Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Another source: If you don't like the guideline WP:FRINGE, vote with your feet. We don't need your help.
Line 1,381: Line 1,381:
::::::[[WP:FRINGE]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:FRINGE]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Therefore facilitating NPOV, with independent sources.. [[User:SamwiseGSix|SamwiseGSix]] ([[User talk:SamwiseGSix|talk]]) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Therefore facilitating NPOV, with independent sources.. [[User:SamwiseGSix|SamwiseGSix]] ([[User talk:SamwiseGSix|talk]]) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::If you don't like the guideline [[WP:FRINGE]], vote with your feet. We don't need your help. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:32, 1 November 2023

    Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

    Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.


    Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

    List of archives
    , 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
    10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
    20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29
    30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39
    40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49
    50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59
    60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69
    70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
    80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89
    90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
    100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109
    110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119
    120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129
    130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139
    140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149
    150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159
    160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169
    170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179
    180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189
    190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199
    200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
    210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219
    220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229
    230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239
    240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249
    250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259
    260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269
    270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279
    280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289
    290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299
    300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309
    310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319
    320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329
    330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339
    340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349
    350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359
    360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369
    370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379
    380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389
    390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399
    400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409
    410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419
    420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429
    430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439
    440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449
    450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455

    Additional notes:

    Shortcuts
    • RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
    • While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
    • This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

    RfC: Reliability of PanAm Post

    A narrow majority of editors commenting advocate no change in the prior RFC result that the sourced is generally unreliable (Option #3), while a narrow minority argue that the prior RFC should be cancelled and that additional considerations (Option #2) should apply. Some editors straddle the line between #2 and #3 or between #3 and #4 and some distinguish between the Spanish and the English site. The initial rationale for the new RFC is that, since the last RFC, there has been a turnover in the editorial staff and that editorial policies have improved, and that some articles/columns/editorials cited in the prior discussion are no longer available on the website. The discussion has largely revolved around whether particular articles at the site are properly characterized as biased opinion or factually inaccurate, and, if the latter, whether there is a lack of editorial oversight. There is no discussion of any current dispute arising since the last RFC over the use of a specific source from this site for a specific statement in a specific article. Based on the discussion, and not treating this as a vote, there is no consensus to change the result of the prior RFC that the site is Generally Unreliable as a source. That does not mean that it can never be used, but that WP:GUNREL applies to any specific uses of this source. Banks Irk (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    What is the reliability of PanAm Post?

    Previous discussion from May 2020 here. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option 2/Cancel prior result: PanAm Post is currently under the third category at WP:RSP, based in a discussion from 2020, which has justified some removals that I wish to bring to the discussion:
    • "Ex-Green Beret Behind Venezuela Raid Traveled to Colombia on Private Aircraft Linked to Chavismo". 28 May 2020. (removal) The article was used to reference the participation of businessman Franklin Durán in Operation Gideon, something already mentioned by reliable sources such as Associated Press and El Espectador.
    • "Story Behind the Contract: How a Plan to Capture Maduro Was Devised and Scrapped". 28 May 2020. (removal) Overview of Operation Gideon with details covered by sources such as Associated Press, The Washington Post, and Vox
    • "Chavista pollster admits Venezuelans want Maduro out of office". 21 March 2016. (removal) Cites a pollster, no reliability issues here either.
    As stated by some of edit summaries, many of these facts are published by reliable sources, and in some cases, reliable sources have cited PanAm Post too. It's also worth nothing that months after the last RfC was closed, between August and September 2020, the arguably most troublesome editors of the newspaper left and started their own outlet, "El American": Orlando Avendaño (editor in chief), Vanessa Vallejo (co-editor in chief) and Emmanuel Rincón. The last one actually was mentioned in the opening of the last RfC, regarding his credentials. Since then, PanAm Post's editorial line has improved.
    It's been three years since the last discussion at the noticeboard and the changes in the editorial board, and its worth revisiting the outlet's reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't involved in the previous discussion, but I'll take a look and come back here based on what I've found. Deauthorized. (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As you have shown here, a lot of these topics are covered by more reliable sources. There is no reason to have a source like PanAm Post being used on the project. WMrapids (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't dismiss references or judge their reliability based on the availability of other sources, and the main issue is that this won't always be the case. PanAm Post has original reporting and valuable material that can be used for sourcing, with attribution, particularly interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If their original reporting is notable at all, it will most likely be reported by much more reliable sources. However, this site seems completely inappropriate for the project. WMrapids (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd decide to look at the piece of work itself and the creator and the publisher. WP:SOURCEDEF says: "Any of the three can affect reliability." The choices given in the 4-way template are only about the publisher. That's just one of the reasons for me to decide it was not appropriate. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, as I stated in the prior RfC the PanAm Post has published unsubstantiated conspiracy theories accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines, and publishes virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment, several of which openly advocate for extreme levels of political violence against supporters of the Venezuelan government. If any fact within it is worth citing, there will be more reliable and reputable sources covering this fact. I note User:NoonIcarus's belief that PanAm's editorial standards have improved since several of its more problematic contributors left, but I do not believe this to be true. Literally within the past week they have published, under their "news" section (so these are not opinion pieces) Chilean government awards life pension to criminals of the outbreak which effectively slanders regular Chilean citizens as criminals for participating in the 2019–2022 Chilean protests and the resolutely silly With Petro, cocaine exports are aimed at replacing oil which provides information that as far as I can tell stands in total contrast to what every actually reliable source says on Colombia's cocaine market: see here for example. As such, the PanAm Post still publishes information that any reasonable editorial line would block as either potentially defamatory or just plain wrong, and it is clearly an unreliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note that the first two articles that you're referring to currently cannot be found at the website:[13][14], apparently being retracted. At any rate, these descriptions appear to be misleading: they don't appear to be "accusing Bill Gates of attempting to control the world with vaccines", nor "advocating for violence against Venezuelan government supporters". --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, just to quickly provide Bloomberg's original report on Colombia's cocaine: Cocaine Is Set to Overtake Oil to Become Colombia’s Main Export. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well there are still crazy pieces from the same author on the site [15] [16]. The latter is particularly funny now as it includes gems like

    Today, while the industrial power of the major nations of the West is languishing and jobs are being destroyed every day, China’s industrial strength is flourishing, and even Wuhan will be back on its feet. On the other hand, the rest of the world seems to have no intention of lifting the quarantines any time soon. In countries like Spain, Italy, and the United States, there are hundreds and thousands of deaths counted every day.

    And it seems they're not the only columnist there who publishes crazy stuff [17] That said, I'm reluctant to penalise a whole site just because they allow crazy columnists to publish on their site, at most it means we should exclude their columnists. The question is is the non-opinion part of their site reliable? I don't know, I'm not sure if it's worth looking into a great deal at least for the English part of the site consider it seems to be dead with all the content being from early 2021. The only recent thing seems to be this opinion piece which is slightly less crazy than the other stuff [18], but either way doesn't seem to suggest the English site is going to be useful going forward. I don't understand Spanish so cannot evaluate that portion of their site. Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NB, I see from your comments above that the person I'm referring to actually had a significant position in their news operation. That being the case, I would say there's no point even considering their English site, it had significant involvement from someone who doesn't seem trustworthy and seems to has died not that long after he and the others left. (Technically there might be a short time after, but it doesn't seem worth it for such a short period, and further it's unlikely everything immediately improved the moment they left.) I'll also go as far as to say although I cannot personal evaluate it that we shouldn't trust the Spanish portion from that time period either assuming he had the same level of involvement. So it's really only ~2020 to now that we should bother to consider. Nil Einne (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In those cases, opinion pieces are clearly distinguished from news articles. However, I want to clarify that I don't deny that issues remain with PanAm Post, which is the reason why I stand with Option 2, taking care of these specific cases while being able to use valuable content not found elsewhere else, such as interviews. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use a translator to take a look at the active Spanish side of the site, from what I can see there's still a right wing bias to the reporting but there is a marked improvement over their older content. I've compared articles on the site to similar reports by AP News and didn't notice any significant differences ([19] and [20]), though said articles were written by the EFE Agency so it may not reflect on PanAm as a whole. As per the rest of the Spanish articles not written by EFE, they seem reliable to me. Articles like this one that I looked over didn't raise any significant red flags for me.
    To address the English side of the website, that side seems to be mostly abandoned (no) and contains the typical borderline insane culture war stuff that was previously mentioned by User:Nil Einne. Some of the authors of said articles, such as Raul Tortolero, still publish articles on the Spanish side, but he seems to only post opinion articles now based on what I can tell. Deauthorized. (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To make a decision though, I'd say Option 2 for the Spanish side of PanAm Post, with extra consideration given towards opinion articles as that seems to be the only problematic part of the site I can see. Besides the English side of course, which I'll mark up to Option 4, as it seems to be mostly abandoned and contains problematic content as previously noticed by other editors. Deauthorized. (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deauthorized: Please see what I found on the Spanish side of the website in this edit. WMrapids (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I'm very reluctant to use a machine translator when assessing a source for reliability especially when I don't understand the language at all. While machine translations especially for a pairing like Spanish to English are generally good enough that most of the time, they should not significantly change basic factual accuracy, they will often still lose context, nuance and tone and in complex circumstances to risk changing the meaning of stuff in misleading ways. For example while it's partly overt, this opinion column I linked above has an extreme conspiratorial tone pointing to how China is going to use COVID-19, which it wink wink suggests may have been made in a Wuhan lab, to their great advantage. [21] The overt stuff may make it through machine translation but there's a fair chance the extreme conspiratorial tone won't make it through machine translation and even if it does it would be impossible to be sure it was actually present in the original text. But the other issue is that I'm also very unlikely to use a source which I don't understand and require machine translation to cite something. At most I might find something and ask someone who understands to confirm it says what I think it says. Even if I'm just checking an existing citation, if it's very simple perhaps I'll trust machine translation but anything more complicated and I'll again likely seek help from someone who does understand it. So it's better that these people who will be using the source assess the reliability than me who won't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that the tone of writing can be lost in translation. Perhaps somebody with a better understanding of Spanish than me can take a look at it, and if it turns out that there was something drastic I was missing due to the translation, then I'll reconsider. But for now, I'm standing by my previous decision. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Deauthorized: ReyHahn and I are native Spanish speakers, in case advice is needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: You can see the Spanish side of the website here. WMrapids (talk) 02:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said earlier, that piece is particularly funny since with the benefit of hindsight, I don't think anyone will agree much of what it suggested actually happened. And indeed while many countries COVID-19 strategies are widely criticised, China's one is rarely seen as a success now in virtually any area including economically that the column is talking about. Since whatever initial success they may have had with their zero COVID-19, it did start to harm them economically and it also became clear they had no good plan on a way forward. So instead ended up rapidly changing direction in a panic when public pressure began scare the party/government. And notably this rapid and unplanned about face largely due to public demands rather than specifics of the medical situation likely significantly harmed the one benefit of what they did, avoiding lives loss from COVID-19. And this from a country who's ability to plan ahead better than even most successful democracies has generally been a key point of pride. Of course the fact China persisted with extreme lockdowns required by their zero CVOID-19 strategy for so long is another thing which makes that piece funny with hindsight, since it's talking about how they're ending in China but it's unclear when they'll end in other parts of the world. Of course being wrong does not in itself impeach a journalist but when you're coming at things from an extreme conspiratorial angle and your conspiratorial proposal on what's going to happen turns out to be wrong basically every way, well then yes I think it speaks strongly against trusting you. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: Thank you for your comments. Do you have enough information to make a particular decision? WMrapids (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/Cancel prior result: as already stated in previous RfC. It has been cited by reliable sources like WaPo, Reuters, WSJ, AP and BBC. Repeating myself: Forbes The 2020 Ranking Of Free-Market Think Tanks Measured By Social Media Impact, that described it as popular and with "solid reporting" on topics related to free market. Associated Press called PanamPost "a conservative online publication run by mostly Venezuelan exiles from Miami" in a piece that confirms PanamPost original investigation. I tried to contest the previous result here and now the results reads Some editors showed its use by other reliable sources (e.g. the AP) and suggested that only its opinion section was troubling., however it still argues that by "consensus" it affects their news coverage (it is unclear to me if this action allies WP:NOTDEMOCRACY). While some concerns have been indicated, I really think that in previous discussion most concerns were based on opinion articles and not on how others news sites describe the sources. Editorial standards are not the best but it is still a source that does their own reporting and retracts articles when possible. There is just not enough secondary sources to assert clear unreliability, we have much worse in that category.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3-4: The fact that the closer refused to revert the previous decision was a good and obvious choice. PanAm Post seems to be very similar to La Patilla in its extremist nature. Its efforts to baselessly attack left-wing governments is clear. And with the COVID-19 content disseminated by them, brought up by Devonian Wombat, it is clear that this source should remain generally unreliable at the very least.--WMrapids (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles that you're referring to were retracted. If anything, it demonstrates that PanAm Post has editorial oversight. The outlet should be judged by its current reliability, not the one in 2020. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PanAm Post is another La Patilla, a Venezuelan extreme opposition website. They have cited Breitbart[22][23][24] and The Epoch Times[25] on numerous occasions for controversial allegations. This article pushes George Soros conspiracy theories about him creating "anarchy" through the US judicial system. Similar to La Patilla, PanAm Post also reposts information from questionable individuals criticizing immigration to the US (see more on this individual here). The editor-in-chief also described climate change science as a "political weapon". And all of these were posted on the main page of the Spanish website, which is as equally damning as their English website. Throw away the key on this one. WMrapids (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, so much for my optimism. Option 3-4 as per the above. Deauthorized. (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If La Patilla's RfC has shown anything, is that if PanAm Post is as reliable as La Patilla, then it should be in the second category, "Additional considerations". Under this category, all of the mentioned issues, such as caution in using the outlet for controversial topics, politics, or BLPs, can be addressed. For it to be in the third category, it must be demonstrated that it is generally unreliable, that it cannot be trusted for fact in most cases, and as I demonstrated with my vote with its factual reporting and retractions, this has not been demonstrated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we can start on its writing on climate change on how fringe and unreliable it is. In this case, PanAm Post is even more extreme and unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3-4. The criticisms from the last RfC have not been addressed. These are:

    -- "Much of their reporting has a strong right wing bias which often manifests itself as omitted information, poor sourcing, entertaining questionable scientific views, and sloppy reporting. Ownership is also secret which makes it impossible for us to determine whether this source is independent of the subjects it reports on".

    -- "The PanAm Post is owned by PanAm Post LLC, but there is no information on who owns PanAm Post LLC, meaning that the site could have a conflict of interest with things it reports on, and we would not know".

    -- "We have an extremist founder who created PanAm Post as a "vocation" that attacks what Wikipedia regards as reliable sources, with PanAm Post being used as a platform for climate change denial and anti-China rhetoric resued from The Epoch Times (among other fringe topics), while their staff uses possibly cooked-up credentials".

    The points raised by Devonian Wombat about the publishing of "unsubstantiated conspiracy theories" and "virulent opinion pieces under their "news" segment" indicate the source is not reliable.

    It appears that the English version of the site stopped posting articles in 2021, apart from one article from March 2023.

    A recent article about marches in Colombia titled "Petro marches: campaign, waste and disconnection from reality" stated "Imitating his mentor, the late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez, the Colombian president, Gustavo Petro ... As is the end of every megalomaniac, Gustavo Petro took a mass bath amid applause and ovations from his followers ... During his speech in Bolívar Square, the arrival point of the mobilization, the Colombian president invoked “social justice” and “equality”, the main utopian promises of every socialist ".

