Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources § Forbes

 – Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Forbes and its publications are on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources but not here. It really needs to be treated as deprecated. Reasons: (1) A few years ago, they let go most of their editorial staff. (2) They accept press releases. (3) They accept "contributors" who are basically bloggers. (4) It's basically a grifter's paradise. (5) It's indirect undisclosed paid eduting. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Any source can be deprecated through an RfC. I'd like to gauge the rest of RSN before starting it, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• They're pretty much a slop website but I'm not sure if deprecation is needed right now. Based on the absence of editorial and the press release issue it might be appropriate to downgrade the reliability of WP:FORBES though. WP:FORBESCON already addresses contributors. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• see here and here for a list of times that Forbes has come up here. I was involved in some of those, and I seem to recall a rather strong consensus that the reliability of a Forbes.com link rests entirely upon the credited author, and that the Forbes name adds nothing in terms of reliability. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  We might want to revise WP:FORBES to make that more clear then. Simonm223 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not a bad idea. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed that WP:FORBES should now be treated as WP:GUNREL for the reasons laid out. - Amigao (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we make this an RfC? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm in favour of this, especially since Forbes has received such wide discussion, and is also a fairly well known source.

  Discussions listed at perennial sources WP:FORBES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 A

  Discussions listed ad perennial sources WP:FORBESCON: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

  It is also very widely used, with at least 60,000 links on Wikipedia. Mitchsavl (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also in favor of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with making present-day Forbes GUnRel. I feel like their non-contributor articles (well, when they had them) were reliable before a certain point, though. Maybe we should figure out a cut-off point? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems that people presenting arguments for moving to GUNREL; nobody has presented arguments for deprecation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab–Israeli conflict is designated as a contentious topic with special editing restrictions. Editing and discussing this topic is restricted to extended confirmed users. You are not logged in, so you are not extended confirmed. Your account is extended confirmedis not extended confirmed, but you are an administrator, so your account is extended confirmed by default. Participants are limited to 1,000 words per formal discussion.

Amid the ongoing war, is it a source to be relied upon? They are the ones who spread the extremely high death toll for the protests of last January, which they supposedly verified, but who are the verificators in the first place? Who is behind this organization? Shoshin000 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note the discussion started two months ago here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion in January 2026 editors who frequent this board view it as generally reliable. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We don't determine reliability on the basis of vague "who's behind the organisation" questions. TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath You wrote: Biased against the Islamic Republic. This is not a bad position to be in. Any regime that beats a girl to death for not wearing a hijab is one that any decent person or group ought to be biased against.[10] I agree. But lets not pretend Saudi Arabia shares our values. Manahel al-Otaibi & Human rights in Saudi Arabia & LGBTQ rights in Saudi Arabia & Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Polygnotus (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lets not pretend Saudi Arabia shares our values

I don't think anyone was. TarnishedPath^talk 00:07, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its one of those the enemy of my enemy is not my friend kinda deals. Polygnotus (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion two months ago found a general consensus that it's biased but reliable (which I myself agreed with at that discussion), and I haven't seen anything to change my mind on that. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion for another apparent example of this source publishing false info. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a very thin example: it reported SOME desertions; other sources said there were no WIDESPREAD desertions. That’s not an indictment. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's only a "thin" for average consumer of media, but for the Wikipedia it constitutes evidence of unreliability - if you are deliberately fabricating sensational stories and building a fabricated narrative based on it (and they are building a narrative of an almost completely collapsed system of government and state), you are unreliable source. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:17, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is not evidence of unreliability, the article is in line with reporting from others, as "some desertions" and "no widespread desertions" are not mutually exclusive descriptors of the number of desertions. You would also need to specify how the articles are fabricating sensational stories, as from reading the articles they are measured in their descriptions and do not make any bombastic claims. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It claimed "in some units the rate of absence or desertion has reportedly approached 90 percent approached 90 percent"[11], which was widely contradicted by other RS.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC) (edited in response to below commentVR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC))[reply]

"while in some units the rate of absence or desertion has reportedly approached 90 percent." is what actually says, which is pretty different from "It claimed desertions approached 90 percent". Why did you omit that? HistoryofIran (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't omit this in my main comment[12] and edited above comment. But the point remains that that Iran International's reporting is contradicted by dozens of RS on this issue. For example, Financial Times quotes an intelligence official saying "we have not seen desertions or cracks emerging...or any real indication of a loss of control"[13] Its hard to imagine how "90% desertion" in multiple units is not a "real indication of a loss of control".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There can be still be control despite defections, that goes without saying. As you already well aware, there are multiple sources that say desertions are happening [14] [15] [16] [17]. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this is an erroneous argument, many RS simply have not even 1/10th of International's resources and connections inside Iran, international has broken exclusive news in regard to Iran long before other sources have done so without fail. Including Khamenei's confirmed death, Mojtaba's election with pressure from IRGC, information on leaked stories like many of the regime's atrocities and corruption like locations of new sites after 12 days war and many more.

I am not going to even point out how often many outlets considered RS peddle regime propaganda and talking points without any care.

Besides, you tried to push a narrative that international has claimed something that International clearly has not done, you misrepresented their reportage to push forward your own pov. Now you are trying to change the subject.

As I said, many RS have constantly reported erroneously on Iran, this argument of yours does not hold water. Kane 1371 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable. They have time and time broken exclusive stories on events unfolding in Iran that many other sources reported on later... sometimes much later.

When it comes to events in Iran there isn't any other source more trusted among the Iranians either and the amount of audience participation with their content is a solid proof of that. They receive first hand video footage and photograph, reports from the people, in their programs that allows the audience to contact them via phone calls or voice memos they are constantly receiving calls to the point of very long (sometimes weeks long wait lines are formed for participation), although this prese might be scuffed at but it indicates a trust built with an audience. A trust that many other outlets like BBC, Manoto, Deutschewelle, euro news, voa and radio free Europe simply do not share.

For all the claim about bias in favour of royalists the channel covers all news, today and yesterday they covered the events of Iran Freedom Congress held in London with zero bias despite the said congress being held by a diverse group of opponents to the royalists.

They have constantly represented ethnic minorities on their channel, many of the people working for them are of Kurdish and Azerbaijani ethnicities. On their debate shows they always make sure to not let fringe theories and claims of any side go unchallenged and have not even once tried to censor anybody's voice. Just the other day one of their journalists expressed his anti war stance very clearly on air, despite it being a rather unpopular stance with many in their audienc.

They are not perfect, there are issues in talent relations among other things where former disgruntled journalists complain about the accommodation etc, but that is not related to their reportage work. Kane 1371 (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

None of them makes the 90% claim. The BBC says "isolated cases of desertion", which is quite different from 90% desertion in multiple units. The ABC source is from before the war, and says nothing about the war. And yes, I do agree that Trump, his secretary Bessent, Reza Pahlavi (with whom Iran International has ties) and Pahlavi's close associates (such as the FDD) are also peddling Iran International's claims of mass defections, but none of these sources is reliable, and RS push back strongly against these claims:

• NYT: "Secretary Scott Bessent said in the Oval Office earlier this week “we are seeing defections at all levels as they’re starting to sense what’s going on with the regime.” But American and European intelligence officials say they have no evidence of such defections"[18]
• The Times: "President Trump suggests the clerical establishment is collapsing from within but analysts say there are no significant signs of defections in Tehran"[19]
• Just today from Guardian quoting ACLED: "but the regime has not fragmented and there are no defections."[20] Keep in mind that ACLED uses real data that it publishes online and is backed by numerous scholars. We don't have a clue where exactly Iran International came up with the "90 percent" figure.

