggest a national mood. I wouldn't be OK using it for something that is closer to a specific, factual claim (killed upward of...) but why would we use that source if the number of Covid deaths is DUE in context? I would also be careful about stating the Trump plan as a fact. Rather it should be clear this is a claim Swan made about Trump's plan. Basically I think this can be used but the specific claims should be modified just a bit. I think if you can find a second source for the number of dead (change to "tens of thousands"?) at the time and if you make it clear Swan claims are attributed to him (Swan stated that Trump intended to...) I don't see an issue with this source. Springee (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I have added a source (a NYT article) for the Covid statistics, while maintaining the phrase "killed upward of 100,000 Americans." I have also rephrased the statement regarding Trump's election plans, as in "Swan revealed what he understood as Trump's plans to claim victory regardless of the outcome…" However, I do think that Trump's quest to defy the election results is not merely a claim, but a historical fact. There really should be no need for this statement to diminish into a claim. DannyRogers800 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Karl's Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show

Latest comment: 18 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Discussion has moved to #Karl's Betrayal... again. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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.

Is Jonathan Karl's Betrayal: The Final Act of the Trump Show generally reliable regarding its treatment of January 6 and January 6-related subjects? DannyRogers800 (talk) 00:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

He's had a long career as a political journalist, and the reviews don't throw up any concerns. Unless you have a specific question I can't see an issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:30, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
How much of your question is "Is this a decent source?" vs "Will using this book in articles like Donald Trump or January 6 United States Capitol attack result in a lot of drama from pro-Trump editors?"
Personally, I believe that most of the newspaper sources in Donald Trump need to be replaced by books, and that book looks as good as any other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your comments. DannyRogers800 (talk) 11:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This request has been restated with context below. --Hipal (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Are these sources reliable?

Latest comment: 18 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I recently updated the Eine kleine Nachtmusik page, entrusting the changes I made, but now I'm having some doubts, especially after other editors removed some of what I added. I'm fairly confident some of these that I added are reliable, because they're peer-reviewed. However, some of them might not be, so I'm wondering what you think of them:

[Eine kleine Nachtmusik: Serenade G major, K. 525 - Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart - Google Books]

[Microsoft Word - 21m500-Unified.doc]

[807280DI.pdf]

[Classical music | Description, History, Composers, & Facts | Britannica]

You can also look at the recent revision history [Eine kleine Nachtmusik: Revision history - Wikipedia] for more information.

Thank you very much!

PS sharing what grade you think the article should have as it currently is would be appreciated. Wikieditor662 (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Why don’t you wait more than 20 minutes to allow people to respond to you at Talk:Eine kleine Nachtmusik before opening a noticeboard discussion? ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you're right, although what I asked there was about specific cases which was somewhat distinct from what I've asked here. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Social Star Age and Billionaire Index

Latest comment: 18 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion
See also: Wikipedia:Source assessment/Sambucha

Social Star Age is used on Draft:Sambucha to support the statement "Sam Beres was born in a small town in New Jersey and grew up alongside three sisters." and Billionaire Index (archive link) was listed in historical revisions to Draft:Sam Beres, but it wasn't used as an inline footnote. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I would not accept Social Star Age as a reliable source for BLPs. Site was created in 2024, presents as a typical web-scraper tabloid-esque clickbait site, no indication of reliable contributors or site owners, can't find an editorial policy. Their "about us":

Socialstarage.com is a news site for entertainment with photos and videos. It covers Hollywood and foreign celebrity news, profiles, music, movies, TV shows, social media influencers, fun facts, and more. We share a few information and biographies about famous people and celebrities here, such as their Age, Bio, Family, Social Media Profiles, Relationship Status, Net Worth, and some interesting facts about famous people."

Schazjmd (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
Both of those websites are web scrapers and are not reliable. LDW5432 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

College Poll Archive

Latest comment: 17 days ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Website CollegePollArchive.com is used as the primary data source for all of the historic AP poll articles such as 1936 college football rankings and 1948–49 NCAA men's basketball rankings. Search shows 127 results across many articles.

Also frequently referenced at football and basketball team and season articles such as Michigan Wolverines football, Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball, 1940 college football season, 1937–38 NCAA football bowl games, etc. Used on BLPs such as Andrew Luck.

Contact page shows that the site is run by one keith *at* collegepollarchive [dot] com. Contact page uses the singular pronouns "I" and "me". Keith "will try to respond to your message as soon as I can, but that is normally limited to evenings and weekends, and only as my personal schedule allows."

Is College Poll Archive a reliable source? Is it a self-published source? If the site is self-published, is Keith an established expert in the relevant field who would qualify for WP:USINGSPS? Should College Poll Archive be cited on Wikipedia? PK-WIKI (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding WP:USEBYOTHERS, a Google Books search for "collegepollarchive", "soonerstats", and "AP Poll archive" (the latter two are former names that appear on the bottom of the website) shows a total of 18 books that cite it. Four are from publishers I recognize as reliable (Bloomsbury, Taylor & Francis, Simon & Schuster, University of Nebraska Press), but there are also several others which I do not know the reliability of. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and/or time to research can vouch for the quality of the other books. Left guide (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
College Poll Archive is plainly a self-published source, failing the first sentence of the policy Anyone can create a personal web page. The contact page states the website is run by the mononymous Keith, who updates it "only as my personal schedule allows."
No evidence can be found that Keith is an established subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. Note that this is a different requirement than any evidence that the site has been WP:USEDBYOTHERS. Links or citations to this website do nothing to establish Keith as an expert; Keith's work would need to have been independently published by a reliable third-party source. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The evidence leads to the conclusion that College Poll Archive is a self-published site, since Keith does not even have staff to answer emails. However, what expertise should be expected for a site that contains this content? Does someone need to be an expert in the field of collegiate athletics to compile the information presented? All he has done is found polls and compiled the information in one convenient place. There isn't any opinion or analysis presented on the site. It seems the relevant expertise here might be something unrelated to college athletics. For instance, isn't it reasonable that a person with a master's degree in library science would be better equipped to present accurate information on this website than a college sports journalist with 30 years of reporting experience? Keith is, at the very least, aware of his human frailty and expresses a willingness to consider corrections to the information he has, which is clearly not the same as someone independently reviewing his work prior to publication. There is no question that citations to polls published in newspapers would be higher quality references, but an error in Keith's work would need to be identified in order for that to change a single word in any Wikipedia article. I've used College Poll Archive for convenience in the past, and I have never found an error on the several occasions I saw the same information published in a secondary source. Of course, that does not prove Keith's error rate is zero, but it is at least possible that it might be, particularly given how long the site has been live and his willingness to accept feedback. Finding a newspaper source that published the February 6, 1961 AP basketball poll is not a difficult task. However, if College Poll Archive is banned as a reference, and the large number of articles that cite it become essentially unreferenced (in the case of poll articles) or lacking references in the case of other articles, it would be a huge undertaking to acquire reliable sources for each one of those references. When that task is completed, it is at least possible not a single word of the text of any article has changed. If that is the end result, will the encyclopedia have been improved? Instead, does it make sense to test the reliability of College Poll Archive before such a huge project is created? For instance, suppose 100 of the polls on College Poll Archive are compared with the same polls published by reliable secondary sources, and zero errors are found. Would it then still be worthwhile to delete all the references and replace them with secondary references? Finally, any editor is free to hunt down better quality references and replace the ones to College Poll Archive. Therefore, anyone who feels strongly about this can just go ahead and get started without the need to make College Poll Archive an unacceptable reference ab initio. Instead, editors can be advised to cease using it after a date near the present. That would stop the bleeding without disrupting articles that currently cite College Poll Archive. Taxman1913 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we cannot directly cite the AP Poll itself? Surely it would have been published in newspapers at the time. Pinguinn 🐧 15:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, we definitely should. Would make for a far more useful citation on the encyclopedia. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Reliability of the website SyriacPress