    It has a Policy section which includes sub-categories Cronyism, Authoritarianism, Corruption and Protests. I had a quick look at its Ideology section. There were articles titled "New Zealand's prosperity began with its rejection of socialism", "California governor puts the brakes on his woke agenda and shelves transgender law” and "Soros funds TikTokers who defend Biden and the progressive agenda". Afaict, the articles are not labelled opinion. Burrobert (talk) 13:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Most of the issues that you're bringing on your own are not about reliability, but rather partiality, which is not disputed here but is unrelated to reliability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don’t need to read much of the site to see the problems.
    - We don’t know anything about who is behind the site. There is no About page. Who, if anyone, are its editors? How many writers does it have?
    - There is no clear division between news and opinion
    - Its articles contain few links to support their arguments.
    Here are some examples from its articles showing why we should not regard it as reliable:
    - It thinks The Communist Party of China (CCP) not only created the coronavirus in a laboratory but also released it intentionally and that, consequently, “the US was precisely the country with the most infections and deaths from COVID-19 in the world”.
    - It thinks Gustavo Petro is a megalomaniac
    - It thinks New Zealand was saved from being socialist in the 1980’s and that “the socialists imposed [a regulation that] you needed a prescription from your doctor if you wanted margarine”. In fact, there was a time in NZ when you needed a prescription for margarine. The requirement was in the Margarine Act 1908 and was removed in 1972.
    - It thinks protecting transgender people is a woke agenda
    - It thinks Greta Thunberg’s agenda, “according to experts, is more motivated by political and economic interests than by true initiatives in favor of nature”.
    - It describes abortion as “the so-called voluntary interruption of pregnancy”.
    Burrobert (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the comprehensive analysis. I'd like to address some of the points you raised:
    Ownership and Transparency: While the lack of an 'About' page and undisclosed ownership is indeed a concern, Wikipedia uses numerous sources that may not have transparent ownership but have proven reliability. Transparency is desirable, but the actual content and its alignment with verifiable facts take precedence.
    Division Between News and Opinion: Many reputable outlets have a blended style, wherein the same platform provides both factual news and editorial opinions. What's vital is to judge the content based on its merits. The onus is on the editors to carefully consider the nature of the content before using it as a reference.
    Links and References in Articles: The absence of numerous links in articles doesn't automatically discredit a source. Traditional newspapers, for instance, don't embed references. It's the factual accuracy and consistency with other known reliable sources that matter.
    Also:
    Claims about CCP and COVID-19: Highly speculative and conspiracy-oriented claims should always be approached with caution. It's imperative to cross-check with more widely accepted sources.
    Gustavo Petro: Labeling political figures often involves a subjective tone. While "megalomaniac" is a strong word, it might fall within the realm of opinion. It's essential to differentiate between the editorial perspective and factual reports.
    New Zealand's Margarine Regulation: As you correctly pointed out, there was indeed such a regulation, but the timing in the PanAm Post's assertion was off. It's crucial to fact-check, but this instance seems more of an error than a systematic issue
    Greta Thunberg and Transgender Protection: These are opinion pieces and represent the perspective of the writer, not necessarily factual information. Using opinion pieces as factual references is not advisable from any source.
    Recent Changes in PanAm Post: One critical thing to remember is the noticeable editorial shift in PanAm Post post-2020. The departure of certain figures and the subsequent changes can't be overlooked. As with any source, the current state should be the primary consideration. Wilfredor (talk) 12:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ownership and Transparency: Wikipedia:Reliable sources says “When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering ... Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. ... The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited ”.
    Recent Changes in PanAm Post: All of the examples I gave were from this year, most were from the last month.
    Here is a template for what we should do with PanAm Post from the entry for California Globe in the Perennial list. “There is consensus that The California Globe is generally unreliable. Editors note the lack of substantial editorial process, the lack of evidence for fact-checking, and the bias present in the site's material. Editors also note the highly opinionated nature of the site as evidence against its reliability ". Burrobert (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the detailed analysis you've provided, and the points raised by the other contributors on this matter. I agree that the determination of a source's reliability should be made with care, and with the utmost consideration for the accuracy and consistency of the information provided.. but I've carefully perused the deliberations we've been having on the PanAm Post, and I must say I've reached a markedly different conclusion than Burrobert. It's easy to cast aspersions based on a handful of articles or even opinions, but let's take a broader view, shall we? Firstly, the absence of an 'About' page, while perhaps unconventional, doesn't necessarily equate to a lack of credibility. The Guardian, The Times, and The BBC, all venerable institutions, have had their share of criticisms, and yet, we don't question their credibility at the drop of a hat. The measure of a news outlet's reliability is in the accuracy and integrity of its reporting, not solely in its transparency about ownership. The blending of opinion and news is hardly unique to the PanAm Post. Many esteemed global publications walk a fine line between editorialising and reporting. Should we discard The Telegraph or The Independent because some of their articles have a clear editorial stance? No. It's up to us, the discerning readers, to parse fact from opinion. And looking the specific examples given: Every publication is prone to occasional bias or errors, whether it be the BBC, The New York Times, or any other. I've found several instances where PanAm Post's reportage was not only accurate but also provided a perspective largely ignored by mainstream media.
    IMHO, rather than casting aside PanAm Post based on a few contentious articles, I suggest we adopt a more nuanced approach. Let's evaluate each article on its merits, using PanAm Post as a supplementary source, one that offers a different lens through which we can view events. After all, isn't diversity of thought what true journalism is all about? Wilfredor (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2-3 but leaning to 3: Some of the option 3/4 arguments are misplaced in that they point to opinion pieces or pieces by discredited former employees that there seems to be universal consensus not to use. I don't think anyone is arguing for the use of its opinion pieces as sources for facts. But I would say that if there is a consensus for option 2 the additional considerations would need to be extremely stringent (at least along the lines of the extensive additional considerations listed for La Patilla at the RSP): there are articles badged as news that are really opinion pieces and these are poor (some of these cite bad sources such as Breitbart); it should not be used for anything relating to US politics, where these problems seem to be concentrated; it shouldn't be used for anything relating to COVID (I can't imagine why it would be anyway); etc. If it is used, I can only see it being used for a quite narrow range of contexts: perhaps with attribution to triangulate with Venezuelan government sources or for the opinions of notable opposition figures. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RFC on Encyclopedia Astronautica

    What is the source reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC) We recently asked about the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica in relation to one article, about German influence on the Soviet space program. However, it is also being used as a source in other articles. Should it be assessed as:[reply]

    Please enter your short answer with a brief explanation in the Survey. Please do not respond to other editors in the Survey. The Discussion section may be used for back-and-forth discussions.

    Survey (Encyc. Astr.)

    • Option 3 or 4 I believe the site is unreliable as it fails to correct errors, is not peer reviewed and stopped being updated or maintained in 2019. In addition, errors have been highlighted in a number of talk pages, refer details below. In 2006 space historian Stephen B. Johnson in Critical Issues in the History of Spaceflight (2006) pp. 484–485, stated the following;
    “Wade's online Encyclopedia Astronautica has become a popular Internet source for space history. Unfortunately, while it contains a great deal of information, not all of it is correct. Space historians have noticed a variety of factual problems, and unfortunately these problems have not been consistently repaired. Since this is not a peer-reviewed source and historical errors are not always fixed, this cannot be considered a reliable source, despite its impressive appearance.“
    I did a search and identified the following issues with the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica on the following talk pages. There maybe more:
    (2012) Talk:Martin Summerfield#Encyclopedia Astronautica reference questionable “ The Martin Summerfield biography referenced from astronautix.com contains a great deal of misinformation crediting Summerfield with developments first made by engineers at other companies.”
    (2010) talk:Kvant-1#Kvant mass? Highlights the Encyclopedia Astronautica is still showing an incorrect mass of 83,000kg. NASA gives the correct mass of 20,000kg
    (2018) Talk:Apollo command and service module#Requested move 26 November 2018 - to lower/sentence case "sources" we should not be using at all, like Encyclopedia Astronautica, a WP:UGC site
    (2016) Talk:Aerojet General X-8#What a well written and documented page should achieve“…such as Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica, which I have foud clear errors.”
    (2009) Talk:Valentin Glushko#Still needs work “ I urge some caution with regard to the biography on Encyclopedia Astronautica…”.
    Ilenart626 (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 There is quite valuable information in it which cannot be easily found in other places or public domain.
    1) It is not really surprising that a comprehensive encyclopedia with 79,433 pages and 13,741 images includes some errors.
    2) No longer updating it since 2019 is not a reliability issue for topics where technical information was readily available until 2015.
    3) The talk:Kvant-1#Kvant mass? issue is caused by a naming confusion as I added to the talk. The Russians used the name "Kvant" for two completely different objects. Therefore it cannot be rated as a content error.
    4) In Talk:Encyclopedia_Astronautica#Notability_Discussion the space historian, let me say Mark Wade's site and Jonathan's site are very notable. For scholarly references, it's always a good idea to check web sources, but I have mostly found astronautix.com to be useful and reliable and a real public service.
    5) In 2015, the American Astronautical Society gave the site the Ordway Award for Sustained Excellence in Spaceflight History which "recognizes exceptional, sustained efforts to inform and educate on spaceflight and its history through one or more media" in 2015, the award's initial year.
    6) As an example, Waldemar Wolff's biography (the later head of the German team in Gorodomlya) is presented according to Stadtwiki Dresden while it is essentially misleading in another renowned publication of space science.
    7) Content related to the contributions of German expertise to Soviet space technology during 1946 to 1953 (like in Talk:Valentin Glushko#Still needs work) has to be considered with caution, independent of whether it is provided by this encyclopedia or by space historians. Some sources have not been exploited yet to get the full picture, and the effects of the secrecy policy of the USSR have to be taken into account for analysis.
    --SchmiAlf (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather 2 than 3: It depends on what you expect. As to my experience, the reliability of Encyclopedia Astronautica content is higher than most of (English language) Wikipedia spaceflight content. So using EA as a source enhances the overall quality of Wikipedia. One exception: There are many made-up lemmata in EA. Never rely on EA on lemmata. --PM3 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1: It's my lowest common denominator source (i.e. I will look for other sources with the same data), but it's more-or-less reliable. Lack of updating is a non-factor--all books are non-updating. My rule of thumb is that an article with Astronautix and NSSDC as its sole sources can't rate more than a "C". But for filling in gaps, like with 1951 in spaceflight, it's invaluable. Depecrate Mark Wade, and you'll break a lot of FA/GA/Bs--Neopeius (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1 Generally reliable, and a go-to source but like many sources, to be exercised with caution.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question has this source been previously discussed? What specific claims are being made? The answer may be yes or may be no but honestly, we should be looking to see if the source is reliable for a specific claim rather than running this RfC. Springee (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      See my comment in the discussion below responding to Pecopteris's similar question (though I have no opinion on the reliability of the source itself). VickKiang (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There's a few discussions marked above, most haven't been at RSN but on article talk pages. There was a couple of very minor threads here but not with much input. It relates to an ongoing DRN, so there's more background there if you're interested. I'm not personally of the opinion that this is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3, maybe 2. I'm not convinced with the general reliability of the source as of yet, and it should be cross-referenced with primary or other secondary sources when used. I don't want to deprecate it completely due to the potential of the source and it not being as consistently unreliable as a source like the Daily Mail, but it's not the most appealing of sources either. Open to changing my opinion with newer evidence. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 10:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (Encyc. Astr.)

    Could you please include a link to the previous discussion that you mentioned? Pecopteris (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am uninvolved and don't plan to get involved in this, but this source is currently discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#German influence on the Soviet space program and had a thread here that has been archived. VickKiang (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from that, there's a previous mention of the Encyclopedia Astronautica on this board back in 2015, but that doesn't add much. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hawkeye7, Balon Greyjoy, and Wehwalt: frequent contributors to Featured articles on astronauts and space exploration may have views on the reliability of the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I seem to remember that this question came up at one of the FACs for one of the Apollo articles and we were assured that the site was reliable. All I ever remember using it for was factual information, dates when something happened, which could probably be replaced with either primary (press kit) or newspaper.com sources, but it would be a pain in the butt. Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find it offhand. I would agree with Neopeius. A lot of content rests on it and caution should be exercised here. Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Might this be what you're looking for? (also, someone at forum.nasaspaceflight.com summed up Astronautix nicely--"Astronautix is not very reliable and mostly frowned upon on this website ;D Well, Wikipedia plundered Astronautix and both are wrong. As much as Wikipedia can be flawed, sometimes they have decent info sources. By contrast, if they plunder Astronautix, it shows there is no easy, good info sources elsewhere.") --Neopeius (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I note a few editors above are rating the site as reliable, but then they go on to say an article using this source can only rate a C, that lack of updating is ok, that its more or less / generally reliable, that it should be used with caution, etc. However these comments imply Option 3 Generally unreliable, or at best Option 2 - Additional considerations. The criteria for Option 1 Generally reliable is pretty clear in saying the "that the source is reliable in most cases on subject matters in its areas of expertise. The source has a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team". I also note that some of the comments and links above highlight that the site was not being corrected for errors way before 2019, which agrees with Johnson's comment from 2006 in his book, which means the site has never had "...a reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction..." as per the criteria for option 1.

    I also do not believe the comments about creating additional work to find alternative sources, or causing issues with current ratings of articles, should be given any weight in this RfC. Verifiability is a core Wiki policy, which requires reliable, published sources, would suggest this overides these concerns. I note that this recent featured artcle from the front page of Wikipedia on 28 September 2023 (coincidently the start of this RfC) no longer has any sources from Encyclopedia Astronautica, yet its Talk page highlights there used to be Talk:NERVA#Bad specifications from Astronautix. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This example is worth being analyzed in more detail. The Talk:NERVA#Bad specifications from Astronautix was originated on 05:28, 19 March 2010 by User:Voronwae for the article version which reproduced the Astronautix data for NERVA. After then, this data remained unchanged over nine years (!) until 18:16 16 July 2019 when User:Hawkeye7 deleted the Astronautix data and added an info box with a different set of data on 22:38 16 July 2019 ([NERVA: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia diff]). The same user made another change on 01:06 20 July 2019 referring to "NERVA XE" data ([NERVA: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia diff]) with again modified data and a lot of new material for NERVA XE. This data is still today's base of the article. There is no comment why doing so, neither in the talk nor in the edit comments. So @Hawkeye7's comment would be very helpful to understand the difference to Astronautix.
    Obviously Mark Wade's NERVA described the original concept of a (complete) nuclear engine with a gross mass of 178 metric tons, while NERVA XE was an experimental step "designed to come as close as possible to a complete flight system" with an empty weight of 18 metric tons (never intended to be tested in flight condition). It was tested between 4 December 1968 and 11 Septermber 1969. NERVA XE was not considered in Astronautix. SchmiAlf (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All I recall is sourcing material from the reports I had access to. That text was unsourced at the time, so I had no idea where it came from. For me, where the Encyclopedia Astronautica came up was at Manned Orbiting Laboratory, where use was queried during its GA, again during the A class review, where it was accepted based on the RSN, and again at FAC, where it was accepted based on its widespread use in books, academic papers and by NASA itself. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not that hard to analyse the Nerva details on Astronautix and see if it is an accurate, reliable source. The complete section is as follows:
    Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application. NASA/AEC Project of the 1960's to develop Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. NERVA stages, launched by the Saturn V, would have been clustered in earth orbit to send manned expeditions to Mars. Developed up to flight article test before cancellation.
    AKA: Pluto;Rover. Status: Development 1971. Thrust: 867.41 kN (195,001 lbf). Gross mass: 178,321 kg (393,130 lb). Unfuelled mass: 34,019 kg (74,999 lb). Specific impulse: 825 s. Specific impulse sea level: 380 s. Burn time: 1,200 s. Height: 43.69 m (143.33 ft). Diameter: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). Span: 10.55 m (34.61 ft).
    Cost $ : 226.200 million.'
    Have compared the above mainly with the NERVA article. Where I could not find anything I also tried An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology Program Robbins & Finger, July 1991, NASA Lewis Research Center, plus I also tried a google search. Analysis is as follows:
    • Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application - correct
    • NASA/AEC Project of the 1960's to develop Nuclear Thermal Propulsion. - NASA/AEC ran the project from 1958 to 1973.
    • would have been clustered in earth orbit to send manned expeditions to Mars. - the planned use included Mars, a permanent lunar base, deep space probes to Jupiter, Saturn, and the outer planets, a nuclear "tug" to take payloads from low Earth orbit (LEO) to higher orbits and as a nuclear-powered upper stage for the Saturn rocket, which would allow the upgraded Saturn to launch payloads of up to 150,000 kg (340,000 lb) to LEO.
    • AKA: Pluto;Rover. - Project Pluto was a development of the nuclear ramjet and Project Rover was a predecessor of NERVA. You could say that NERVA had its origins in both, but to say AKA (also known as) is like saying that Apollo program is also known as Project Gemini or Project Mercury.
    • Status: Development 1971 - status is “Retired”. 1971 does not appear to be significant, it was in the process of being cancelled with minimal funding in 1971 and was terminated in 1973.
    • Thrust: 867.41 kN (195,001 lbf)- no idea where this information comes from. XE Prime was 246.663 kN (55,452 lbf).
    • Gross mass: 178,321 kg (393,130 lb). Unfuelled mass: 34,019 kg (74,999 lb). - again no idea where this came from. The NERVA article states XE Prime had a dry weight was 18,144 kg (40,001 lb)
    • Specific impulse: 825 s. Specific impulse sea level: 380 s. - found this one, 825 seconds was the baseline for the NERVA NRX.
    • Burn time: 1,200 s. - burn time on the article is listed as 1,680 s
    • Height: 43.69 m (143.33 ft) - XE Prime length on the article is listed as 6.9 m (23 ft)
    • Diameter: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). - XE Prime was 2.59 meters (8 ft 6 in)
    • Span: 10.55 m (34.61 ft). - no idea where this information came from.
    • Cost $ : 226.200 million. - the article lists Project Rover and NERVA budgets at $1.44B. No idea where this number came from.
    The above analysis highlights 2 correct (15%) and 11 (85%) either questionable or inaccurate.
    SchmiAlf, I would like to know the basis for your statement "Obviously Mark Wade's NERVA described the original concept of a (complete) nuclear engine...". There is no mention of a original concept, or any mention of what engine Mark Wade is refering to with these details. There appears to be no way of knowing where these details originated from. The only thing "obvious" about the Nerva details on Astronautix, is that it is unreliable. Ilenart626 (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As already mentioned above NERVA in Wikipedia is focussed on XE Prime ground testing as stated by the description "NERVA XE PRIME" below the picture in the info box and mentioned as reference "Figures for XE Prime". XE Prime does not have a specification for gross mass because it was never designed for flight. So your thorough comparison above has no meaning at all.
    David J. Darling quoted in https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html the same parameters as Astronautix NERVA specifications with the following comment: "By the time the NERVA program (NRX and XE-Prime) was terminated, the NERVA-2 had been designed that would have met all of the program's objectives. Two of these engines would have been fitted to a NERVA stage capable of powering a manned interplanetary spacecraft." The mechanical dimensions (10 m; 43 m) are somewhat similar to the drawings in Borowski 1991 (pp. 79-82) for a Mars mission. SchmiAlf (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SchhmiAlf, the above is again highighting your use of your own original research and synthesis of sources to justify your arguements. Astronautix NERVA specifications make no mention of NERVA-2. I could also say that Astronautix NERVA specifications are somewhat similar to the Starship Enterprise and it would be about as useful as your comparison.
    It also highlights that with so many excellent sources such as David J. Darling's https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/NERVA.html, NASA's An Historical Perspective of the NERVA Nuclear Rocket Engine Technology Program and the 33 other sources used on the NERVA wikipedia article, why Astronautix NERVA specifications were not used. Why use such an unreliable source when their are so many reliable alternative sources available? Ilenart626 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Wafa a reliable source?

