Editing
Eurovision Wiki:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
{{short description|Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context}} {{/Header}} {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 250K |counter = 511 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadsleft = 5 |algo = old(5d) |archive = Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d }} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW ENTRIES GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE AS A NEW SECTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ == RfC: [[The Points Guy]] (TPG) == <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 18:01, 11 March 2026 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1773252069}} {{anchor|rfc_FC682A4}} What is the [[WP:RS|reliability]] of [[The Points Guy]] (TPG) as a source? * '''Option 1:''' [[WP:GREL|Generally reliable]] in its areas of expertise * '''Option 2:''' [[WP:MREL|Marginally reliable]], unclear, or additional considerations apply * '''Option 3:''' [[WP:GUNREL|Generally unreliable]] * '''Option 4:''' Generally unreliable and should be [[WP:DEPS|deprecated]] — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 17:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC) '''Previous discussions:''' * [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#RfC: The Points Guy]] (2019) * [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 501#Question about removing The Points Guy (TPG) from spam blacklist]] (2025) --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:58, 4 February 2026 (UTC) === Survey (The Points Guy) === * '''Option 3 or 4'''. The Points Guy (TPG) is a travel blog consisting of [[WP:SPONSORED|sponsored content]] that primarily focuses on the [[loyalty programs]] of credit cards, airlines, hotels, and other travel companies. As an [[affiliate marketing]] company, TPG is paid when a reader signs up for a credit card or other product that TPG promotes on the website. TPG is a [[WP:QS|questionable source]] because it has an {{xt|"[[WP:QS|apparent conflict of interest]]"}} with the financial institutions that offer those products, and with the companies whose [[co-branded]] credit cards are marketed through TPG. The topics covered in TPG's content almost entirely overlaps with the companies and products associated with TPG's affiliate relationships.{{pb}}The 2007 contract [https://contracts.justia.com/companies/creditcardscom-inc-41356/contract/997246/ "Chase Bank USA, N.A. Affiliate Program Agreement with Affiliate"] that was publicly released in an [[SEC filing]] by <ins>a web property of</ins> [[Bankrate]] (which [https://skift.com/2014/12/01/the-blurring-lines-between-banks-and-travel-writers/ acquired TPG in 2012]) includes the following clauses: ** {{xt|"Affiliate will only use credit card descriptions provided or approved in writing by Chase."}} ** {{xt|"Prior to using any of the Licensed Materials, Affiliate will submit to Chase for approval a draft of all proposed material that incorporates the Licensed Materials, together with a brief statement setting forth the proposed use of such materials and any other background or supporting material reasonably requested by Chase to allow Chase to make an informed judgment. All such materials shall be submitted to Chase at least seven (7) days prior to the date of first intended use. Chase will notify Affiliate of its approval or disapproval of such materials within five (5) business days of its receipt of all information required to be submitted. The approval or disapproval of such materials will be in Chase’s sole discretion."}} ** {{xt|"Affiliate agrees not to use the Licensed Materials in any manner that is disparaging or that otherwise portrays Chase in a negative light. Chase may revoke Affiliate’s license at any time."}} ** Specifies a long list of {{xt|"Restricted Trademark Terms"}}, including airlines (e.g. [[British Airways|British Air]], [[United Airlines|United]]), hotel chains (e.g. [[Holiday Inn]], [[InterContinental]], [[Marriott International|Marriott]]), retailers (e.g. [[Amazon.com]], [[Toys "R" Us]]), and other businesses (e.g. [[Disney]], [[Starbucks]]) that have released co-branded products with Chase Bank * Two years after Bankrate acquired TPG and took over the management of {{xt|"some affiliate links"}}, [[Skift]] published [https://skift.com/2014/12/01/the-blurring-lines-between-banks-and-travel-writers/ "The Blurring Ethical Lines Between Credit Card Companies and Travel Writers"], which stated: {{xt|"As highlighted in this Mr. Money Moustache post, advertisers like Chase aren’t above nudging the editorial in a direction of their choice — and when bloggers don’t step in line they risk losing their revenue stream."}} That sentence linked to another sponsored credit card blog which reported that Chase Bank revoked their affiliate contract, with one of the reasons being the blog's use of the text {{xt|"WTF!?"}} to describe one of Chase's rewards cards. As of today, TPG continues to advertise credit cards from Chase Bank and other financial institutions (which also require such affiliate contracts) on just about every one of its pages, which indicates that TPG is apparently complying with the content-related terms set in these affiliate contracts.{{pb}}In 2019, {{rspe|Red Ventures|[[Red Ventures]]}} acquired Bankrate, which [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1518222/000151822217000021/rate-20170703xex99_1.htm included TPG in the purchase deal]. {{rsnl|430|RfC: Red Ventures|A 2024 request for comment (RfC)}} on this noticeboard designated Red Ventures properties as [[WP:GUNREL|generally unreliable]], because {{xt|"Red Ventures, as a matter of policy, uses AI-authored content on its properties in a non-transparent and unreliable manner"}} and {{xt|"The case was made that this policy was followed across all of Red Ventures online properties to such an extent that it was reasonable to presume their content is problematic."}} However, TPG was excluded from that RfC because TPG had already been placed on the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]] at that time. I see absolutely no reason to consider TPG more reliable than other Red Ventures properties, including sponsored blogs (other than TPG) owned by Bankrate as well as [[CNET]] (2020–2024) and [[ZDNet]] (2020–2024), all of which are considered generally unreliable during their Red Ventures eras. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 17:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC); edited to clarify attribution of contract 12:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 3''' A travel blog reliant on sponsors should definately be considered non-RS. I don't think its that bad to need full depreciation as its not published false information. But since it is likely to be reliant on opinion related to sponsorship then just a straight option 3 would be best in my view. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.6em;"> '''[[User:The C of E|<span style="color:red;">The C of E </span><span style="color:blue;"> God Save the King!</span>]]''' ([[User talk:The C of E|<span style="color:darkblue;">talk</span>]])</span> 18:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 3''' Editors need to be on the lookout for sponsored content or CoI, and it's generally not notable material anyway. That being said, in the few instances where the blog actually provides information useful for an encyclopedia, I don't see why not. [[User:NotBartEhrman|NotBartEhrman]] ([[User talk:NotBartEhrman|talk]]) 19:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC) * '''Option 3''' <s>4 and Blacklist</s>: From [ https://thepointsguy.com/about/ ]: ::''"Our site may earn compensation when a customer clicks on a link, when an application is approved, or when an account is opened with our partners, and this may impact how or where these products appear."'' :We know that thepointsguy can't be trusted on credit card rewards programs, because they're partners with the credit card companies, not an independent reviewer. :How do we know that they are not also partners with airline rewards programs and hotel rewards programs? :Looking at a recent article ''"I left my laptop on a flight. Here's how I got it back within 24 hours"''[https://thepointsguy.com/airline/airplane-airport-lost-and-found/] thepointsguy says some really nice things about Delta. :Right in the middle of the article is this ad: ::''"Earn up to 80,000 miles with our favorite Delta cards. To help you decide which Delta card is best for you, take a look at the details of the most popular Delta Amex cards from our partners"'' (they use the word "partner", but I am pretty sure that the money and the control only flows one way). :That ad leads me to ''"Best Delta credit cards of February 2026"'' which in turn says ''"Most of the cards we feature here are from partners who compensate us when you approve through our site",'' :So imagine if the author of that article (Clint Henderson / The Points Guy) had said something bad about Delta. Or even pointed out that even if Delta does everything right there is a high probability that someone will steal the laptop instead of turning it in to Delta lost and found. Do you think Clint's "partners" would be happy? Even if Delta had nothing to say, which kind of article would result in the most people clicking on that link, getting a Delta card, and putting money in Cliff's pocket? The Conflict of Interest cannot be surmounted give their current business model. :In my considered opinion, thepointsguy.com should go back on the spam blacklist. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 19:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC) ::For the record, {{u|Guy Macon}}, the blacklist "is intended as a last resort for persistent spamming on the project, by multiple individuals or IP addresses". It's not for blocking unreliable sources absent other concerns. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Comment''': I'd be curious for people's opinions on this site's non-sponsored content. I don't really think there's any question that the sponsored material/really anything relating to loyalty programs is unreliable, but we should be looking at the entire site. When you do that, you can find a host of articles about things like [https://thepointsguy.com/news/avianca-new-route-san-francisco-central-america/ altered airline routes], [https://thepointsguy.com/news/lufthansa-airbus-a380-new-business-class/ improved aircraft interiors], [https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air-lines-airbus-a350-a330-order-premium-seats/ airline orders for new aircraft] and [https://thepointsguy.com/news/southwest-airlines-assigned-seating-boarding-process-launch/ airline policy changes]. These pieces could, subject to editorial discretion, have encyclopedic information and are factual/reliable in the colloquial sense (Wikipedia reliability very much TBD).{{pb}}I'm personally leaning option 3 because that Red Ventures ownership is a flashing red warning light and {{u|Liam at TPG}} did not respond to [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_501#c-The_ed17-20251218211700-Newslinger-20251218204200|my questions about their editorial practices]]. Still, there's more nuance to this question than the comments above have considered. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 21:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 3''' It's not much better than a press release. But press releases do have their uses, so I don't see the need to deprecate or blacklist. [[User:Jumpytoo|Jumpytoo]] <small>[[User_talk:Jumpytoo|Talk]]</small> 02:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 4'''. No case has been made why this site should no longer be blacklisted. The user who requested it is here to promote their business, not to build an encyclopedia. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 07:07, 5 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 3''' per above. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 19:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 4''' TPG is only marginally better than [[WP:Simple Flying]] which was depreciated in terms of accuracy, but much worse in terms of the amount of promotional content they publish. Anything important would have been covered by others, we should depreciate them. [[User:Avgeekamfot|Avgeekamfot]] ([[User talk:Avgeekamfot|talk]]) 20:18, 6 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 4''' The site's promotional and advertising is an excessive part of the content. There is zero (negative?) evidence of even an intent to maintain a solid editorial/revenue wall. I'm sure there's some journalistic effort and truth in there but the end product is tainted. The site barely rates a page in the encyclopedia. It's unfortunate that the revenue model is so tightly founded on the editorial subject. If they want to be considered a reliable source, they need to find advertisers that they don't need to write about and get on, and stay on, a neutral, non-transactional footing with the credit card companies and the travel venues. (invited randomly by a bot) [[User:Jojalozzo|Jojalozzo]] ([[User talk:Jojalozzo|talk]]) 00:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 4'''. Grossly promotional. And blacklist again if there is the slightest effort to cite it anywhere by anyone who should know better. