<templatestyles src="Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/styles.css" />

<!-- TODO: Add DISPLAYTITLE back when generating actual pages, with correct URL -->
<!-- {{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/all/''Pirate Wires''}} -->
{{Infobox
| title            = [[Pirate Wires]]
| image            = [[File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg|100px|alt=logo]] ''(not part of original row)''
| label1           = other names
| data1            = PW, PirateWires
| label2           = source type
| data2            = foobar ''(not part of original row)''
| label3           = publisher
| data3            = Fooland (state-funded media) ''(not part of original row)''
| label5           = website
| data5            = 
| label6           = classification
| data6            = [[File:Argentina - NO symbol.svg|20px|Generally unreliable|link=]] Generally unreliable: Editors show consensus that the source is [[WP:QUESTIONABLE|questionable]] in most cases.
}}

Per an RfC held in 2025, PW is occasionally noteworthy for its strong libertarian or right-wing commentary on politics, economics, society, and technology as well as interviews conducted directly by a contributor. It does not clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion. Some of its factual claims have been criticised as obviously false (such as the pseudoscientific promotion of bloodletting for all men and some of its coverage of Wikipedia and Reddit) or borderline antisemitic conspiracy theory (certain coverage of George Soros). Claims are often inflammatory and poorly sourced, with no known fact-checking or correction-publishing process. More reliable sources should generally be used to verify or replace PW as a source of fact. Reliable sources generally treat its assertions as claims, not facts, with the exception of direct quotes from interviews. PW has a conflict of interest when reporting on Peter Thiel.

== Prior discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}

<blockquote>''Please add links to other significant discussions.  When in doubt, read and rely on the discussions themselves, rather than the simple summary.''</blockquote>

* [[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 498#(Archived, then re-posted to close) Tech for Palestine talk page discussion around the usage of PirateWires.com]]

* [[File:Treffpunkt.svg]]
* Simple summary of prior discussions: '''TBD'''

{{DEFAULTSORT:Pirate Wires, Perennial sources}}
==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
<references />
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-gu" id="Pirate_Wires"
| [[Pirate Wires]] <small>(PW, PirateWires)</small> {{Shortcut mini|WP:PIRATEWIRES}}
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|gu}}
| [[File:Treffpunkt.svg|20px|Request for comment|link=]]&nbsp;[[WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 498#(Archived, then re-posted to close) Tech for Palestine talk page discussion around the usage of PirateWires.com|2025]]
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2025}}
| Per an RfC held in 2025, PW is occasionally noteworthy for its strong libertarian or right-wing commentary on politics, economics, society, and technology as well as interviews conducted directly by a contributor. It does not clearly distinguish between news reporting and opinion. Some of its factual claims have been criticised as obviously false (such as the pseudoscientific promotion of bloodletting for all men and some of its coverage of Wikipedia and Reddit) or borderline antisemitic conspiracy theory (certain coverage of George Soros). Claims are often inflammatory and poorly sourced, with no known fact-checking or correction-publishing process. More reliable sources should generally be used to verify or replace PW as a source of fact. Reliable sources generally treat its assertions as claims, not facts, with the exception of direct quotes from interviews. PW has a conflict of interest when reporting on Peter Thiel.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|piratewires.com}}
|}