Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 31 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Reliability This page is part of WikiProject Reliability, a collaborative effort to improve the reliability of Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ReliabilityWikipedia:WikiProject ReliabilityTemplate:WikiProject ReliabilityReliability

Note: This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the Noticeboard itself. Please post questions or concerns about sources and articles on the main project page: WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For the record, the discussion about creation of this noticeboard took place here and here.

Section sizes in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Section size for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (28 sections) Section name Byte count Header Total (Top) 687 687 RFC: Olympedia 800 94,697 Previous discussions and scope of use on WP 1,312 1,312 Survey (Olympedia) 85,955 85,955 Discussion (Olympedia) 6,630 6,630 RfC: Avi Loeb 954 62,933 Survey (Avi Loeb) 25,630 25,630 Discussion (Avi Loeb) 12,670 12,670 Arbitrary Section Break (Avi Loeb) 23,679 23,679 Are department of transportation maps primary sources about roads? 117,539 117,539 Reason (magazine) 25,401 25,401 Tablet (magazine) 76,249 76,249 Is "OpenSecrets" / the Center for Responsive Politics reliable? 12,097 12,097 MSN - a news aggregator? 13,218 13,218 Question about removing The Points Guy (TPG) from spam blacklist 31,750 31,750 Reliability of Power Spike Games 5,371 5,371 behindthename.com 9,471 9,471 FlightRadar24 - use for referencing the existence of airline routes 11,063 19,286 Disclaimers 7,439 7,439 OR 784 784 RFC on reliability of behindthename.com 823 19,311 Survey 3,668 3,668 Discussion 14,820 14,820 Hort Notes Newsletter 29,680 29,680 Defence Blog 3,870 3,870 Texas A&M University School of Public Health 2,543 2,543 songmeaningsandfacts.com 4,572 4,572 Reliability of Loop Magazine, indy100.com, www.untitledgroup.com.au, Bimbo's 365 Club, The Honey POP, and GINX TV 4,020 4,020 Total 532,695 532,695

This noticeboard has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jasper Jackson (8 February 2017). "Wikipedia bans Daily Mail as 'unreliable' source". The Guardian. Will Oremus (9 February 2017). "Wikipedia's Daily Mail Ban Is a Welcome Rebuke to Terrible Journalism". Slate. Kalev Leetaru (10 February 2017). "What Wikipedia's Daily Mail 'Ban' Tells Us About The Future Of Online Censorship". Forbes. Samantha Cole (2 October 2018). "Wikipedia Bans Right Wing Site Breitbart as a Source for Facts". Vice. Omer Benjakob (9 January 2020). "Why Wikipedia Is Much More Effective Than Facebook at Fighting Fake News". Haaretz. Oliver Darcy (24 July 2020). "Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims". CNN. Nishant Kauntia (30 November 2020). "The Edit Wars: How Wikipedia earned the ire of the Hindu Right". The Caravan. Samuel Breslow (29 September 2022). "Wikipedia's Fox News Problem". Slate (magazine). Asaf Elia-Shalev (18 June 2024). "ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "Wikipedia declares Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Israel, antisemitism: Report". Middle East Eye. 18 June 2024. "Wikipedia declares ADL 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism". i24NEWS. 19 June 2024. Josh Marcus (19 June 2024). "Why Wikipedia just labeled a top Jewish civil rights organization 'unreliable' on the Israel-Palestine crisis". The Independent. "Wikipedia labels prominent Israeli civil rights organization 'unreliable' on Israel-Palestine crisis, antisemitism". Arab News. 19 June 2024. Rob Eshman (June 19, 2024). "Wikipedia called the ADL 'unreliable.' It's a wake-up call the civil rights organization badly needs". The Forward. Retrieved June 20, 2024. David Goldman (June 20, 2024). "Wikipedia now labels the top Jewish civil rights group as an unreliable source". CNN. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Daniela Ginzburg (June 21, 2024). "Wikipedia deems ADL 'unreliable' due to Israel advocacy". Jewish News Syndicate. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Aaron Bandler (June 21, 2024). "Wikipedia Editors Label ADL Only Reliable for Antisemitism When "Israel and Zionism Are Not Concerned"". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Aya Youssef (June 23, 2024). "Palestine's battle against Zionist editing on Wikipedia". Al Mayadeen. Retrieved June 23, 2024. Rob Eshman (June 24, 2024). "'Does anybody question the NAACP?': The ADL head thinks Wikipedia is biased. Is he right?". The Forward. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Etan Nechin (June 25, 2024). "Leading Jewish Groups Rebuke Wikipedia's 'Attack' on ADL's Credibility on Antisemitism". Haaretz. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "Jewish orgs pen letter to Wikipedia condemning ADL ban". The Jerusalem Post. June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. "'Concern, dismay' by Wikipedia attack on ADL, 43 Jewish groups tell Wikimedia Foundation". Jewish News Syndicate. June 25, 2024. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Shiryn Ghermezian (June 25, 2024). "Jewish Groups Lambast Wikipedia for Its 'Attack on ADL's Credibility' About Antisemitism, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". Algemeiner Journal. Retrieved June 25, 2024. Asaf Elia-Shalev (June 25, 2024). "Wikipedia's operator rebuffs Jewish groups' call to override editors on ADL trustworthiness". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Retrieved June 26, 2024. Ben Brasch (26 June 2024). "Wikipedia defends editors deeming Anti-Defamation League 'unreliable' on Gaza". The Washington Post. Luis Cornelio (February 3, 2025). "EXCLUSIVE: Wikipedia Effectively Blacklists ALL Right-Leaning Media; Smearing Trump, GOP and Conservatives". NewsBusters. Retrieved February 3, 2025. "Congress Targets Wikipedia Over Explosive Anti-Israel Bias". Charisma. 23 October 2025. Retrieved 24 October 2025.