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 00:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 4''' [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] excludes any content that is either an aggregator, not verifiable, or produces sponsored content. It may barely meet [[Wikipedia:Acceptable sources]] guidelines, where articles list individual authors, but I would state that it is generally unreliable and should never be used. I don't recommend blacklist. [[User:Abs145|Abs145]] ([[User talk:Abs145|talk]]) 19:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 4''' and blacklist again. This is sponsored content, the owner gets paid for landing on his site. It is utterly unreliable and the fact that the site owner (who is not here to contribute) to request unlinking is single proof that that request was made to (enable) spam again. This should first have been decided through a RSN RfC to be reliable and of significant use, and then delisted, not the other way around. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:46, 9 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Option 3''' For non-spon content I think there are certainly more reliable sources that go in-depth vs what TPG puts out. [[User:netstars22|<span style="color:DarkSeaGreen;">'''netstars22'''</span>]] ([[User talk: netstars22|talk]]) 05:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC) * '''Option 3 or 4'''. Per [[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] [[User:Coffeeurbanite|Coffeeurbanite]] ([[User talk:Coffeeurbanite|talk]]) 02:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC) * '''Option 4''' and blacklist again per Beetstra. [[User:DOUGDOUGFOOD|the Doug hole]] [[User talk:DOUGDOUGFOOD|(a crew 4 life)]] 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC) * '''Option 4''' I was going to say option 3 but Beetstra provides compelling additional reasoning. I think thread participants that voted before their response should reconsider.[[User:Czarking0|Czarking0]] ([[User talk:Czarking0|talk]]) 01:37, 5 March 2026 (UTC) **{{ping|Czarking0}} Dirk's comment is not strictly speaking accurate. **#The only reason that this is a question in the first place is that the site is ''not'' all sponsored content, and that's why there are people who have opted for option 3. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_501#c-The_ed17-20260204210600-Survey_(The_Points_Guy) my comment above]. **#We don't blacklist sites based only on their reliability, and [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_for_removal_of_thepointsguy.com_from_blacklist|''I'' was the one to request it be removed from the blacklist]] after a discussion here. **#I haven't seen any diffs that demonstrate spamming since the site was removed from the blacklist, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_501#c-Newslinger-20251218204200-The_ed17-20251218191900 we're not even sure that there was actual spamming back in 2018]. I can very easily see a world where the original request was motivated by a PR concern vs. the spamming hypotheticals being spun here. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 03:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC) *:@[[User:The ed17|The ed17]] We do not blacklist on reliability, but we do by consensus or even by bold editing. This is one of the very few sites that are spam by nature (native advertising and such), and the very fact that the site owner is here is enough evidence that they want Wikipedia to be redirecting traffic to them, another reason to (covert) spam. And site owners come here knowing their site is blacklisted, knowing that they can't get traffic from here, which (likely) hurts their business.<br>We blacklist sites that we do not want to be linked, it is the low-weight option to keep them out and either we blacklist them by community consensus (what we can do here) or by bold editing. We are not a bureaucracy, our policies are not set in stone. We revert bold edits soon, not long standing edits and not because of some bureaucratic reason, and especially not when you are unsure if the native advertising / spam website was spammed or not. What is not sponsored content and desperately needed can be whitelisted, something that does not seem very often for this site. There is no (or very little) loss in not being able to link, and a big gain in keeping it out. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 06:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC) *::{{ping|Beetstra}} Dirk, you are assuming an ''awful'' lot about the motivations of this website without any evidence. It's not fair to assume that wanting off of a blacklist = intention to spam. In this case, I can absolutely see it being an exercise in PR and/or a hopeful, if doomed, attempt at being ranked as a reliable source on Wikipedia. *::You're also not characterizing its content accurately; this is not one of a "very few sites that are spam by nature". First, I'm a little surprised at "very few sites" and assume you misspoke, as there are at minimum sixty metric tons of spam websites on the internet that should never be linked on Wikipedia. Second, when it comes to this particular website, I've shown above that it has a newsworthy non-spammy side. That editors agree that it's nevertheless not reliable for our purposes (I'm in option 3 myself!) is not the same thing as "spam by nature". To take that argument to its logical extreme, is ''The New York Times'' spamming because it is increasingly trying to supplement its revenue by steering people into its [[The New York Times Games|paid-for games]] and [[Wirecutter (website)#Approach and business model|''Wirecutter'' for kickbacks]]? (No.) *::Finally, we do indeed ignore policies/guidelines/bureaucracy when there is good reasoning, but we're still searching for good reasoning here. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC) *:::Most sites are not native advertising by nature, most websites exist to sell a product, to make a revenue. There is a distinct difference. These native advertising sites are a distinct problem, they appear 'good' information, but are not, it is paid content, 'hell no' type for referencing. That has not changed. A good part of the website is native advertising, we should never us it. If there is a relatively small part that can be used, then that part could be whitelisted wholesale, or through specific whitelisting. The same tactics as we apply with other material that is blacklisted and where we do have occasional need.<br>And the comparison to The New York Times is not the same, a total red herring. We deem that a reliable source for most of the information, and the paid-for-games are not something that people would typically use for referencing (and if they do, that little part should be cut out). Nor was this often badly used material, let alone spammed.<br>We are not looking for good reasoning, this site is native advertising, paid for content, utterly unreliable. Unlike most of the material on the blacklist, this (the native advertising material ''is'' spam), whereas other websites were spammed (and generally useless for Wikipedia) or badly abused. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:19, 9 March 2026 (UTC) ::::And if nytimes.com/wirecutter is deemed depreciated on RSN and still gets added while every single addition needs to be cleaned up as it is just 'supporting' bad info on Wikipedia, then I would suggest to put a hard stop to that and stop wasting editors' time, as we do with a lot of material that is currently on the blacklist. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC) :::::I suppose we're stuck on your definition of "native advertising" and/or where the line is between that vs. a website that both sells products and produces news. We're talking here about a website that does want kickbacks, but also has a significant news-reporting element. I've already linked to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#c-The_ed17-20260204210600-Survey_(The_Points_Guy) several articles that demonstrate their news reporting], and contrary to your "{{green|this site is native advertising, paid for content}}", their advertising policy says that [https://thepointsguy.com/advertising-policy/ any paid-for articles are clearly delineated]. Whether or not it's Wikipedia-reliable (as I said, looking not), it simply does not fit a definition of being purely native advertising. As I believe I've said elsewhere, it may be more effective to instead seek consensus to expand the definition of the blacklist. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::No, we're not. We are stuck on the 'significant part' of it, and bureaucratic reading. By the looks of it, it is a specific section that is not native advertising (as you say, clearly delineated, all the examples you give could have been excluded on the blacklist or blanket whitelisted - if wanted in the first place). That part seems to have changed since original blacklisting, but then we are now also allowing to link ''all'' the crappy stuff just because some part is not native advertising. And the part that is not native advertising is not needed (it is still deemed unreliable), was never wanted, and is still unwanted. This RfC is just a discussion because someone, bureaucratically, decided that it should not be blacklisted because it wasn't strictly spammed, resulting in people who do not know that it is unreliable adding it, making our encyclopedia ''worse'' and necessitating constant cleanup. <br>We do not need to do that (i.e., discuss expansion of the definition of the blacklist) , because we have [[WP:BOLD]], [[WP:CONSENSUS]], and [[WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY]]. If a community consensus states that a website is unreliable and that we should not link to it, then we ''can'' add it to BED/blacklist/edit filter (and those discussions exist, also here specifically agreed to by several editors, where we deem by consensus a website so [[unreliable that the consensus states that we should take steps to not be able to link to it at all, or even specifically states that there is [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Deprecation_of_fake_news_/_disinformation_sites.|consensus to add it to the blacklist]]). Or we can boldly add it if someone evaluates a website as something that is causing way more work to clean up and there is no advantage to link to it. The blacklist has many rules that is not strictly spamMED (actually, many of them are on meta), and the fast majority of that is not even 'spam' beyond having an operating model alike The New York Times. Their inclusion by consensus or boldness is already mentioned in [[WP:SBL]] as that has been a long standing practice.<br>(so in response to your points: 1) you are right, it is not ''all'' sponsored content, but that is not a reason to also being able to link to the material that is, nor that he non-sponsored content is wanted; 2) it was not blacklisted based on reliability, it was blacklisted based on (ab/misuse of links to) native advertising; 3) it wasn't wanted, never demonstrated it was needed, and is demonstratable still not wanted. Saying that it isn't or wasn't spammed as not being a reason for having it blacklisted has never been a reason for hard exclusion of being blacklisted historically nor practically nor actually and is just a bureaucratic interpretation (and actually, a rather ironic one). [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::I think a big part of the problem is the name. We call it "Spam-blacklist" but clearly use it to blacklist for other reasons. My preferred solution would be to have two lists; one for spam only and one for all other reasons. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 15:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::: If you don't want to use the term "spam-blacklist" there is also the more neutrally-named [[Special:BlockedExternalDomains]]. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 16:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::::That's just another list of mostly spam sites, with a few things like "Hosts copyright violations" and "hijacking attempts" mixed in. I think we should have one place for spam and nothing else, and another for everything else. That way when we block a domain for hosting malware, nobody will comment about it not being spammed. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 18:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::::::One of the problems is that BED cannot be whitelisted, which is something you need for all different cases for which you would (or could) enforce exclusion of external links (spam, spamming, malware, utter abuse doxing, by established consensus, you name it). For the current state, the blacklist is the most lightweight ànd flexible of them. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:58, 14 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::::Just as a note, one of the very first edits after deployment of the local blacklist blacklisted a link for reasons that was not spam or spamming, but likely after a community consensus. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 18:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :::::::1) this RfC exists because someone thought that there was a chance that this site's news articles could be reliable. 2) a brief misuse of linking from paid accounts in 2018 is all I've found. As far as I've seen, no one has been able to demonstrate actual spamming. 3) {{u|Guy Macon}}'s point above is cogent, but I would still maintain that someone should work to expand the page definition. For example, the page currently [[Wikipedia:Spam blacklist#Introduction|says]] "{{green|blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers.}}" Frankly, I'm not a fan of unwritten rules. [[User:The ed17|Ed]] <sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]] [[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 16:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC) ::::::::The operating word being 'should', by boldness and consensus (in its different forms) in a lot of cases used for other things. You're not a fan of written rules and you keep saying that the list is for spam only while historically it has never been only that. <br>I know this RfC is for reliability.. and the blacklist/BED for stuff that we don't want to link to, not necessarily separate topics. A brief misuse is all you found, not that the site owner is here because he wants his links / the traffic from Wikipedia or that a good part of the site is native advertising (spam). I don't disagree to expand on the guideline to better describe the historic use, it may be a bit too cryptic or even incomplete for describing current use, but that is not a reason for (bureaucratic) removal of spam(med) material. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 11:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC) === Discussion (The Points Guy) === * [[The Points Guy]] (TPG) was recently removed from the [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist]] in response to a request from TPG's representative at {{slink|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 501#Question about removing The Points Guy (TPG) from spam blacklist}}. In that discussion, I recommended a new request for comment on the reliability of TPG, because TPG was excluded from {{rsnl|430|RfC: Red Ventures|the 2024 RfC}} about the reliability of its parent company, {{rspe|Red Ventures|[[Red Ventures]]}}. There is {{rsnl|263|RfC: The Points Guy|one previous RfC}} regarding TPG's reliability from 2019. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 17:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC) * Hi {{u|Abs145}}, it looks like you inadvertently commented twice with different options ([[#c-Abs145-20260208193200-Newslinger-20260204175100|first comment]], [[#c-Abs145-20260208193200-Survey_(The_Points_Guy)|second comment]]). Would you like to remove one of these comments? — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 16:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC) *:Yes - thanks! will remove comment 1 now [[User:Abs145|Abs145]] ([[User talk:Abs145|talk]]) 18:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC) == [[Forbes]] == {{Moved discussion from|Wikipedia talk:Deprecated sources#Forbes| [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|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 [https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/ grifter's paradise]. (5) It's [[WP:UPE| indirect undisclosed paid eduting]]. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 18:50, 17 February 2026 (UTC) :Any source can be deprecated through an RfC. I'd like to gauge the rest of RSN before starting it, though. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 18:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC) * 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. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 18:57, 17 February 2026 (UTC) * see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Forbes+sites%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Forbes%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 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. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 18:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC) *:We might want to revise [[WP:FORBES]] to make that more clear then. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 19:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC) *::Probably not a bad idea. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 20:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC) *:::Agreed that [[WP:FORBES]] should now be treated as [[WP:GUNREL]] for the reasons laid out. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 21:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC) * Should we make this an RfC? [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 22:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC) *:I'm in favour of this, especially since Forbes has received such wide discussion, and is also a fairly well known source. *:<small>Discussions listed at perennial sources [[WP:FORBES]]: [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10#Are Forbes and International Herald Tribune reliable sources?|1]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Questionable article at List of best-selling music artists coming from Forbes %5B52%5D|2]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 195#Is Forbes a Reliable Source for Net Worth of Biographies?|3]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 221#Forbes.com|4]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 239#Forbes site subdomains as reference|5]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#forbes.net.ua|6]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341#Forbes|7]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359#Re-open Forbes discussion|8]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Time to revisit Forbes.com?|9]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 503#Forbes Russia interview citing expert|10]] [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Archive 9#Reliability of Forbes Russian edition|A]]</small> *:<small>Discussions listed ad perennial sources [[WP:FORBESCON]]: [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 96#Is a Forbes invited contributor a reliable source for whether the War on Terror may be over etc|1]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 138#Scientists in Forbes article|2]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 159#Forbes/Forbes.com|3]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 176#Forbes.com blogs|4]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Forbes article by credible contributor|5]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 214#Has anyone written up something referenceable on the problem with Forbes blogs?|6]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 221#Forbes.com|7]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 246#Forbes.com|8]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 256#Determining importance of Forbes contributors and their opinions|9]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 278#(My opinion) Forbes is an unreliable source.|10]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 284#Climate Feedback and similar blog sources being treated differently?|11]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 299#Forbes.com contributor for Trollz (song)|12]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#Forbes.com contributors yet again – editors' pick|13]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 341#Forbes|14]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 359#Re-open Forbes discussion|15]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Time to revisit Forbes.com?|16]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 408#Forbes Councils|17]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Forbes "Subscribers"|18]] [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 467#Forbes contributor David Axe|19]]</small> *:It is also very widely used, with at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=55000&target=forbes.com 60,000 links on Wikipedia]. [[User:Mitchsavl|Mitchsavl]] ([[User talk:Mitchsavl|talk]]) 23:43, 17 February 2026 (UTC) *::I'm also in favor of an RfC. - [[User:Amigao|Amigao]] ([[User talk:Amigao|talk]]) 02:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *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? [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 22:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC) :So far it seems that people presenting arguments for moving to GUNREL; nobody has presented arguments for deprecation. [[User:Bobfrombrockley|BobFromBrockley]] ([[User talk:Bobfrombrockley|talk]]) 13:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC) ===Forbes (RfC)=== <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 04:01, 25 March 2026 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1774411273}} {{rfc|media|prop|rfcid=8E3AE8D}} Is Forbes (<s style="opacity:60%;">the main site itself, not ''just'' Forbes sites</s> meaning the whole site, not just the Forbes 'contributors' articles) a generally unreliable source, given recent criticisms outlined above? [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 03:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC) ====Responses (Forbes)==== * '''Yes''', it is generally unreliable, because it has extremely limited editorial oversight and a track record for pay-to-play publishing and publishing questionable authors and articles. I would allow exceptions only on a case-by-case basis, where the author is an acknowledged expert in the topic. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 03:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Yes''' Based on the discussion above. A website that has minimal editorial oversight and that routinely just posts press releases is not generally a strong source of information. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 17:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Status quo''' (staff writers reliable, contributors unreliable). No evidence has been presented that Forbes staff writing is generally unreliable, no matter how dogshit Forbes Contributors are and how fucking annoying the Forbes website makes it to distinguish between the two. If Forbes is going to be considered "generally unreliable" in its totality it needs a cutoff date for staff articles. I think Forbes staff articles should be considered "generally reliable" until at 2010 at the very earliest, when the contributor system was introduced. Perhaps a better cutoff would be when the Forbes staff articles were moved under the same "sites" domain as the contributors. This seems to have occurred by 2021. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 19:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *:I would consider that an acceptable compromise. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *:Newslinger's disclosure that "contributor" articles are retroactively upgraded into "staff" articles is giving me major pause. Ultimately the buck has to stop somewhere, but I stress the importance of a cutoff. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *::The articles are still contributor pieces. They just use a different URL now. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 21:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *:::@[[User:Cortador|Cortador]] I'm not talking about staff pieces being placed on the same "sites" subdomain as the contributors, I'm talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_467#Forbes.com_authors_who_change_roles this discussion], where a Forbes contributor was hired as a Forbes staff writer, and then their articles when they were written as a contributor were retroactively labelled with the "Forbes staff" byline. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 21:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *::::That seems like an actual issue. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 12:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Bad RfC'''. RfCs about sources should generally offer options for generally reliable/additional considerations/generally unreliable/deprecate. Additionally, the contributor bit has already been addressed, the article about Forbes being a "grifter's paradise" is also about contributors, and the last point of criticism just links to another Wikipedia page instead of linking to evidence about paid editing. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 21:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *:[[File:MOREmoji facepalm.svg|16px]] Just say what option you'd prefer. This isn't an elementary school quiz, you don't need me to define every possible answer for your. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 23:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC) *::You have my answer: this is a bad RfC. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 10:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC) *:::So you had nothing useful to add, but just ''had'' to [[WP:DISRUPT|say your bit anyways.]] Gotcha. There's no need to respond, I won't read it anyways. Check out that link, though. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 19:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC) *::::If you don't wish to be criticised for how you word your RfC, this isn't the right place for you. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 08:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Status quo''' (which is contributor pieces are GUNREL and staff writers reliable). No evidence that the staff editorial articles are unreliable has been presented, despite claims to the contrary. This RfC is an overreaction to the negative reception of their obviously terrible "Contributor" articles.[[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 02:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Status quo''' but with a note to verify staff vs. contributor status as close to the publication date as possible. No evidence has been provided that even current staff articles are not reliable. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 05:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Yellow zone''': "contributor" pieces that have always been labeled as such are generally unreliable (except for the rare cases where [[WP:EXPERTSPS]] applies); "staff" pieces from the past need to be checked that they weren't originally "contributor" pieces. If they have been pure advertorials, disguising press releases as articles without putting them under the [[WP:FORBESADVISOR|Forbes Advisor]] label, then we have a worse problem, and we should mark the entire site as generally unreliable and determine a cutoff year. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 00:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC) *:This is actually a good approach. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 19:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC) * '''[[WP:MREL]] / "yellow zone"''' per [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Continuous Dysfunction]]'s reasoning. Also, I second [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] that this is a '''bad RfC'''; instead of asking "is this unreliable?" which is kind of a [[loaded question]], it may be more [[WP:NPOV|neutral]] to offer three or four options for its reliability. [[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor662|talk]]) 04:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC) *:I second that RfCs do not need to bureaucratically list meaningless options because respondents can state whatever opinion they wish; this is NotAVote, and meaningful ones like the yellow proposal here are frequently brought up when participants see things the proposer did not see, because we don't have to choose from the options. A bold "bad RfC" !vote is usually one to procedurally close it, and this issue is nowhere near to that. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 03:08, 23 February 2026 (UTC) *::The point isn't that it prevents people from responding a certain way, but that it influences bias. [[User:Wikieditor662|Wikieditor662]] ([[User talk:Wikieditor662|talk]]) 03:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Status quo'''. I use Forbes Staff, from the main Forbes.com and Forbes Korea, for sourcing and have not run into issues. Labeling Forbes Staff pieces as unreliable is would eradicate a huge portion of business, finance, and media sourcing. Keep contributor section the same way that's fine. {{ping|grapesurgeon}} can tune in here. [[User:CherryPie94|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">CherryPie94</span>]] 🍒🥧 ([[User talk:CherryPie94|talk]]) 04:53, 22 February 2026 (UTC) *'''Yes''' Forbes is generally unreliable. And in response to the above {{tq|Labeling Forbes Staff pieces as unreliable is would eradicate a huge portion of business, finance, and media sourcing}} Good, we need to get rid of all that unreliable stuff, most of which is whitewashing of press releases. Wikipedia does not write fanfiction about companies. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 04:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC) *:I think this is a new argument that would need some backings up. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:04, 24 February 2026 (UTC) *::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Which part? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 17:26, 24 February 2026 (UTC) *:::That staff pieces are also unreliable. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 23:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC) *::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Fortune named [[Enron]] the most innovative company in America for six straight years. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::So? What does that have to do with Forbes? [[User:UmbyUmbreon|<span style="background-color:#a23efa;color:white;padding:0 0.3em;border-radius:0.5em;white-space:nowrap">'''''Umby''''' 🌕🐶</span>]] <small>([[User talk:UmbyUmbreon|talk]])</small> 03:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::@[[User:UmbyUmbreon|UmbyUmbreon]] Can you please tone your signature down? Thanks, [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 07:46, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::{{smalldiv|1=I personally don't see a problem with it. It meets the guidelines and even is shorter than his full username. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 15:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)}} *::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] [[User:Polygnotus/Scripts/Signatures.js]] [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 15:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::What's wrong with it? I don't see anything obvious that would mean it wouldn't get picked up by this script. [[User:UmbyUmbreon|<span style="background-color:#a23efa;color:white;padding:0 0.3em;border-radius:0.5em;white-space:nowrap">'''''Umby''''' 🌕🐶</span>]] <small>([[User talk:UmbyUmbreon|talk]])</small> 00:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::In a private tab, the script seems to work fine on his signature for me. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:06, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::The script was made because the signature is so terrible to look at. No one said it didn't work on this script. *::::::::::But its ridiculous to have such a giant ugly eyesore as a signature. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:13, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::::i like it tho{{pb}}You code really fast! [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:19, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::::Maybe this could be discussed elsewhere as it's unrelated to the RFC. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 01:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::Besides Fortune not being Forbes, 1. that's a statement of opinion, not fact 2. NYT and others parroted claims of Iraq WMDs for years and we generally trust them because they published retractions. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 03:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] {{tq|we generally trust them}} No we don't. Maybe you do. I certainly don't trust the NYT. *::::::https://www.cjr.org/the_feature/forbes-big-business.php *::::::https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/ *::::::Something like ProPublica does actual investigative journalism. Even the FT doesn't just write down what companies tell it. Forbes is just pretty terrible, and I am surprised that people appear to be unaware of that fact. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 07:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::I am talking about the [[WP:GREL|GRel]] consensus we have with NYT.{{pb}}Your links are on Forbes Contributor articles, not Forbes Staff articles. The rryPie comment you quoted agrees with you to {{tq|Keep contributor section the same way that's fine}}, referring to the GUnRel status of {{RSP entry|Forbes.com contributors|Forbes.com contributors|gu}}. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 15:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Proper journalism requires an adversarial role. Forbes does not have that. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/1205/opinions-capital-flows-global-warming-alarmists-james-taylor.html https://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/forbes-magazine-wrong-is-right/ Climate change denial? You trust the Heartland Institute? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 15:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::That's a Contributor article. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 16:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] How is that relevant? We don't give sources a free pass to publish rubbish as long as there is a minority of allegedly accurate content. *::::::::::And you are ignoring what I am saying: {{tq|Proper journalism requires an adversarial role. Forbes does not have that.}} [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 16:07, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::::In that case, that is a good argument, but that does not address rryPie's argument and only repeats what she responded to. Her argument is that the identifiable minority is very useful.{{pb}}Forbes Staff does hold an adversarial position. Most famously, besides the ancient [[Stephen Glass]], they exposed the Toyota Prius electronic "hybrid horror" stories as a hoax: https://www.forbes.com/2010/03/12/toyota-autos-hoax-media-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 17:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] {{tq|they exposed the Toyota Prius electronic "hybrid horror" stories as a hoax}} So that is a pro-company thing to do right? An adversarial relation to the stuff they write about would be anti-company. And they are literally citing another publication which debunked the story the day before, and mentions that there was an anonymous tipster emailing news sources that the story is bs so lets not pretend this was a great achievement.[https://www.jalopnik.com/did-bankrupt-runaway-prius-driver-fake-unintended-acce-5491101/] *::::::::::::And of course that is not written by a staff member of Forbes so it is unclear how that would even help your case, whatever it is *::::::::::::In the Stephen Glass case some guy who worked for Forbes said that a story by some other guy who worked elsewhere was false. This is completely irrelevant to whether Forbes has an adversarial relation to the companies it write about (it does not).. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 18:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::::::How about https://www.forbes.com/sites/rashishrivastava/2024/05/08/ai-generated-employee-handbooks-are-causing-mayhem-at-the-companies-that-use-them and https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2024/09/19/why-this-shadowy-penny-stock-flogger-may-kill-his-own-regulator ?{{pb}}(FWIW: I'm not sure what "Subscriber" means, but the article was written when Forbes only employed Staff to write and hadn't established the Contributor system yet.) [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 21:52, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Subscriber means that its not a staff member. It is the term they used before they established the Contributor system. They also used "opinion contributor". [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::::::Besides what I mentioned (some of which linked) that makes me skeptical Forbes is that pro-business, having a pro-business [[WP:RSBIAS|RSBias]] would not stop it from being reliable as long as the facts that they do post are indeed reliable. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:08, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::::::The "AI-Generated Employee Handbooks" thing is obviously pro-company as well. People want to get paid for writing such documents so obviously they don't want an AI to do it. They are correct that a Markov chain sucks at such things. *::::::::::::::A publication that whitewashes press releases and writes fanfiction is certainly not RS, because there is no fact checking, no precision and no professional distance. *::::::::::::::{{Tq|as long as the facts that they do post are indeed reliable}} They are not. They are as reliable as the company is. And the other article is pro-FINRA propaganda because if you promise to police yourself then there is less regulation (very old lobbying trick). Again, pro-company. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:11, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::::::::{{tqb|There is no fact checking, no precision and no professional distance.}}{{tqb|They are not. They are as reliable as the company is.}}But the problem is vibes aren't enough to back things up. The standard on Wikipedia has been to find specific instances of false statements (preferably ones that were either really common or took ridiculously long to retract) to show sources as unreliable.{{tqb|because if you promise to police yourself then there is less regulation}}The article reads clearly as against the company trying to deregulate to me. "Shadowy", "shady business practices", a detailed history of fraud... [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::::::::FINRA is a self-regulatory organization. Self-regulating your own industry is of course far better (from the POV of the companies) than having the SEC do it. *::::::::::::::::{{tq|But the problem is vibes aren't enough to back things up.}} Maybe, but since you have tried and tried to come up with anything that shows that Forbes has an adversarial relation with the things it writes about (which is required to do good independent journalism) it is kinda obvious what is happening. *::::::::::::::::It is pretty easy to write a whole bunch of stuff that while not direct lies are misleading and a form of propaganda. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Isn't the fact that you are unable to find an anti-company article evidence that Forbes knows on which side its bread is buttered? [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::::::::I disagree with your arguments that they are pro-company. This is also part of the reason why enwiki evaluates sources based on specific examples of false statements. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::::::::Yet you failed to provide any evidence, despite trying more than once. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:{{outdent|15}} I meant that I disagree with your arguments that the articles I gave are pro-company; sorry for the unclear antecedent. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:31, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::I don't think that that is true. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:36, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::That is the problem and why objective examples of their factual errors are the standard per RSBias. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::Then go find some. Should be easy enough. But if what you are saying would be true then there would be no need for an RfC. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 01:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::Well, if you mean I should find objective examples of factual truths, it seems true that "Larry Summers Resigns From Harvard Over Epstein Ties", that Alpine Securities and Scottsdale Capital Advisors have challenged Finra's authority in court on constitutional grounds. It's too easy and means nothing for any source. This is why it's objective factual <em>errors</em> to be found.