And as mentioned, if you need me to quote 10, 20, 30 reliable sources all pushing back against these claims, just ask.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not "90 desertion im multiple units" but "some units the rate of absence or desertion has reportedly approached 90 percent." We do not know how big or small this is. The cited sources above are clearly WP:RS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Saudi propaganda outlet, which is famous for "leaking" stuff to make their enemies look bad. Some of their output is fabricated, all of it is propaganda. Polygnotus (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funded by the Saudis or actual Saudi state media? TarnishedPath^talk 00:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Funded by the Saudis. Polygnotus (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Similar situation as al jazeera english and qatar? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera has a bias. Iran International has a mission (regime change). See also Al Jazeera controversies and Qatar diplomatic crisis and Iran–Saudi Arabia relations and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy war. Polygnotus (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is not even a remotely convincing argument. It can be argued that essentially every Arabic-language news source has a "mission". aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And despite that you believe them all? If you believe that Saudi Arabia is a reliable source of information about Iran or vice versa then I have a bridge to sell you. Polygnotus (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Bias, even extreme bias, doesn't make a source unreliable. Stating that Iran is bad, while ignoring anything bad that Saudi Arabia does, doesn't mean that Iran didn't do a bad thing. The question when it comes to bais is how much WP:WEIGHT you give that source, not it's reliability (does it emphasis details unreported by other sources, do other sources give conflicting reports, etc).
Rather than focusing on that, have they posted actual misinformation or have unretracted errors? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see my comment below.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I find the organisation's journalistic ethics highly questionable, and I do think we can and should question organisation backing when/if it is evident that it comes from entities such as other unfriendly dictatorships, etc. What would in their case "generally reliable" even mean if they routinely push bits and pieces of misinformation, buried under news that are or could be generally credible (practice rotten to the core). Unfortunately (consensus wise), I believe that we are, at this point, compelled to react on per situation basis, and request comment on every referencing of this source that seem suspicious. However, consensus tend to change, and there is no reason not to ask for another round of discussion every now and then if some new arguments and evidence arise.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per above and the past discussions, it is generally reliable.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 05:09, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As recently discussed, GREL FortunateSons (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any credible allegations of misinformation, and the article on the organization seems like it is probably reliable. Every news organization has bias, particularly nowadays. The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post have (evolving, but well-attested) biases in their reporting and especially their opinion sections. But that does not make them unreliable. Obviously, the opinion section shouldn't be used as a factual source except with care, but that's true of any outlet. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just found this discussion by chance after an admin closed the discussion I made. Anyways, I wanted to express my concern regarding Iran International may be engaged in questionable reporting? Recently they reported that Hossein Dehghan had been appointed by Iran as secretary of the Supreme Security Council on March 19, 2026 [21], I even cite the source in Dehghan's own article in good faith, until I stumbled upon this edit by an editor accusing the news site for spreading fake news [22]. Requesting for comments regarding this? AsianStuff03 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AsianStuff03 Not to be too blunt, but I don't really think one editor claiming it's fake news is indicative of a source's unreliability, especially when that editor doesn't appear to be a frequent contributor. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And just below Iran Int. article you are linking above you can read another one alleging "toll booth" narrative for passage through "Streight of Hormuz", as if it's a real thing and not misinterpretation of some basic facts, like in reality they allow some ships to pass through territorial waters, of course for money, because it's not international waters shipping rout it's a territorial waters, allowing foreign ships enter their state by crossing the border. Some western media using scare quotes to explain this, although a very few even bother to report on it by using a "toll booth" description because it would be misleading and unethical. So, that's the level of reliability. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC) (Edited) As I said in my post above, "they routinely push bits and pieces of misinformation, buried under news that are or could be generally credible (practice rotten to the core)".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:34, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aside but the Straits of Hormuz aren't Iranian territorial waters, one side of the straits is in Iran's territory waters the other side belongs to Oman (well UAE/Oman depending on were you define the start and end points). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:14, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Very unclear to me what the issue mentioned here about the "Streight [sic] of Hormuz". Might help to link to what you’re talking about BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

strait of hormuz is NOT sole territorial water Iran. In fact the ships have always crossed through the Oman/UAE territory of Hormuz.

Regime is currently forcing the ships that want to pass to cross into Iranian territory and also pay for the passage.

Your statement is wrong Kane 1371 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I have said. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 05:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

no it isn't, you are trying to shape a narrative that is not real. They are not allowing ships, they are forcing the ships Kane 1371 (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AsianStuff03 do you have reason to believe that the appointment of Hossein Dehghan is false information? I see other sources have reported it, some scouting II, that others, like them, citing “Iranian media” or Tasnim specifically. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, I don't think his appointment is false by any means (which is why I cited the Iran International source in his article in the first place). I only became a bit sceptical of the source due to recent updates of a new appointee to the position and an editor's accusation, that's all. But since a kind editor explained that I shouldn't rely on an accusation made by an inactive editor and the fact you mentioned Iranian media like Tasnim being cited by news sources like them for his appointment, it seems to me that Iran International is just reporting in good faith with no malicious intentions for falsifying info. AsianStuff03 (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of evidence this source is not reliable, from financiers being reported to have editorial influence to publishing false stories.

The disclosures are likely to raise concerns about the editorial independence of Iran International

The insider claimed the editorial content of the station had been influenced by its secret investors who were hidden behind an offshore Cayman Islands company. The MEK coverage, the insider said, was one such example.

The Guardian has seen leaked documents that suggest he raised questions and offered input into Iran International’s coverage of human rights in Saudi Arabia, as well as suggesting certain story ideas, particularly related to Iran and Saudi Arabia. [23]

Azadeh Moaveni, associate professor of journalism at New York University, described the channel as “one of the most pernicious and damaging forces to enter the Iranian media sphere,” calling it an arm of Saudi foreign policy. “I would not describe Iran International as pro-reform, or organically Iranian in any manner,” she told CNN.

Mohammad Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran who was also an adviser to the Iranian nuclear talks negotiating team, said there’s “no doubt” that Iran International is funded by Saudi Arabia. A prominent figure on state-funded Iranian outlets, Marandi added that Iran International spreads rumors, ethnic and sectarian strife “and it tries to use misinformation to create fear, chaos and promote violence.”[24]

Saudi Arabia is making “a systematic and very persistent push in a new direction in the media sphere,” said Negar Mortazavi, Iran International’s former Washington correspondent, who left the organization last year. “The Saudis want influence and credibility, and are paying a lot for it.” [25]

Question: The Iran International website reported that Armenia and Iran have allegedly signed a secret contract for the purchase of weapons worth 500 million USD. How would you respond to this information? 

Answer: Fictitious, false publications do not deserve a response. [26]

The Iranian ambassador in Yerevan, Mehdi Sobhani, also denied the Iran International report on Friday, saying that it is aimed at undermining the Islamic Republic’s relations with regional countries. In written comments to RFE/RL’s Armenian Service, Sobhani said the Persian-language media outlet is notorious for disseminating “untrue information and one-sided analyses about Iran.” [27]

The mere rumor of an arms deal caused an uproar in Azerbaijan. Caliber.Az, an outlet considered a mouthpiece for Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry, asserted that the article was “fake news,” intended to “derail” Azerbaijani-Iranian relations. Those bilateral ties have strengthened significantly over the past year, with development of the North-South trade corridor acting as the binding agent. [28]

For instance, Pouria Zeraati, a TV host at Iran International shared instances of fake news during the protests. Ali Javanmardi, an activist and journalist, did the same. The unverified information they shared included claims about Khamenei’s death and authorities fleeing the country. [29]

So I do not see any reason why this source should be considered reliable in light of these issues, no one has demonstrated any reason why this source is reliable nor what it should be used for. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great post with lots of works put in compiling it - I really appreciate it, thanks Traumnovelle. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"It's unreliable, just ask Mohammad Marandi and a Iranian ambassador"

Marandi's Wikipedia lede quite literally describes him as "one of the staunchest defenders of the Islamic Republic in English-language media"; his father was Khamenei's personal doctor. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that another example, Negar Mortazavi, has been criticized by Iranian diaspora groups and other Iranian media figures for her bias towards the Iranian government – she previously worked for/with National Iranian American Council, the IRGC's lobby group in the U.S. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Iranian ambassador is just supporting that the Armenian deal is a fake story. Armenia denies, Iran denies, Azerbaijan denies, and the US have not commented on it. No other source has confirmed this.

Mortazavi worked at the organisation, hence why she has been quoted. Your portrayal of her as being biased towards the Iranian government seems to be based on incredibly poor sourcing presented in her Wikipedia article. The sourcing for her being pro-government is: an obscure advocacy group [30] and Iran International. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia lede cited to IranWire and Iran International - is it reliable to cite two biased media outlets? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors on this talk page have previously determined, on various occassions, that Iran International is generally reliable; IranWire has not been discussed so I cannot comment on it.

The editor above is attempting to discredit Iran International (viewed as generally reliable) using the words of an individual described as connected to the Iranian government (by other sources reliable sources^[a]). It's simply not a convincing argument.

aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those previous discussions never really evaluated any evidence. There are reliable sources discussing how financiers have exerted editorial influence over the publication as well as publishing false/misleading information. Your continued focus on a single quote out of the many sources I quoted is a bad-faith distortion of the argument. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just rather unimpressed to be honest? Some of the sources are weak for reasons I pointed out above, but others are equally bad for other reasons – Armenpress, really? Do we not perhaps think that Armenia's state-owned news agency may have a reason to not be upfront about a possible controversial weapons deal given their public appeal for support against Azerbaijan and Iran's general opposition to Azerbaijan? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 2 years since the report and there has since been no other source supporting claim of a weapons deal. Azerbaijan also deny the claim. A half a billion dollar weapons deal is a hard thing to hide, I'd imagine if it were a truthful claim there would be further corroboration by now but I am not seeing anything that does not rely on the initial report from Iran International. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources are more reliable, more mainstream, more acceptable than IranWire or Iran International. Those personalities you are trying to discredit are involved with mainstream outlets, or media and other organizations. So, if they can publish in mainstream media publication or outlet, they are too mainstream and reliable. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there is no need to try, Negar Mortazavi has no credits to lose, literally on her very own wiki page it is said, she is an affiliate of NIAC. Kane 1371 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So what if she is affiliated with NIAC? IranIntl is topic of this RfC anyway. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

so your response to everything is "what if my own argument is busted, it is still valid" ?

You are trying to base your argument on citing people literally affiliated with a regime that commits uncountable human rights and freedom of speech violations.

Get real Kane 1371 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Busted with what, with a dry belligerent and patronizing tone? I thought she is/was affiliated with organization in Washington, the NIAC. Now she is affiliated with government, next time she could be perpetrator herself. Keep your focus on arguments, topic, and avoid a belligerent and especially that patronizing tone. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

do you even know what Niac is or are you just arguing for the sake of it? Kane 1371 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

She worked for organisation for 6 months in 2014. There is no association between her and the regime and making this assertion without evidence is a BLP violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah man, she is totally not still in colab with them.[31]

I mean if you want to downplay something you have chosen the worst possible one Kane 1371 (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to make spurious continued conspiracy allegations against a BLP without any sourcing supporting you I will be reporting you. BLP policy applies to talk pages too. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

you can't scare me buddy, my claim is literally backed by the said person's actions and associations.