Latest comment: 17 days ago9 comments4 people in discussion

For context, I'm a participant in the topic area alongside Wikipedia:GS/ACAS. Frequently I encounter a number of citations attributed to Syriac Press, and I have even cited some articles from the page myself. However, owing to the concerns of reliability for the site Assyria Post (post above), I wanted to enquire about this site as well. Based on the above post, there are criteria that are cause for concern about SP's reliability:

  • The about page details aims and objectives of the site, as well as a span of coverage. Similarly to AP, there is no editorial policy listed (although there is a page outlining guidelines for article contributors), and the contact page has only a single email address.
  • WHOIS for SP has all contact and personal information for the site owners listed as "REDACTED FOR PRIVACY".
  • Social media pages (Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Instagram) provide no info on who runs the site.
  • Articles do not cite contributors; see a recent example [34]
  • The CiteHighlighter script by Novem Linguae marks SP with orange since "blog" is used in its URL
  • Another contributor in the topic area, @Shmayo, has also contested content by SyriacPress, see for example [35]. There are also suggestions that the site is run by Dawronoye, which Shmayo has mentioned previously (hence why I'm pinging them to this discussion if they can provide more info on this).

Any input on the reliability of SP will be greatly beneficial, especially since a lot of articles in the topic area cite it as a source. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Their opinion section lists some of their authors. LDW5432 (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I think your skepticism is reasonable. It shares many of the same qualities with Assyria Post discussed above, and it seems more like a blog with occasional external contributors. I cannot find any RSs that use the Syriac Press as a source. Based on these findings, I don't think Syriac Press should be used a source on Wikipedia, especially not on BLPs. Caveat: the standard WP:SPS policy probably applies to the articles written by named contributors: Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
@Surayeproject3, you should probably look at WP:NOTGOODSOURCE. The kinds of things you're looking at are tangential. We actually don't care how they register their domain name (protecting privacy is the default for some registrars) or whether their social media pages make it easy to doxx the staff.
I'm not saying that this is a reliable source, but you should look at things like whether they issue corrections for mistakes before you look at things like how many e-mail addresses are on the website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't call trying to find out the editors or authors of a publication (if there indeed are any) the same as doxxing. This information makes it easier to figure out their credentials and whether the source is independent. WP:SOURCE states that these are important characteristics that WP editors use to discuss the potential reliability of a source. ArcticSeeress (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
@ArcticSeeress So let's say, hypothetically, that either of these two publications begin to have attributed individuals and is clear what their position is / who they're affiliated with. The articles are also cited elsewhere in other publications. Would this be cause for a new discussion regarding their reliability? Surayeproject3 𖢗 19:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Obviously I can't predict the future, but if the source does change, then consensus on its relability would probably change. That consensus would likely be achieved through discussion (though that isn't stricly speaking necessary, see WP:Consensus and, more specifically, WP:Consensus can change). Most of the time, when consensus on a source's reliablity changes, it is mostly for the worse, e.g. Red Ventures' ZDNET, which was "downgraded" from "generally reliable" to "generally unreliable". Other times, they may be "upgraded", e.g. the Washington Free Beacon, where the consensus changed from "generally unreliable" to "generally reliable". If the Syriac Press does change to become more reliable, I would be happy to change my mind. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
No, @ArcticSeeress, you wouldn't call it doxxing, because you (presumably) don't have any malign intent towards them. But posting staff information in public does make it easier for other, less benign entities to doxx their staff. Or to arrest them, for that matter. They might prioritize the safety of their staff over making it easy for people to know their names. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Comment In what way have they been unreliable? Where have they made any mistakes? LDW5432 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

beacons.ai

Latest comment: 17 days ago5 comments5 people in discussion

This source has been cited in some biographical articles and drafts. Is it generally unreliable for biographies? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Going by the front page, this appears not so much a source as a host. Looking at the first few links that you bring up, it appears to be being used for about-self-type material. Asking whether it's reliable is like asking if wordpress or any other blog host is reliable -- it depends on the individual user site and what it's being used for. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Looking through the articles and drafts[36] they all appear to be WP:ABOUTSELF or links to beacons.ai as the official URL of the subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Beacons.ai, a platform self-described as "Powered by AI", publishes a blog full of obviously LLM-generated content marketing posts, all of which ends in a call-to-action advertisement for Beacons.ai. These posts are claimed to be authored by a single individual named "Gabby Reyes" of the "Beacons Editorial Team", and despite the stated role, show no evidence of editorial oversight. Examples include "Salish Matter Bio: Age, Family & Facts" cited in Draft:Salish Matter, and "Sharky Bio: Age, Family & Facts" cited in Draft:Sharky (YouTuber). These pages are generally unreliable per WP:RSML and WP:SPS, and should never be used to substantiate claims about living people per WP:BLPSPS.
Also, Linktree was added to the global spam blacklist after it was abused to bypass the local spam blacklist, and Beacons.ai may also be added to the global spam blacklist if it is abused in a similar way, per WP:ELREDIRECT. — Newslinger talk 11:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
Ive wondered what this site is. I see it on social media a lot. It looks like a hosting site for random stuff. I cant imagine it would be acceptable for RS. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Etymonline.com (AKA the Online Etymological Dictionary)