    Wafa is the state media agency of the State of Palestine. It primarily covers two areas: (a) domestic Palestinian affairs and (b) the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How should Wafa be treated on Wikipedia?

    • Option 1: It is generally reliable.
    • Option 2a: It is reliable for domestic Palestinian affairs but is not reliable for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    • Option 2b: It is reliable for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but is not reliable for domestic Palestinian affairs.
    • Option 3: It is generally unreliable.
    • Option 4: Deprecate.

    Closetside (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 4. Wafa has no editorial independence from its parent organization, the State of Palestine, which is currently autocratically governed by the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.[1] Therefore, it is very biased in favor of the PA.
    Additionally, Muhammad Abbas, the leader of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, recently got caught endorsing the discredited Khazar hypothesis and justifying the Holocaust in a speech to senior Fatah officials. He also made other false and dubious claims during the speech.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. Therefore, there is no indication WAFA is reliable for reporting the facts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
    In conclusion, WAFA is a questionable source that should not be relied on in Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Considering other sources were corroborate Wafa when they report facts, there is no need to cite Wafa. Therefore, I support its deprecation. Closetside (talk) 14:35, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 3, generally unreliable and of minimal encyclopedic use but not sure we'e at deprecation... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't. A RFC is improper at this time. Follow the instructions at the top of the page. Ask a specific question with all three elements:(1) Source (2) Article (3) Content, with links. Banks Irk (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a list containing many sources and their reliability (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources). Why can't we have a discussion to add Wafa to the list? Closetside (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not 'Nam, this is RSN. There are rules. Banks Irk (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How do those sources get added to the list? Isn't the level of consensus about the reliability of a source determined by an RfC on the reliability of a source? Closetside (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Inclusion_criteria Banks Irk (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Line, Media (August 18, 2015). "In first, PA appoints woman head of official Palestinian news agency". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. Retrieved October 9, 2020.
    2. ^ Knel, Yolande (2023-09-07). "Outrage over Abbas's antisemitic speech on Jews and Holocaust". BBC News. Retrieved 27 September 2023.
    3. ^ "US and EU slam Palestinian president's remarks on Holocaust". 7 September 2023 – via www.reuters.com.
    4. ^ Kingsley, Patrick (7 September 2023). "Antisemitic Comments by Palestinian Leader Cause Uproar". New York Times. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
    5. ^ "Abbas: Ashkenazi Jews 'are not Semites,' Hitler killed them for their 'social role'". Times of Israel. 6 September 2023. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
    6. ^ Berman, Lazar; Magid, Jacob (7 September 2023). "US antisemitism envoy and EU denounce Mahmoud Abbas's speech: Distorts the Holocaust". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 10 September 2023.
    7. ^ McKernan, Bethan (11 September 2023). "Palestinian intellectuals condemn Mahmoud Abbas's antisemitic comments" – via The Guardian.
    8. ^ Speri, Alice (15 September 2023). "Mahmoud Abbas Holocaust Controversy Spotlights Deep Disillusion With Palestinian Authority". The Intercept.
    • Ok, this one is really easy. It is reliable for the opinion of the state media agency of the Palestinian Authority, which is very often going to be relevant. It should be frequently-used and always attributed. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Venezuelanalysis

    What is the reliability of Venezuelanalysis?