Her affiliations with Niac are not even an open secret, it is a fact. Please go ahead and report me, don't forget to also show them my linked post from January 30th...2026! Kane 1371 (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Making the assertion that she works for NIAC, argal she works for the regime, is WP:SYNTH. You cannot 'put two and two together' to make a novel claim about a living on person on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

my assertion is she is affiliated with Niac, affiliated is me being nice and also giving the benefit of the doubt.

You really have no ground to stand on and you know it. The said person IS affiliated with NIAC which is the lobby for the regime in Iran.[32]

Furthermore Negar Mortazavi does not hide this affiliation either. And just to put the nail in this ridiculous discussion, here she is participating in NIAC's congressional briefing around 12 months ago [33]

Again the assertion is she is affiliated, here is a definition of affiliated, maybe that will help [34] Kane 1371 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus changes, sometimes frequently. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these examples are accusations by fundamentally dishonest state actors, Armenian or Iranian. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One is from The Guardian, one is from an NYU professor, one is from a former reporter for the organisation who fled Iran and is critical of the regime, and the other is a Dutch think tank. One is from a professor who has ties to the regime, and one other example are state denials of a claim that has only been made by Iran International, denied by all relevant parties and not confirmed by any other source. The only thing fundamentally dishonest is your misrepresentation. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve now looked at all of these carefully. The guardian in 2018 and Moaveni quoted by CNN in 2022 both give us reason to believe that the source is biased, but not that it unreliable. I suspect Clingendael might itself not be a reliable source, what we learned from the tweets of its hosts aren’t reliable sources, but we already knew that. The others we can discount. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian state that leaked documents show influence over editorial decisions by these investors, if journalists are not allowed to be editorially independent from the financier that is an obvious issue with reliability.

>what we learned from the tweets of its hosts aren’t reliable sources

If a Reuters, AP, BBC etc. journalist tweeted fake news they would be reprimanded for it and possibly lose their job. It shows that the journalists they hire are not concerned with factual reporting and that the organisation does not care if their journalists are spreading false news. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the tweet: Pouria Zeraati is accused of posting one tweet that said an “informed source” told him regime families were arriving in Canada. No I don’t think Reuters would consider that a sacking offence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to judge level of dishonesty of the state actors, and can current US government be standard of dishonesty, Israel maybe, or maybe EU, or someone else? We have two opposing factions fighting, ideologically, politically, and in the media, for control of Iran - who is to say who is more dishonest and who is less, and what level is that? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:05, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"fundamentally dishonest state actors", not how we blanket judge sources. Bias does not render Iran Intl. gunrel neither does it for other sources. Gotitbro (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a reliable source for topics relating to Saudi Arabia or Reza Pahlavi as it has a clear conflict of interest in discussing both those subjects.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, our own policy requires sources to be WP:INDEPENDENT, and II doesn't seem to be independent of the Saudi and Iranian royal families.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:15, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  this is a baseless claim. Kane 1371 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Cases of misinformation by Iran International in the current war:
  • They claimed that the crew of IRIS Bushehr "abandoning the ship" and "fled". (See also TP discussion here). No such thing was mentioned in the coverage by BBC News[35], AP News[36] and NYT[37]. The official reason was docking due to engine malfunctioning. AP further says this happened only after Sri Lankan discussions with "Iranian officials and the ship’s captain", so again it does not look like a defection/desertion. USNI also reports that this decision was only taken after discussions with "Iranian embassy officials"[38]. Naval News cites[39] a tweet[40] by Sri Lankan journalist saying this happened after "negotiations between Iran and Sri Lanka". The New York Times (another solid reliable source) also adds that this happened after discussion between "foreign ministries of Iran and Sri Lanka"[41].
  • Iran International claimed[42] that there were high rates of defection among the Iranian security forces, even reaching "90 percent"[43] in some units. But this was widely contradicted by other reliable sources. I can provide more examplesVR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC).[reply]

  But this was widely contradicted by other reliable sources.

  There was quite more to it, which you for some reason omitted. But this is already being discussed up above. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vice regent: having said/listed all that, I would argue that your statement in bold above should or could easily be extended to include anything related to war and regime change? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• There was also discussion of Iran International spreading misinformation here: Talk:2026_Minab_school_attack#Undue_content. Pinging participants (EvansHallBear— Gotitbro —HistoryofIran—Ibn Yagdhan—IOHANNVSVERVS—9ninety—Festucalex) VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That was not misinformation, it was Iran International mentioning that the Islamic Republic hides their equipment in civilian buildings, and thus suggests similiar efforts may have been done at Minab. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we have corroboration from any other RS on "similar efforts" at the Minab school? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:32, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  You said it was “misinformation” without backing it up. Please don’t cite your personal opinion next time. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't "misinformation" it was "disinformation". VR does not need to back up that statement, it was Iran International, and in extension you as an editor who is using it, that needs to back up such an extraordinary claim. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:40, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  "Disinformation" according to whom? HistoryofIran (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  According to me - that's my personal opinion and stance on the issue. But, that's not the point here, the point is that Iran International, and by extension you as an editor who is using Iran Int as a source, needs to provide strong evidence for such an extraordinary claim. After 100+ thousand edits under your belt that should be something that you are well aware of. Burden is on those who make such a claim. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:36, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  According to me - that's my personal opinion and stance on the issue.

  That's all I wanted to hear.

  After 100+ thousand edits under your belt that should be something that you are well aware of. Burden is on those who make such a claim

  After 20+ thousand edits under your belt you should be well aware that we base info on WP:RS, not our personal opinion. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, imagine, you are hearing my opinion in RfC, and since it is informed one maybe you could benefit by hearing it more often. Meanwhile, you still avoiding to respond to what I said: Iran International, and by extension you as an editor who is using Iran Int as a source, needs to provide strong evidence for any extraordinary claim made. It's a WP:BURDEN, I know, but it's a requirement. So, is there any chance I get something substantial beside these talk-quotation? Or you are just gaslighting with constant pointing to WP:RS, something which makes me ever more confident that you have a little clue of all what that guideline advises us to consider and follow? Are you aware that the core policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not requires that it be possible to verify a subject in independent sources, and that "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions"? Are you aware that "while information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included"? Are you aware that "reliability of a source depends on context"; on "how accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation"; that "questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". And finally, just fact that we are discussing it across several pages is alone a huge red flag on Iran Int as RS. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Your self declared “informed” opinion is yet to demonstrate how it is extradionary. Also, perhaps reading some more WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:GF will do you good. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How is extraordinary? Let's see: how about, no other media outlet made such a claim, no one used Iran Int. as a source so they too could publish such a claim, it was made completely without evidence of any kind, simply not fact-checked. They just published it. That's a campaign of disinformation. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Iran International suggested that the Iranian regime may have hid equipment in the school, as they have done other places, they never presented it as a fact, merely a suggestion. Disinformation means "false information spread deliberately in order to deceive people". HistoryofIran (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I know what "disinformation" means and that's why I suggested above that they are engaging in "disinformation" not "misinformation" in the first place. Well, they are just "suggesting" only a preposterous claim, one which allude thar Iranians are such a barbarians, maybe even animals if they are willing to put their prepubescent schoolgirls, mothers, sisters and wives in harm's way, a kind of only those pesky Palestinians are capable of with their human shields and such, so that they can kill few Israelis. If you are professional journalist working for news organisation that is suposed to operate at the highest standard of journalistic ethics, then you don't make preposterous claims without evidence and fact-checking, you don't deal in providing public a mass "suggestion" - you are nothing but propagandist then. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Not Iranians, the Iranian regime, two different things. You know, the same regime that massacres its own civilians? Doesn't sound so preposterous after all. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Many regimes massacred their own citizens in one time or another. Just the other day, in our shiny city on the hill, regime executed couple of its own protesting citizens. In this specific case, Iran Int and you talking of something that is a whole 'nother level of diabolical, premeditated and intentional harm of their own children, mothers, sisters, wives - unless you are suggesting people who are part of the regime have no families, no human emotions what so ever? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I am sorry, now I allowed to be dragged into unnecessary chat about irrelevant thing for the topic of propaganda spreading form the Iran Int waves. The relevant thing is that they made a story no one else cared to take on. That's all. They are unreliable source, and we will see what happens in these discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is whataboutism, and disrespectful to the thousands that got massacred. A regime that massacres thousands, can easily put a hundred in danger. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that's "whataboutism" - and one without evidence if I may add. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:29, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. Let's see how others judge this conversation. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  So now you claim there is no evidence of regime casually massacring Iranians every time an uprising occurs? Or are you questioning the regime using schools for purposes other than education purposes? Because the regime literally held a press event in a school on literally the first day of the war and the pictures and videos of the regime forces and vehicles etc being stored and stationed inside schools are also widespread and nothing new. Furthermore the very school you are using like pages of Qur'an impaled on spears (as we Iranians say) was built inside a literal military compound, in a building formerly used by the military personnel and this is not even a controversial truth. Kane 1371 (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please let us keep the discussion on track about the source itself. Gotitbro (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Was the specific article being debated ever linked to in that discussion? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarifying that I mean this discussion: Talk:2026_Minab_school_attack#Undue_content. @Vice regent. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this was the article the discussion was revolving around: https://www.iranintl.com/en/202603031421. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I still maintain that the source is generally reliable. Maximum maybe we should add attribution for extreme claims, but I am not sure that such is necessary. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If I recall correctly, the question at the Minab article was for dueness not of reliability. The dueness (or non-dueness rather) was originally questioned by me on the basis of implying a fringe theory as having any relevance without the source directly stating so. Gotitbro (talk) 07:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  While I disagree about mis/disinfo, to hint at an extremely fringe theory (girls school being a legitimate mil target by way of allegedly being used by the security forces) is fringe enough to make this a questionable source. Gotitbro (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @@Gotitbro: could this help to shed some more light on mis/disinfo media campaing? Against the grain: How International media outlets are involved in disinformation about the Iran Protests ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  you can't be serious Kane 1371 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know, I really try hard to be serious, and others consider me a mature and serious person, if this helps. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stay on topic @Santasa99 and @Kane 1371. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  how is it fringe to point out that the school was literally inside a building formerly used by the irgc and in the territory of the said irgc compound? Kane 1371 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is another example of a claim disputed by other WP:RS that Iran International published [44]; that Iran presented a proposal during the previous round of nuclear talks in which it agreed to halt nuclear enrichment for three years and commit to not using its ballistic missiles to attack Israel. The Times of Israel described the Iran International report as "unsourced".Katzrockso (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a post by The Times of Israel on 20 February. Despite that, they are still continuing to cite Iran International [45] [46] [47]. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and TOI also repeatedly cites Fars News[48][49][50], which has connections to the IRGC. Citing a source does not necessarily imply its reliability.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 03:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Citing a source does not necessarily imply its reliability