{{pb}}The RfC does not dispute the reliability of Forbes Staff at all, at least not before the recent events mentioned. It's essentially about whether the ever-diminishing proportion of Forbes Staff articles makes the "generally" part of GUnRel true and thus service editors. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 01:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] *::::::No, I meant you should try find some factual errors. *::::::They are not difficult to find. *::::::https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrlich/2021/10/06/the-richest-under-30-in-the-world-all-thanks-to-crypto/ *::::::written by {{tq|By Steven Ehrlich, Former Staff and Chase Peterson-Withorn, Forbes Staff.}} *::::::which says things like {{tq|FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion}} *::::::{{tq|Save for Mark Zuckerberg, no one in history has ever gotten so rich so young.}} *::::::And even if the articles which are written by staff were factual (which they are clearly not), then you still can't use a source that publishes bullshit like [https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/1205/opinions-capital-flows-global-warming-alarmists-james-taylor.html this] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20200801092314/https://www.forbes.com/2010/02/05/world-health-organization-swine-flu-pandemic-opinions-contributors-michael-fumento.html#1675232748e8 that]. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 04:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::And you have the evidence that this claim is false? [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 14:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Of course. I don't know how deep you are in SBF-lore but the article says: *::::::::{{tq|FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion}} and {{Tq|Virtually all his wealth is tied up in his ownership of about half of FTX and more than $11 billion worth of FTX’s publicly traded FTT tokens—which can be used to make payments or for trading discounts on the FTX exchange, akin to a gift card or store credit. He also holds a few billion dollars’ worth of other cryptocurrencies he’s backing. }} *::::::::You can't value someones net worth based on tokens issued by themself (or rather, the company they control) and mostly traded by Alameda (which SBF owned ~90% of). *::::::::That is like valuing my net worth based on my phone number, or worse, based on the amount of IOUs I've written to myself. You can read [[Sam Bankman-Fried]] and [[Bankruptcy of FTX]], both are decent articles. *::::::::So when they said {{tq|FTX cofounder Sam Bankman-Fried has amassed $22.5 billion}} that was factually incorrect. *::::::::And when FTX went boom basically all of it disappeared in a puff of smoke, because it had never existed in the first place. *::::::::It's like a [[puffball]]. When they are old and dried out you can squeeze and they completely disintegrate. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 14:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::Why not? Net worth includes not just liquidity, but also assets. Assets include stocks and other "investments", so yes, it pretty much just means how much people persuade others they have. Stephen King could have more real money than Elon Musk. Nobody was wrong when they in 2000 said Kenneth Lay, Enron CEO, had $400 million in net worth, largely composed of Enron stock. Enron turning out as fraud does not make that claim's outlet unreliable. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 02:36, 27 February 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::I think the difference between us is that you think a journalist should just write down what she/he is told, and as long as she/he does that accurately it is not a factual error. I believe a journalist should try to figure out the truth, and if unable should not just report claims by stakeholders as facts. *::::::::::Since Forbes writes "SBF claims to be worth X" as "SBF is worth X" we can't use it as a reliable source. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 11:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *:::::::::::That wasn't what I was saying. Net worth is defined by stocks whose worth is only based on public perception. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 11:28, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *::::::::::::@[[User:Aaron Liu|Aaron Liu]] Maybe I do not understand what you are saying. Do you think they independently calculated his net worth? How? If not, do you agree that they probably can't just check people's bank account and assets? If so, do you agree that they probably just wrote down what SBF said and reported it as a fact? *::::::::::::Many people bought Enron stock, and Enron did not control the price of its own shares, the "market" did. SBF controlled both FTX and Alameda (which he co-founded) and this was no secret. Knowledge of the fraud is not required to flag that as a problem. So reporting this claim would still be a factual error even if there was no fraud. And this would whitewash a false claim made by a conman into a claim supported by an allegedly reliable source. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 12:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Status quo''' Forbes's contributors' articles are generally unreliable and should stay that way. [[User:EditorShane3456|shane]] [[User talk: EditorShane3456|(talk to me if you want!)]] 13:49, 24 February 2026 (UTC) *:@[[User:EditorShane3456|EditorShane3456]] Agreed, but I don't think that that is @[[User:MjolnirPants|MjolnirPants]]'s question. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 14:38, 24 February 2026 (UTC) *::You're right, but it's become clear to me that asking editors to read the discussion above and below is a bridge too far, lol. I'm content to let everyone !vote however they like, based on whatever information they take in. *::It's not like this is the result of a major bombshell, it's just that there have been a number of smaller incidents over the last few years that make it seem like Forbes is not drawing as much of a distinction between staff and contributors as we are. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 15:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC) * '''Status quo''' – It's well established that contributor articles are generally unreliable, and there is no evidence presented to conclude that staff writer articles are unreliable. The RSP list already makes a distinction between the two with different sections, [[WP:FORBES]] and [[WP:FORBESCON]]. I do think it would be nice to include the same guidance of checking the byline from FORBESCON into FORBES, to make that guidance more obvious in the latter case (even if Forbes makes it stupid annoying to do so). [[User:UmbyUmbreon|<span style="background-color:#a23efa;color:white;padding:0 0.3em;border-radius:0.5em;white-space:nowrap">'''''Umby''''' 🌕🐶</span>]] <small>([[User talk:UmbyUmbreon|talk]])</small> 03:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC) *:The problem is the difficulty of determining this difference. When a way to do something becomes too impractical, people won’t do it. It’s like how [[Sweepstake|sweepstakes]], for example, where some companies allow free entry into the sweepstakes only if you send a physical letter requesting entry to a specific address, to avoid being classified as an illegal lottery. [[User:Mitchsavl|Mitchsavl]] ([[User talk:Mitchsavl|talk]]) 04:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC) * Is there a demonstrated pattern of factual errors in their staff reporting? [[User:Ivegut|Ivegut]] ([[User talk:Ivegut|talk]]) 15:28, 26 February 2026 (UTC) *:Well during the crypto boom they consistently posted very positive articles about stuff thats now long dead. I picked the biggest and easiest target, SBF, but anyone who is willing to spend some time can probably find quite a few more in a short amount of time. [[User:Polygnotus|Polygnotus]] ([[User talk:Polygnotus|talk]]) 15:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC) * '''[[WP:MREL]]''' – staff writers okay-ish. The contributors are unreliable. [[User:Zenomonoz|Zenomonoz]] ([[User talk:Zenomonoz|talk]]) 08:11, 10 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Status quo''' I see no clear or solid evidence that articles contributed by Forbes staff are unreliable or fail to meet editorial standards. [[User:Sean Waltz O'Connell|Sean Waltz O'Connell]] ([[User talk:Sean Waltz O'Connell|talk]]) 10:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC) *'''Status quo''' the evidence provided (the Buzzfeed article) is about Forbes contributors who are already unreliable. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 15:44, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ==== Discussion (Forbes)==== The two searches for "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Forbes+sites%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 Forbes]" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=%22Forbes+sites%22&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search+the+noticeboard+archives&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 Forbes sites] link to 20+ discussions. It would be helpful to directly link a few discussions to back up: {{tq| 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}}, since that is not what [[WP:FORBES]] says. The [https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/ Nieman Lab] article also deals with the contributor articles which are already dealt with in [[WP:FORBESCON]] (and maybe [[WP:FORBESADVISOR]]). It would be helpful to see the other claims (e.g. almost no editorial staff and publishing press releases) either backed up by citations or examples, especially since the latter isn't necessarily an issue if properly marked (e.g. Bloomberg, another businessy publication, does the same [https://strivehealth.com/news/bloomberg-strive-health-raises-166-million-in-series-c-funding/]).-- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 13:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC) :"I seem to recall" is an operative phrase there. It means that I'm not staking my reputation on a couple of half-remembered discussions, just volunteering what I can recall of them off the top of my head. If my characterization is wrong, well, I provided 20+ pieces of evidence by which to confirm such. If you need confirmation, I'm afraid I have other matters on my plate, so you'll need to check those yourself. Here's a tip to speed things up: Search through my contributions in wikispace for the word 'Forbes'. Also, don't forget my former alt account, {{u|MPants at work}}. :For some context about their recent troubles, see [https://www.foxnews.com/media/forbes-editorial-staffers-walk-off-job-same-day-release-companys-30-under-30-list] and [https://pressgazette.co.uk/north-america/forbes-cuts-up-to-dozens-of-contributing-writers/], in which they've lost a significant number of both editors and writers in the past year or so. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 16:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC) ::There's nothing wrong with just volunteering a recollection, but you've used it as part of the basis for starting an RFC. If you didn't have time to verify it, then you probably should've waited until you had more time instead of now suggesting that other people research your arguments for you. ::Your first link is about a labour action, which happens all the time and literally does not mention a single editorial staffer being removed (though obviously conditions are not great). The second link is about dozens of Forbes Contributors, who produce the unreliable content on the site, being removed, which is a good thing. Forbes appears to still have [https://www.forbes.com/connect/who-we-are/ editorial staff], including an editorial counsel so that hasn't been completely cut. -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 04:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC) :::Yeah, I don't really care what you think of my reasoning. :::The RfC ball is rolling, and I'm content to let the community decide where it lands. Please don't ping me, even if you ''really'' want to keep arguing. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 19:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC) ::::Since this is not a battle, I think PatarK was just trying to understand your position. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 20:44, 20 February 2026 (UTC) :::::If that is true, then asking for clarification rather than whining about me not digging up years-old discussions just to refresh my memory on exactly what was said would have been a more useful tact. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 17:07, 23 February 2026 (UTC) :{{pb}}A year ago, one of the discussions on this noticeboard ({{rsnl|467|Forbes.com authors who change roles}}), which I participated in, noted that when an author on Forbes.com changes their role (e.g. by being promoted from a contributor to a staff writer), their bylines on all of their previous articles are retroactively changed to reflect their current role. To confirm the level of editorial oversight that a Forbes.com article was subject to, you would need to check the byline of an [[H:AAS|archived]] copy of the article (ideally archived on the date of publication). A couple of editors believed that the amount of effort required to adequately distinguish staff articles from contributor articles on Forbes.com is enough of an [[WP:MREL|"additional consideration"]] to justify a reclassification of ''Forbes'' on the [[WP:RSP|perennial sources list]].