Latest comment: 17 days ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I previously used this in an edit so as to source the etymology of the word "oncology." Judging by our article on it, Etymonline appears to be reliable for word etymologies, though I would like to hear what others here think about its reliability. Has it been discussed before? Amateur Truther (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The last discussion about it appears to beWikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 306#etymonline from August 2020, it wasn't very positive. The main issue appears to be that it's a work by an non-expert[37], see it's 'about us' page[38]. It does have a list of source that were used that might be of help to find better sources[39]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:SPS: Self-published sources may be considered reliable if published by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. The authors of Etymonline are not subject-matter experts, as they are neither etymologists nor lexicologists. Etymonline is a self-published source with seemingly no editorial policy. The veracity of the individual entries are difficult to verify as the sources are just relegated to one massive list (no one's gonna fact check that!).
Etymonline is cited widely by both amateurs and scholars, but I have not seen any thorough assessment of its accuracy or academic rigour. The claims I found about Etymonline in papers on Google Scholar were vague or presented without evidence/sourcing.
In any case, I'd rather we defer to peer-reviewed sources and publications by subject-matter experts rather than blogs. ArcticSeeress (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I'm aware it's considered a bit of a dodgy source by some etymologists / historical linguists. One thing I noticed about it long ago is that it gives half-assed spellings of PIE roots without laryngeals and tone marks (see "name" for example), which is just negligent for an English etymology dictionary. There are other sources which explain the root of "oncology", like MW. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
I find it hard to imagine a situation where Etymonline should be cited. It lacks all indicia of reliability and is never consulted by lexicographers. (I am a member of the American Dialect Society, the leading American society of lexicographers, and Etymonline simply never comes up.) Meanwhile, excellent etymological sources are readily available. For example, OneLook provides links to multiple dictionaries with etymological information. John M Baker (talk) 09:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
There are much better options. It looks SPS and doesnt cite its sources or research. Looking at offwiki discussions on reddit quora etc, it doesnt seem well regarded even if it is usually correct. Something that should be easy to provide its derivation often does not do so. Altho I know they are cited in probably thousands of articles here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
For example, Oxford does mention where first attestations occurred. Etymonline does not. ← Metallurgist (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

The Daily Beast

Latest comment: 17 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Currently, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says the following for the The Daily Beast:

There is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast. Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons.

On April 15, 2024, Joanna Coles and Ben Sherwood acquired a minority stake of The Daily Beast; Coles was assigned to be in charge of editorial operations as the chief creative and content officer.[1] Since then, in addition to layoffs, twenty-two out of thirty-five members of The Daily Beast union took a buyout.[2] Furthermore, Tracy Connor, who had been editor in chief since 2021, was replaced by Hugh Dougherty, formerly a deputy editor of the New York Post.[3] Various publications have raised concerns regarding the editorial direction of Coles who seems to favor listicles and eccentric ideas and posed ethical concerns regarding fact-checking and conflicts of interest.[1][2][4] The article "Joe Biden Didn’t Poop Himself But These Celebs Did" was given as an example.[2]

One incident that may be concerning is an article of dubious factuality that was silently deleted without notice.[5] Since Wikipedia editors would generally archive a now-dead link per WP:LINKROT rather than assume the content was removed because of an error, this raises viability concerns for use on Wikipedia.

While I don't think this warrants a downgrade from WP:NOCON to WP:QUESTIONABLE, I do think it warrants a disclaimer in the summary similar to Buzzfeed News or Newsweek. Perhaps, citing The New York Times,[1] something like this:

−
There is no consensus on the reliability of ''The Daily Beast''. Most editors consider ''The Daily Beast'' a [[Wikipedia:BIASED|biased or opinionated source]]. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to [[Wikipedia:BLP|living persons]].
+
There is no consensus on the reliability of ''The Daily Beast''. Most editors consider ''The Daily Beast'' a [[Wikipedia:BIASED|biased or opinionated source]]. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to [[Wikipedia:BLP|living persons]]. After staff layoffs and deterioration in editorial standards following a purchase in April 2024, some editors advise more caution for articles published after this date.

John Kinslow (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you suggest to use the wording "some editors" when, as of the making of this comment, it's just you? Cortador (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, that wording was chosen to match the diction used in other summaries. Using the phrase "An editor" or attributing the notice to me would suffice as well. John Kinslow (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Its a trashy tabloid it shouldn't be used at all outside of very specific contexts. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
And basically a blog with multiple authors. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Robertson, Katie (2024-11-03). "Can The Daily Beast Claw Its Way Back to Relevance?". The New York Times. Retrieved 2025-11-13.
  2. ^ a b c Landsbaum, Claire; Silman, Anna (2025-02-04). "Can The Daily Beast be saved?". Business Insider. Retrieved 2025-11-13.
  3. ^ Mastrangelo, Dominick (2024-06-04). "Daily Beast replaces editor in chief". The Hill. Retrieved 2025-11-13.
  4. ^ Miller, Justin (2024-05-02). "Can Joanna Coles Tame the Daily Beast?". Intelligencer. Retrieved 2025-11-13.
  5. ^ Dickey, Josh (2025-02-22). "The Daily Beast Publishes, Then Deletes Story Alleging Trump Was Recruited by Soviet Spies". TheWrap. Retrieved 2025-11-13.

RfC: Maplandia

Latest comment: 16 days ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Which of the following best describes the reliability of Maplandia

  • Option 1: The source is recognized as being generally reliable.
  • Option 2: There is no consensus or additional considerations apply.
  • Option 3: The source is recognized as being generally unreliable in most cases, though it can be used under certain circumstances.
  • Option 4: The source is recognized as being not reliable at all and should be deprecated.
  • Option 5: The source is:
    • Generally reliable for Place Names and Locations/Coordinates
    • Generally unreliable for Feature Classes, particularly "Populated place"
    • Does not satisfy the "Legal recognition" requirement of WP:GEOLAND.

Giuliotf (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Background (Maplandia)

The site currently appears to already be on the spam blacklist, I have not been able to find previous discussions to determine if it is a WP:RS on here, but it has been claimed as an unreliable source in other discussions (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taumangyang). It appears to be used by ~5000 articles so I think it is worthwhile to formally get community consensus one way or another. Since it has been used similarly to WP:GNIS I am using the same format for the survey.