  Depends on what way and form you cite it. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Katzrockso do you have the link to the original article? Assuming that article was presented accurate by TOI (and TOI is listed as WP:RS at WP:RSP), Iran International claims Iran offered "an Iranian commitment not to publicly cast doubt on Israel’s right to exist". I have been following the recent negotiations closely and can't find any RS that discussed this aspect, which, if true, would make Iran International's claims to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL. If anyone can shed light on this, it would be appreciated. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Generally reliable based on an assessment from two months ago — nothing meaningful has changed since then. Ruzhiner (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no "assessment" back then, only editors' personal opinions expressed without backing it up with any substance. It was astonishingly unanimous !vote for support of this controversial media outlet. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Santasa99: I don't think any consensus was reached last time either with many editors showing why it is at best a cautionary source and certainly not genrel. It might be time for a formal RfC. Gotitbro (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro, do we need formal RfC, and isn't this an RfC. Would it be enough if we just made a subtitle "RfC" under these discussions? What did you have in mind? Also, if I understood you correctly, you mentioned going full "depreciated" with this source - if so, are you still for it? Thanks, I know, lots of questions but I would appreciate if you can spare few moments. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:38, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Santasa99 This discussion is too messy to make sense of any consensus, so I believe an RfC would be the best choice here. Informal comments by editors labelling the source as reliable/unreliable would not constitute an RfC simply by titling the section as such. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

  I don't think we have evidence that the source regularly spreads deliberate misinfo/disinfo. Though it does appear to heavily imply it every often, and I'm unsure if that is enough for deprecation but certainly this isn't a generally reliable source at all. Gotitbro (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I agree 100%. If you decide to open RfC and I am not around to see it, would it be too much to ask for a ping? In any case, I really appreciate info, thank you. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:31, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable - after all the discussion with numerous posts I contributed to express my opinion and stance on Iran International (there is a need to discuss IranWire too in the near future), nothing summarizes it better than this essay by Ali Mamouri, titled "Why the Iranian Diaspora Opposition Struggles to Win Global Empathy".--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly is biased enough to only be used extreme caution at anything related to the WP:CT/IRP. Gotitbro (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• "During the Gaza war, according to The New Arab, Iran International took a pro-Israeli stance, and some of its journalists justified Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians." This is indeed concerning and impinging on claims of reliability. Gotitbro (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  this is a false claim, unless new arab can actually provide any proof it is pointless.

  Iran International had a long coverage of the war and reported the same information every other reputable source reported, including numbers provided by Gaza ministry of health. Kane 1371 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• BBC analysis from 2022 [51]; "Today, Iran International is a rolling news channel broadcasting from a state-of-the-art headquarters in west London. Its high-quality output includes news, debates, documentaries and sports. It has an office in Washington and journalists spread internationally." --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that in the fog of this recent controversy and now war, their reporting has become increasingly less reliable, to the point where it's unclear this assessment from 2022 still applies. Katzrockso (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Can this offer more insight into disinformation campaigns? ⇒ Against the grain: How International media outlets are involved in disinformation about the Iran Protests ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know, can this? ⇒ Wikipedia Editors Are Helping Iran Rewrite History and Wikipedia cited IRGC-linked media over 78,000 times, 'Post' investigation reveals HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be wary of Rindsberg (and also FP), while his reporting on Wikipedia is generally factual it can often be sensational and make connections where they do not exist (such as the suggested 'regime collaboration' here). Gotitbro (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  September 2025, journalist Stephen Harrison wrote in Slate: "Like much of Rindsberg's work, the point isn't to provide information to readers about what's happening on Wikipedia, but to stoke further outrage for attention." ←This Ashley Rindsberg, PragerU's Ashley Rindsberg? No, it cannot help at all. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  A shame the same expectations are not applied to the random blogs that you agree with. This excerpt "An investigation into Wikipedia editing patterns reveals a years long, coordinated campaign to sanitize the Islamic Republic’s human rights record." reminds me when someone downplays the recent massacre by the Iranian regime by alleging that "many regimes massacred their own citizens in one time or another." HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Recommend we stick to discussing Iran Intl. Gotitbro (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro and HistoryofIran: The "random blog" specifically discusses Iran International. Its owner and essay author is fairly known and respectable Erkan Saka, a professor of media and journalism studies at the School of Communication at Istanbul Bilgi University. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliable As noted above, Iran International's reporting on the 2026 Minab school attack implied a military use for the Minab school in an attempt to blame the IRGC for the attack. This was done despite a complete lack of evidence that the strike was anything other than a mistaken targeting of a purely civilian site. To do so, Iran International employs a tactic common to other GUNREL sources such as Fox News or NYPost: point to entirely unrelated incidents and then claim they are linked through a vague "controversy." Iran International's "reporting" stands in marked contrast to the widespread mainstream media coverage of the strike. From this, it's clear to me that Iran International is more concerned with pushing anti-regime propaganda than with factual reporting. EvansHallBear (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  If we have deprecated other sources based on their suggestive conclusions, I see no reason why we can't do the same here [if that precedence actually exists]. Between the pro-monarchial, regime overthrow, pro-Israel and US stance especially amid a war, I would find hardly an instance where an activist source like this needs usage even if it be deemed not deprecated. Gotitbro (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we need to reassess how we judge sources more generally. Reliability should be broken into two elements: factual reliability and analytical reliability. That is, reliability for determining what is true, and reliability for determining what is due.

  The article you link[52] shows a good example of the difference. Though all factual statements in the article appear to be true, the article does not conform to our standards of NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. It would be wrong to use that article to determine what to include in our Minab school bombing page, as the Iran International article engages in wild speculation and excessively and uncritically cites the statements of US politicians/leaders.

  So I would say while it may be factually reliable, it does not appear to be at all analytically reliable and should not be used for determining what is due for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  This is certainly true of opinion journalism (as appears the case here), are we for instance really going to cite analysis from journos/outlets engaging in wild speculation (cf. MAGA outlets). The answer I would hope would be an emphatic no. Gotitbro (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. They are playing with suggestions made out of thin air - that's a speculative propaganda. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:56, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I say we should cite them with caution. While I do agree that Iran International is biased for monarchy and Saudi Arabia, I do believe that, since we’re already citing pro-IRGC sources in our articles, we should include Iran International as well, to provide a more holistic source citations on the 2026 Irani War (like what pro-monarch and pro-IRGC Iranis think about the war and the prelude massacre, which I can’t believe I have to say here, since massacre of any kind is a terrible thing both politically and morally wise, to put it lightly). - Ted N. Gutchi, 30 March, 2026.

This is a source which is currently being used in nearly seven thousand articles. Looking through its Wikipedia article, there is a whole section on Zee News' fabrication of news stories and its spreading of disinformation; the article also goes over a criminal defamation case that was filed against the platform in 2020. The chairman of the organization is backed by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party and the platform has been banned in Nepal for "propaganda and defamatory report against Nepal government". Given all this, we are citing this news platform at an alarming scale. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:14, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is an entirely pro-BJP outlet today. It seems a lot of those instances, where this source was used, predate 2014 when BJP got reelected. I would completely avoid using this source for controversial topics. Koshuri ^(あ!) 12:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about this too. WION is owned by Zee Media and is listed as an unreliable source per WP:WION. Does the same apply to the parent company? Ixfd64 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The WION entry at that list as gunrel was recently added by a Omen2019 and the label explicitly goes against the last RfC which resulted in no consensus for it: [53]

In short, I find that there is no consensus on the reliability of WION. ... leading me to conclude that there is consensus against WION being generally reliable, nor WION needing to be deprecated ... Concerns raised were regarding WION's lax editorial standards, churnalism, and misinformation. However, some argued that WION does produces some good quality articles that might not cover information found in other sourcing.