    Previous RfC from March 2019 can be viewed here. WMrapids (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option 2: After reviewing Bolivarian propaganda article, which was riddled with original research and WP:BLP violations, I encountered Venezuelanalysis. At first glance, it is clearly sympathetic to Bolivarianism and, yes, it appears that its creation was assisted by the Venezuelan government. However, it now says that it is funded by individual readers and not from any governments (if we can take their word for it). Many of the !votes in the previous RfC were focused on bias and not on substance. While there is one argument arguing over a recognition map (which was highly contested at the time), other users simply made the charge of "fake news" without evidence.
    As Rosguill said in the previous RfC, there does not appear to be blatant disinformation in the articles and the site does openly criticized the government (reporting protests against police who arrested LGBTQI+ individuals, labor protests against the government[26][27][28], a "crackdown" on indigenous protests and criticized policies by the government, including the ineffectiveness of anti-illegal mining policy). So while a clear bias exists, there appears to be some criticism of the Venezuelan government as well. Knowing that consensus can change and context matters, Venezuelanalysis should be used with additional considerations and properly attributed.--WMrapids (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, there appears to be editorial oversight and journalists, contrary to the argument that there are only "activists" working for VA.
    Also, Venezuelanalysis has been cited in articles by multiple peer-reviewed scholarly journals for nearly two decades, including:
    So we have editors and journalists that have reputable academic backgrounds that are recognized by generally reliable sources and we have widespread usage of Venezuelanalysis being cited in scholarly journals. Should make the website suitable for "additional considerations" at a minimum.--WMrapids (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say "blatant disinformation" would be grounds for option 4 not option 3, so I don't think this is a valid argument against the current consensus.
    However, the examples of recent articles more critical of the government are interesting; it may be that there is a shift at the website and it might make sense to review the reliability of recent news articles in the future. However, I checked other recent articles by the same journalists and saw examples of problematic reporting. (For example compare this (essentially a dressed up government PR statement) to this fact based report of the same incident. Or this distorting report to this reliable report.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobfrombrockley yes, there has been a shift in chavismo strategy for several reasons. One is the International Criminal Court's looking into the evidence for crimes against humanity; shifting blame for those crimes to lowly peons, and critical reporting of those lowly peons, will help the higher ups escape sanction. Another is a move towards capitalism: see for example this Bloomberg report on the propaganda trend. But more relevant is Biden relaxing sanctions in the hopes of free elections next year. By appearing to allow free elections, while barring the leading candidate from running, Maduro gives the impression of free elections, which provides a win–win for chavismo. The examples of reporting critical of the Maduro administration merely reinforces that Venezuelanalysis is on the same propaganda page and well tuned in to the importance of reporting on certain issues with respect to advancing their overall aim, which is the appearance of free and fair elections and no sanctions for crimes against humanity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing some digging Bobfrombrockley, you show that there is a clear difference in the quality of reporting between VA and Al Jazeera. I agree with what you are saying overall (I think), but there should be additional considerations for Venezuelanalysis instead of outright banning it from Wikipedi since it may be useful in some circumstances. As you can see from my comments below, once a source is labeled "unreliable", even if there is a mention of it being attributed, it is essentially given a death sentence by users. So in a similar manner to the (unclear) decision with La Patilla, I don't think Venezuelanalysis should be considered generally reliable at all, that it should be used in contentious articles/claims or for statements of fact, but I do think that it can be used as a secondary source for some Venezuelan government statements (especially since most Venezuelan government sources are essentially deprecated) and that if it is used, that it is properly attributed. Placing in the RSP list on how it could be used in specific circumstances while explicitly outlining how it should be excluded would be beneficial as it would prevent further disputes and misuse while also preventing future, long-winded discussions on what should be permitted. WMrapids (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @WMrapids: Per WP:BLUDGEON and previous related concerns, could you considering collapsing your last additions? I have tried to do the same in the last RfCs when I include a long list of links, and by experience I think we can both agree it would be for the best. Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather not collapse an addition to my original decision and please don’t do it for me while also labeling it as bludgeoning. You’re casting aspersions. WMrapids (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted below, that quote is taken out of context. It is not an instruction that it is OK to start a new RFC, it is simply a legend for the symbol used on RSP for 4+ year old consensus discussions. Banks Irk (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, if I have to leave some comments: if time has taught us anything about Venezuelanalysis, is that it definitely should not be used. The fact that Venezuelanalysis has been funded by the Venezuelan government should not be in question, because Gregory Wilpert himself (co-founder of VA) admitted in an interview with ZMag receiving money from the Venezuelan Ministry of Culture. It does not have editorial independence, its editorial staff is made up of members from deprecated outlets, and its bias affects its reliability. A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa offers more insight ("Portals of lies: the international swarm of "independent media" at the service of Chavista narratives". Please read the full article if you have a chance, since it as informative as it is long):
    • In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
    • Here the network shows the least visible and at the same time most powerful node: Venezuelanalysis is the one that has the highest levels of coordination and influence with governmental bodies, thanks to the fact that it has in its team former Chavez ministers, former officials of the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry, former editors of Telesur English and even those accused of corruption in the United States.
    • Its staff includes: Andreína Chávez Alava (former editor-in-chief of Telesur Ecuador), Cira Pascual Marquina (professor at Universidad Bolivariana), Rachael Boothroyd (Telesur correspondent and collaborator of Alborada) and Jessica Dos Santos (Actualidad RT and Épale Ccs, with three journalism awards given by the Chávez and Maduro governments) (...) And among its collaborators, the Venezuelan-American Eva Golinger, author of Chávez Code, a book with conspiracy theories on the assassination of Hugo Chávez with nanotechnological weapons, whose ideas are found in a great part of the network studied, thanks to the support especially given by ActualidadRT, Telesur and Sputnik.
    • The Venezuelanalysis team also includes former officials such as Reinaldo Iturriza López (former Minister of Culture and former Minister of Communes of Maduro between April 2013 and January 2016 and former director of the official channel Ávila TV) and Sergio Rodríguez Gelfenstein, former director of International Relations of the Presidency of Venezuela, former Venezuelan ambassador to Nicaragua, former general director of the International Relations Office of the Ministry of Culture, columnist in Misión Verdad and usual commentator as international analyst in Sputnik Mundo, which also published an interview recounting his Sandinista guerrilla experience in Nicaragua.
    Not only does it have staff from Venezuelan government members, but also from outlets deprecated in the English Wikipedia such as Russia Today, Telesur, Sputnik and others. This includes Misión Verdad as well, whose hoaxes include comparing the Venezuelan Green Cross [es] to Syria's White Helmets, claiming that have also they staged false flags incidents during the 2017 protests ([53]).
    Let's not forget the examples provided in the previous RfC, such as the misleading map about the presidential crisis. Equally important, though, are other examples of false content that has not been retracted, such as the causes of death of Juan Pablo Pernalete (claiming he was killed captive bolt pistol by the opposition instead of a tear gas canister by security forces [54]) and Fernando Albán (saying that he committed suicide, instead of being killed[55]). Both were the versions provided that the Venezuelan government, and that themselves admitted five years later that they were false.
    As its name suggests, VA is a website dedicated to analysis, not news. With its lack of neutrality, it means that it is no better than a blog and that it does not belong to Wikipedia. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The three articles you linked don't report any falsehoods. The map is not even "misleading" as it pertains to the latest government recognized by each country. The article that discusses Pernalete discusses in great details the theories the two versions of his death and doesn't take a position either way, and the article on alban merely reports what the authorities are saying, with attribution of these claims to the Venezuelan Attorney General. Mottezen (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Funding from GOV: This was 2007 and the context was that this occurred during its founding.
    2. Cazadores article: Many of the statements here are guilt by association arguments (i.e. VA staff previously were part of the government/media org). Ok, but why did they leave such organizations and instead join VA? Were they upset with something? Did they not support the direction though still supported certain ideals. This has nothing to do with reliability. You also attempt this guilt by association by making the false equivalence between Misión Verdad and Venezuelanalysis (Venezuelanalysis hasn't made any statements about the "Green Cross")
    3. "Misleading map": Some may argue that "silence is complicity", meaning that those who didn't recognize Guaidó (including neutral nations) were instead recognizing Maduro. Others (including Wikipedia) took a more nuanced approach regarding recognition (Guaidó, National Assembly, neutrality, Maduro or no statement). So definitions on recognition (as it was during the entire presidential crisis) may be up to interpretation.
    4. Retractions: In their thousands of articles, maybe they overlooked retracting articles on incidents that occurred five years prior to when information was clarified?
    As Mottezen said, you have not provided any falsehoods that can be attributed to Venezuelanalysis. WMrapids (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3: I don’t see what is changed since the last RFC. It is reliable for reporting the statements of the Venezuelan government and its close allies, so should not be deprecated. Most of its content is opinion or commentary, which is neither reliable, nor noteworthy. Its news content is largely secondhand, often from unreliable sources; when the original source is reliable, we should use that instead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [typo corrected 16 Oct][reply]
      @Bobfrombrockley: What has changed since the last RfC is that virtually all usage of Venezuelanalysis has been removed (see my edit above). Despite its entry saying that "its claims should be attributed", the attributed claims have been removed as well. If we determine this is "additional conditions" material, we can also note that opinion and commentary should be attributed. It is strange that with the La Patilla RfC you supported "additional considerations" in similar circumstances. Do you see any unreliable information from Venezuelanalysis? Again, all of this is not to illustrate a point, but you made a similar argument in a previous RfC though you have a different decision with this particular case. WMrapids (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks WMrapids. Have you got examples of Venezuelanalysis being removed incorrectly? As a result of the last RfC, I looked at some of its usages and found that in some cases it was being used appropriately but in others it wasn't and removed it. For example, it was second hand reporting from either more reliable sources (in which case I replaced with original) or from unreliable sources (in which case I removed and/or tagged). In other cases, opinion pieces were being used as facts, so I removed or added better source tagging. Perhaps other editors were more slapdash in removing a generally unreliable source for material where it might have been appropriate, in which case it would be fine to review those instances or bring them here for discussion, but it doesn't change the basic finding of general unreliability. Re the La Patilla comparison, I don't think they're comparable. La Patilla is staffed by journalists. It reports stuff. It reports stuff that we wouldn't know if we only used government press releases. Whereas Venezuelanalysis is staffed by activists and its original content is not based on actual reporting. Where elements of La Patilla's output are comparable to Venezuelanalysis' (the aggregation), I argued that this should be considered unreliable. Hope this answers your questions. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobfrombrockley: I appreciate the thorough response. While you say that they are staffed by "activists", the same could be said by La Patilla due to their extreme bias as well. However, bias does not affect reliability and we have discussed this before. I'm not saying that Venezuelanalysis is generally reliable at all either, just that they may be applicable in certain situations with proper attribution. That is why I chose "additional considerations" since it seems like if it were determined to be anything less, users would simply remove any trace from the project entirely (especially since the WP:RSP entry already suggests use with attribution and it is still being removed). What do you think about this? WMrapids (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say "activists" I don't mean "biased"; I mean lacking in any kind of journalistic training or expertise, lacking in normal news-based editorial procedures. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If your position regarding reliability is the same as La Patilla, per the previous RfC, then you should agree that the outlet must be considered unreliable or be deprecated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2: I'm glad this RFC was made. I think the previous RFC missed the mark.
    Sure, it has received money from the Venezuelan government in the past. Is that an argument for deprecation? There are an awful lot of outlets cited on Wikipedia that have received money from western governments. Should they be deprecated? Of course not.
    Sure, they are consistently and predictably biased in certain ways. So is every single "reliable source", without exception. CNN is biased in favor of its advertisers, and against those who criticize its advertisers. The WSJ is biased in favor of wealthy people and against things that disproportionately benefit the working class. Bellingcat is biased in the sense that it receives funding from western governments, and then conducts investigations into those governments' adversaries, while never investigating their benefactors. And all three of these outlets are biased in favor of the USA and against the USA's "adversaries". Should those three outlets be deprecated? Of course not.
    Sure, they've released a handful of reports that contained inaccuracies. Find me an outlet that hasn't published misleading information. I'm old enough to remember the Iraq-WMD hoax, which was perpetuated by essentially every mainstream American outlet, due to a combination of pro-US government bias and uncritical credulity. The pro-government disinformation spread, knowingly or unwittingly, by US-based outlets, led to the Iraq invasion, which in turn led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, and will err on the side of their biases when the fog of propaganda gets too thick to parse.
    Sure, they employ some people who've worked for the Venezuelan government. Has anyone taken a look at the career backgrounds of many contributors to US-based "reliable sources"? NBC, CBS, CNN, and others have so many FBI, CIA, and DOD employees on their payroll that I can't keep track of them all. Does that mean we should deprecate those outlets? Of course not.
    Additional considerations apply, and editors should take care to understand the context and potential bias of this source before using it. The same should be said for literally every other source. Is it the best source out there on Venezuelan issues? No, but when Wikipedia already suffers from rampant systemic bias, and many Latin American political issues are primarily presented on Wikipedia from the perspective of the affluent Anglo-American press, allowing the use of this source is a no brainer. Of course Venezuelanalysis should not be deprecated. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The source wasn't deprecated in the previous RFC - that would have been #4. The consensus conclusion was #3. Banks Irk (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for correcting me. Indeed, the previous conclusion was #3, not #4. I think all of my arguments are substantively the same - and as a previous editor noted, there has been a multi-year move to remove Venezuelanalysis, so it is, in practice, treated as a deprecated source. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your claim about Bellingcat here is easily demonstrably incorrect, as well as whataboutery. The "bias is not unreliability" mantra is a strawman argument as the issue with VA is not bias but distortion. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted to respond to this before and other editors already have, but I think it's important that I leave my comment. Unfortunately, this is a false equivalency between Western media as a whole an Venezuelanalysis, something that is actually common when discussing these issues.
    Taking as an example the US invasion of Iraq (which has happened over 20 years ago now and sources have corrected their stances), and comparing to an outlet affiliated with the Venezuelan government simply does not hold water. A specific historical event is not the same as a PR campaign that has continued over the years. If you feel that the reliability of any of those sources should be questioned, you're free start a new RfC.
    Possibly the best example is the consistent cheerleading of the Bolivarian missions, including but not limited to Robinson ([56][57][58]), Vivienda ([59][60]) and Barrio Adentro ([61][62][63]). None of their articles make any mention of their negative aspects, such as corruption, unsustainability and lack of progress. After all the years when they were published, they have not done it and won't either simply because their editorial line is uncritical. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC; WP:RFCBEFORE Andre🚐 19:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC) I'm coming back here to say that I'll go along with Option 4 or 3 for this source after reading SandyGeorgia's take on it. I believe we have enough good sources that we can afford to be selective when it comes to dicey sources. It doesn't take much for me to see the problem with this source. Given the RFC felt premature but it's proceeding, here is where I am landing. Andre🚐 23:43, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The lesson there isn't that the NYT & others are unreliable. The lesson is that they are biased, No, the lesson is that they make errors and are susceptible to errors (or intentional lies/propaganda) Andre🚐 19:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What you say is also true. They make errors, and are susceptible to unintentionally amplifying lies and propaganda. However, the NYT has never, to my knowledge, used their front page to accidentally push Ugandan state propaganda, or Bolivian state propaganda, or Thai state propaganda. When the NYT (and others, they're a placeholder) publishes propaganda, it just so happens to be propaganda that is supportive of the US and its allies, and critical of the US government's adversaries. That is a demonstration of latent bias.
    Even though these outlets got stories like Iraq/WMD catastrophically wrong, with devastating real-world consequences, they are still reliable sources generally speaking. I read the NYT all the time. My only point in bringing this up is that outlets like Venezuelanalysis, which exist outside the mainstream, affluent Anglo-American bubble, are held to an absurdly high standard in comparison to the standards we typically apply to outlets like the NYT, CNN, WSJ, NBC, BBC, PBS, and so on. The criticisms, that Venezuelanalysis has a generally (but not consistently) pro-government bent, has previously received funding from the government, and has made errors, are all criticisms that can be equally applied to outlets held in high esteem by Wikipedians. I'd submit that this is, in part, due to systemic bias. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a reasonable, good faith discussion, but I will use Occam's razor to say that it's much simpler. NYT is obviously reliable, as you say, even though they have occasional errors or latent biases (for the sake of the argument I will grant without getting into whether NYT has ever inadvertently pushed Ugandan propaganda). When it comes to outlets like Venezualanalysis - I don't know if they are reliable or not. But there's a reason why we have high standards for reliability when it comes to state-affiliated media. The bottom line is that we have to determine whether Venezualanalysis has a high standard for editorial oversight, fact-checking, a la WP:NEWSORG. It is not presumed to. While there might be a bit of an equivalency you might seek to make on the question of other outlets are reliable, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't the discussion. The question is whether Venezuelanalysis is reliable on its own merits. Andre🚐 22:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I do think the broader point I've made above is relevant, but it's good to refocus the conversation on Venezuelanalysis. Here's my final thoughts on this unless a new avenue of dialogue opens up:
    Per WMRapids' comment, citations of Venezuelanalysis have been "methodically removed", from 252 to 9. So it's been, practically speaking, deprecated as a source. I also see other folks voting "option 4". I'm troubled by that.
    I'd readily concede to your point that Venezuelanalysis is presumably not a bastion of journalistic rigor. Probably much less rigorous than say, the NYT. But it's not a fake news propaganda outlet as some have suggested, nor is it one of those outlets that "somehow" never takes issue with anything its patron government does, like, say, Bellingcat.
    Its aforementioned disagreements with the Venezuelan state suggest a level of ideological independence from the government, and it supposedly no longer takes government funds. Its opinions should always be attributed, and never belong in Wikivoice, I'll say that much. But as you know, I'm not much of a fan of having government-funded political opinions in Wikivoice, period.
    I maintain that it includes noteworthy information about the politics of Venezuela and the broader region that might not be presented in other sources. If we had an embarrassment of riches in terms of good, high-quality on-the-ground analysis of Venezuelan politics, perhaps the conversation would be slightly different. But as it stands, I think dismissing the source would be a disservice to our encyclopedic coverage of Venezuela, despite its flaws. That's why I've voted "additional considerations apply", and I hope other editors will join me in that vote. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bellingcat has published plenty of articles about the US. A New Platform Maps US Police Violence Against Protesters, American-Made Bomb Used in Airstrike on Yemen Wedding etc. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Philomathes2357: You can see more on how this source and others were systematically removed in my edit above. Again, no sympathy for potential misinformation at all (which is why we are all here), but when readers are prevented from even having access to attributed information, at best it is assuming the reader is ignorant and at worst it is censorship. WMrapids (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4: Deprecate
    "Venezuela Analysis" is a highly unreliable source. From its wikipedia page, it is described as a news outlet that supports the Maduro regime and its policies.
    A quick glance at that site makes it clear that it is a highly politicized and conspiratorial network, and that its not an outlet that attempts to produce real news. This source should not be used at all, since it is a fake news outlet focused on generating pro-Maduro propaganda. This website is no different from an unreliable, self-published source.Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mottezen: The Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) identified Venezuelanalysis as one of the outlets that republished "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" about Israel from Iranian media, especially from HispanTV, since at least 2013 (see WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV for more details).
    Since you're the only editor supporting Option 1 for the time being, it would be good if you provided arguments for clasifying VA under said option or that you reconsider your vote. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d like to see the said article that were republished. I wouldn’t trust the CAIV for telling me Venezuelanalysis published false information. CAIV is a non-notable organisation that doesn’t even have a Wikipedia article, and its website is inactive since the pandemic. Why do you believe they are an authority on what is false or true?
    If you read the arguments for option 2, it sounds like they are advocating for option 1, because biased sources can still have a stellar record for reporting facts, and opinion articles need to be attributed either way. Mottezen (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a Jewish association in the country is not relevant for an issue such as Antisemitism in Venezuela, I frankly don't know what is and what you would expect, particularly if you're using the current existance of an article in the English Wikipedia as a factor for notability (at any rate the organization meets WP:GNG, which means an article could be created at any moment regardless). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jewish associations vary in their interpretations of antisemitism (case of point: IJV and the Board of Deputies). Coalitions that are inactive tend to be unreliable. Mottezen (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds more like a personal opinion, but ok. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Option 3 or 4: at least a 3, but there is a solid argument for 4, deprecation, because they routinely reprint content labeled as news from WP:TELESUR, a deprecated source and a chavista propaganda outlet,[64] and they do not retract or correct factual errors as time evolves and more information comes to light (see points 1 and 3 below).

    1. Telesur is widely acknowledged as Venezuelan propaganda and rightfully deprecated on Wikipedia for printing false information. Venezuelanalysis reprints Telesur articles as news, not opinion (some of these articles are outright propaganda and misrepresentations, aka lies). A few samples (there is more): [65] [66] [67] In one case, a blatant misrepresentation based on Telesur propaganda, reprinted at Venezuelanalysis.com, was used to introduce a BLP vio into Wikipedia at Nelson Bocaranda (using primary and UNDUE sources[68] to parrot the Telesur lie).[69] Lessening our restrictions on Venezuelanalysis.com means more Telesur propaganda is likely to also be reflected on Wikipedia; it's not surprising they don't indicate editorial oversight or enjoy a reputation for fact-checking, when they parrot Telesur.
    2. Nothing has changed since the last RFC. The map issue is misrepresented in some statements above: for example, that Switzerland and other countries were neutral was not "highly contested at the time" (noting also that Switzerland imposed sanctions on Maduro's government while agreeing to represent the US after it closed its Caracas embassy, so some mumbo-jumbo has to occur to represent via a map they support the Maduro government). Where do we draw the line between blatant lies and simple biased slanting? A good example of that is given in their coverage of the ...
    3. 2019 Venezuelan blackouts. It's one thing to parrot with bias the chavismo claim that the blackouts were caused by a cyberattack, as they did when the blackouts began in 2019.[70] [71] Presenting only one side's allegations is just bias, which is separate from reliability. But years later, repeating the same bias becomes a matter of absent editorial oversight or fact checking; it's quite another matter to still be parroting the chavismo stance in 2022, with narry a mention of mainstream facts, when not a scintilla of evidence to back the government claims has surfaced, and all unbiased sources acknowledge the causes of the blackouts. Sticking the word "alleged" in front of a blatantly false claim isn't cover for propagating this lie many years after the fact, when more information is known.[72] An entire book on the matter was published by a New York Times journalist.
    4. Looking at the about page (and earlier iterations of it at archive.org) is always a first stop when evaluating reliability. Either they have never had a managing editor, or they don't want us to know who it is. Volunteers working around the world do not equate to "editorial oversight", and the current and all historical archives of their about page speak to staff (many of whom have no journalistic credentials), but not editorial oversight. As one example, I noticed multiple news articles written by Paul Dobson, a person with no journalistic training but an interest in Venezuela and seems to be this guy (which that website passes off as a journalist in spite of his Venezuelanalysis bio). I find nothing on their about page which speaks to fact checking or editorial oversight, rather rotating staff who have an interest in promoting chavismo-- that is, the better description of the website is a blog.