The current version contains several claims needing review:

• "Rejected by Kinnaird College..." - Lacks reliable sourcing
• "Scandal with Capt. Safdar..." - Pejorative framing

Replace with neutral phrasing supported by:

• GEO TV () confirming her Master's degree
• Pakistan Times () noting KEMC attendance

Requesting consensus on these improvements per WP:NPOV. Dg creative (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to an issue with a specific article (Maryam Nawaz I assume). This should be discussed on the article talk page, and then possibly at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard if the matter cannot be resolved after discussion. This page is intended for discussing changes to the reliable sources noticeboard itself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You have already raised this on the noticeboard, anyone interested should see WP:RSN#Neutral Sourcing for Maryam Nawaz's Education Section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes this discussion belongs in the talk page of the article, not this noticeboard. Ramos1990 (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Pinkvilla has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 2405:6E00:280D:D88B:1CD2:D6FF:FEB2:FB43 (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Black Kite ActivelyDisinterested TurboSuperA+

Do you mind adding your comments and thoughts from previous discussions to the RfC ? 2405:6E00:280D:D88B:1CD2:D6FF:FEB2:FB43 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

. 2405:6E00:2821:4650:E855:93FF:FE85:CAA2 (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Next to noone watches this page, and you're notifying the talk page of the page where the RFC is happening so anyone who would ever watch this page has already seen the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions to the publicize the RfC more ? 2405:6E00:2223:8E51:ECE9:FF:FE32:D62 (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this the proper venue to ask for help in determining whether the (unlinked) sources cited in an article even exist? Largoplazo (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't think of a better place immediately, so fire away. The worst that can happen is that you get redirected elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Phil Bridger. Ask here, you'll get plenty of eyeballs. Mackensen (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Largoplazo (talk) 15:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Good evening. Can I use this page to discuss not just the resources themselves, but rather their individual materials in context? Lately, I've increasingly seen individual materials, rather than the websites themselves, become the subject of debate. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The page you want is WP:RSN rather than this one (this one is intended for discussion of the noticeboard itself rather than for discussion of any specific potential source, which is why the notice at the top of this page says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard"). If by "individual materials" you mean things like specific webpages or specific articles, not just websites in general, yes, you can absolutely ask about that at the RSN, and it's preferred to ask about them in context. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

If any example is needed, I'm currently arguing with two other users about the interpretation of the source in the Alien: Earth article. We all acknowledge its authority, but its scope has generated considerable debate, including a request for checkusers and a protracted dispute. Trying to get the attention of other users didn't have much success, so I thought about asking someone to evaluate the source or act as a third party intermediary. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

And you can absolutely ask others for their take at WP:RSN. I suggest that you take it there. This is the RSN talk page rather than the RSN itself. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay. I suggested other users try looking for a mediator or a broader platform first, but if that doesn't work, I'll try writing here. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "here." The point I've been trying to make is that this page is the wrong place. This page is not the noticeboard. If you simply click on WP:RSN, that's the noticeboard, and it will give you a broader platform. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I meant the WP:RSN you mentioned. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:RSN is specifically for discussing individual matters in context. These are the normal but tend to be answered and archived relatively quickly, while discussing a whole source can be more prominent as they take longer and so are in the board for longer. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, all:

We've hit the WP:PEIS technical limits at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and this time, there doesn't seem to be any easy way to claw back a little breathing room. We saw this problem coming, and we're working on it. If you need to read the end of the page, try going directly to a sub-page (e.g., Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/8).

We've identified a couple of approaches to fixing the problem, but we'll likely have some questions about your preferences. Some solutions will be similar to what we have now and keep RSP working for (I estimate) about three years. Other solutions will look very different, but we'll never have this problem again. Please keep an eye out for a quick RFC soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

As a follow-up: until some resolution is implemented following the RFC, please do not add new rows to the table subpages 1 through 8, as it may break the main table, as has already happened several times recently. Instead, please add new table rows to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/X for the time being. You are still welcome to modify existing table rows by adding new discussion and Rfc links, marking staleness, expanding the Summary, and so on. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: The RFC has started at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Restructuring RSP. This is likely to affect all the experienced editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)