Ergo both the status and summary from the only RfC for the source are falsified at that list. The WION entry there should certainly be updated.

Omen2019 also tried to insert Zee News [54] but was correctly reverted by ActivelyDisinterested over no significant discussion for it. Gotitbro (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

done. [55]

Of note, that close is somewhat poorly written. there is consensus against WION being generally reliable, nor WION needing to be deprecated suggest there is consensus it is not generally reliable, but the nor suggests the closer meant to put the word "not" earlier. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

More on that close, the closer was fairly new, has less than 1k edits.
However, agree with no consensus as a good enough close, vote counts were spread out like this
1 - 5
2 - 8
2.5 - 2
3 - 7
4 - 3

I think one editor was voting 3 in the discussion above but failed to vote in the RFC below, though that hardly changes the vote count. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

pinging @Omen2019 User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:29, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The RSP is like any other page, if you see something that doesn't match up with the result of discussions WP:BEBOLD. Also editors need to update the entry with the result of any RFC, it doesn't update automatically. As with most things on Wikipedia if you want something done you're probably going to have to do it yourself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to Zee News itself. I don't put much stock into television broadcast sources, especially so for India, and all of these should be used with caution if at all.

One thing about the Nepal "ban" mentioned above. It wasn't a ban, it was a boycott/dropping of all Indian television channels by Nepalese cable operators (amid a territorial dispute) and was retracted just weeks later. So that should not be something under consideration. Gotitbro (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that WION is treated as an unreliable source, it is clear that Zee News is even worse given WION was supposed to be a reformed version of Zee News. We should avoid using any articles from Zee News that come after 2014. They are serving the Modi government to the extent that they even removed past articles that were being used against the government by their opposition.[56][57] Orientls (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  No, WION is not treated as unreliable (gunrel) at enwiki. The last (and only) RfC on this was explicit that there is consensus against treating it as such. Gotitbro (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  It ought to be if it is not. Zee News and WION are both unreliable sources because they spread misinformation for the party in government. Zee Media's baron was backed by the party into the Rajya Sabha too.

  You should discuss the source instead of what has happened or not in the past discussions. Omen2019 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think deprecating Zee News, atleast its post-2014 coverage, could be the way to go, considering its record of spreading false and fabricated news stories. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:09, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed but disagree slightly on one point, WION was supposed to be an international outlet for Zee Media. It appeared polished to attract their viewership and degenerated later. I think both ought to be not used, even the Zee News of pre-2014 is just another sensationalist tabloid and they have altered/removed their older articles so only archived versions may be used. Omen2019 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zee is pretty trash. Ngl. — Longewal (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Zee news needs to be pruned, especially the articles after 2014. It has spread misinformation and fabricated narratives against political opponents/dissidents of the Modi-led BJP. Our article on Zee News is full of coverage of such instances. More instances:[60] Zalaraz (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I am saying nothing here about Zee News or Indian news media, but in general Wikipedia relies far too much on news reports as sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I have opened an RfC below, which I think is necessary given the scale at which Zee News is cited in Wikipedia. I request editors to add their input. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia policies and guidelines Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

How reliable is Zee News, to be used in Wikipedia?

• Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
• Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
• Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
• Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

— EarthDude (Talk) 17:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Option 4: Its history of spreading false and fabricated stories and disinformation is pretty well-recorded. Zee News should be deprecated. — EarthDude (Talk) 17:39, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 As I mentioned above, they have even gone ahead to delete the pre-2014 articles that are critical of ruling BJP. Not a trustable source for anything. Orientls (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 - As per discussion above. It has zero credibility today. Koshuri ^(あ!) 17:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOWCLOSE Nothing in the above discussion suggests disagreement or winnowing down of non-RS assertions (WP:RFCBEFORE). The one topic where assertions of unreliability have been made (post-2014 Indian politics) hardly makes up any usage for it (for which the RfC should've been limited to if needed at all). Gotitbro (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 and WP:SNOWCLOSE per above. Feeglgeef (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 Come on now half of our article on it is contained inside the controversy section. Is this really contentious enough for an RfC?
  ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 23:04, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 See Zee News#Controversies, this source is not just poor but has actively and intentionally spread fabricated stories. Zalaraz (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad RfC. And conflation of two different entities in most of the !votes. Much of the Zee News article pertains to the TV channel, which is not the same as the website with news articles. No evidence has been presented to suggest the usage of these news reports are problematic, other than brazen ideological battleground complaints about the outlet's political orientation. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:56, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  The record of Zee News publishing fabricated stories is for both its TV outlet and news articles, which are well-integrated together. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close with Option 4. The above argument is conclusive enough for me. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 07:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 - I was expecting this type of discussion anytime soon for some years and finally we are here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 - Long overdue. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4, per Zee News's repeated publication and broadcasting of conspiracy theories, in particular, the love jihad conspiracy theory and a staggering number of other anti-Muslim conspiracy theories that Zee News has promoted with names in the form of "[insert topic here] jihad". On 11 March 2020, the Zee News editor-in-chief at the time, Sudhir Chaudhary, presented a "jihad flowchart" with 11 of these allegations: "economic jihad", "historical jihad", "media jihad", "film and song jihad", "secularism jihad", "population jihad", "love jihad", "land jihad" ("zameen jihad"), "education jihad", "victim jihad" and "direct jihad".
  This incident was notorious enough to be mentioned in a number of academic works about propaganda and Islamophobia. The most in-depth one is the chapter "Prime-Time Propaganda: Television and Hate" from Understanding Propaganda (published by Springer Nature), which goes into considerable detail to refute Chaudhary's "jihad flowchart". I am unable to quote all of the relevant parts (half of the chapter) per the fair use restrictions, but the full text is available through The Wikipedia Library; an excerpt is below:

After this incident, Zee News continued propagating new "jihad" conspiracy theories, such as "corona jihad" and "spitting jihad" ("thook jihad") during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2024, Zee News promoted "mehndi jihad" (including on its website), "food jihad" and "QR code jihad". The sheer number of conspiracy theories disseminated by Zee News indicates that it should be deprecated. — Newslinger talk 22:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Newslinger: all of these pertain to the TV broadcast side of things though, and none of them to the text articles used on Wikipedia. This "RfC" I presume is about the latter, but your comment does not address it at all. The TV and news article side of things are not "well-integrated", contrary to the claims of another editor. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 03:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Precisely why I believe this is a malformed RfC. I also note that prior to Newslinger, nobody in this RfC presented any evidence at all but somehow all arrived at the same conclusion. I hope somebody is taking note. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you are being too aggressive with your severe accusations and have only objections against having the discussion and RfC. It looks like an attempt to derail the discussion. Omen2019 (talk) 02:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Although Chaudhary was the anchor of Zee News's Daily News and Analysis (DNA) news program, on which he presented the "jihad flowchart", he was also concurrently the CEO of Zee News and, most importantly, the editor-in-chief overseeing all of Zee News's content, including online content (consisting of not just articles, but also videos created from the TV broadcasts). When the editor-in-chief is openly promoting conspiracy theories on television with his name and likeness for the audience to see, that is a negative indicator of reliability for the entire news outlet.

  I searched the Zee News website and found content purporting the existence of "love jihad" (context), "land jihad" (context), "corona jihad" (context), "UPSC jihad" (context; see Union Public Service Commission) and, in response to a first information report (FIR) filed against one of Chaudhary's "land jihad" claims, "jihadist conspiracy". There is no shortage of these types of claims in Zee News's voice. I understand that different editors have different levels of tolerance for questionable content; my tolerance for conspiracy theories like these is low, thus my position in this request for comment. — Newslinger talk 00:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 for all post-2020 reporting except option 3/4 (WP:GUNREL or deprecate) for all Muslim-related coverage post-2020, and option 1 for all pre-2020 reporting, based on the evidence presented above by Newslinger. All evidence presented is for a number of general anti-Muslim reports going back till 2020. I simply fail to see how that can somehow be used to deprecate the source for all reporting of all time. Something similar to WP:FOXNEWS is required here. —UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 - Per the evidence brought forward by the Newslinger. It is an unusable source, almost similar to OpIndia in its reporting. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3/4, leaning 3 Having reviewed the discussion it seems clear this is a garbage source that should not be used. I'm uncertain if it's garbage enough to warrant deprecation. Simonm223 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 4 per the evidence presented by the RfC participants. It is a broadcaster of anti-muslim conspiracy theories with things like love jihad, land jihad, flood jihad (hasn't been shown yet but you can find it), upsc jihad besides being a disinformation outlet of the BJP on other things as well. This ought to be done with many other news sites which are of the same quality, it is a noticeable issue on many pages. Omen2019 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 and WP:SNOWCLOSE: Given that we have had multiple users look at this and not find anything redeeming, it's easy to say deprecate and close. However, since the process has faced ridicule for Newslinger being the only one presenting what they have found, I'll share some of what I found.