I first came across this source when I found a large number of mass-created Myanmar village stubs based mostly on a single source, with the articles based on Maplandia being particularly egregious as often the coordinates claimed to be of a settlement point to the middle of the jungle with no nearby signs of life (for example Tamtu, Myanmar), search for some of these names also returns no modern sources (for example for Tamtu all I can find is this 1944 Gazetteer which gives the same coordinates taken from Maplandia. It appears they have gathered data from many sources without doing thorough checks as to the quality of their sources resulting in the propagation of deeply flawed data. Giuliotf (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

According to their FAQ (http://www.maplandia.com/faq/) they appear to be, at least in part, user generated. That being the case the would be covered by WP:USERGENERATED without any need for a RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I think that is a good point and covers the issue.
I'd have to go with 2 if the RfC continues as I have done some random checks and it seems ok but there aren't many RS that review it except...
Copernicus says "Only limited accuracy and limited update frequency as well as inconsistencies with other topographic maps". Which covers it really. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
The underlying maps and images are just Google Maps, and so would be as reliable as Google Maps. I saw them referenced a few times, but in general the references were just to satellite images that are ultimately from Google Maps-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
There appears to be a gazette part of the site based on Google Maps (the site is currently unavailable). The creator seems to be Martin Fröhlich[40][41], I can't find anything to suggest they have any relevant training or experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
It seems to have become a fashion to leap straight to an RFC, rather than, as is needed in this case, to simply not use that source. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
It is a source that is pretty widely used for geography articles (searching "Maplandia" in article space yields 5044 results). While you or I could WP:BOLDLY go and remove it from these articles, I'd rather check to see that the community is on board first. Giuliotf (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
It's widely used because our Geography content is a joke created in large part by people trying to run up article-creation stats. And yeah, WP:USERGENERATED/WP:SPS. FOARP (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Survey (Maplandia)

Bad RfC. There have been no previous discussiom about this source before this RfC was made from what I can tell. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 04:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree we should discuss this first rather than jump straight in to an RFC, but if this RFC were to go ahead and would simply say not reliable. It's based on a mish-mash of different databases many of which are already deprecated (e.g., GNS/GNIS) or which allow user contributions (e.g., Google maps). WE probably don't need a full RFC to decide that but there it is anyway. FOARP (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Bad RfC The header of the page explicitly states, RfCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. This source has not been repeatedly discussed. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (Maplandia)

Has there been any discussion about this source before making this RfC? NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 04:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Because from what I can see, no. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 04:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
It was briefly mentioned in 2008 together with multiple other sources, only one editor expressed an opinion on it. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
There's no reason to be having the RFC. There's been no RFCBEFORE and the source isn't reliable based on policy, making it unnecessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC tag. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Archives of Baidu Baike

Latest comment: 16 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I know that it is not accepted as a source but what about its archives of government official sites ( example: [42]). 獅眠洞 (talk) 17:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The deprecation of WP:BAIDUBAIKE only applies to the open wiki part, the archival service is usable as an archive of the original link. Jumpytoo Talk 20:12, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks
can u add this info on WP: BAIDUBAIKE. 獅眠洞 (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Hi 獅眠洞, this information has already been added to the description of WP:BAIDUBAIKE: "The Baidu Baike domain also includes a website archiving service (baike.baidu.com/reference), which unlike the encyclopedia articles (which are hosted under baike.baidu.com/item/), are acceptable to use as accessible links for reliable sources." — Newslinger talk 19:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
You can use Internet archive to find similar archives. GrandCeres (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
@GrandCeres, firstly .gov.cn does not support internet archive.org but archive.ph( in which some can't be archived) 獅眠洞 (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't know that~Thanks for your explanation. GrandCeres (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The Urbanist

Latest comment: 16 days ago31 comments11 people in discussion

The Urbanist is an online publication focusing on public transportation, housing, land use, and other urbanism–related issues, primarily in the Seattle metropolitan area. They are owned by a 501(c)(4) nonprofit and produce both news and opinion pieces. They are a useful source for articles related to Seattle-area public transit since they go into more detail than mainstream news outlets, but some editors dispute their reliability. I can think of several reasons why The Urbanist may be considered unreliable, and several reasons why may still be an appropriate source in at least some circumstances.

Reasons that come to mind why The Urbanist may be unreliable or should be used with caution:

  • They publish their content themselves.
  • They readily admit to being advocacy journalists with a specific agenda, and are therefore biased.
  • They accept guest contributions from people who are not necessarily experts.

Reasons that come to mind why The Urbanist may be reliable:

  • They seem to have journalistic integrity, and I have no reason to believe that they publish false information.
  • Their content is overseen by multiple paid staff members, so it's not the work of a single person.
  • Guest contributions make up a minority of the content and have to be approved, so it's probably not considered a user-generated source.

I was inspired to post this here by this edit I made, which stated who the operator of Stride (bus rapid transit) will be, citing The Urbanist as one of two sources. SounderBruce later removed that citation, saying that it's a self-published source. But, in my opinion, they seem reliable enough for simple statements of fact.

