Gerard, We do not get to legislate English Wikipedia on this mailing list. While it is true that citations are sometimes copied as-is from English Wikipedia when translating articles, the place to address your concern is still English Wikipedia, and/or the particular Wikipedia community whose citation practices you would like to improve.
Even if your ultimate goal is some global decision about (some particular) American sources, you would *still* do well to argue for it on-wiki and see if you can convince even one community of your stance. A general gesture on this mailing list about undue influence on unnamed American news sources *cannot* achieve your goal. A. (volunteer capacity) On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 9:42 AM Gerard Meijssen via Wikimedia-l < [email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > Framing that the English Wikipedia has processes means that it > is irrelevant that its references are copied at a large scale. Given that > the international press provides too many instances with proof > demonstrating that previously robust sources are no longer trustworthy, why > have a local conversation? Democracy is bought and newspapers are bought. > Is there any doubt that the editorial processes of several papers reflect > the interests of their proprietors? If there is, there might be room for a > more global discussion. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 at 00:42, Raymond Leonard via Wikimedia-l < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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] > > _______________________________________________ > 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/AZQZFDR3KIRECXI6Z56LK3Y4TEPUNGUZ/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- Asaf Bartov <[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/2UILW7SFDOFPXICCQXWUBZNBJJWMN7SH/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