In the Politics of Fake News: How WhatsApp Became a Potent Propaganda Tool in India article published in the journal Media Watch, it states:

"Just after November 8, 2016, when the Indian government canceled currency notes of 500 and 1,000 denominations, fake news about new 2000 denomination note began circulating on WhatsApp. The most viral news being that the new note has a nano GPS tracker chip by which it can be traced anywhere. This, the fake news claimed, will help the government to keep eye on black money (Indian Express, 2016). What happened later is a perfect example of how hoaxes make their way to mainstream news. Zee News, a more than 18-year-old Hindi news channel, broadcast a special programme on new 2000 denomination note. In this programme DNA (Daily News Analysis), a well-known anchor of the channel narrated almost exactly the same features of the new notes as claimed by the fake news messages on WhatsApp."

If this organization is presenting WhatsApp hoaxes as fact, then it is some good evidence that it has some pretty bad editorial quality. Going back to some more evidence, the outlet has spread fake news about Tablighi Jamaat members attacking medical workers[61] and has been involved in "anti-Muslim propaganda" during the COVID pandemic.[62] So, I think it's safe to say we can deprecate and close this.--WMrapids (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 4 - Per Newslinger and WMrapids. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option 4 per WP:RS and WP:V. The evidence presented indicates repeated failures in editorial oversight and fact-checking, including publication of misleading or fabricated claims. Regardless of political bias (which alone is not disqualifying), such patterns undermine the source’s reputation for accuracy. Per WP:DEPRECATED, sources with a history of disinformation should not be used, and given the scale of concerns, deprecation appears justified.

  User4135 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

northerntransmissions.com was previously submitted to RSN in 2022, having been involved in a 2012 spam report before that. the spam concerns were over 13 years ago, and the source currently features music content & interviews that are relevant for article sourcing. i've additionally submitted a per-site whitelist request for a specific page. i'd like to ask for it to be removed from the blacklist for these reasons. Kinnimeyu (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The site does not appear to list staff, editors, writers, or any way to know where the content is coming from and if there is any editorial oversight. Am I missing it? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you are missing it. and pretty badly, unfortunately. every single interview on the website denotes its interviewer and links them to the site. they additionally have a social media presence on instagram and youtube. this is a bog-standard music website that doesn't deserve a block anymore. Kinnimeyu (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

also, reviews and other music articles almost always have a writer associated with them, the only ones i haven't seen with one are miscellaneous website-related things. Kinnimeyu (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interview content is probably fine, maybe reviews. Shame they don't have bios for anyone writing or working there. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, i only needed a singular review page unblocked, but i was suggested to make an RSN submission because the site as a whole seems pretty much harmless now. Kinnimeyu (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Their about us page doesn't give much information and I can't find any WP:USEBYOTHERS. Whether they have a social media presence is irrelevant. From past experience reliability of musical sites can be tricky, I've left notifications on WikiProject Music and WikiProject Albums. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:30, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the question is not strictly whether or not they should be classified a "reliable source", it's that the concerns related to spam were over 13 years ago now, and it's not like their content could exactly be used if it's been completely blocked since they became relevant again... literally just a normal music journalism website now, lol. Kinnimeyu (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry am I missing something? If it's not going to be used and aren't reliable, then there's no reason to remove them from the spam filter. There's no point carrying out an action if the action has no effect. I'm sure there's many entries on the spam filter that are redundant, but there's also no reason to clear redundant entries from the spam filter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

what a weird catch-22. you ignored the question of how the site could build WP:USEBYOTHERS if it's been completely blocked since 2012. the 2012 spam report was against anonymous IPs, and was correct at the time. there were repeated whitelist requests in 2017, 2020, and a stronger case for its journalists in the 2022 RSN, so there is clear interest you are further ignoring.

taking the site's reliability into question on that basis is just cherry picking independent music journalism, which can often be messy or slightly disorganized. (news flash, they're independent) another thing you're ignoring is wikipedia's own blacklist guidelines, WP:SPBLIST, which: no, they're not in violation of, and it's already "intended as a last resort". it's been 13 whole years with no reason to reinforce this ban.

let's have a little WP:COMMONSENSE here, because it's not like 2012 anonymous IPs are going to come back from the dead here just for this. Kinnimeyu (talk) 14:15, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"If it's not going to be used..."

this would've been a fair point if i hadn't checked the blocked links logs and seen there were 779 results, which were almost entirely interviews, which is what i came here for to begin with. there is a clear attempt of WP:USEBYOTHERS. i'd like a second opinion here. Kinnimeyu (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

additional whitelist granting: 2016 2017 2019 2024 (1) 2024 (2)

the same issue of the needless block has been brought up for over a decade per spam link reports. consensus throughout that time shows no ongoing problems, only that 2012 blacklist. Kinnimeyu (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEBYOTHERS is about use outside Wikipedia. No blacklisting on Wikipedia can affect it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

okay, then i misinterpreted the phrasing, but that still doesn't diminish the site's attempted usage by editors. Kinnimeyu (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was not ignoring anything. I asked if therye was something I was missing, as you reply had no details and was generally flippant. Maybe lead with the details next time if you want people to understand. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

can we at least agree there's enough evidence here to finally remove the domain from the blacklist? Kinnimeyu (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A little under a year ago, I made a post on the Albums WP (here) questioning the site's reliablity. At that point, I was quite new to Wikipedia, and I can see now that my concerns can be chalked up to a misunderstanding of how music publications repeat info from press releases. I think anyone can safely ignore those comments. All in all, I don't see much of a reason for blacklisting it at this point in time. Fundgy (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

there's no doubt that the site was a bit questionable earlier on. in 2015, someone working for the site (or a friend of the owner?) tried to get it unblocked for an article about the website itself, and messed about with uploading the article a few times. another draft of the article was blocked in 2020 on that basis.

this seems to be the only other incident relevant to the website on wikipedia. i don't personally believe it deserves its own article, but use of the domain should be whitelisted. Kinnimeyu (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently inclined to agree. Reliability and notability might have to be a different conversation that takes place after the url gets potentially removed from the blacklist. Such a conversation may to be more conducive to have over at WT:ALBUMS. Fundgy (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if reliability can be established on this thread, that may help get the url de-blacklisted. I'm pinging @QuietHere, who posted the 2022 RSN thread but was left unanswered. I'd be curious to know if their thoughts on the have changed at all since then. Fundgy (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with them pointing out the notable writers at the time, because on each interview/review, you can simply google each writer's name in quotation marks and see which other publications they've been attached to. it's a proper example of independent or freelance music journalism in that regard. Kinnimeyu (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts haven't changed in the slightest. Nothing about what I wrote in 2022 appears to have changed since, save for the YouTube channel which has been renamed after their main interview series. But I don't see any reason why that, or anything else, would prevent them from being removed from the blacklist. The use case for the source is clear, with daily new news posts, reviews, and interviews which could be used all over Wikipedia. The amount of times editors have requested its delisting also shows how much interest there is in using it as a source. Thousands of their reviews have been included in Album of the Year's aggregate (though apparently not in Metacritic's, which I thought had been the case but I can't find anything now that suggests it is). The incident that led to the listing was over a decade ago, and hopefully won't happen again. And if it does, I can't imagine anyone objecting to an immediate relist as necessary. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:13, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The aggregator AnyDecentMusic? regularly uses them too. (example). And I agree with your general assessment. Fundgy (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

based on the discussion here, as well as the available evidence, there doesn't seem to be a reason for the continued site blacklist. the main incident that contributed to the ban was a brief SEO campaign in 2012; separately, there were WP:COI concerns in 2015 related to an article about the site, but not the site itself, in large part. i maintain that an article about the site itself is not required.

the website hosts independent/freelance interviews and reviews. the content of the interviews, in particular, can be valuable in indie/alternative music articles. there is clear interest: whitelists have been granted multiple times over the years, and the website's content has attempted to be cited hundreds of times by users since its block. going back to previous blacklist discussions, it seems pedantic to assume the website is a continued threat, over 13 years later. Kinnimeyu (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinnimeyu Pedantic, no. We do, regularly, get cases where (attempts at) spamming spans 10-15 years. Editors want their links on Wikipedia because it causes incoming traffic to their site, and shows that a site is 'legit'. Incoming traffic means earning money, and having that from Wikipedia does help (it was the reason to spam in the first place). Here also shown since the site owner did come back to get a page on their subject on Wikipedia.
This discussion has to really focus on the use of the site. Does it (well, would it) have significant use, is it generally deemed a reliable source, etc. etc. (reading through this discussion that seems the case). It also is good to show that there is no continued spam (I did a check, not a thorough one though, and I don't see obvious attempts, rather seemingly most attempts are for proper use). Don't just assume it is long ago and therefore gone. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it was removed from the blacklist, it would certainly be used very, very often in music-related articles, whether or not it gets spammed. I think the evidence provided by QuietHere at the 2022 RSN is sufficient for establishing basic reliability as a music publication, based on how discussions typically go for entries on WP:RSMUSIC. I feel that at this point, it would be more beneficial that someone with experience with this sort of thing performs a thorough check to make sure it doesn't pose a current risk. Fundgy (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fundgy As I said, here it should focus on establishing the reliability. After that is done, ask for delisting on the SBL, referring to this discussion. There the check will be done whether there is still a spam risk (I did have a quick look, I did not see clear evidence of spamming, I did see what suggests that this would be used regularly - it needs a more thorough check), and based on that the recommendation to remove or keep whitelisting. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:02, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

many independent music publications on-site have been left alone, and they continue to see regular use, even though they may be disorganized or lack a concrete staff/editor list. the inherent value comes from the content of its articles, particularly in interviews. i've already had multiple cases in the past week where i've found unique information there, only to be unable to use it.