Since there have not been any past discussions about The Urbanist at this noticeboard, I'd like to gather opinions from other editors about their reliability. Saucy[talk – contribs] 03:59, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree that by my reading of WP:SPS and WP:USESPS The Urbanist should probably be considered self-published.
However, there seems to be a large contingent of users on Wikipedia and at this noticeboard that do consider websites to be non-self-published if they are a company and have multiple employees. They point to WP:USESPS being an essay and not policy. They take a pretty literal approach to the "personal web page" mentioned in the policy and the singular "self" in "self-published". Some recent discussions that make this case:
By that thinking, The Urbanist would seem to be non-SPS just by way of being a company with multiple writers.
They also actually seem to be somewhat of a "real, legitimate, internet newspaper" based on their about page and strong statement of editorial independence. I think this might push them into non-SPS territory even without the 'loophole' I mention above.
No opinion yet about the overall reliability of The Urbanist otherwise; we need to first determine if it is self-published. PK-WIKI (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
This was something I had been wondering about. What is the line between a "self-published source" and a reputable news organization? Clearly there must be one, otherwise The New York Times would not be considered a reliable source. But Wikipedia's policies do not seem to define such a line. If a journalist writes an article and their employer publishes it, are they considered separate entities in this context? If so, then surely The Urbanist is not self-published. (This is mostly just me sharing my thoughts; I don't necessarily expect you to have an answer.) Saucy[talk – contribs] 12:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
There isn't agreement on the exact definition of what is or isn't selfpublished. There's agreement that if a person can write and publish without any intermediate then that's definitely selfpublished, the opposite is "traditional" publishing as defined in WP:USESPS where most would agree those sources are not selfpublished. These no agreement inbetween. The RFC from 2024 explicitly rejected the idea that they should always be considered selfpublished, as far as I know the USESPS essay hasn't been updated to reflect that consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The word “self-published” means the author and publisher are the same person (and probably can be extended to the case of a very small group of people, all of whom are both authors and publishers); as soon as there are people involved who are not the authors, the label is inappropriate. Corporations, by definition, cannot self-publish (because a corporation is an abstract entity not capable of writing anything). SPS or not is an extremely limited framework for discussing sources and the efforts by some editors to distort it to cover (e.g.) corporate websites or NGO political groups is badly flawed. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
The ability to launder any self-published source into a viable source for Wikipedia simply by starting an LLC and hiring a couple employees seems equally flawed. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Even in that context articles by the owner would still be considered self-published, if Jeff Bezos publishes an article in the Washington Post tommorrow we would treat it as self published. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
That's an easy distinction and decision in the case of an article with a byline, but websites with unattributed content are routinely used as "non-SPS" sources here when it's extremely likely (or impossible to tell if) the owner/publisher also did the writing themselves or directly and specifically commissioned it. PK-WIKI (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
My good faith assumption in those cases would be that whoever is adding it is unaware of that aspect of the source... With the exception of the end there "directly and specifically commissioned it" does not in general fall under SPS unless we're talking opinion/editorial content which. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
There are plenty of news websites that don't byline their content but still have editorial processes. I have found many Japanese newspapers like this. Katzrockso (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we have ever treated "not being self-published" as automatically making something reliable, so if there is any editor making that argument that would seem to be an issue with that specific editor and not our guidelines in general. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The problem is not “laundering” self-published sources by setting up an llc and hiring employees (an extremely expensive and time-consuming suggestion btw), it’s editors here who don’t understand that “is it self-published?” is a totally separate question from “is it reliable?”, not determinative in either direction. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
It's actually very common, as a site gets popular, for a personal website to create a business and hire employees. But the publishing workflow remains fundamentally unchanged: the boss determines exactly what is published, and when, and either creates the content themself or pays for it to be created. No "editorial process" or "independent reviewers" have been inserted into the process. It does not resemble anything like a newspaper or traditional publisher.
This is mentioned at WP:SPS Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites... and at WP:USESPS If the author works for a company, and the publisher is the employer, and the author's job is to produce the work (e.g., sales materials or a corporate website), then the author and publisher are the same.
SPS sources might be colloquially "reliable", but the entire point of the SPS policy is/was to fully prevent self-published sources from being used (unless written by a legitimate, previously-published expert) and instead base the encyclopedia on traditionally published sources. Self-published material [...] are largely not acceptable as sources. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
But the publishing workflow remains fundamentally unchanged: the boss determines exactly what is published, and when, and either creates the content themself or pays for it to be created. Read what you’ve written: the process “I hire someone to write content, that I post on my website” is a completely different process from “I write something and post it directly to my website“. It involves two people, an author and a publisher, the latter of whom (in your story) doubtless checks that the work of the author is consistent with the mission of the website. That mission may or may not be compatible with being a reliable source, but there is no doubt that the procedure is entirely different.
The footnote in WP:SPS is full of nonsense, clearly written by a person who suffers from the delusion that the only way to conclude that Coca-Cola’s website is not a reliable source for the merits of drinking sugary beverages is to slap this ridiculous label on it; in particular, the WP text written there is directly contradicted by the sources it is allegedly based on. In fact, there are totally separate reasons for things to be reliable or unreliable, and trying to wedge reliability questions into an SPS framework is lazy and misguided. The footnote is terrible and it should be fixed to remove the false statements. ~2025-31850-11 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I, and others, disagree that the process is different. A personal website where the husband is the "publisher" and the wife is the "writer" is exactly the same as a personal website where the wife does both jobs. PK-WIKI (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Lol look at the speed of those goalposts! ~2025-33108-20 (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
As per my comment above, USESPS is out of date per the RFC that rejected the idea that work by an employee is always a selfpublished source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Can you please link that RFC? PK-WIKI (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature found consensus to reject "Such literature is always WP:SPS" and the follow up Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/SPS RfC failed to find consensus for any definition of SPS. The discussions at the time, and the comments in the RFC show that there isn't community support for the concept of traditional publishers used by USESPS or that it only applies to "I write something and post it directly to my website". Until there is a more solid consensus there's not really bad solid definition. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Of course there's also the RFC on SBM, only the editor are considered selfpublished, or GLAADS which is not considered selfpublished. USESPS just doesn't match community practice, so it needs a positive consensus behind it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say it automatically makes something reliable, I said it makes the source viable. As in, policy says SPS websites are "largely not acceptable as sources" unless written by an already-established expert. They also have major limitations in BLP articles even if written by an expert. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
There's also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/SPS RfC from around February 2025 which was closed as no consensus. The current footnote in WP:SPS still says lack of independent reviewers as the defining characteristic, though it seems like it's sufficiently unclear to people that we're pretty much going to be going to decide on a case by case basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:29, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
There definitely is a difference between johnsmith.com and something at leas purporting to be objective. But obviously having more staff and opinions shows some semblance of control. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
While I would very much welcome having another source around to use in local articles, I have serious concerns about the accuracy of their reporting. I have privately seen credible criticism of their reporting from among the local urbanist community, both in the past and even more recently, and do not think they are reliable enough. At the minimum, it would not be usable for good and featured articles, which is the standard I try to aim for with articles. SounderBruce 07:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate this perspective; I had not been aware of concerns regarding their accuracy. Saucy[talk – contribs] 12:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Personal concerns and "privately seen credible criticism" do not downgrade the reliability of a source. Please show us where such concerns have been published, and by who.
Seeing as the original revert was based on The Urbanist being self-published, responding to that aspect would also be helpful. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
@SounderBruce could you provide an example or two of that? I am interested in this subject generally so it would be helpful to be aware of. ← Metallurgist (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
These were private conversations and cannot be shared in full, but one common critique I hear is that their analysis of housing policy is particularly poor. This article was linked to having some errors from misinterpreting the source (a city report) that would result in it being unusable as a reliable source. SounderBruce 07:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
Context matters. What claim are they being used to support? This is the sort of source that may be useful but absent a specific use case we shouldn't give it a thumbs up or down. Springee (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
Towards the end of my initial message, I provided a specific case where this source was used, if that helps. Saucy[talk – contribs] 12:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
I do not see this as a self-published source. There is a clear editorial structure, they have listed their policies for fact-checking and correction, COI, editorial independence, etc.
This seems like a perfectly good use of the source, even if this noticeboard declares it unreliable, as the edit also cited a primary source. Why does the current version of the article not have the secondary source? It helps establishing the information is WP:DUE. Katzrockso (talk) 05:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Is Rein Taagepera a reliable source for a list of empires by maximum size?