{{pb}}Looking back at the history of [[WP:RSP]], ''Forbes'' was the very first source on the list to be split into separate entries covering different aspects of the publication's content: the [[WP:RSP#Forbes.com contributors|entry for contributor-written articles]] ([[WP:FORBESCON]]) was added on [[Special:Diff/852542881|29 July 2018]], and the [[WP:RSP#Forbes|entry for staff-written articles]] ([[WP:FORBES]]) was added [[Special:Diff/852696643|one day later]]. A [[WP:RSP#Forbes Advisor|third entry for Forbes Advisor]] ([[WP:FORBESADVISOR]]), a sponsored content section that the publication later introduced, was added after {{rsnl|337|RFC Forbes Advisor|a 2021 RfC}}.{{pb}}Even though most Forbes.com content is contributor-authored [https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2012/what-the-forbes-model-of-contributed-content-means-for-journalism/ with little to no editorial oversight], public awareness of the staff–contributor distinction on Forbes.com is very low; many readers see the ''Forbes'' logo on an article and [https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/ associate it with the century-old magazine]. Forbes.com contributor articles are also rampantly misused in Wikipedia articles, with many of those uses violating the [[WP:BLPSPS]] policy. If there were a technical way to distinguish Forbes.com's staff articles from their contributor articles, I would have supported [[WP:DEPS|deprecating]] the contributor articles years ago. Unfortunately, ''Forbes'' decided to make that difficult, so their articles continue to be a problem on Wikipedia to the extent that we are now questioning all ''Forbes'' content. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 20:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC) ::I feel regardless of the outcome of the RFC, noting that this switching of roles is an issue if the date of the article is somewhat removed from the present is worth noting on the listing. As for trying to discourage Forbes contributor content, maybe an edit filter based on the URL that then warns users about the staff vs. contributor distinction before they can save the edit? -- [[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 04:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC) :::That edit filter warning would help. Ideally, we would track the names (and URL "usernames") all of the ''Forbes'' staff writers, as well as the date ranges of their tenures as staff writers, which would allow the edit filter to activate only for contributor articles. However, this would be a high-maintenance endeavor. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 06:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC) :::I'd support an edit filter of this type. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 00:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC) {{re|MjolnirPants}} <del>While ''Forbes'' originally reserved URLs beginning with {{code|forbes.com/sites/}} exclusively for contributor-authored articles,</del> at some point many years ago, ''Forbes'' <del>also</del> moved all of its staff-authored articles under {{code|forbes.com/sites/}}, which prevented readers from discerning whether an article is staff-authored or contributor-authored by examining the URL without prior knowledge of the author's byline. Since then, all articles from ''Forbes'' (aside from the sponsored Forbes Advisor content) have been "Forbes sites" articles. In light of this, would you like to amend the RfC statement (specifically, the text {{xt|"the main site itself, not ''just'' Forbes sites"}}) to explicitly refer to ''Forbes''{{'s}} staff-authored and contributor-authored articles? — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 18:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC) : Concur with Newslinger that the RfC opening question is confusing needs to be changed. It's really unclear what this RfC is trying to accomplish currently, given that Forbes contributors are already considered generally unreliable. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 18:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC) :@[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] and @[[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]], I was actually vaguely aware of that, but not having used Forbes for a long time, I thought it went the other way (they pulled all of their contributor articles into the top-level folder). Yes, I'll adjust my wording. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 18:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC) :: After some further research, I found that ''Forbes'' launched its [[contributor network]] on [https://www.cjr.org/the_news_frontier/forbescom_gets_a_new_slant.php 5 August 2010], although some of the contributor articles available at launch were dated a couple of days earlier. During this period, ''Forbes'' started commingling articles written by staff and by contributors under the subdomain [https://web.archive.org/web/20100805005923/http://blogs.forbes.com/ blogs.forbes.com] and did not provide bylines to allow readers to distinguish staff from contributors on the article pages themselves. For example, compare [https://web.archive.org/web/20110630005123/http://blogs.forbes.com/halahtouryalai/2011/06/29/bank-of-americas-8-5-billion-record-settlement-helps-clear-countrywide-mess/ this staff article] ([https://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/06/29/bank-of-americas-8-5-billion-record-settlement-helps-clear-countrywide-mess/ current link]) to [https://web.archive.org/web/20110630005123/http://blogs.forbes.com/olgakhazan/2011/06/29/love-my-computer-lifestyle-hate-how-its-killing-me/ this contributor article] ([https://www.forbes.com/sites/olgakhazan/2011/06/29/love-my-computer-lifestyle-hate-how-its-killing-me/ current version]), and note the use of the text {{xt|"Contributor Since"}} on both articles. All ''Forbes'' articles were migrated to {{code|forbes.com/sites/}} on [https://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2011/08/10/forbes-update-our-new-article-page-for-the-era-of-social-media-is-now-live/ 10 August 2011], which is when the {{xt|"Forbes Staff"}} and {{xt|"Contributor"}} bylines were introduced. As far as I can tell, there was no point in time during which Forbes.com contributor articles were under {{code|forbes.com/sites/}} while ''Forbes'' staff articles were not. I've corrected my previous comment to reflect this.{{bcc|MjolnirPants|Hemiauchenia}} — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 22:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC) :::Thanks for that info. I had been under much the same misapprehension. It's looking more and more like we might have overstated the differences between the contributors and staff articles in some of the previous discussions. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 23:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC) We need to establish a cutoff date, before which Forbes was generally reliable. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 19:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC) :July 2014? That's when Integrated Whale Media Investments acquired a 51 percent majority.[https://web.archive.org/web/20170124211943/https://www.recode.net/2014/7/18/11628980/forbes-sells-to-hong-kong-investment-group] :Sometime before November 2013? According to[https://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2013/11/18/inside-forbes-innovative-models-social-products-growing-engaged-audiences/] "Never before have knowledgeable voices, reporters and topic experts alike, been able to connect and engage one-on-one with audiences equally empowered to share what they know... We've supplemented our full-time reporting staff with 1,200 qualified contributors... Many participate in a novel incentive plan that makes them accountable for their success." :The Nieman Foundation[https://www.niemanlab.org/2022/02/an-incomplete-history-of-forbes-com-as-a-platform-for-scams-grift-and-bad-journalism/] has a history of Forbes, saying ::"Forbes’ staff of journalists could produce great work, sure. But there were only so many of them, and they cost a lot of money. Why not open the doors to Forbes.com to a swarm of outside 'contributors' — barely vetted, unedited, expected to produce at quantity, and only occasionally paid? (Some contributors received a monthly flat fee — a few hundred bucks — if they wrote a minimum number of pieces per month, with money above that possible for exceeding traffic targets. Others received nothing but the glory.) As of 2019, almost 3,000 people were “contributors” — or as they told people at parties, 'I'm a columnist for Forbes.' Let’s think about incentives for a moment. Only a very small number of these contributors can make a living at it — so it’s a side gig for most. The two things that determine your pay are how many articles you write and how many clicks you can harvest — a model that encourages a lot of low-grade clickbait, hot takes, and deceptive headlines. And many of these contributors are writing about the subject of their main job — that’s where their expertise is, after all — which raises all sorts of conflict-of-interest questions. And their work was published completely unedited — unless a piece went viral, in which case a web producer might 'check it more carefully.' All of that meant that Forbes suddenly became the easiest way for a marketer to get their message onto a brand-name site. And since this strategy did build up a ton of new traffic for Forbes — publishing an extra 8,000 pieces a month will do that! — lots of other publications followed suit in various ways." : --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 09:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC) ::I think it should be a lot later. Forbes staff was still reliable and separable from contributors for quite a while, and their reporting was trusted. [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 00:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC) : Maybe something worth implementing is an edit filter, reminding editors citing Forbes to make sure that that what they're citing is a staff article and not a contributor article. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 01:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC) ::Does Forbes always make the distinction clear? Did they make it clear from the start back when they added those 3,000 people who were allowed to add anything they wanted with nobody checking them? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 04:22, 20 February 2026 (UTC) :::It appears so. The byline either says "Staff" or "Contributor". With the two (current-version) links Newslin sent above it's "By Halah Touryalai, Former Staff." and "By Olga Khazan, Contributor." [[User:Aaron Liu|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#0645ad">Aaron Liu</span>]] ([[User talk:Aaron Liu#top|talk]]) 16:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC) ::{{Agree}} [[User:CherryPie94|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">CherryPie94</span>]] 🍒🥧 ([[User talk:CherryPie94|talk]]) 04:55, 22 February 2026 (UTC) == [[Iran International]] == 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? [[User:Shoshin000|Shoshin000]] ([[User talk:Shoshin000|talk]]) 11:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :Note the discussion started two months ago [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 506#Is Iran International a reliable source?|here]]. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 11:23, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :Per the [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_506#Is_Iran_International_a_reliable_source?|discussion in January 2026]] editors who frequent this board view it as generally reliable. -- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 11:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :We don't determine reliability on the basis of vague "who's behind the organisation" questions. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 12:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC) :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. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 20:50, 12 March 2026 (UTC) ::See [[Talk:2026 defection and_desertion of Iranian security forces#Sources of questionable reliability|this discussion]] for another apparent example of this source publishing false info. —<span style="font-variant:small-caps">'''[[User:Trilletrollet|<span style="color:mediumvioletred">Trilletrollet</span>]]'''</span> <small>[ [[User talk:Trilletrollet|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Trilletrollet|Contribs]] ]</small> 10:51, 17 March 2026 (UTC) == Newsday == Came across ''[[Newsday]]'' when looking for sources for "[[Suit & Tie]]". Should it be listed as generally reliable? It has won 19 Pulitzer Prizes and is the eighth-largest circulation newspaper in the United States (Media Bias/Fact Check list its factual reporting as "high" [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsday/]). However, some people consider it biased for politics-related topics (Media Bias/Fact Check noted that it "is reported factually with a left-leaning editorial bias"). With this logic, should it be listed as generally reliable for non-politics-related topics and considered biased for politics-related topics? <b>[[User:RedShellMomentum|<span style="color:black;">Red</span>]][[User talk:RedShellMomentum|<span style="color:red;">Shell</span>]][[User:RedShellMomentum|<span style="color:black;">Momentum</span>]]</b> 03:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsday/ The MBFC's page on ''Newsday'' that you cite]] repeatedly calls it specifically "left-center", i.e., just the smallest unit over from what MBFC calls "not biased" (but may be considered "centrist biased".) Even if we accept MBFC's evaluation, it is hard to see that as sufficient for concern. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 07:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :I've generally found Newsday to be a solid source for New York news, especially sports and pop culture. [[User:The Kip|<span style="color:#333f42;">'''The'''</span>]] [[User talk:The Kip|<span style="color:#b4975a;">'''Kip'''</span>]] <span style="color:#C8102E;"><small><sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Kip|contribs]])</sup></small></span> 07:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :MBFC doesn't judge sources based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so while it's may be useful for finding information about a source it's rather limited for Wikipedia's purposes. If by listed you mean appearing on the RSP that's not what the purpose of the RSP. It's not a list of reliable or unreliable sources, but simply a log of discussions that have happened here (see [[WP:RSPNOT]]). -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC) :MBFC is itself not reliable. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 09:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC) ::Yes, you could say the blind leading the ... [[User:Yesterday, all my dreams...|Yesterday, all my dreams...]] ([[User talk:Yesterday, all my dreams...|talk]]) 15:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :: This trite expression again. Wikipedians aren't reliable either, yet they determine all of our policies and guidelines. MBFC may not meet Wikipedia's criteria for citing article content, but it can be used as evidence when evaluating sources, along with other sources and Wikipedian arguments.[[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 18:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :With [[Newsday#Pulitzer Prizes|19 Pulitzer Prizes]], ''[[Newsday]]'' is a [[WP:NEWSORG|well-established news outlet]] and is generally reliable for news, including political topics. The [[WP:RS|reliability]] of a source is evaluated separately from its [[WP:BIASED|bias]], and I do not see any indication that ''Newsday'' is any more biased than other high-circulation newspapers from the New York area that have won Pulitzer Prizes, including {{rspe|The Wall Street Journal|''[[The Wall Street Journal]]''|gr}} and {{rspe|The New York Times|''[[The New York Times]]''|gr}}.{{pb}}{{rspe|Media Bias/Fact Check|''[[Media Bias/Fact Check]]''|gu}} is a [[WP:SPS|self-published source]], so citing its analysis carries no additional weight over an editor making the same claim without citing MBFC. In this case, MBFC's bias rating [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsday/ of ''Newsday''] is similar in intensity to that [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/wall-street-journal/ of ''The Wall Street Journal''] and [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-times/ of ''The New York Times''], so the MBFC rating does not support classifying ''Newsday'' as more biased for political topics than comparable mainstream news sources. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 09:45, 17 March 2026 (UTC) == TMCnet.com == In line with previous discussions on [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 506#CEOWorld Magazine|CEOWorld]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 509#Universal Media|Universal Media]], [https://www.tmcnet.com/ TMCnet.com] appears to be a similar sort of content/award farm. There are nearly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Atmcnet.com&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 1,000 citations] with many in BLPs. I don't see previous discussion of this source. [https://www.contentboost.com/who-we-are.aspx Contentboost], an advertising company with the same address linked from TMCnet's homepage, lists Rich Tehrani and Erik Linask as chief managers of both entities. [[User:81567518W|81567518W]] ([[User talk:81567518W|talk]]) 12:02, 14 March 2026 (UTC) * I see it as far from reliable. [[User:Yesterday, all my dreams...|Yesterday, all my dreams...]] ([[User talk:Yesterday, all my dreams...|talk]]) 15:34, 14 March 2026 (UTC) == Good sources for insects and arthropods? == Hi, does anyone know a few good sources when adding information to pages about arthopods (mainly Lepidoptera)? I was also wondering if Butterfly Conservation and UKMoths are reliable sources. [[User:RamenThePigeon|RamenThePigeon]] ([[User talk:RamenThePigeon|talk]]) 17:37, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :I would suggest asking on the talk page of [[WP:WikiProject Insects]], editors there are more likely not have topic knowledge. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC) ::Thank you for the advice! I did join Wikipedia recently to help improve mainly insects and arthropod pages so I’ll ask for insect-related advice there in future. [[User:RamenThePigeon|RamenThePigeon]] ([[User talk:RamenThePigeon|talk]]) 19:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC) :::Additionally, if you are able to access such books, textbooks published by [[academic publishing|academic publishers]] would be a good idea, such as the following: :::# [[Rankings of academic publishers|University Presses of well known universities]] :::# Elsevier Science :::# Kluwer :::# Palgrave MacMillan :::# Routledge :::# Sage Publishing :::# Wiley-Blackwell :::# John Wiley & Sons :::-- [[User:Cdjp1|Cdjp1]] ([[User talk:Cdjp1|talk]]) 22:24, 14 March 2026 (UTC) == Could use a good chunk of help at an article == I am in a dispute with another editor about the reliability of nearly every source at [[Lucky Bisht]]. To me, they all seem like primary or unreliably secondary sources. I would give individual cases, but it is literally the majority of the nearly 100 sources on a 608 word article. This would benefit from someone versed in Indian language sources, but anyone working here would be better than me. [[User:Kingsmasher678|<span style="color:green;">'''Kingsmasher678'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Kingsmasher678|<span style="color:black;">'''talk'''</span>]]) 22:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :Are you kidding? That guy is supposed to be a hitman. Who wants to mess with him? Kidding, of course. [[User:Yesterday, all my dreams...|Yesterday, all my dreams...]] ([[User talk:Yesterday, all my dreams...|talk]]) 19:04, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == Neutrality in Telugu newspapers == Telugu newspapers such as [[Eenadu]] and [[Andhra Jyothi]] have reported on replacement houses for [[Cyclone Hudhud]]. I can find an English-language source about these replacement houses first being built in 2016 [https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Visakhapatnam/cycloneresistant-houses-getting-ready-for-hudhud-victims/article8251454.ece] from an RS (The Hindu). From there most coverage is in Telugu and from these newspapers. Examples of articles like this are [https://www.eenadu.net/videos/playvideo/houses-of-hud-hud-cyclone-victims/1/35750] and [https://www.andhrajyothy.com/2026/andhra-pradesh/visakhapatnam/hudhud-houses-for-the-unworthy-1503223.html]. The thing is, they seem to be biased towards one party (the [[Telugu Desam Party]]) and against another (the [[YSR Congress Party]]). Their articles also mention this, [[Eenadu#Political impact and TDP support]] and [[Andhra Jyothi#Criticism]] respectively. So, is the general information, that the replacement houses have remained unused, to be trusted? How much of it from these newspapers can I include in the article? [[User:HurricaneZeta|<span style="background-color:#ffd98c; color:black">'''Hurricane'''</span>]][[User talk:HurricaneZeta|<span style="background-color:#ffd98c; color:black">'''Zeta'''</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/HurricaneZeta|C]]</sup> 23:22, 15 March 2026 (UTC) :It's important to remember that sources don't have to be neutral, see [[WP:RSBIAS]]. It's editor who have to write articles without including their own biases. The solution is generally to either include the details while excluding an matters of opinion, to try and find additional so as to balance any bias, or if unavoidable to leave the details out.<br />The critical sections of their Wikipedia articles only discusses bias rather not any criticism related to incorrect reporting. Unless there are secondary sources critical of the reliability of their reporting, especially if they haven't posted correction to misreporting, they should probably be treated like any standard [[WP:NEWSORG]] (making sure to note [[WP:RSEDITORIAL]]).<br />It's difficult to give more specific advice on the articles, I can't see anything immediately wrong but I do not speak Telugu and Google translate's results aren't great. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 21:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == Renewed discussion on AssyriaPost == In November a discussion was opened at the Noticeboard [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_494#AssyriaPost] regarding the use of a publication known as AssyriaPost. I wanted to bring it back to the Noticeboard, as there have been some updates to the site since then and I feel that these are worthy of discussion for its use as a whole. In the months since the original discussion, the website has now adopted an [https://www.assyriapost.com/about/ editorial policy]. The policy states the publication's mission, editorial independence, efforts on transparency/fairness/accuracy, and other points. Additionally, in recent months, a number of named contributors have now been cited to have written articles for the site. The [https://www.assyriapost.com/tag/opinion/ Opinions section] has had a number of articles written with public authorship since December, while named and/or frequent contributors include figures such as [https://www.assyriapost.com/author/bo/ here (BO)], [https://www.assyriapost.com/author/david/ DB], and [https://www.assyriapost.com/author/ng/ NG]. In the Assyrian community, political journalism is often kept anonymous for security concerns, so most political articles are attributed to just "Assyria Post." In any case, the site has been more public about its operations since it was first brought to the Noticeboard, which warrants renewed discussion about its reliability. Furthermore, the user that opened the discussion in November was 777network. This user was found/suspected to have been a meatpuppet for a user who was indeffed on English Wiki, Wlaak [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive363#c-Newslinger-20251220192800-Newslinger-20251219225900]. Wlaak himself was topic banned from [[WP:GS/ACAS]] on English Wiki [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Wlaak], before being indeffed for sockpuppetry [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wlaak] and later globally blocked [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global/2025-w41#Global_block_for_Wlaak] (though that block was rescinded, there have since still been issues surrounding his editing on other projects [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1214#h-Blocked_editor_copy+paste_spamming_GS_draft_on_other_Wikimedia_projects-20260209201100]). As I've stated elsewhere, off-Wiki evidence also suggests motivations to push a specific POV with a backdrop of [[anti-Assyrian sentiment]] behind them. This may seem like a lot of off-hand information, but it's necessary to mention, as it makes it evident to me that the reason this source was even brought to Noticeboard seems more about its use of "Assyrian" rather than any actual reliability issues. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ant_Wan#New_Request This discussion] at [[Ant Wan]] corresponds to my point. Either way, I think that there is due cause to reconsider the use of AP on Wikipedia, and I'm looking forward to hearing opinions. [[User:PresentlySuraye3|PresentlySuraye3]] ([[User talk:PresentlySuraye3|talk]]) 13:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC) == NewsBytes == Is newsbytesapp.com a reliable source? I noticed while editing [[Pakistani cricket team in Bangladesh in 2025–26]] that the Cite button refused to create a citation for it, which led to me to dig further and realize that it was actually on the blacklist since 2017, after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList&oldid=786623239#newsbytesapp.com this request].[[User:Duckmather|Duckmather]] ([[User talk:Duckmather|talk]]) 01:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC) :Not to be confused with [[Newsbytes News Network]], who are unrelated. They appear to say all the right things on their Ethical Conduct page (www.newsbytesapp.com/ethical-conduct) and their staff appear to actually exist (www.newsbytesapp.com/about) (that might seem a strange thing to say, but there's been several recent examples where staff were AI hallucinated slop). They do only allow redressal of grievances if you live in India, which seems problematic (www.newsbytesapp.com/grievance-redressal). Barring any specific concerns I don't see why they shouldn't be covered by [[WP:NEWSORG]].<br />The blacklisting was done due to the site being spammed, rather than any apparent concerns about reliability. If you want to use an particular article you can always ask for whitelisting, see [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]]. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 13:00, 17 March 2026 (UTC) == theindiansun.com.au == Encountered this from a bot report on [[WP:AIV]] re: [[Special:Contributions/VeritasArchive1]] (in this case, the user was mass removing links to the site, but a quick check looks like the removals might have merit, hence posting here. It seemed suspicious that the site was linked about, and directly mentioned, the same random, seemingly non-notable person ("Nitin Gupta"), and then randomly clicking on some entries in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch?target=theindiansun.com.au the EL search], especially more recent "articles," found him on even more. E.g., [https://www.theindiansun.com.au/2018/05/29/liberals-nominate-prince-lakshyaraj-victorian-business-ambassador/], [https://www.theindiansun.com.au/2018/01/19/lessons-rich-famous/], [https://www.theindiansun.com.au/2025/11/16/brads-china-trip-a-step-in-the-right-direction-but-india-should-be-next/], [https://www.theindiansun.com.au/2025/10/23/shubhanand-mukesh-to-contest-kahalgaon-as-jdu-candidate-in-bihar-polls/]. The person isn't on ''all'' articles, but enough to make me think it's a farm of some sort (especially since the site's article authors are frequently a generic "Our Reporter"). That said, I'm not at all an expert in the area, so thought I'd drop it here for y'all. Cheers. =) --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\ [[User talk:Slakr|talk]] /</sup></small> 01:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :From looking at the results of searching Google[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Nitin+Gupta%22+site%3Atheindiansun.com.au&oq=%22Nitin+Gupta%22+site%3Atheindiansun.com.au] I think the reason Nitin Gupta is all over the site is because he's writing for them, and they're also using him for opinion in other reports. It's difficult to comment on general reliability, they don't disclose much about themselves, but it seems clear from the "People behind The Indian Sun" at the bottom of each page that they're a small operation (the editor also answer sales and general enquiries). Unless there are specific concerns they're probably not generally unreliable, but use with caution if it's controversial. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 16:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC) == California Post == *''[[California Post]]'' The ''California Post'' began operating early this year as the West Coast arm of the ''[[New York Post]]'', which is considered "generally unreliable". At least 50% of their reporting is politics-based (which the NYP is most notoriously biased with), and it is run by ex-NYP and -[[Breitbart News|Breitbart]] staffers. I have never used this noticeboard before and am not overly familiar with what I "need", but their site shows the same kind of tabloid ultra-biased reporting as we see in the NYP. (recent headlines include "{{tq|Trump taunts Gavin Newsom’s dyslexia, calling him ‘low IQ’ in Oval Office diatribe}}", "{{tq|GOP senator pitches plan to slash California’s sky-high gas taxes — and save drivers more than $1 per gallon}}", "{{tq|Billionaire Dem heiress keeps backing her ‘loser’ boyfriend’s failed campaigns}}") [[User:Aesurias|aesurias]] <small>''(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it)'' ([[User talk:Aesurias|talk]])</small> 06:07, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :I think we need to wait and see whether they function as a subsidiary of the NYP and whether they actually publish falsehoods. News Corp owns many [[List of assets owned by News Corp|media outlets]] of varying quality. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 08:57, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :{{pb}}The domain of the ''[[California Post]]'', [http://californiapost.com/ californiapost.com], redirects to [https://nypost.com/ca/ nypost.com/ca], a subdirectory of the ''[[New York Post]]''{{'s}} website. The copyright footer on each of the ''California Post''{{'s}} web pages states that the ''California Post'' is {{xt|"© 2026 NYP Holdings, Inc."}} The company NYP Holdings, Inc., owns the ''New York Post'' and its subsidiaries (''[[Page Six]]'' and ''Decider''), but not other [[News Corp]] brands unrelated to the ''New York Post''. The [https://nypost.com/privacy/ privacy notice of the ''New York Post''] begins: {{xt|"NYP Holdings, Inc. ('Company,' 'we,' 'us,' or 'our'), publisher of the New York Post and California Post, understands..."}}.{{pb}}Based on this, content from the ''California Post'' should be treated identically to content from the ''New York Post'', as established in [[WP:NYPOST]] and [[WP:PAGESIX]]. If the quality of the ''California Post''{{'s}} content diverges from that of the ''New York Post'', which does not appear to be the case right now, it can be re-evaluated later. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 13:33, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ::So they are closer than I thought. Still, if their editorial staff is separate I don't think we should aplpy the NYP rating automatically. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 15:37, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ::We can, of course, give them [[A leopard cannot change its spots|every chance to show that they will be reliable]], but... as they say, whatever comes before "but" can be ignored. Are we taking bets that they will be like NY Post? Please put me down for $20. Thanks [[User:Yesterday, all my dreams...|Yesterday, all my dreams...]] ([[User talk:Yesterday, all my dreams...|talk]]) 15:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC) == Rossiyskaya Gazeta == The reliability of ''[[Rossiyskaya Gazeta]]'' for the coverage of [[Russo-Ukrainian war]], comparing these Russian state-sponsored propaganda outlets, including [[RT (TV network)|RT]], [[Sputnik (news agency)|Sputnik]] and [[TASS]] associated with disinformation on Ukraine. These sources are generally unreliable, but the exception of [[RIA Novosti]] is currently no consensus. [[User:Absolutiva|Absolutiva]] 13:13, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :The note at the top of this page says "ask about reliability of sources in context." What do you want to use it for? There are many topics for which I wouldn't use it. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 13:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC) == ''The War Zone'' == Is ''[https://twz.com TWZ]'' generally considered a reliable source? There's a [https://twz.com/sailors-talk-to-phalanx-ciws-as-it-targets-a-737-like-a-dog-about-to-bite-the-mailman ''TWZ'' article] that I want to use as a source in a Wikipedia article, but I am seeing conflicting claims on whether ''TWZ'' is reliable. One editor says ''TWZ'' is probably "[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 409#Internet magazines: 'The War Zone' and 'The Drive'|not useful for independent coverage]]," but there is no further discussion in the linked thread. I found a [https://secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bad-aerospace-websites-and-video-channels-unwanted-here.46209 thread on another forum] where people are both defending and criticizing ''TWZ''. However, Reddit users tend to think it's legitimate. [https://old.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/i0ujf7/title/fzuc60e] [https://old.reddit.com/r/behindthebastards/comments/1rkzozz/looking_for_better_sources_on_iran_war/o8p7bd7] [https://old.reddit.com/r/thebulwark/comments/1rwj14q/where_are_folks_getting_their_news_regarding_the/ob0bqo5] [[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] ([[User talk:Ixfd64|talk]]) 18:51, 18 March 2026 (UTC) :I am 100% certain that they do not hire [[Oriana Fallaci]] or anyone else who, like her, would ride <i>outside</i> tanks during wars in places like Seria. So how do they get their news? Not from a new Oriana but from the web while they sip beer. They are a repackager. No go, no go. By the way, I heard that to comment on Reddit you need to take an intelligence test now, and you only get to comment if you fail the test. [[User:Yesterday, all my dreams...|Yesterday, all my dreams...]] ([[User talk:Yesterday, all my dreams...|talk]]) 21:59, 18 March 2026 (UTC) ==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Color-coding?|Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Color-coding?]]== [[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Color-coding?|Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Color-coding?]] <!-- Template:Please see --> [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 05:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC) == Maltese Herald (blog by Mark Camilleri) as a source for corporate/BLP content == I would appreciate input on the reliability of the Maltese Herald blog operated by Mark Camilleri. Context: • The outlet has been repeatedly described by established Maltese media as lacking editorial oversight and has been involved in multiple defamation‑related controversies. • Reputable Maltese newspapers (Times of Malta, Malta Today, Newsbook, Malta Independent) have reported on these issues. • The blog appears to be self‑published, non‑editorialized, and not independent of the subjects it covers. Question: Can Maltese Herald be considered a reliable source under WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:BLP for biographical or corporate allegations (including those related to Alkagesta), or should it be treated as an unreliable/self‑published source that cannot be used? A clear noticeboard assessment would help prevent future disputes over its use in this and related articles. [[User:Simonesand|Simonesand]] ([[User talk:Simonesand|talk]]) 07:43, 19 March 2026 (UTC) :If you expect an "unreliable" answer, you have it for sure. The site is a no go. [[User:Yesterday, all my dreams...|Yesterday, all my dreams...]] ([[User talk:Yesterday, all my dreams...|talk]]) 08:16, 19 March 2026 (UTC)
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to Eurovision Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
Eurovision Wiki:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Pages included on this page:
User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil
(
edit
)
User:MiszaBot/config
(
edit
)
Eurovision Wiki:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header
(
edit
)
Template:'s
(
edit
)
Template:-
(
edit
)
Template:Agree
(
edit
)
Template:Anchor
(
edit
)
Template:Archive list
(
edit
)
Template:Bcc
(
edit
)
Template:Clear
(
edit
)
Template:Clickable button
(
edit
)
Template:Code
(
edit
)
Template:Encodefirst
(
edit
)
Template:Flatlist
(
edit
)
Template:For loop
(
edit
)
Template:Green
(
edit
)
Template:Hidden ping
(
edit
)
Template:Hlist/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Hmbox
(
edit
)
Template:Hmbox/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Main other
(
edit
)
Template:Mbox
(
edit
)
Template:Moved discussion from
(
edit
)
Template:No redirect
(
edit
)
Template:Noticeboard links
(
edit
)
Template:Outdent
(
edit
)
Template:Pagetype
(
edit
)
Template:Paragraph break
(
edit
)
Template:Pb
(
edit
)
Template:Ping
(
edit
)
Template:Plainlist/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Preview warning
(
edit
)
Template:RSN link
(
edit
)
Template:RSP entry
(
edit
)
Template:Re
(
edit
)
Template:Reply to
(
edit
)
Template:Rfc
(
edit
)
Template:Rfc/topic
(
edit
)
Template:Rsnl
(
edit
)
Template:Rspe
(
edit
)
Template:SHORTDESC:Noticeboard for discussing whether particular sources are reliable in context
(
edit
)
Template:Section link
(
edit
)
Template:Short description
(
edit
)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck
(
edit
)
Template:Shortcut
(
edit
)
Template:Skip to bottom
(
edit
)
Template:Skip to bottom/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Slink
(
edit
)
Template:Small
(
edit
)
Template:Smalldiv
(
edit
)
Template:Strong
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote block
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote block/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline
(
edit
)
Template:Talk quote inline/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Template other
(
edit
)
Template:Tq
(
edit
)
Template:Tqb
(
edit
)
Template:Trim
(
edit
)
Template:U
(
edit
)
Template:User link
(
edit
)
Template:Userbox
(
edit
)
Template:Userbox/styles.css
(
edit
)
Template:Xt
(
edit
)
Module:Anchor
(
edit
)
Module:Archive list
(
edit
)
Module:Arguments
(
edit
)
Module:Category handler
(
edit
)
Module:Category handler/blacklist
(
edit
)
Module:Category handler/config
(
edit
)
Module:Category handler/data
(
edit
)
Module:Category handler/shared
(
edit
)
Module:Check for unknown parameters
(
edit
)
Module:Clickable button
(
edit
)
Module:Color contrast
(
edit
)
Module:Color contrast/colors
(
edit
)
Module:Delink
(
edit
)
Module:For loop
(
edit
)
Module:Hidden ping
(
edit
)
Module:List
(
edit
)
Module:Message box
(
edit
)
Module:Message box/configuration
(
edit
)
Module:Message box/ombox.css
(
edit
)
Module:MultiReplace
(
edit
)
Module:Namespace detect/config
(
edit
)
Module:Namespace detect/data
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar/configuration
(
edit
)
Module:Navbar/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox/configuration
(
edit
)
Module:Navbox/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:Outdent
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/config
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/rfd
(
edit
)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect
(
edit
)
Module:Redirect
(
edit
)
Module:Reply to
(
edit
)
Module:Section link
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut/config
(
edit
)
Module:Shortcut/styles.css
(
edit
)
Module:String
(
edit
)
Module:TableTools
(
edit
)
Module:Unsubst
(
edit
)
Module:Userbox
(
edit
)
Module:Wikitext Parsing
(
edit
)
Module:Yesno
(
edit
)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Project page
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit source
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Page information