i do agree with @Fundgy in that someone more properly experienced with music journalism should do a full check, but it should also be left to be seen whether or not a whitelist will actually lead to renewed spam. Kinnimeyu (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinnimeyu focus here on establishing whether it is reliable and of regular use (I think you make that point already). If this discussion shows that generally this site is deemed useful and reliable (maybe to the level that it is mentioned on RSP or RSMUSIC), then come to the blacklist to request delisting and there we will do a proper check and (possibly) delist. Establish reliability/use here, there we check the spam risk. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

*Option 4 - As per discussion above. It has zero credibility today. Koshuri ^(あ!) 17:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• were you trying to post this in the Reliability of Zee News section...? Kinnimeyu (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

~2026-18775-02 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For an interested editors the context here is, Timeline of the 2026 Iran war and this edit about allegations of a plane being shot down. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the Indian Express is considered generally reliable, see WP:INDIANEXP, and in the last discussion about the Hindu Times editors were mostly positive. News sources are covered by WP:NEWSORG, TLDR established news organisations are considered at least marginally reliable unless there are specific concerns.
Could you explain your reasoning for why the reports by the Indian Times / Hindustan Times aren't reliable? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:03, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we write that Iran claims they shot down a plane, and the US have denied this claim, in line with the papers, it doesn't seem like any sort of exceptional claim in the context of the war. A quick search shows other Indian outlets covering it (TOI, NDTV, and The Economic Times to name just 3) alongside Turkish outlets (Anadolu Agency as the most prominent). Is it too early to really add this, maybe, but its prominence will be borne out in the next couple of days as US media pick up and review the claims. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed the initial comment as a violation of the extended confirmed restriction (WP:ECR) in the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic (WP:CT/A-I). However, the comment by ~2026-18775-02 would have been acceptable as an edit request in the form of WP:EDITXY on Talk:Timeline of the 2026 Iran war. — Newslinger talk 21:10, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that ~2026-18775-02 had submitted an edit request at Talk:Timeline of the 2026 Iran war#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2026, and then posted additional details and their rationale on the noticeboard here. The edit request on the article talk page was then declined because it was vague. As The Indian Express and Hindustan Times have historically been viewed as mainstream news organisations, it is unlikely that the edit request would have been accepted on these grounds. — Newslinger talk 21:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that mainstream sources are not automatically reliable. Fox News is one example that comes to mind. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my comment established news ory are generally considered reliable, within the bounds of WP:NEWSORG, unless there are specific concerns. The discussions listed at WP:FOXNEWS show editors specific concerns with Fox. Also nothing is automatically reliable, such sources are considered generally reliable (even the best source can sometimes be wrong). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times may be quite problematic sometimes like The Times of India because it shares the paid news problem that will also include political news and makes open to following the government brief for advertisement revenue. It is an organisation level problem. See how much of newspaper and news broadcasting revenues are generated through government ads this is widely reported on by the newer and other independent media.

Indian Express, The Hindu has an editorial independence/integrity that is preserved and does not have any of this problem. Omen2019 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should Jason Staples, assistant teaching professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at North Carolina State University, be considered among the WP:BESTSOURCES for a statement about the history of Ashkenazi Jews? Specifically with regard to Talk:Ashkenazi Jews#RfC: "the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah" in WikiVoice? and a derivative discussion. إيان (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably more a question of WP:DUE than reliability. Which work(s) are under discussion, and supporting what statements? Mackensen (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Boutboul proposed the statement:

"Like other Jewish groups, the Ashkenazim are a branch of the Jewish diaspora, whose roots lie in Israel and Judah," citing:

• Staples, Jason A. (2024). "The God of Jews Only?". Paul and the Resurrection of Israel. Cambridge University Press.
• Staples, Jason A. (2021). "Israel, Hebrews, Jews, and Restoration Eschatology". The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity.

When I saw Staples is clearly not a historian, I struckout those two sources from our list of BESTSOURCES. Slava570 then reverted and said it should remain on the list so here we are. إيان (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not constructive at this moment to obsess over this one random source. It's just not that deep. There's another proposal on the talk page which uses slightly different language than this, and the person who proposed that wanted to keep this source there to refer to. Even if this source ends up being used, it is very unlikely that it will be the only source. Maybe it will just be a supporting source. Who knows? Slava570 (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the broader community here knows and can tell us whether or not a non-historian is a BESTSOURCE for claims about history. إيان (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is way too specific an issue for this noticeboard. (There’s presumably no dispute about it being a reliable source.) I’d suggest starting a new talk thread there to collaboratively generate a BESTSOURCE list and notify relevant projects. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry I see you have; it’s just a bit buried within another thread. I’d propose that a Frontiers Media article probably shouldn’t be in such a list based on previous discussions on this board IIRC BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense that it was published there. Good catch BobFromBrockley. إيان (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less concerned with the author's specific credential than by something published in Frontiers Media being honest so I might look at those two sources somewhat differently. IE: I'd consider his work at Cambridge University Press to be better quality than the other. Simonm223 (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would second the view that the CUP published work is probably a "better" source than the journal article published in a Frontiers journal. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I confused the issue. Staples is a historian published twice by CUP, so obviously reliable (but still not necessarily a best source in context, as focus isn’t Ashkenazim). I was just glancing at the “BESTSOURCES proposed in RfC” list and saw it included something by a different author, Das, and noticed that’s in a Frontiers journal and therefore perhaps shouldn’t be in a best source list. But that’s a different topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Das et al. 2017 be replaced by Das et al. 2016, which they cite in 2017, and is actually where they conduct the genetic analysis. It is additionally published in a CUP journal, so more reliable than the Frontiers article, with much the same conclusion expressed, even if I think their conclusion isn't very strong, especially with how heavily they lean on a minority hypothesis for Yiddish. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the suggestion there. Thanks, Cdjp1. إيان (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see in that discussion any quotation from Staples which is about "the history of Ashkenazi Jews". Staples should be considered reliable for the statements he's used for there. Be wary of WP:SYNTH. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jews represents 80% of the Jewish People. Michael Boutboul (talk) 09:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refer as someone who is apparently a specialist in "Ancient Mediterranean Religions, focusing primarily on Early Judaism and Christian Origins" as a "non-historian"? Cortador (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Staples isn't a "historian" (in the sense that he's in a different department and his degree is in a different discipline) isn't the most significant factor here. The first source is published by the Cambridge University Press, a highly reputable academic publisher. I'm not able to view the source itself, but it stands to reason that Staples is citing someone else and not making an original claim. If that's the case, and it's not discussed all that deeply in Staples, then the implication is that the claim isn't controversial. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

After examining the CUP source, admittedly for 5 minutes max, it seems to me that Staples is certainly not a good source for this. His book is a work of biblical scholarship and, apart from the odd mention of Josephus, all of the argument is based on the Jewish and Christian scriptures. It isn't what I would call a history book, as it makes precious little use of non-biblical historical sources and no use of genetics. The words Ashkenazi/Ashkenazim don't appear at all. Zero^talk 14:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned this discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#RfC: "the Ashkenazim originate from the Israelites and Hebrews of historical Israel and Judah" in WikiVoice? إيان (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple RFCs An RFC and multiple noticeboard discussions about the same sentence? Not recommended. Perhaps it is time to take a break? Just a friendly suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk so as not to clog this with tangential discussion. إيان (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This source is being cited on many Antigua and Barbuda and OECS-related articles. However, this source has absolutely no transparency regarding its ownership. Additionally, this source appears to be being used as some sort of Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party–aligned public relations outlet based on a quick look at their article history. All articles are written under the name "editor" and spelling mistakes are blatant. Additionally, Antigua News Room has been known to publish false and apparently plagiarised content. Many of their letters-to-the-editor and even articles appear to be AI-generated as well. CROIX^talk 13:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a guideline, policy, essay, rfc or something that talks about the use of Trade magazines as sources? I'm fairly sure I've seen them commented on as maybe-not-as-independent-of-subject-as-we'd-like, but I can't find any chapter and verse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just found WP:TRADES, and that's something. I had a person, not an org, in mind though, so it's not a bullseye. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult to point to anything conclusive, most discussions in the archive only mention it in passing, but the general sentiment about trade publications is that they're reliable but not necessarily independent. The specific report might help give a more exact reply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:19, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some trade publications are extremely reliable and highly respected, and trades often provide the best coverage available on a subject. Still, not every trade meets that standard, so knowing the specific trade publication in question is going to be crucial. John M Baker (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Context is the TM:s Magic (American magazine) and Genii (magazine) in Draft:Connie Boyd. They are however offline/paywalled, so the content is not easily available at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources and checking what I can online, these could be more secondary reviews but equally less independent notices. Is the author of the article able to give any clarification on the nature of the reports that were used? Another thought is that sources only have to be as reliable as the CK tent they support. Looking at the draft and where these are used I can see a couple of sentences that could be of concern. "The project represents one of the first dedicated video archives of women in the history of magic" and "Her presentation received a standing ovation" are both sources to Genii and seem exceptional statements. They also give me pause as they very close to the wording used on Boyd's own website[63]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:54, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it would have to be on a case-by-case basis. A specific magazine may or may not be reliable, and would have to be treated as any other source. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know social media is generally considered an unreliable source. However, there are many dedicated OSINT accounts on Twi-, err, X that often provide information not covered in mainstream news. Would such accounts be considered reliable? Ixfd64 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is a hopelessly vague question. We don't assess whole classes of sources for reliability. And what is an 'OSINT' account anyway? Open-source intelligence is a form of data, not a description of a social media account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about accounts like @Bellingcat and @OSINTtechnical. Those are apparently revered in the OSINT community. However, I'm not sure if the Wikipedia community considers them to be reliable. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BELLINGCAT is already listed as GENREL.