    So, for now I'm at a 3+; if others produce more examples of spreading Telesur propaganda as news, then please consider me a 4, deprecate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1. This can be combatted in a similar conclusion to the La Patilla RfC; simply don't reproduce things source from deprecated sources and attribute properly.
    2. There are multiple issues with the map that deserve context. Switzerland could still sanction a government and still recognize it (sanctions from them began in 2018, prior to the presidential crisis).
    3. Again, no proof of any mistruths. VA literally writes "The Caribbean nation’s power generation and distribution infrastructure has suffered from a lack of maintenance, corruption and a brain drain, with the issues heavily compounded by wide-reaching US sanctions." So besides the debatable last portion, VA acknowledges corruption and brain drain in Venezuela's electrical management, something you would hardly hear from a propaganda outlet.
    4. Plenty of sources have unclear management. La Patilla, for instance, doesn’t even have an "about" page, yet you quickly overlooked that in their RfC and provided the excuse that it was for "safety".
    WMrapids (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Venezuelanalysis has a whole category dedicated to Telesur: TeleSUR Archives. Some of its articles include the following:
    Collapsing links to prevent cramming
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    This includes but is not limited to the conspiracy theory that the 2019 nationwide blackouts were caused by a sabotage ([99]), something debunked by journalists and experts alike ([100]), as well as claims of university enrollment raising 294% ([101]), something also dismissed by fack checkers. Pinging @Mottezen:, who also asked for examples of false information. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have similarly found republications from Misión Verdad: [102][103][104][105][106][107]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the examples; this one is incredibly troubliing, as the novice reader is unlikely to understand how that game is played in Venezuela, as it reminds of the sudden naming of people responsible for the murder of Fernando Albán years after the fact; naming some lowly peons responsible after years of denial can help assure the higher-ups in the Maduro administration are not charged with crimes against humanity. I wonder what innocent unnamed person paid the price in the blackout arrest. I wonder if Venezuelanalysis has ever corrected, retracted or restated anything about that arrest report? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus: And? With La Patilla, you two both overlooked the usage of Breitbart, Epoch Times and other far-right conspiracy articles reposted by La Patilla. If we are going to go about the same way, we can just note not to use reposts of deprecated sources as we have done with La Patilla and to use the original source if VA is performing a repost. Your decisions appear more based on bias/ideology than based on reliability. WMrapids (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are numerous differences between the reliability analysis of La Patilla and Venezuelanalysis.
    One is Venezuelanalysis extensively using Telesur propaganda for its reporting of Venezuelan news (and it does little else) compared to the allegations in the La Patilla RFC about reprints of almost exclusively info unrelated to its Venezuela coverage (eg COVID). The first alleged reprint I checked in that overly long and bludgeoned discussion that was related to Venezuela had been removed by La Patilla within a day or two, demonstrating the presence of editorial oversight. Aggregated coverage from La Patilla is easily separated from its reporting on Venezuela and no instance of their reporting of Venezuela news was unreliable; Venezuelanalysis is Venezuelan news, and even when they don't directly reprint from Telesur, they report the same propaganda (eg the blackouts). Breitbart and Epoch Times aren't focused on Venezuela; Telesur and Venezuelanalysis are, so ignoring their reprints means ... ignoring them almost entirely, eg, unreliable.
    The discussion of La Patilla and other outlets censored in Venezuela having no "About Us" page similarly doesn't even apply to Venezuelanalysis, which is not censored in Venezuela, for obvious reasons: it is pro-chavismo by definition from its outset, and its reporters have not been imprisoned or had to flee the country. A potential reason Venezuelanalaysis doesn't mention editorial oversight is because of the connection between Wilpert and his wife's position with chavismo; that is, obfuscating information for reasons unrelated to personal harm likely to come to reporters from other outlets who criticize the government.
    Please avoid turning another RFC into another unreadable mess, and don't bludgeon by distorting and misrepresenting what I or anyone else said on a different RFC with entirely different circumstances and then lacing your comments with aspersions; I most certainly did not "overlook" the aggregated issue, rather I addressed it explicitly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The example that you provided is misleading. La Patilla still has the same article posted, though they hid the mention of Breitbart in the headline. Recognizing that this isn’t a discussion about La Patilla, it still doesn't change how you and NoonIcarus have different opinions are similar discussions. NoonIcarus was one of the only users to find La Patilla "generally reliable" and they now want to deprecate Venezuelanalysis after already leading a crusade to remove it from the project entirely (even removing some content against previous consensus suggestions). I won’t comment further on this to avoid blodgeoning, though the behavior of you two should be on the record for other users. WMrapids (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well perhaps you should have brought that information forward on that RFC, not this one. (For that matter, maybe you did, and it was lost among your bludgeoning). And no, La Patilla did not hide the Breitbart, as I can see it clearly in the link you provide. Stop the aspersions that serve only to muddy another RFC; focus on content. I retain my view that Venezuelanalysis is only marginally different from Telesur outright propaganda; I remain at 3+ but the false information about increasing university enrollment that NoonIcarus pointed out is also a concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please kindly notice that my main argument for this RfC has not been based in the use of deprecated sources (which at this point I think is implicit and already demonstrated), but rather the lack of editorial independence of Venezuelanalysis, as well as several and consistent concerns by editors throughout the years, and I focused in providing only news articles, leaving aside opinion ones that were included in the other RfC. In La Patilla's RfC I commented how many of the examples were uncontroversial and even unrelated (crediting Breitbart for images as an example of republishing content), being an example of WP:SOURCECOUNTING, but there are also important differences between both outlets as Sandy commented.
    Now, since you brought it up, I think it is important to reassure the noticeboard that the opening of this RfC is unrelated to the outcome of La Patilla's RfC, which was different to your preferred one, that you disputed, and is about a Venezuelan source too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The VenezuelaAnalysis link you allege discusses the 2019 blackout is dated from 2017. And the 294% increase in university admissions is over 14 years, so this figure does not strain credulity. China experienced a similar growth in the number of university students over the same period. Plus, you have not provided a link that debunks this claim. Mottezen (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Separately from what NoonIcarus presents, the article where they repeat the chavista propaganda blackout conspiracy theory that I present is 2022, with an "alleged" stuck on for cover. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You will note that that the same article also says the following 4 paragraphs above: The Caribbean nation’s power generation and distribution infrastructure has suffered from a lack of maintenance, corruption and a brain drain, with the issues heavily compounded by wide-reaching US sanctions. This is verbatim the main explanation of the 2019 blackouts in our wikipedia article on the subject, presented as a plain hard fact by VenezuelaAnalysis in each of their articles I saw on the subject.
    And the full sentence you are referring to is: In early 2019, Venezuela suffered a string of widespread blackouts that covered virtually all of its territory following alleged terrorist attacks. (external links in original, each linking to articles about the governments allegations of the attacks.) Each time the "attacks on electricity generation" claims are relayed by VenezuelaAnalysis, it is always attributed to the government of Venezuela, or simply with an with an "alleged" to differentiate it from the proven facts. Mottezen (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See BobFromBrockley post above at 11:08, 17 October 2023 demonstrating how reliable sources report compared to Venanalysis; it's the same thing. They repeat the conspiracy theory unnecessarily, for which there is zero credible evidence, but try to dress it up by sticking an alleged on it. This is four years after the fact; everyone knows better by now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC/Keep previous result (or option 4) this seems like another rushed RfC argued on the basis of misuse of the description of source in a specific article and on a contested (?) result in a different RfC. Per others this source is clearly troubling. It produces or reproduces what other pro-Venezuelan government sources like Correo del Orinoco, Telesur to maintain the government narrative [108] and it is clearly highly opinionated. --ReyHahn (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a masterful tour through the interconnected outlets for Venezuelan propaganda, showing the links between Venezuelanalysis and the rest of the propaganda network; what a pity it's not in English. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sandy, NoonIcarus had already posted this "masterful tour" and, as said above, is an article that plainly paints with a brush of guilt by association. We know that VA has former government staff and reposts some Venezuelan government articles. But that doesn't make VA directly unreliable, it makes the specific reposts unreliable and shows a bias, which isn't related to reliability (just using your previous reasoning).
      ReyHahn, whether or not it "reproduces what other pro-Venezuelan government sources" say or is "highly opinionated", it does not make it unreliable. In your "Option 2" choice for La Patilla, you said "some important examples of unreliable behaviour have been brought here but a few examples are not sufficient to make it a perennial or deprecated source". There haven't been any secondary sources providing proof of VA being unreliable (though its reposts may be questionable). You said La Patilla was "independent" even though its founder and leader Alberto Federico Ravell was part of the Juan Guaidó government and it has been widely been described as an opposition outlet. You also said that La Patilla "published many articles about government and opposition scandals". Well, guess what? So has Venezuelanalysis! So your argument that VA is "pro-government" and thus unreliable is hypocritical.WMrapids (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Just if I might drop in, English audiences might be familiar with the criminalization of demonstrators and opposition leaders, with terms such as "fascists" ([109][110][111]) or "terrorists" ([112]), similar to the tone used by right-wing outlets against groups such as antifa. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Those are opinion articles while the last article clearly attributes the claim to the government. Meanwhile your "Option 1" source La Patilla writes that "The Maduro regime subscribed to the interests of the Hamas terrorist group" after he only mentioned the difficulties faced by Palestinians, misattributing the EFE source. It has promoted the term "terrorist" towards Maduro in multiple instances, especially recently.[113][114][115][116] I'm not here to defend Maduro at all or continue past arguments, but you have some apparent double standards when determining source reliability. WMrapids (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 4: Just another propaganda & fake news outlet serving the interests of a dictatorship. Tradediatalk 19:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 per widespread arguments in the La Patilla RfC where editors argued that in instances where La Patilla was aggregating content, editors should not use any aggregated content and should evaluate original sources and use those if reliable. That Venezuelanalysis has reprinted Telesur can be treated in the same manner in this situation. I don’t find any other arguments strong enough for marking the source as unreliable or deprecation. There are accusations of bias towards the Venezuelan government’s perspective due to funding but I don’t see how those currently hold water given that there has been no evidence presented that Venezuela continues to fund Venezuelanalysis. TarnishedPathtalk 05:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Bingo - a source isn't unreliable because it reposts content that Wikipedians dislike. We could simply use VA's original articles, and treat the articles from deprecated sources as originating from the deprecated source, not VA. There's ample precedent for this. I also don't see how those funding arguments hold water given the fact that we regularly cite news outlets funded in whole or in part by governments, including multiple state-owned media outlets from the west. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please take a look above for examples of misleading or false content. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've seen them. My response would be that one can find examples of misleading or false content in every reliable source. Especially misleading content. VA is no different. But there is also a lot of useful information published there, that may not be widely available elsewhere in the English language press, and, especially given Wikipedia's ongoing problem with underrepresenting the points of view of people in the Global South, it would be a shame to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and deprecate the source based on some cherry-picked misleading or potentially false stories.
      Imagine if we had deprecated the NYT post-Iraq invasion? We certainly could have listed a lot of misleading and false reports, which had devastating real-life consequences, particularly those by Judith Miller - at least as many misleading reports as have been listed in this RFC. But deprecating NYT would have been a grave mistake, because we would have missed out on all the useful information that they publish. I'm not suggesting that NYT and VA are equivalent, but I am suggesting that the same logic necessitates, at minimum, voting "option 3" instead of "option 4". Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Be careful, the examples of "false content" provided above are not actually false content. In most of the examples, VenezuelaAnalysis was ont reporting statements from government official, and it's true they said those things. Not one false statement found that was reported as fact by VenezuelaAnalysis. Mottezen (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Again this is the work that we expect editors to do when citing sources. If a sources is quoting a government official, make it clear that the quote that is being used is a quote of a government official and not the article voice. I think this goes back to themes in my bolded vote. TarnishedPathtalk 11:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm. What's your reaction to Mottezen's assertion here, @NoonIcarus? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point still stands my point still stands since there are many examples of the publication of false content from an editorial voice, and not only citing government officials: Pernalete's and Albán's killings, the reasons for blackouts, the university enrollment rate, and so on, and that's without going into misleading reporting and omissions, such as labelling the opposition as "fascists" or "terrorists", or offering uncritical comment to government policies, respectively. VA's description by independent sources leaves much to be desired, and this position has been shared by editors in Wikipedia since at least 2010. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • PROPOSAL TO CLOSE Having taking the position that a new RFC was unwarranted given the dearth of actual citations to the source, it is probably inappropriate for me to close. But, after almost two weeks of discussion which has become largely repetitive among a handful of combatants, I would conclude that the consensus among the uninvolved, experienced editors who regularly contribute at RSN is the same as the last RFC: #3 bordering on #4. I'd invite any uninvolved experienced editor to close this RFC. Banks Irk (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Al-Mayadeen

    I recently removed this article "False claims on alleged 'Kfar Aza massacre' now on Wikipedia" from the Kfar Aza massacre article because I thought that it was frankly drivel. It seems to be propaganda that denies the massacre actually happened in the first place, which I don't think any RS are disputing, and cited deprecated sources like The Grayzone as evidence. It has been previously discussed once before here in 2015 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 196, but that was largely about their Arabic language coverage. I get the impression reading the Al-Mayadeen article that their pro Syria govt/Hezbollah bias makes them a wholly unsuitable source to use on Wikipedia, except to report the official views of those factions.english.almayadeen.net HTTPS links HTTP links shows that they are currently used 82 times. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    almayadeen.net HTTPS links HTTP links shows 187 uses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, I think they should be classified as Generally Unreliable
    1. They promotes the US bioweapons in Ukraine conspiracy theory [117]
    2. Their owners are anonymous and it's suspected that it's funded by Iran and Hezbollah [118]
    3. They said themselves that the Palestinian "cause" would be their centerpiece, so they are unlikely to provide reliable coverage of the region [119]
    Alaexis¿question? 07:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Al-Mayadeen" is a fake news, conspiratorial outlet, and it should be deprecated.
    Check its wikipedia page and its "Ownership" section which reveals its funding. "Al-Mayadeen" outlet's owner is anonymous. The outlet has also been described as a joint Iranian-Assadist propaganda project.[1]
    In news reporting, "Al-Mayadeen" outlet is explicitly pro-Assad, pro-Iran and pro-Russia. That website has a pattern of promoting conspiracy theories of outlets like Grayzone, Sputnik, PressTV, SANA, etc.
    In Syria, it is a vehement opponent of Syrian opposition, dehumanises the Free Syrian Army as "terrorists" and labels Assad regime's indiscriminate bombardment operations as "cleansing".[2] It is strongly pro-Russia and describes the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a "special operation to demilitarize and "denazify" Ukraine" and literally labelled the Zelensky government in Ukraine as a "Nazi regime".
    Its clear that this outlet is nothing but a propaganda venture that doesnt have basic journalistic standards or even care about producing real news.

    Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "'Anti-Al Jazeera' channel Al Mayadeen goes on air". France 24. 12 June 2012. Retrieved 6 July 2012.
    2. ^ "Executive Summary" (PDF). Syria Cyber Watch. 25 November 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2012.

    RFC: Al-Mayadeen

    What is the reliability of Al-Mayadeen

    • 1. Generally reliable
    • 2. Unclear/special considerations apply
    • 3. Generally unreliable
    • 4. Deprecate

    Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Responses (Al-Mayadeen)

    I have explained the overtly unreliable nature of this fake news-outlet in my previous comment above the RfC section. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's frankly depressing to see how giddy editors are to deprecate non-Western sources. Systemic bias hard at work, in my view. Al-Mayadeen is a widely-used source of information in the Arab world, with reporters in "most Arab countries" per our own article. Much of their staff consists of former Al Jazeera employees. Yes, they have a bias, which they lay out in detail in their "About us" section. It would be nice if other outlets followed suit, and dropped the ludicrous self-serving pretense that they're conducting "objective" journalism.
    If we carry on like this, and every source that deviates from Western consensus is dismissed as "propaganda", "fake news", and "state funded", we will have an encyclopedia that only presents the mainstream Western point of view, to the exclusion of other points of view. The erroneous assumption that underlies this way of thinking is that the mainstream Western consensus represents "objectivity", while any deviation from that point of view represents an incorrigible "bias".
    Biases are sort of like accents - almost nobody thinks that they have one, especially if everyone around them has the same accent that they do. Many small-minded people in the USA, who think that they don't have an accent, might make comments like "people from India don't speak English the right way". That's pretty much the attitude I get from the comments here, at the Venezuelanalysis RFC, and at many, many other places on Wikipedia. Non-Westerners don't do journalism "the right way", as defined by models like CNN and BBC.
    The fact that sources that contradict mainstream Western consensus are so casually dismissed as "biased" suggests that most editors (practically all of whom are Westerners) are so steeped in pro-Western narratives that those narratives appear "normal" and "unbiased", and it also suggests that most editors aren't conversant in non-Western points of view about politics, which is why, when exposed to them, they apply a reductive analysis and conclude that they must be "fake news" or "pro-X propaganda". It's a huge blind spot on this website.
    This source should be used to establish the notability of a topic, or to cite attributed opinions, but shouldn't be used to make Wikivoice statements of fact. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's frankly depressing to see how giddy editors are to deprecate non-Western sources (and much else in your comment) is an aspersion, please strike it. I'm certainly not giddy to deprecate any source, I think your own biases are shown in how you depict other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Bias is not unreliablity" is a straw man. This is an unreliable source because it's unreliable not because it's biased. Plenty of non-western media is excellent. From the same region, Enab Baladi, The New Arab, Asharq Al-Awsat, Al-Arabiya, The National, Arab News (mostly), Orient News are all reliable. Similarly, editors arguing that La Patilla is more reliable than Venezeulanalysis are not doing so because it is more western (in fact VA has more western writers than La Patilla does). Please don't let your general bugbear about bias overcome a basic evaluation of a dreadful news website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, wp:cir, this site is obviously fake news. Cursed Peace (talk) 04:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Sock[reply]

    Discussion (Al-Mayadeen)

    @Alaexis: and @Shadowwarrior8: who have already given thoughts about the organisation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Also pinging @Bobfrombrockley, who had very recently commented on this "news"-network elsewhere. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems at best "reliability unclear" or "consensus unclear." I had looked at it and presumed it a WP:NEWSORG, with a bias, but republishing material from other problematic sources is problematic. Andre🚐 22:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)

    What is the reliability of Correo del Orinoco (Orinoco Tribune)?