Latest comment: 15 days ago55 comments9 people in discussion

We're going round and round (and round) in circles about this on the talk page at List of largest empires, so it seemed a good idea to throw this open to broader commentary. I'm referring particularly to the following books and articles where Rein Taagepera was author or co-author:

  1. "Size and duration of empires: systematics of size"
  2. "Size and duration of empires: growth-decline curves, 3000 to 600 B.C."
  3. "Size and duration of empires: growth-decline curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D."
  4. "Expansion and contraction patterns of large polities: context for Russia"
  5. "More People, Fewer States" (particularly the listing provided on p. 76)

FOARP (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

He's an academic in a relevant field, published by reliable sources, the topic is rather niche but the journal articles have at least 500 odd cites between them according to Google Scholar. Does 'More People, Fewer States" have any scholarly reviews? I couldn't find any. It only has a few cites, but it's niche and only published last year. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I guess I should get my thoughts on record here and say that from my POV Taagepera is generally reliable for what should be included in a list of empires though, just as with any source, their more extraordinary listings (I'm thinking particularly of Kazakhstan) could reasonably do with confirmation in another source if challenged. FOARP (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to assume he is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Yes. Academically, quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities is quite a niche topic. Within that niche, Rein Taagepera is by far the most central scholar—Taagepera is the recognized authority as far as area estimates of historical polities go—and the series of articles above (sources 1–4) constitute the core scholarly work on the topic. Taagepera's work is a highly-regarded and widely-cited piece of scholarly work. It is a series of peer-reviewed scientific articles specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities which outlines its sources and methodology, and scholarship on the territorial extents of historical polities relies heavily on it, as it occupies a central position in the literature on the topic in a way that is similar to the position of McEvedy and Jones' Atlas of World Population History in the literature on historical population estimates. Taagepera's work on the subject of the territorials extents of historical polities is in other words not just mainstream, it's the go-to source for other authors working on the same topic. As a series of peer-reviewed scientific articles specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and the one other sources rely the most heavily on, it is the WP:BESTSOURCE on that topic. TompaDompa (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    With the context of course that the vast majority of scholars reject the entire concept of assigning fixed boundaries and measures to historical polities prefering instead to view boundaries as fluid or layered especially when it comes to empires. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    Well, kinda-sorta but also not quite. As Taagepera says (p. 477), the color patches in historical atlases indicate a widespread belief that some territories can be assigned to some political entities, from 3000 BC on [...] There is fair agreement among the atlases on the identity and extent of the attributions, reflecting some consensus among the historians more generally. (I might also recommend reading p. 113 here). At any rate: if quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities (or attempting to, at least) is a valid endeavour, Taagepera is the WP:BESTSOURCE for it. TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    So the best source is a scholar who only does it as a side field? This is not Taagepera's core area of expertise after all. You're also presented an article from 1978 and one from 1997 as reflecting the current scholarly consensus which seems impossible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    As noted, it is a very niche topic (if it weren't niche, we would expect to either see multiple competing data sets similar to Taagepera's or a single canonical/consensus one that a large number of authors have collaborated on, but we don't—the sources largely rely on Taagepera's work, occasionally making some adjustments). I don't know what the best source on the topic that predates Taagepera's work is, but it wouldn't surprise if me there wasn't really anything remotely comparable. There likewise hasn't been all that much research on the topic since, and what there is (e.g. Turchin et al. 2006 and Scheidel 2020) relies very heavily on Taagepera (and for what it's worth, none of the more recent research that I have come across outlines outlines its sources and methodology as Taagepera does—for instance, Scheidel uses Cioffi-Revilla et al. (2011) for some area estimates, e.g. in the case of the Dzungar Khanate, but the years these are attached to must come from elsewhere since Cioffi-Revilla et al. does not provide the years the area estimates apply to, only the start and end dates of the polity). I might also note that More People, Fewer States, also by Taagepera (alongside Miroslav Nemčok) and which updates some figures, was published in 2024. As for the color patches in historical atlases, that is still to the best of my knowledge how they indicate the extent of historical polities (and a quick look at a few published in more recent years seems to bear this out). TompaDompa (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
    Thats not just a niche topic, it appears to be a fringe one... If there are exactly zero academics who hold it as their core area of expertise then its not even really a field is it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I don't think that follows. As an analogy: if there are exactly zero academics who hold a particular anatomical feature of one specific species as their core area of expertise, but multiple peer-reviewed articles have been published on it, it may not be a field but that doesn't make it fringe either—it would just be a very niche topic. But you could always start a WP:AfD discussion for List of largest empires on the basis that the entire concept is WP:FRINGE, if you want. TompaDompa (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    That analogy doesn't work, this isn't anywhere near that specific and it ignores that the best reliable sources are in fact those scholars who hold the study of these empires within their core expertise not Taagepera. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I mean, the study of these empires is not the same thing as quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities. List of largest empires is not about the culture, economy, legal system, or what-have-you of the listed entries, it's about quantifying their territorial extents. Taagepera is the most respected authority on the question "what was the area of polity X in the year Y?". That doesn't make Taagepera the source to turn to when it comes to the question "when was the peak of empire X?" or "what were the borders of empire X?", but if you want a figure in km2, Taagepera is the one you ask. You might be surprised as to how niche the question of quantifying territorial extents of historical polities is. Having spent a not-inconsiderable amount of time trying to track down such figures for various polities, I can tell you it's not particularly easy. Taagepera's work is a rare example of peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject, and the only one I have found (that I can recall) that outlines a rigorous and methodical approach for coming up with those figures. It turns out that scholars largely do not find quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities particularly interesting—at least not when compared to other aspects of historical polities such as their cultures, wars involving them, and so on—which is reflected in the dearth of sources that actually go into any depth in coming up with such figures (a rare example of one that appears to do so—though I haven't taken a close enough look to say for sure—is Zenonas Norkus's An Unproclaimed Empire: the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (2018), which deals with the territorial evolution of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, building upon Taagepera's work to provide more detailed and accurate area estimates for that particular polity). If you think that makes List of largest empires inherently WP:FRINGE in its very concept, I would again suggest that WP:AfD is the place to make that case. If not, well, there's really no getting around Taagepera's work having the standing in academia that it does: it is the most central work on the (rather niche) subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities. That's not my opinion—that's how other scholars treat it. TompaDompa (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    "Taagepera is the most respected authority on the question" and "that's how other scholars treat it" are literally your opinion, you have provided no source which says that in its own words. Can you also stop linking to Wikipedia:Fringe theories? Thats an entirely different use of the word fringe which doesn't apply in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    "Rein Taagepera has conducted the most important research on changes in the geographical area of historical empires."; "The pioneer of quantitative imperiological research, and even now the unsurpassed leader, is American-Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera (b. 1933)." TompaDompa (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    That doesn't appear to be the same question, if this was a page about modeling changes in the geographical area of historical empires Taagepera is absolutely our guy but less so here... He's generally much more interested in the rate of expansion or contraction than maximum or minimum size. His work is really not designed for that, it would be like using his electoral systems theory work on a page for list of largest elections. Perhaps you should start by making a page for quantitative imperiological research? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you've lost me—what is the point you are trying to make? That Taagepera is not a reliable source for the list of largest empires article? That the list of largest empires article should not exist in the first place? TompaDompa (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Taagepera is not setting out to calculate maximum size, that simply is not the point of his work and using it in that way doesn't seem right. Again it would be like sourcing vote totals from his work on elections, the number might be in there but its going to come from somewhere else. So why use this source in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Calculating the maximum size of individual polities is one of the things Taagepera is interested in, even if it is not the main focus. There is some discussion of maximum sizes in the text, datapoints for various entries are labelled as the peak of that particular polity, and Table 3. in "Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size" is a ranked list by maximum size. You say that the number might be in there but its going to come from somewhere else, but that's just it—the numbers in Taagepera's work don't come from elsewhere, they were calculated by Taagepera. We can't cite the source Taagepera used for the numerical value, because that source does not provide that numerical value. But if we roll with the idea that Taagepera is not an appropriate source to use for the list of largest empires article, then the same thing applies to the sources that get their data from Taagepera (e.g. Turchin et al. and Scheidel), and then there's really not much left since we are not exactly spoiled for choice when it comes to serious sources that quantify the territorial extents of historical polities. We more-or-less end up in a situation where we can't really have an article on that topic at all—but that would then be a question for WP:AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    That isn't how RS works and I don't appreciate the way in which you're escalating this discussion by using non-sequiter bold links... Nobody besides you is talking about WP:FRINGE or WP:AfD. Those seem like red herrings getting thrown out because you don't like what you're being told on the meat of the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    You said the topic was "fringe". I took that too mean WP:FRINGE in the Wikipedia-specific sense. You clarified that wasn't what you meant, so I dropped it. You said Taagepera is not setting out to calculate maximum size, that simply is not the point of his work and using it in that way doesn't seem right. The point I am making is that if Taagepera is not appropriate to use for that reason, we are not really left with many sources that would be appropriate to use—hence we might not be able to have an article on the subject at all (which would be a question for WP:AfD). Anyway, the short answer to why use this source in this context? is that other scholars do—that's why the lists provided by Turchin et al. (2006) and Scheidel (2020) largely reproduce Taagepera's figures (with some adjustments) and are explicitly based on Taagepera's work. It might help us understand each other if you would explain what kind of sources you think should be used for the list of largest empires article. TompaDompa (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    And what bearing does such a point have on the question in front of us? "But we would have to delete this article" and "But that would mean we couldn't use this other source" are not arguments accepted at this venue even if we take them at face value (again, I don't think you really get how RS works, even if Taagepera isn't usable that doesn't mean that work which uses theirs or is based on theirs wouldn't be). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    If you would explain what kind of sources you think should be used for the list of largest empires article, it might help us understand each other, as I said. It might reveal that one of us has misunderstood the other or the source, for instance. It might help me understand your position better in terms of what would be different about such sources. As for downstream sources: if they reproduce Taagepera's figures, we are in the situation we described earlier: the number might be in there but its going to come from somewhere else. And to reiterate: the short answer to why use this source in this context? is that other scholars do. TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I will not, that is not what we do at RSN and I don't think that any amount of explanation can actually move you... You've bludgeoned everyone who has tried to explain this in detail to you so I don't think you're actually listening. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I am genuinely trying to understand, but I am finding it a bit difficult to follow what you are saying at times. If I have understood you correctly, your objections are (1) this is not Taagepera's core area of expertise and (2) Taagepera is not setting out to calculate maximum size. In good faith: did I get that right, and did I miss something? TompaDompa (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I think the miscommunication may be over what "this" is with each of us seeing a slightly different underlying topic, from my perspective its more or less a single point with "this" being the maximum size of empires. I think below we're more or less worked it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Right. I suppose this might be where we will just have to agree to disagree. I think the WP:USEBYOTHERS for lists of polities by maximum size is sufficient indication that this is an appropriate source to use in such a context. TompaDompa (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    I might also add that I'm not saying either "But we would have to delete this article" or "But that would mean we couldn't use this other source", as you put it, as arguments in favour of Taagepera. I am, on the other hand, trying to establish how we should move forward with the article if Taagepera cannot be used. One important aspect there is "if we cannot use what is currently the principal source, what (kind of) sources can we use?" TompaDompa (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    This is not where you would establish that, this is RSN and that is something for the article talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Your second quote is from a source which goes on to examine Taagapera's work in various ways, e.g. "Having made these presumptions about prehistoric times, Taagepera continued by simply measuring the territories of historic polities as they were depicted in historic atlases and calculated the N and N values for the periods reflected in the atlases."[43] NebY (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. Taagepera's method is clearly outlined in Taagepera's own work, which was peer-reviewed and published in an academic journal. It is linked above. TompaDompa (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    His interest, which that source discusses in detail, is not in the absolute sizes of the polities or the accuracy of the mapping. It is in the growth or decline of Na and Np (sorry I didn't notice those subscripts dropped out of my paste above). As the source continues, "He discovered that both Na and Np were in continual decline since the beginning of written history." For this purpose, the correctness of the historical atlases is irrelevant so long as has he can obtain areas that have been presented on the same basis for the same polity at more than one point in time, and not addressed. NebY (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    That is one of the things Taagepera looks at, but not the only one. The correctness of the historical atlases (or more accurately, that they reflect scholarly consensus) is addressed: the color patches in historical atlases indicate a widespread belief that some territories can be assigned to some political entities, from 3000 BC on [...] There is fair agreement among the atlases on the identity and extent of the attributions, reflecting some consensus among the historians more generally. (Taagepera 1997, p. 477). TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Notice the nuance in Taagepera's framing which is entirely absent from your own. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Nevertheless, this is not something that is unaddressed by Taagepera. TompaDompa (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Nobody has argued that it was unaddressed by Taagepera and the point that it was not his interest stands. Taagepera is interested in change, not max extent and only cares about size to the extent that its a somewhat universal standard (while he clearly acknowledges is an academic fiction which he employs for its utility not its accuracy). To take his numbers and present them outside of that context as the actual size of the empires is using them in a way he never intended or endorsed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    I parsed For this purpose, the correctness of the historical atlases is irrelevant so long as has he can obtain areas that have been presented on the same basis for the same polity at more than one point in time, and not addressed. as the correctness of the historical atlases is [...] not addressed. Did I get that wrong? TompaDompa (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    That was mine, not Horse Eye's Back's. Thank you for pointing out that Taagepera did address it and for quoting the way he did so, which makes the point even more strongly that the absolute correctness of the historical atlases in any particular instance was irrelevant for his purposes and that he merely found them a justifiable working basis for his exploration of changes over time - not for producing a list of empires by maximum size. NebY (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    But Taagepera did produce a list of empires (and states) by maximum size? Table 3 on p. 126 of "Size and Duration of Empires: Systematics of Size". TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, and in that paper he describes his purpose and method: "measuring areas on historical maps" (by which of course he means modern historical atlases, not maps made in the more distant past) so that he can obtain a visualisation and determine trends. "A 10% error on all areas reported should be expected." "there will be arbitrary quantitative threshholds." "These definitions ... have been reworked until they expressed the features which are thought to be qualitatively important. Beyond that, the main demand is that the definitions be operational." He's concerned with having a self-consistent and reproducible basis for his geoholistic study of growth-decline patterns. NebY (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, the approach is self-consistent and reproducible, and it produced (be it as a by-product) a ranked list of polities by maximum size. And other scholars have been comfortable using Taagepera's figures for their own lists of polities by maximum size (be it with caveats as to the limitations inherent in estimating the sizes of empires in the first place). From a WP:USEBYOTHERS perspective, this would seem to me to be an appropriate source to use in such a context. TompaDompa (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
    I see your point about the limited correspondence between the calculated numerical values and the actual size of the empires. Scheidel says something similar: the boundaries of empire are notoriously hard to define [...] Overall, anything resembling precision often remains beyond our reach. These tallies are simply meant to convey a sense of orders of magnitude. TompaDompa (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
  • No. It is a poor source which makes basic mistakes: 1 - it claims that Brazil achieved full control of its present territory in 1900, when in reality it only conquered Acre (state) in 1903, and control of the deep Amazon was a fantasy back then. 2 - it lists the territorial peak of the Spanish Empire in 1810, when it was falling apart after Napolean installed his brother as king. 3 - it claims Britain controlled the entire territory of Australia, Canada, and India in 1850.
It is a useful source because it lists the territory of several obscure empires, but we should uses alternatives wherever possible. In fact that's what more recent scholarship does, like Scheidel (2020): Table 2.1 is based mostly on Taagepera [...] with corrections from [...] for several Inner Asian empires, and from Etemad 2007, 134-187, for modern colonial empires [...].
I find frankly inexplicable the obsession with this flawed source and the refusal to use the corrected figures. Tercer (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Indian Journal of Dentistry