No clue about the latter. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as GENREL with the clarification that it should be attributed. IMO that's a bit of a contradiction in terms, if we don't trust it enough to say it in wikivoice it's not exactly "generally" reliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a case of being more equal, obviously. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Social media posts, even from established OSINT outfits, I would avoid using. Now, as Howard points out, some OSINT outfits have established themselves as reliable, akin to investigative journalism from news outlets, and so if such published their research through a non-social media mechanism (Bellingcat publishes on their own website), then we can cite that for information. Now as to which other OSINT outfits may be reliable, we would need to have such discussions as necessary on a per outfit basis, as with any other source. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree OSINT outlets should be treated on a case-by-case basis, similar to trade magazines as discussed above. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Social media items are ok per WP:ABOUTSELF but only in that case in my view. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

the title says it all Stackper (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What for? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. It's a public service outlet of record, which is consistently rated as Australia's most trusted news outlet. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is as reliable as any other source out there, but the word trusted is not in my dictionary. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:18, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The word "most" qualifies it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:21, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Usually established news sources are considered generally reliable unless there are specific concerns. Generally reliable doesn't mean always reliable, even the best source can make mistakes. WP:NEWSORG gives advice on using news reporting and how to look for indicators of its reliability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard, and WP:RSP (which this is probably about), should only be used if you have doubts about the source. Do you have doubts about ABC? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i doubt that it would be unreliable source, but what if abc news australia is considered reliable but they fail to fact check things sometimes Stackper (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's why sources are only considered generally reliable, even the best sources make mistakes as no source is 100% accurate. What tends to be important is how they react to making mistakes. Doubling down is bad, retractions or other acknowledgement of their error is good. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News (Australia) would generally be considered a reliable source. It is a well-established public broadcaster with editorial oversight and a strong reputation for journalism.

Per WP:GREL and WP:NEWSORG, major news organizations are typically treated as generally reliable, though not infallible. Occasional errors do not negate reliability; what matters is the presence of editorial standards and a track record of corrections when needed.

As with any news source, content should still be used with appropriate context, especially for opinion pieces or breaking news. User4135 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The website https://wahlenweltweit.jimdosite.com/ keeps getting added as poll aggregator to various polling articles. The website itself doesn't look very professional and doesn't have a proper imprint. PolitikNerd42 (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have thought so, it appears to be just another random website. There's no indication who runs it or where it got it's information from. The imprint page is just unsetup the default text. It's run on a service that allows you to create such cites easily using AI assistance.
Unless there's more information I've missed, or 'use by others' I couldn't find, then it doesn't show any reputation for fact checking or accuracy which a reliable source should have. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:03, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Three words for that site : No, nein and never. It is unreliable. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider WahlenWeltWeit unreliable.

The site appears to lack even basic indicators of editorial control—no clear authorship, no meaningful imprint, and no transparent sourcing methodology. Being hosted on a free site builder further raises concerns about oversight and accountability.

Per WP:RS, a reliable source should demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which is not evident here. In the absence of identifiable editorial responsibility or verifiable sourcing, this site should not be used as a poll aggregator. User4135 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled upon https://www.emergentmind.com looking for a definition of NNLO. Took me a moment to realize that it was, indeed, an AI; I've removed the citation. Bears watching.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leading-order_term&action=history

https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/next-to-next-to-leading-order-corrections

https://www.emergentmind.com/about

kencf0618 (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Biolib.cz is used in some 25,000 articles[64] but is a wiki: main page[65] says "content can be expanded by user contributions." Elsewhere[66] it says "BioLib is a compilation of subjective opinions of many different users and many different sources, we cannot therefore guarantee accuracy of all provided information on BioLib." Apparently user-added info first needs to be vetted by admins, but I haven't been able to find who the admins are. Fram (talk) 10:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The widespread use of BioLib does not establish reliability per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The site itself acknowledges user-generated content and does not guarantee accuracy, raising concerns under WP:USERGENERATED. In the absence of clear, transparent editorial oversight, it would be safer to avoid using BioLib as a source, especially where better sources are available. User4135 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was reviewing Bollybudget.com and wanted to understand whether it meets Wikipedia’s reliability standards, particularly for box office data. Are there any independent sources or prior discussions that evaluate its accuracy or editorial oversight? I noticed the site provides detailed box office figures and lists an editorial and contributor team, but I understand that self-published information alone may not be sufficient to establish reliability. I would appreciate any guidance.User4135 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a notification with WP:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, as they have a lot of knowledge about this subject. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:05, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I say unreliable, considering how amateur it looks. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your input.

Could you please clarify if there are specific concerns regarding editorial oversight, accuracy, or sourcing on Bollybudget.com? I understand that appearance alone may not determine reliability, so I’d appreciate any policy-based insights.

Thanks. User4135 (talk) 10:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why we would want to use a site for box office data that isn't confirmed as reliable when we have ones that are. Black Kite (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Black Kite,

That makes sense. I was mainly trying to understand whether Bollybudget.com could be considered usable in cases where commonly used reliable sources may not provide detailed or up-to-date box office figures.

I agree that established reliable sources should be preferred, and I appreciate the clarification. User4135 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, there is debate on the Fruit Love Island article. Specifically over whether an ephemeral TikTok post, that exists only as an image uploaded to Wikipedia with no archive or publication, can be used as RS under WP:ABOUTSELF to support the uncensored statement in the lede. The only RS I can find published a censored version of both the image and the quoted passage*. The page has been protected due to repeated reversions related to this issue.

While typing this it came to my attention that a third party Reddit post has published the original content. Still as a screenshot of the original. But could this be RS under WP:USEBYOTHERS?

SWDG 17:22, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Limbic resonance: Still resonating after all of these years

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the article for the concept of Lie, there is a bullet point dedicated to an alleged type of a lie called "vranyo". The entire bullet point is supported by 5 references and consists of the following two sentences:

"Vranyo transparent lies in Russian, including cynical lies told knowingly.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}. According to CEIG nonresident scholar Christopher Bort in 2022, the Russian leadership frequently resorts to this type of transparent lying to deflect blame for outrages where its role has been exposed, as well as projecting brazenness domestically and abroad.^[1]"

All five sources are commentaries mentioning "Vranyo". Here are the short descriptions of the publisher and the author for each reference:

• [1] -- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, by its nonresident scholar, primarily an analyst at the CIA. Author's about page.
• [2] -- The Moscow Times, by a writer and a psychotherapist. Author's about page on Amazon.
• [3] -- The New York Times Magazine, by a writer who grew up in the Soviet Union, Elena Gorokhova (writer).
• [4] -- Military Spectator [nl] (a monthly military science journal), by a major in the armed forces of Netherlands.
• [5] -- Centre for Democratic Integrity (self-described monitor of malign influence by authoritariat regimes), by a professor in Ukrainian Studies at UCL.

Are the sources reliable in this context? There have been prior discussions of WP:RS with respect to the term "vranyo" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vranyo and Talk:Lie#On Vranyo. Sources discussed there are either very similar or the exact same ones.

Deliberate Baobab (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should distinguish between the claims here.

1. The mildly interesting factoid that the Russian language has three terms for lying which have different connotations but can be also used interchangeably (en:wikt:враньё#Usage_notes)
2. The implicit claim that "vranyo" constitutes a distinct category of lying not found elsewhere.
3. The claims about the practices of the current Russian government.

These require different kinds of sourcing, and the question conflates them. I'm not sure that the provided sources support #2. They are commentary pieces and assembling them into an assertion that presents "vranyo" as a defined type of lie looks like WP:SYNTH. To support that claim we would need linguistic or anthropological scholarship.

As to #3, the lying itself is not in dispute. The questions iare whether it should be mentioned in this article, and whether "vranyo" is a useful term that will help the reader understand the phenomenon. There are concepts like big lie, Dominance signal, unreality, shibboleth lies which might be more familiar to the reader and less exoticising. Alaexis_¿question? 12:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is Thecinamaholic.com a reliable source regarding film information? There are several articles that cite this site. ~2026-19919-80 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider The Cinemaholic a reliable source.

At present, the domain does not appear to resolve, and even basic indexing (e.g., Google “site:” search) returns no results, raising concerns about the site’s stability and availability. Per WP:RS, sources should be reliably accessible and verifiable, which is not the case here.

Even setting that aside, the site lacks a clear reputation for editorial oversight or fact-checking. Given these issues, it would be safer to avoid using this source, especially when more established film sources are available. User4135 (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Media, the arts, and architecture Wikipedia policies and guidelines Wikipedia proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.