    A previous discussion in this noticeboard from 2010 mentioned Correo del Orinoco: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break 6: on Correo del Orinoco

    • Option 3 (at least)/4: Correo del Orinoco is a Venezuelan state-owned newspaper that is part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System state media conglomerate. There's already a precedent in this noticeboard of demonstrating that outlets from this conglomerate publish and amplify misleading and/or false information, and that the fact that Venezuela is a country with a low level of freedom of the press affects its reliability, the main example being WP:TELESUR.
    A report from the Venezuelan fact-checking coalition C-Informa "Portals of lies: the international swarm of 'independent media' at the service of Chavista narratives" (also mentioned above, in the currently opened RfC: Venezuelanalysis) explains how Correo del Orinoco is directed by a Venezuelan government official and has amplified propaganda in the past:
    • In the case of media such as Venezuelanalysis, Orinoco Tribune and even the now censored Aporrea, a team full of current and former Venezuelan diplomats in the United States, former ministers and both former and active editors of Telesur, RT and Venezuelan state media operates.
    • It is directed by Jesús Rodríguez-Espinoza, who was Venezuelan consul in Chicago, between 2008 and 2017, replacing Martín Sánchez (Aporrea / Venezuelanalysis). His articles were used at the beginning of the digital campaign in favor of Alex Saab.
    Its bias and lack of neutrality shows that the outlet does not have editorial independence, and its reliability has already been questioned in Wikipedia discussions throughout the years, including due to the republication from unreliable or deprecated outlets:
    • On the much discussed issue of independence of Venezuelanalysis staff, referring in this particular instance to Eva Golinger, here is evidence of the sort of independence these people have from the Venezuelan State [...] For the language impaired, it means that the Chavez regime, through Congress, has approved some $3.2 million, so that Golinger's propaganda rag can reach more people. – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 55, 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After all that research, you did not find that Eva Golinger just got $3.2 million from the Chavez regime to carry on with her propaganda activities in Correo del Orinoco? – Alekboyd, WP:RSN/Archive 58, 3 March 2010
    • Correo del Orinoco and Venezuelanalysis are both parrots of state propaganda. – SandyGeorgia, WT:VEN/Archive 4, 15 April 2019
    • According to the Antisemitism in Venezuela 2013 report by the Venezuelan Confederation of Israelite Associations (CAIV) which focuses on the issue of antisemitism in Venezuela, "distorted news, omissions and false accusations" of Israel originate from Iranian media in Latin America, especially from HispanTV. Such "distorted news" is then repeated by the Russia's RT News and Cuba's Prensa Latina, and Venezuela’s state media, including SIBCI, AVN, TeleSUR, [...] Correo del Orinoco and Ciudad CCS – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 265#RfC: HispanTV, 19 April 2019
    • The recently created Orinoco Tribune [...] uses Telesur, Grayzone and Venezuelanalysis (see WP:RSP) as its primary sources – ZiaLater, WP:RSN/Archive 287#RfC: Grayzone, 18 December 2019
    • [...] Chavismo forced owners of paper manufacturing companies into exile on bogus charges so they could take over paper production and allocate paper only to Chavez-friendly press like Correo del Orinoco (2009) [...] – SandyGeorgia, WP:RSN/Archive 415#RfC: La Patilla, 15 August 2023
    Indeed, a quick look through fact checkers will show a consistent history of publishing misleading and/or false information, and how Orinoco Tribune participated in the influence operation on behalf of Colombian businessman Alex Saab, currently indicted with money laundering charges:
    Fact check articles (2016-2023)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    All in all, Correo del Orinoco cannot be considered a reliable source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 3 (at least): This site is far, far worse than either Venezuelanalysis and Telesur; it is basically a version of them that doesn't even attempt to mix in any respectable reporting or analysis. It is essentially an aggregation site for kooks and conspiracists. On the current frontpage there is content syndicated from Grayzone and Al-Mayadeen for example. I don't think it's necessarily worth deprecating, but we wouldn't lose anything by never using it ever. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 1) like any other source, its "reliability in context" is what matters. Checking the first article of the 92 pages HTTPS links HTTP links that it's used in, I see no reason to believe that what is attributed to an official document would be unreliable or made-up. A quick search for the "Official Gazette No. 39,454" brings up this source, which confirms that Bashar al Assad was indeed a recipient of the "Order of the Liberator". Without the crucial information that is listed in the first source, it would be near impossible to verify this simple fact. 2) I didn't ask for this RfC in particular. What I did ask is for the OP to stop removing all the sources that are associated with the Venezuelan government (including government official websites) and instead, to discuss them on this board. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's "near impossible to verify a simple fact" without using Venezuela state sources, the fact is probably undue. And I find it hard to believe that for chavismo to install what was once Venezuela's highest honor on someone of the "caliber" of Bashar al-Assad is not mentioned elsewhere. So. Here are just a few sources that will provide some context and relevance: [137][138] [139] [140] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't buy into the UNDUE when it comes to simple facts such as this one (numerous first class imbeciles have decorations of all kinds listed in their article) and in any case, that example was given to illustrate a point. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The Venezuelan government has lied even about its own official documents in the past. Since we're talking about Venezuela's Official Gazette, the Foreign Affairs Ministry claimed that Colombian business had been appointed as a diplomat (special envoy) in the Official Gazette N° 6.373 Extraordinary. It required lawyers from Saab's current trial in the United States to look after the original document in the Library of Congress (a third and independent source) to demonstrate that this was false, and said appointment never took place. Correo del Orinoco continues repeating this false information ad nauseam, even after a year it has been debunked and published by fact checkers. As Sandy has mentioned, if a fact is relevant enough, it will surely be covered in independent sources. In the case of Assad's condecoration, there are a couple (besides the ones above): Reuters, El País, Chicago Tribune, La Nación.
    I started the RfC on Correo del Orinoco because it was the last source whose reliability I disputed, and it also had more uses than Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias (26 uses HTTPS links HTTP links, as of this date), but both sources are part of Bolivarian Communication and Information System media conglomerate, just as the deprecated WP:TELESUR, and routinely publish each others' news (something that I explained in a comment linked in the edit summaries but that you refused to read, saying that it was "an irrelevant discussion"). Most of these issues affect the other outlets in question as a result. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that the other governments don't lie? What Sandy said doesn't hold much water: if a list is DUE, then so is every factual entry in it. M.Bitton (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, that's whataboutism and clearly not what I said. Second, it's a response to your claim saying I see no reason to believe that what is attributed to an official document would be unreliable or made-up, giving an example where it happened. Plenty of reliable sources can be found about these documents and are more credible about its content (and especially its interpretation). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not and what I said is not a claim, it's statement. If the info is verifiable and plenty of reliable sources can easily be found to support it, then why did you obliterate it? M.Bitton (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with M.Bitton that NoonIcarus was probably wrong to remove the fact about Assad's honour from his BLP; it would have been better to flag with "unreliable inline" or "better source" so other editors could verify and insert alternative sources. But that's an issue with how generally unreliable sources are dealt with, not an argument against the general unreliability of this source. (If the source was deprecated, then full removal would be the correct thing to do of course.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have treated the source in the same way as Telesur, as they both have the same editorial line and are part of the Bolivarian Communication and Information System conglomerate. Of course, I'm well aware that these removals can be disputed, and hopefully this RfC can help clearing that out. I only included Option 3 as an option given that I know there have been complaints about deprecating a source during its first discussion, but giving the precedents and evidence I think it is the right decision. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Anadolu Agency

    Which of the following options describes Anadolu Agency (English language edition) the best as a reference?

    • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated
    • Note: The last and only RfC was conducted in 2019, according to the WP:RSPS.

    Survey (Anadolu)

    • Option 1 for general topics and option 2 for international politics – Anadolu Agency is the oldest and most well-established news agency in Turkey.[1]
    According to Serpil Karlıdağ from Başkent University: "Media agencies such as Anadolu Agency are official state institutions. [And] Anadolu Agency is an important device for the official discourse to circulate."[2]
    According to Ebru Karadoğan İsmail from Üsküdar University, "...Anadolu Agency's coverage is comprised of short stories that focus on factual statements and immediate outcomes rather than an elaborate analysis..."[3]
    According to Mehmet Özçağlayan and Omo Aiman Boudchar from Marmara University, Anadolu Agency is regarded as a reliable source in the Arab world.[4]
    Anadolu Agency's content is used by human rights organizations such as Amnesty International.[5]
    From my personal experience, most of the pieces on Anadolu Agency is regular content published in Western press often with Turkish viewpoint. But I haven't came across explicitly false statements. While it is described by multiple sources as having a bias for Turkey (as seen in the previous RfC), WP:BIASEDSOURCES are allowed as long as they are publishing factual content.

    Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Option 2, Anadolu is a government mouthpiece and offers a significant viewpoint but not without significant bias (especially when it comes to special issues such as the Kurds and elections). I would say its generally usable with attribution except for controversial topics which involve Turkey. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2/3, I'm not seeing anything to justify changing the prior consensus. OP seems to be confusing "state institution" for reliability. The cited examples of Amnesty International articles are primarily using AA's photojournalism, not their factual reporting, with the exception of [142] where they are given attribution for an uncontroversial detail. Scholarly assessments of AA, such as Irak 2016,[6] describe AA as a mouthpiece of the Turkish government closely controlled by AKP leadership. The examples of İsmayil 2022 and Özçağlayan (2022) are being misrepresented; İsmayil is purely describing AA's writing style, not that it has a track record of reliability, and Özçağlayan is a) purely discussing TRT Arabic, not AA as a whole, and primarily discusses indicators of the publication's popularity, rate of publication, and general Turkish soft power across the Arab world rather than its reliability as a news source. In fact, Özçağlayan's analysis directly treats AA as a public relations vehicle for the Turkish government and assesses its effectiveness based on its ability to promote Turkish interests. signed, Rosguill talk 20:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is 100% false. Organizations like BBC use Anadolu Agency in non-photojournalistic context.[7] Dağhan Irak is a sports journalist and worked for terrorist Gülen network's disinformation platform Taraf.[8]
      The other sources are presented absolutely correctly. Özçağlayan does not discuss TRT World at all in his paper: "The study also shows that these newspapers, which are known for their professionalism in the Arab world, consider Anadolu Agency as a reliable news source." Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 06:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If you're referring to it as "terrorist Gülen network", I'm afraid you've outed your POV-pushing intent. signed, Rosguill talk 15:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, I'm a bit confused--is this RfC supposed to be about TRT World or Anadolu Agency? Despite their near-identical funding and editorial line at the present moment, they are not actually the same publication and we can't infer statements about the one in RS to apply to the other. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Please review WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:BLP, and WP:RGW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      LOL, touche Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2-3 (Keep current listing): According to generally reliable Coda Media[143], "Anadolu Agency, or AA, has become ground zero in Turkey’s information wars. Over the last four years it has reversed its editorial objectivity to provide ardently pro-government points of view, ranging from charges of electoral fraud, libelous accusations against government critics and publishing misleadingly optimistic economic data" and that "AA ... routinely demonize Erdogan’s political opposition as terrorists". This appears to show that it may be unreliable in its reporting for contentious topics and for bold claims. As for the current listing on WP:RSP, an addition should be made to require in-text attribution for its usage.--WMrapids (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for general topics - simply keep in mind it's a state broadcaster. Option 3 for Turkish-related articles (be they politics, culture, war/disasters, etc) - Anadolu has an extensive recent history of pushing the Erdogan government's line on things. The Kip 04:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2 for general topics, Option 3 for the topics that are sensitive from the Turkish government's point of view (Kurdish-Turkish conflict, Turkish politics, Israel/Palestine). Sources say that AA is a "government mouthpiece" (in Mainstreaming the Headscarf by Esra Özcan, p. 40) and that it's been transformed for Erdogan's poliical goals (Hungry for Power by Aydoğan Vatandaş). Alaexis¿question? 19:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Baykan, Dildar. (2019). "FETÖ network in the US: Aydoğan Vatandaş". Anadolu Ajansı. Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, the fact that they call the Gülen movement FETÖ ("Fethullahist Terrorist Organisation") kinda reinforces my point, no?
      At any rate, there are other sources which talk about the government control of AA. For example Ihsan Yilmaz wrote that Anadolu Agency [has] been harnessed by the government to promote its message (Digital Authoritarianism and Its Religious Legitimization, p. 28). Alaexis¿question? 10:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not true. Firstly, the term FETÖ was coined by the secularist opposition members who were persecuted by the Gülenists. Their infiltration of the government was published by journalist Ahmet Şık in the book The Imam's Army.[9] And secondly: Oktay, Mücahit. (2021). "FETÖ member İhsan Yılmaz confessed the efforts to infiltrate the US army". Anadolu Ajansı Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't matter who coined this term. They are now hostile to the Turkish government and the fact that AA use this term (unlike basically everyone else outside of Turkey) shows that they are influenced by the government. In any case, this is not my main argument and I provided another source which says the same thing. Alaexis¿question? 18:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Independent courts have ruled that the Gülen network is a terrorist organization.[10] AA follows the verdict of judiciary.
      Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2-3 (current listing): State news agency from a country with low freedom of the press and that lacks editorial independence. Unreliable for politics, but might be used to reference Turkey's government positions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 2+ per discussion above. (Generally reliable on non-contentious topics, reliable for Tu gov positions, avoid/attribute for sensitive topics, older content more reliable than recent.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • option 2+ regarding topics on Turkish-Kurdish conflicts
    If editors are using Anadolu Agency on issues related to Turkish-Kurdish conflicts, they should restrict its usage only to report the Turkish government stance or Turkish viewpoints with attribution.
    Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this is important: if we list additional considerations that apply, we should definitely include Kurdish issues, for which they should be attributed/triangulated BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 2 for the most part per discussion above. They're generally reliable on international coverage without Turkish gov interest, reliable for Turkish government statements and positions, and for conflicts the Turkish government is involved with, Option 3 or attribute the affiliation with the Turkish government. Jebiguess (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Kurban, D., Elmas, E. (2012). Turkish Media Policy in National Context. In: Psychogiopoulou, E. (eds) Understanding Media Policies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137035288_14 "Of the 24 news agencies, the official one, Anadolu Agency (Anadolu Ajansı), in operation since 1920, is the oldest and the primary news source for the press."
    2. ^ Karlidag, S., & Bulut, S. (Eds.). (2020). Handbook of Research on the Political Economy of Communications and Media. IGI Global. p. 106
    3. ^ Ismayil, E., & Karadogan Ismayil, E. (Eds.). (2022). Media and Terrorism in the 21st Century. IGI Global. p. 113
    4. ^ Özçağlayan, M., & Boudchar, O. A. (2022). The Impact of Anadolu Agency News as a News Source on Arab Media and Arab Public Opinion. TAM Akademi Dergisi, 1(2), 96-125. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/tamde/issue/73915/1220453
    5. ^ [1][2][3][4] "...it was proven by groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, with the latter’s investigation including photos captured by Anadolu."
    6. ^ Irak, Dağhan (2016-04-02). "A Close-Knit Bunch: Political Concentration in Turkey's Anadolu Agency through Twitter Interactions". Turkish Studies. 17 (2): 336–360. doi:10.1080/14683849.2016.1138287. ISSN 1468-3849.
    7. ^ [5][6][7][8][9] (BBC) [10][11][12] (FT)
    8. ^ https://github.com/belgeci/Taraf/tree/master/Da%C4%9Fhan%20Irak
    9. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/opinion/who-was-behind-the-coup-attempt-in-turkey.html
    10. ^
      • Constitutional Court of Turkey "FETÖ/PDY'ye ilişkin olarak ülke genelinde açılan çok sayıdaki davadan biri, Erzincan Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi tarafından 16/6/2016 tarihinde karara bağlanmıştır (E.2016/74). Anılan kararda FETÖ/PDY'nin özellikle yargı ve emniyet birimleri ile Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinde (TSK) örgütlendiği, devletin hiyerarşik yapısı dışında ayrı bir yapılanmaya gittiği belirtilmiş; bu itibarla yapılanmanın silahlı bir terör örgütü olduğu kabul edilmiştir (Aydın Yavuz ve diğerleri, § 32)."
      • Ministry of Justice - Press release "FETÖ/PDY'nin silahlı terör örgütü olduğu, 15 Temmuz öncesinde Erzincan Ağır Ceza Mahkemesince verilen kararla da tescil edilmiştir."

