I think a nuanced example to consider is the New York Post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#New York Post <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#New_York_Post> .
Excluding entertainment: There is consensus the *New York Post* is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_politics>. A tabloid newspaper <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabloid_journalism>, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the *New York Post* more reliable before it changed ownership in 1976, and particularly unreliable for coverage involving the New York City Police Department <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department>. A 2024 RfC concluded that the *New York Post* is marginally reliable for entertainment coverage; see below. This consensus does not apply to the broadsheet publication of the same name, that existed from 1801–1942. Entertainment: There is consensus that the *New York Post <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post>* (nypost.com <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22nypost.com%22> [image: Links] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.nypost.com> [image: Spamcheck] <https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=nypost.com>) and its sub-publications *Decider <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decider_(website)>* (decider.com <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/insource:%22decider.com%22> [image: Links] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.decider.com> [image: Spamcheck] <https://spamcheck.toolforge.org/by-domain?q=decider.com>) and *Page Six <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Six>* are considered to be marginally reliable sources for entertainment coverage, including reviews, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP>. The quality of individual newspapers & their reliability of coverage areas clearly can vary over time. I think it behooves us to reconsider the reliability of a source as it changes. Peaceray <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peaceray> On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 2:50 PM Benjamin Lees via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, as Andy points out, the English WIkipedia has processes for > determining source reliability. Those processes address the fact that > reliability may change over time as organizations change ownership or > management, and so formerly reliable sources may ultimately be > deprecated, or vice versa. I'm not really clear on what you're saying is > inadequate about those processes. > > Benjamin > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2026 at 3:01 PM Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hoi, >> A follow up thought. When our community finds suspect sources wanting and >> refuse it as a source for references, we devalue the investments made by >> moguls and maga. There are valid USAmerican sources and they need as much >> as we do, a public. A public that is not lied to because its sources are >> not suspect. >> Thanks again, >> GerardM >> >> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 19:53, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hoi, >>> It is not about sources being American. It is about the question if they >>> cover the news. When their source is the US government, it is no longer >>> acceptable to recognise its information as valid or consider it as one side >>> in a story.. The result produced is often baloney, particularly when their >>> proprietor has imprinted its staff to produce output that reflects the >>> business interests outside of the publication. >>> >>> Given that resources from for instance Africa are frowned upon, the >>> imbalance is glaring. Given that even the notion of considering the quality >>> from suspect sources is not taken seriously; it is met by bureaucracy, the >>> question will become to what extent Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. >>> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 15:17, Andy Mabbett via Wikimedia-l < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 7 Feb 2026 at 08:58, Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > In the past several British papers were no longer considered credible >>>> sources. Given the dominiation of USAmerican publications by a USAmerican >>>> government that is known for distorting the truth about everything, it is >>>> relevant to consider the extent we trust American sources. >>>> >>>> We won't deprecate American sources simply because they are American, >>>> in the same way that we do not deprecate British sources simply >>>> because they are British. >>>> >>>> We already deprecate individual American sources where they are shown >>>> to be unreliable, for example: >>>> >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_261#RfC:_National_Enquirer >>>> >>>> You—or anyone else—are welcome to raise a similar RfC if you find an >>>> American—or any—source which is unsuitable. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], >>>> guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >>>> Public archives at >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/GKMJU7PYOU5PJXLJ2INZF5ELINAHFBRW/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/V7GQ3IBLFETZXFGXXGMMW4LVKHO2XQIW/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/A5N53ERCAJA2UQHPOIEW47KRYRFYTK5C/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- [email protected], guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/33HIGJX536P3DZ6QD53H5PI6UZPYSYSM/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