Latest comment: 14 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know what happened to Indian Journal of Dentistry? It's still UGC Journals list, but it's website is now "Indian Journal of Dentistry Indian - Dental Health Care Blog". But DOIs still point to that site (e.g., https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-962X.184649).

On Feb. 23 2019 it looks like it's still a journal website[44] but by April 3 it's blank[45] and at some point after that it becomes a WordPress blog. Guettarda (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The website appears to have gone offline in late 2020, and was usurped in March the next year. The usual practice would be to replace effected URLs with an archive links (WP:USURPURL). I'm surprised the DOI links work anymore, as they have to be paid for annually.
There's only eleven uses of the journal[46], so some manual intervention would be possible. GreenC have you seen squatting of DOI links like this before? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I have seen where spammers repurpose old content, possibly scrapped from the Wayback Machine, to give the site a veneer of credibility. If you want to add it to the list of domains at WP:JUDI my bot will automatically follow the usurpation steps; but manual is still best since the bot can't determine when to delete the entire reference and some other edge cases. -- GreenC 16:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The American Prospect, Washington Monthly, and The Progressive

Latest comment: 14 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I’ve seen The American Prospect, a wonkish left magazine cited 971 times across a wide variety of articles on this site (several times by myself, with attribution); the similarly in-depth though somewhat more moderate Washington Monthly 711 times; and The Progressive (a tad more opinionated than either) 334 times.

My presumption is that they simply haven’t appeared on this noticeboard because they did not have an RfC called for them and/or their reliability is not in dispute. (It’s the same reason the Chicago Tribune doesn’t appear on the LOPS.) Am I correct? Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The first and most imported check on a sources reliability is an editors own good judgement. Of all sources only a tiny subset will ever need to come here. Are you challenging these, or has another editor challenged there addition to an article? If noone challenges, or has concerns about, a sources it isn't discussed here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I have no challenges then. I intended just to check, and I blundered into an unspoken rule I didn’t learn about. My bad Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Anyone looking for advice is welcome, it's just that the noticeboard isn't for ranking all sources without any context. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
The only thing I know about TAP is that then-US president Biden wrote an article there, without it being labeled as an opinion piece. Their other articles (going off the headlines) appear to be similarly opinionated. So I'd consider it an opinionated source and its claims attributed per WP:NEWSOPED. ―Howard • 🌽33 13:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Personally I think they’re generally reliable for their in-depth investigations (Moe Tkacik’s fulminating on Israel notwithstanding) and coverage of economic policy, but news:opinion blend-wise, they’re similar to The Nation, The Atlantic and Mother Jones on coverage of day-to-day politics and candidates. Attribution would be a “may be required” level at least.
But as an editor, I don’t have enough context to bring up a serious challenge right now. I don’t think I have grounds for an RfC either. Jarrod Baniqued (he/him) (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I'd say it's generally reliable. Be mindful of it's politics as needed for contextual and balance reasons.
I found heavy utility, for example, from one article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonations_of_United_States_immigration_officials#cite_note-Bethune_ICE_2025-06-24-1 on Impersonations of United States immigration officials. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
I think it seems quite clear the website freely mixes opinion and factual reporting, but this is all I can say without performing an in-depth review of its reliability. This would put it at the same level of Reason or Jacobin, as I see it. ―Howard • 🌽33 18:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_495&oldid=1324273823"