    Discussion (Anadolu)

    • It appears that this publication is very widely cited as a source in Wikipedia, over 2000 times [144], and its current classification at RSP is presenting no barrier to such use. Other than the OP's position that they believe that a higher reliability classification is warranted, is there a practical reason for a new RFC here? I don't see one. Banks Irk (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also that the last RfC is 4 years old, in addition to the what you've said: "Stale discussions: The source has not been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard for four calendar years, and the consensus may have changed since the most recent discussion." (copied from wp:rsps) Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been deleting it in Russian war articles based on the RFC. Often, though; I was able to find another source for the material, but not always. So I consider it a poor source, although not out and out disinformation Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Keraunos

    RfC is premature; a search of the archives show that this source has not been subject to repeat discussions, and thus doesn't meet the requirements listed at the top of the page for an RfC to be held. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Which of the following options describes the Observatoire Français des Tornades et des Orages Violents (Keraunos) (Website) [Translated: French Observatory of Tornadoes and Violent Thunderstorms] the best as a reference?

    • Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting
    • Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply
    • Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting
    • Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated

    The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Notes: No prior RfC RS-related discussions and no (sourced-based) Wikipedia article, however, cited on several weather-related articles including (not limited to): October 2022 European tornado outbreak, List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, 2018 Atlantic hurricane season, List of European tornadoes in 2022, Tornadoes of 2022, Montville, Seine-Maritime, 1984 Soviet Union tornado outbreak, List of tornadoes by calendar day, Enhanced Fujita scale, and dozens of others locatable via a search of "Keraunos" and "tornado" in the Wikipedia search bar.

    Survey (Keraunos)

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Working paper by Dan Ciuriak

    See: Ciuriak, Dan (4 August 2022). "At What Cost? The Economic and Human Costs of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine". www.cdhowe.org. Retrieved 2023-10-07.

    This paper is an effort to quantify in monetary terms the cost of the invasion. It is described as a working paper. At pages 11-12, it would make an estimate of the civilian casualties based on some broad-brush assumptions which it then uses to assert a dollar value attributable to these casualties. It is an economics paper that would attempt to estimate the cost of the war as a dollar figure between $ 9 - 14 x 1012, where the cost of civilian casualties is estimated at $ 0.059 - 0.126 x 1012 (ie less than one percent of the total cost estimated). The validity or otherwise of the assumptions used to estimate the civilian casualties has no significant impact on the accuracy of the total monetary value determined, which itself has a range of ± 20%.

    My understanding of a working paper is that itis one intended to elicit peer opinion and not one which has been peer reviewed.

    1. Is this paper a WP:RS?
    2. Given WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, is it reasonable to rely on the estimate of casualties made therein in reporting the civilian casualties arising from the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

    Cinderella157 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • As you say, it is just a working paper, awaiting review. Although CDHowe is a reliable source the working paper is the author's unreviewed opinion. If this passes peer review, I would still only use it as a source with attribution. But at this preliminary point, it should not be used as a source.Banks Irk (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree - at this stage the best you can do with it in my opinion is to consider it a primary source for the opinion of the author (i.e. Dan Ciuriak). But that is not helping much I guess. Arnoutf (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I also agree with this position. I will grant that if the author is widely acknowledged as a SME then perhaps their opinion would be DUE (with attribution) but that should be a fairly high bar. It's certainly better to wait for this paper to get published. Also, if it doesn't get published perhaps that's a sign that reviewers weren't happy with the result. Springee (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it has been published by CD Howe and SSRN, and cited elsewhere,[147][148] I think that this could be used with attribution. Certainly if there is no better estimate available, it is useful as identifying costs and an estimate of their orders of magnitude. The author was also published by FP on the subject.[149] The author gives a range of estimates and discusses the assumptions, so the work can be peer checked. But note that it’s over a year old.  —Michael Z. 18:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mzajac, just to clarify, the aim/purpose of the paper is to quantify the cost of the war in monetary terms and it would be suitable as an attributed primary source in that context, with the usual caveats and noting the age of the source (which makes it somewhat dated)? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't RS, and it also seems to fall foul of Crystal Ball, as it is assuming values that we can not calculate yet. So it is valuable only for the scholar's opinion. It is probably WP:UNDUE to include this scholar's opinion until such time as it is published by a reliable source. Boynamedsue (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You’re saying C. D. Howe Institute is not reliable? Based on what?
      Not sure what you mean by “assuming values,” but no, WP:CRYSTAL is a guideline for Wikipedia editors, not for experts. “Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field maSSRN asy be included.” Meteorologists are allowed to predict weather, engineers to predict strength of structures, economists to make economic forecasts, and so on, and we are allowed to report what they write in reliable sources. But did the source in question even actually do that?
      ”It is valuable only for the scholar's opinion.” Yes, exactly: an expert opinion, presented with premises, data, and calculations, extensively referenced, and published by a research institute. An exemplary WP:2ARY.  —Michael Z. 14:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw we treat SSRN as a reliable source elsewhere on the page. It isn't one of the sources that I ran past this board when I went through the article references, but isn't reliability primarily conveyed by the publisher? And the level of verification that may have occurred? We're doing recursive reliabilitive ty again, which is actually a good thing as long as we remember that that's what we're doing.
    If SSRN is considered an expert for this purpose then the article is RS, as the sort of think tank that SSRN seems to be would have vetted the author when they either hired him or accepted the article. If SSRN is questionable as an RS, then this source wouldn't be a good reference. I don't think attribution is needed if SSRN is definitely an RS, but eh {{Russian invasion of Ukraine]] is fairly cautious about declarative statements especially the casualty numbers.Elinruby (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS the age is an issue but the cumulative number of casualties is never going to go *down* and because of Mariupol etc civilian casualties are almost unknowable but everyone says that they are much much highter than official confirmed fatalities Elinruby (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit inclined to invoke WP:NODEADLINES and WP:NOTNEWS. The article is a working paper awaiting review, but the publisher did decide to publish it, and the author is clearly a qualified expert and the publication an academic source. So, yeah, from a RSN approach alone, we could easily say, that, "In an unreviewed working paper by Ciuriak published by CDHowe in 2022, he estimated...." But, as is said above, those numbers are just preliminary estimates that have not been reviewed, and which would almost certainly be different as of today, and which will continue to change for the forseeable future. For those reasons, I'd be inclined to not cite this source at this point in time. But, that is getting outside of the scope of RSN. Banks Irk (talk) 20:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Part of the question here is whether it is reliable in context for reporting casualties when it is an economic paper for estimating the monetary cost of the war? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2023 (U

    What would you suggest, Cinderella? Elinruby (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be considered a primary source for the authors opinion of the monetary cost of the war (with attribution), which is the primary purpose of the paper. This would tend to reflect the consensus of comments here. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whut? It is a primary source on the “analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources”? That’s literally our definition of a WP:SECONDARY source.  —Michael Z. 14:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As others agree, as a working paper, it is inherently unreviewed and not a secondary source. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable?

    I submit they are not. Hamas is a terrorist group that falsifies statements and information, such as blaming Israeli airstrikes for the hospital attack, etc. I submit that we should consider Hamas' casualty numbers generally unreliable for factual information, and must always be attributed. Is that reasonable, or am I going too far? Andre🚐 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this something we're actually doing? Diffs? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2023_Israel–Hamas_war#cite_note-19 see also Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion#Time_to_start_saying_it_was_a_Palestinian_rocket? Andre🚐 18:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So the issue you have is with other sources citing Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers not with us actually using them as sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, these cites from the infobox are directly to "Per Palestinian Health Ministry" and "Per Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry". I think that seems weird. Andre🚐 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not... I think you're confusing the notes with the citation. The citation is to this AJ article [150]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That just attributes it also to the Gaza/Hamas ministry. AJ is reliable, but are these numbers? Andre🚐 19:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who cares? Wikipedia is about what is verifiable, not what is true. If the source attributes so do we, but we don't get to second guess the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem in this case is that it's in an infobox, which makes attribution difficult. This isn't the first time this has come up (current conflicts almost always ultimately come from the parties in the conflict and are attributed to them in the secondary sources) - I'm surprised there's no guideline about it somewhere. There's currently a footnote with attribution but I'm not sure that's enough - perhaps the casualty figures should have (per Gaza’s Ministry of Health) in small text. But we'd have to do it for both sides because the Israeli causality figures are also attributed in the sources, which say things like "IDF says" and the like. The inability to put in-text attribution in infoboxes is a constant problem, but it's a particular problem for casualty figures because the infobox seems designed for a straight "unequivocal fact" number and for current conflicts it's more difficult. I'd oppose attributing only one side unless the sources themselves are more clearly skeptical of that side, though, since that would carry the implication that those figures are disputed or less reputable and we'd need sourcing to back that up. --Aquillion (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thank you, Aquillion, as usual, an insightful addition to the discussion, and exactly what makes me uneasy. Andre🚐 01:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With attribution, they should be treated just like any other involved claim. Curbon7 (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no RS issue with citing a mainstream news source, say the NYT, that "Hamas claims X casualties in Y incident". We wouldn't ordinarily source the numbers directly to a mere press release by any side in any conflict. Banks Irk (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, the attribution is necessary. The numbers provided by belligerents are often manipulated, and in case of Gaza there is no political opposition or independent media to challenge them (see World_Press_Freedom_Index#Rankings_and_scores_by_country_or_places). Alaexis¿question? 19:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Israeli and Hamas casualty claims should be distrusted and always attributed to the relevant party. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. A senior member of Hamas said that 260 partygoers were killed at Re'im because they looked like soldiers and does not admit to killing civilians. Alaexis¿question? 20:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the false balance? Neither side in a war should be trusted as a primary source... Neither the Israelis or Hamas is going to be a trustworthy source in this context. That doesn't mean that one side isn't more untrustworthy than the other, it just means that neither is trustworthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto, this is exactly the point I was trying to make. Just because Hamas blatantly lies doesn't mean the word of the government of Israel should be treated as gospel. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think that there is a trustworthy/untrustworthy dichotomy but rather a spectrum and Israel and Hamas are quite far apart on this spectrum. Anyway, this discussion is about Hamas, so this is probably offtopic. Alaexis¿question? 20:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not false equivalency to reflect, with proper citation and attribution, conflicting casualty reports, especially when there is no independent verification in a conflict. As for the linked Economist article, the way to report it, assuming it met WP:DUE would be to include the article's incredulity toward the interviewee's claims. Banks Irk (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Something everyone should ask here is whether the Palestinian Health Ministry is the same with Hamas? This is something I don't know neither. Obviously they are influenced by the political and militant entity running the region but does this equate Hamas and the Gaza health services? In the past, the Palestinian Health Ministry figures were mostly even with the UN figures. During the 2014 Gaza war, PHM claimed that 70% of the deaths were civilians while the UN concluded that 65% were. While PHM is likely to inflate its figures, it should be more or less accurate. Ecrusized (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaza Health Ministry is a part of Hamas administration. According to HRW, Hamas authorities detained opponents and critics for their peaceful expression and tortured some in their custody. Saying that the health ministry is influenced by Hamas is an understatement, I would say. Alaexis¿question? 20:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the relation between the Health Ministry being part of Hamas administration and Hamas torturing their opponents. Ecrusized (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • All Gaza ministries belong to Hamas. Is Hamas known "for fact-checking and accuracy"? No, hardly (agree with others above). This is a "generally unreliable source for factual information". Another source that cites Hamas numbers does not make them any better because they are the same numbers. The government of Israel, on the other hand, usually provides more reliable numbers, such as 1,400+ their people killed, for example. Why? Because they do have serious fact-checking procedures. They do check who was killed prior to notifying relatives. Such numbers are a subject of update of course. My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this is an important question and I think I agree. Andre🚐 21:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This depends on specific country. For example, IDF openly publish the number of their own casualties, and they are reliable numbers. Ukraine consider such numbers during the war a state secret and does not publish at all. Russian MoD completely invents numbers for general public/publications. They are outright "fake". They keep real numbers for internal usage (also a secret), but these numbers were leaked a couple of times. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IDF does not openly publish the number of their own casualties while the war is ongoing, what you're seeing is information warfare (the real figures are state secrets). You generally need to wait for their big parliamentary after-conflict reports for that. Thats better than most too, we still don't know for sure how many casualties the Chinese took in Korea or Vietnam. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IDF has lied many times in the past as well, if we apply this to Palestinian authorities we will need to evaluate IDF statements as well along the same lines. Ashvio (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide sources for that assertion Andre🚐 22:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One example of many: IDF originally claimed Shireen was shot by Palestinians, and later admitted they lied and it was caused by an IDF soldier.
    Original Assertion: https://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-probe-claims-idf-deliberately-shot-journalist-as-she-fled-israel-a-blatant-lie/
    Later admission of guilt: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/18/upsetting-shireen-abu-akleh-family-rejects-israels-sorry Ashvio (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I give you that one, it's not really the same thing. I'm talking about a table of casualties in an infobox that have the appearance of official info. Andre🚐 22:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the harm of not including any information from Palestinian civil officials outweighs the harm of potentially incorrect figures. When the figures are disputed, we should provide alternative figures from other sources as we are already. In most historical wikipedia pages for example, deaths are reported in the articles as claimed from both sides as well as other parties who have made estimates. Ashvio (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Andrevan, I would have thought that anything coming from them would have to be attributed in any case as we'd be quoting a primary source, it would be WP:OR otherwise. Am I misunderstanding your question? TarnishedPathtalk 00:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good point too. But take a look at the infobox as it stands. Andre🚐 00:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The figures on 2023 Israel–Hamas war come from "The Palestinian Information Center." A quick google says that "The Palestinian Information Center PIC is an independent Palestinian organization, established first in Arabic on 1st December 1997." The link you provided 2023_Israel–Hamas_war#cite_note-19 is empty and doesn't provide any figures. I don't see why it's necessary. The figures provided are quoted to the secondary source "The Palestinian Information Center." TarnishedPathtalk 00:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Palestinian Information Center is a Hamas outlet, I thought. Andre🚐 00:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find anything to that effect doing web searches. TarnishedPathtalk 01:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what it says at Palestinian_Information_Center#cite_note-2 Andre🚐 01:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just reading that. Yep the opinion of some Israeli scholars is that it is a gateway for Hamas propoganda. That doesn't make it so. Also that's attributed and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. TarnishedPathtalk 01:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you been able to locate editorial polices and staff for The Palestinian Information Center? I haven't. TarnishedPathtalk 01:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still looking into it, but let me know if you find anything. I had assumed it was just basically a Hamas outlet. But I'll try to find something more solid than the opinion of a few scholars. Andre🚐 01:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. They have a declared bias. Just because they're not necessarily a Hamas outlet doesn't mean they can't be biased. TarnishedPathtalk 01:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... so. they should be attributed, yes? More clearly in the infobox. Andre🚐 01:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'd probably need discussion around that. WP:RS says sources can be biased and still be usable. TarnishedPathtalk 09:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I started the discussion. Andre🚐 17:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your discussion is about "Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable?". I think you need to ask the question "Is The Palestinian Information Center's casualty figures reliable in regards to the current conflict?" Two different questions. TarnishedPathtalk 23:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the question I was trying to ask. Thank you for asking it better. Andre🚐 23:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now everyone else in this thread is talking about figures from Hamas, which isn't exactly useful. If there was any sort of consensus which was formed it wouldn't be applicable to the article in which the sources are actually something else. TarnishedPathtalk 23:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A consensus is a consensus, but I don't see one forming anyway. I've learned a lot from this thread already. My question was the question that I asked. It was answered in a number of different ways. You've offered a more specific question. Perhaps, we should start that as a new thread in the future. Though not right this minute. Andre🚐 23:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found their policies here. TarnishedPathtalk 01:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that clear attribution should be made to both/all sides. I agree with Aquillion, Hemiauchenia, and Horse Eye's Back. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The idea that in a war we should only be favoring one sides statistics is directly at odds with what WP:NPOV requires. All significant views with weight as given to them by reliable sources. Reliable sources treat the numbers reported from Gaza ministries and give them weight. The idea that Hamas, the government of Gaza, does not represent a significant view in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war strikes me as bizarre. You are basically suggesting we not include Palestinian casualties and only include Israeli ones. How does that square with NPOV at all to anybody? And to the point, when reliable sources cite something that means they give it weight. We do not decide we dislike the weight they give a source and then say oh we're just going to ignore that. nableezy - 00:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Who suggested not to include them? I just said they needed clearer attribution. Andre🚐 01:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    they are attributed. What you are suggesting is that we treat Israeli figures as gospel and Palestinian ones as assumed lies. nableezy - 02:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I said that either. I just asked whether these figures in the infobox were suitably attributed. If there is a concern about the Israeli numbers, please raise it. Is someone concerned about those numbers? Andre🚐 02:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your original question doesn't even mention the infobox, if that is what this was about why didn't you mention it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where the numbers are. I asked if the numbers are reliable. Then I provided a link to the footnote cited in the infobox. Andre🚐 18:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You only provided a link after being challenged... If this was about that specific infobox this whole time then your original post is extremely misleading due to the omission of context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I said are Hamas numbers reliable, then you asked for diffs, then I provided the link to the footnote in the infobox. That is all we've been discussing this whole time. Andre🚐 18:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked a general question... If this was not actually about the general question and was meant to address a specific content issue then IMO you tried to hoodwink us. You can't omit context like that. Why did you feel that it was appropriate to omit the context here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked the question and I provided 2 links to different situations, and I also put notifications on those 2 pages. Your question is meaningless. The context was provided. It's also obvious. Andre🚐 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not a single link in your OP. There is no context in the OP whatsoever. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Horse Eye, I don't know what you want me to say. Yes, my first post didn't include the links, and you asked for them, so I provided them. The way it works here is that people do things, other people provide feedback or additional questions, and then improvements are made. Andre🚐 18:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were not planning to ever provide that context unless challenged? Yeah... Thats extremely misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was planning to provide anything that discussion led to. Last I checked, we were still allowed to start general discussions here. Those are 2 places the discussion led to. There are undoubtedly others. I'm still not sure what your problem is. Andre🚐 18:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I'm confused, was your OP not in response to that infobox? I'm not asking where the discussion led, I'm asking about the context which led to the question being asked which is supposed to be disclosed when you bring a question here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I noticed that in a few places, 2 of which I linked when you asked, we were using the Hamas numbers in a way that appears pretty factual and isn't clearly attributed, in my view, but I simply asked a general question about whether the numbers are reliable. Nothing wrong with that. Then you said, are we actually doing that, and I provided the places where we are. I fail to see the issue. Andre🚐 18:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why omit that context from the OP? My question was only necessary because the question was misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the question wasn't misleading. You asked for more information and I clarified. I don't know what else to tell you. That is the whole story. Andre🚐 18:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you choose to omit that context from the OP? Did you just forget and not actually make a choice? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I thought it would be obvious what I was talking about. Andre🚐 18:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In hindsight do you realize that it was not? It wasn't even apparent or hinted at, let alone obvious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, Horse Eye. You're a good editor. We usually get along. Why are you reading me the riot act on this? I thought it was pretty obvious. In hindsight, yes, it was not obvious to you, and that's why I provided the info. What are you getting at? Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, the IDF is an occupying army, both numbers should be attributed, we've established that? Is there a problem still? Last I checked, the policy does allow general questions here. It was not misleading, intentionally or otherwise; anyone should be able to understand that the current war in Gaza is the event that has casualty numbers, and that they are on several pages. I'm sorry that I didn't provide the link, but like I said, I thought people would be able to figure out. Andre🚐 18:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reading you the riot act because I feel hoodwinked, this is one of the most misleading questions I've ever seen asked at RSN and I'm still a bit in shock that it came from an editor as august as you... Looking at your recent edits you appear to have gotten caught up in the current whirlwind around Hamas and Israel, perhaps the intensity of those interactions is impairing your judgement and you need to take a break from the topic? Note that if I did not have immense respect for both you and the difficultly of editing in around an ongoing conflict I would have brought this to ANI. I wasn't expecting a big fight from you, I was expecting "Oops my bad yeah thats not what I meant to communicate, will do better next time" and to move on. Will leave this here, I think we've made the progress we can under the current conditions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry that you feel that way. I was not intending it to be misleading. Like you said, the issue has been on my mind. I assumed everyone would know which articles I meant. I was not intending to make you feel hoodwinked. I always appreciate your feedback, and I'll try better next time to include all the relevant content so the post is less vague. Andre🚐 19:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We should use the same rules we use for any self-published piece of information, which is to say:

    • We shouldn't use Hamas numbers directly from Hamas.
    • If a reliable source publishes Hamas numbers with attribution ("Hamas says there were X casualities"), we should also use those numbers with attribution.
    • If a reliable source publishes Hamas numbers without attribution ("There were X casualties"), we should also use those numbers without attribution.

    I'm generally not a fan of cut-outs for specific sources, especially not when the general rule here works just fine. Loki (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. Can't really say I disagree with you! ;-) XavierItzm (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wall Street Journal, 28 Oct 2023: The U.S. government says the Hamas figures can’t be trusted.[2] Seems pretty pretty dispositive. XavierItzm (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Why? The US is a party to the conflict. Would you think it's dispositive if Hamas said US figures couldn't be trusted? Loki (talk) 06:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That the same government that told us about weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist? TarnishedPathtalk 07:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Radio France (the French BBC/NPR): "a figure: 7,326 Palestinians dead. A figure provided by a single source, the Hamas Ministry of Health. [...] What crystallized the mistrust was undoubtedly the controversy surrounding the hospital in Gaza struck on October 17 [...] no information is published on the causes of death, or even on the proportion of combatants among those killed. And humanitarian associations are not able to confirm this data.[3] Are people now going to say France is also party to the conflict? XavierItzm (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The ministry's final figure was 471 - the initial over-estimate of nearly 500 was explained thus "“We had a uniquely hard time because the bodies were so dismembered, body parts were everywhere,” Health Ministry official Mehdat Abbas said."
      As estimates by belligerents go, the GMH has historically been remarkably accurate, despite Biden and Israel having some magic intuition about numbers which they could not possibly assess from a distance. GMH do not provide figures on combatants/civilians because with un-uniformed combatants it would be impossible to assess in many circumstances (they do issue figures for gender and age, which would exclude a sizable percentage from being combatants) - besides they might think that it was no business of a health ministry to record such a matter. Name, age, gender, ID number and cause of death are all recorded as a matter of routine and have been made public. So unless GMH are faking ID numbers and death certification, it would be impossible for GMH to intentionally inflate numbers. Pincrete (talk) 08:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The Radio France article doesn't question the GMH figures - though they would have to give some reason for doing so and that would require coming up with credible alternative figures. The article is about the debate as to whether the figures should be trusted, as such it mentions the arguments for and against doing so. Selective quoting can yield any result you want? Pincrete (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's a clear misinterpretation. The article does state that France's NPR-equivalent "mistrust" of the Hamas Ministry of Health has become "crystallized." And that's the answer to Radio France's headline: «Are the figures on the number of victims in Gaza reliable?» XavierItzm (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The misinterpretation is yours; France Television (your source) are not saying they distrust the figures, or that the numbers are generally distrusted; they are characterizing the U.S.'s statements. (And to your point about France being unbiased: France, like the U.S., declared its strong support for Israel). Le Monde, a French newspaper of record (which France Television is not) quotes a World Health Organization representative decrying the inaccuracy claims as "cynical". Note that this is a different WHO official from the one quoted by Reuters, who also says the figures are pretty good. DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update/Comment: The Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh has now confirmed the Gaza Health Ministry death toll after having verified the names and identity numbers (see here), so all this talk of the numbers coming only from Hamas, and not anywhere else, well, that assertion is dead. The PA, which is not an active combatant, and which absolutely hates Hamas, has confirmed the numbers based on the extremely exhaustive list compiled by the Gaza Health Ministry. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    I figured I'd add relevant links here

    There are more immediately above. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Fox News reliable for GENSEX (gender and/or sexuality related) articles/topics?

    Im not sure about this topic and am hoping to hear other editors opinions, Im conficted as I have seen good relatively unbiased coverage of GENSEX issues by them, but I have also seen some relatively biased articles in the area. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Heavens no. GENSEX issues have become highly political and highly political issues are not handled well by Fox (to put it politely). O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think most Fox pieces on GENSEX issues are likely to be either scientific, political, or both. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What FFF and O3000 said. Andre🚐 03:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have an example source and use case? Certainly this would be a use with caution (or lower) but use with caution is probably true with most GENSEX sources. Springee (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a good example would be using this article to back up claims that transitioning causes mental health issues, the article appears to be fine at a glance, but it only cites a non peer-reviewed study and doesn’t cover any other studies. (To be clear I don’t believe that article would be valid as the sole or primary source for that claim) Googleguy007 (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would almost certainly fail on (multiple points of) MEDRS unless taking an extremely narrow interpretation of biomedical information. I can't think of any interpretation of BMI that would allow it actually. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. This is why how something is going to be used is relevant. Fox should be reasonably reliable if the claim is something like, "a controversy occurred between parents and a school board related to a GENSEX policy". That case would be using Fox for basic news reporting (assuming it's DUE content). We shouldn't be using Fox or basically any other news media source for medical claims related to this topic. Springee (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to say concretely without concrete examples of what one might consider the good relatively unbiased, and what sort of claims we might use those to support, but I also find it unlikely that any GENSEX claims would fall outside of the science/politics scope as previous mentioned. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Googleguy007, GENSEX-related topics have become very political in the past few years, and Fox News has been considered to be generally unreliable for political and scientific subjects. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be amazed if you could find a GENSEX topic that doesn't overlap with either politics or science at all. And regardless, I don't think Fox News should be considered reliable for any GENSEX topic even if there exists some GENSEX topic that is somehow neither political nor scientific. Loki (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Fox has a well-documented history of opinion-based shows masquerading as "news" that are, virtually 100% of the time, pushing pseudo-scientific opinions about gender and sexuality, including but not limited to the supposed success of conversion therapy, detransitioning, etc. It's too far away from actual medical data to be considered reliable in any way. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely not. Just as Fox should not be used for any US politics topics, nor should it be used for topics that are part of the culture wars related to US politics (“critical race theory”, gender, etc). BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with Alpha3031: in the absence of concrete examples, it's just opining to say anything about Fox coverage of this issue. Someone cited one single article above and while no substantive objection was found, the article itself wouldn't be sufficient to support anything anyway because according to Googleguy it doesn't cite a peer-reviewed study anyway, so obvs. an irrelevant article cannot be used as an example of whether Fox is WP:RS. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is no basis for deprecation: «Emotion does not trump logic. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not to describe what you "like" or "don't like"». XavierItzm (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Which topics Fox are thought to have a presumption of reliability for a "reputation for fact checking" has kind of already been discussed to death anyway. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And right now Fox is WP:RS for anything other than science and politics. I know WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, but come on! XavierItzm (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:RSP it's currently red for politics, reddish-yellow for science, and yellow for everything else. So, consensus unclear at best. There's also a continued rumbling to completely deprecate Fox News, but it's just a loud and grumbly 15%. Historically, there has been consensus that Fox News is generally reliable for news coverage on topics other than politics and science. However, many editors expressed concerns about the reliability of Fox News for any topic in a 2023 RFC. No formal consensus was reached Andre🚐 20:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is, to Fox everything is politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Jazeera - 2023

    According to WP:RSPSS, the last discussion was on 2020. From reading the material in the discussions and supplementary material in different ones that refer to Al-Jazeera, it seems like the current consensus is that although biased in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Al-Jazeera is "generally reliable". The owner being Qatar (which directly funds a side in the conflict) according to the guidelines does not change the reliability of the source (although in other sources the person running it does change the consensus for some reason).

    I've seen some maps for example of Hebron published by Al-Jazeera, which were "exaggerated" to say the least, or showing a completely one sided picture ignoring history, but what brought me here was the quickness of their conclusions regarding the al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion.

    During their coverage [152], Al-Jazeera made pretty bold claims.

    First of all, in large portions of their links, they state things as facts, e.g.

    You can also read more about the deadly Israeli bombing of a hospital in Gaza City here and see photos of the aftermath of the attack here.

    Second of all, they add the personal stories of course in order to encourage a certain narrative, while once again, stating the "facts":

    The Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital not only treated the many wounded in Gaza, it also sheltered people ordered by Israel to flee the north to “save themselves”. Thousands of children, women and the elderly believed they would be safe. But an Israeli air attack shattered that notion, killing at least 500 people and wounding hundreds more in what is widely being described as a massacre. The hospital was engulfed in flames with mutilated bodies scattered among the destruction – many of the victims little kids.

    Lastly, they add their own "investigation":

    Al Jazeera’s digital investigative unit has pinpointed the exact moment of the deadly attack through video analysis.

    There is only one problem. The majority of RSes right now, agree that the attack might have never happened. A discussion is happening right now at Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion.

    As a person who is extremely familiar with the conflict, and studied it extensively for years, I already know that Al-Jazeera is many times dubious at best (and extremely opinionated), but seeing it with a green check-mark indicating that its investigations of what looks like an invisible attack might mistakenly count as reliable, is rather far fetched.

    They have later reported that a large number of countries and bodies investigated and concluded otherwise, but it seems as if they first take a side of the conflict as a sole source of truth (Gaza health ministry, run by Hamas, of dubious reliability), bolstering it with emotional view, adding investigations for things that might have never happened, and later reporting on the aftermath, of what might be their formation:

    The fallout from the air strike continues, with dozens of demonstrations in the region. Protests outside Israeli, US and French embassies immediately erupted in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Tunisia.

    I'm not aware of any correction made by Al-Jazeera of the subject, although I might be mistaken.

    I'm also not entirely sure about their reliability in other fields, but that's where my expertise ends, and I cannot attempt to deduct either way. I do know the DOJ ordered Al-Jazeera to register as a foreign agent of the government of Qatar, noting that the company’s style guide “reveals AJ+’s intention to influence audience attitudes with its reporting” and noted that its journalism count as "political activities" even if it views itself as "balanced".[153]

    I know it is a highly contentious topic, and for that reason I propose changing the green-checkmark to a warning (adding the reasoning in the appropriate description), and nothing more than that. Bar Harel (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A source can be generally reliable and still make mistakes, so long as they retract mistakes and issue corrections. We've seen that with the New York Times and other agencies who made the same mistake; the fact that we haven't seen that with Al Jazeera, who still has stories like Outrage spreads across Middle East after attack on Gaza hospital up, which says ...show their outrage in the aftermath of a deadly Israeli air attack on the Al-Ahli al-Arabi Hospital in Gaza, raises significant concerns about their reliability in this topic area.
    This article was also published after Israel claimed it wasn't responsible; it even mentions that, saying Israel has denied responsibility for the attack. The fact that they continued blaming Israel in their own voice with no evidence despite Israel claiming that it wasn't responsible amplifies these concerns.
    At the moment, we consider Al Jazeera generally reliable for all topics, with the note Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. I don't think this assessment is correct anymore; I suggest we continue considering Al Jazeera reliable generally, but within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area we asess it as "additional considerations apply", to give space for editors to properly evaluate their reliablility for specific claims. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly isn't great, but status as an WP:RS is based on a source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it's not appropriate to change a source's status over one event until / unless there's significant secondary coverage showing that that event has significantly impacted their reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not the first time such things happened. Even if we leave the DOJ or the video and the corresponding report I've attached here - within Wikipedia itself we've previously stated it is biased within the conflict. It just adds more and more evidence that the bias is so strong to the point that the accuracy or reliability can be questioned. Bar Harel (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it’s not the first time, can we see some more examples? Downgrading a source should be based on a pattern of behaviour rather than a single incident - especially a recent incident. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The video I've posted is from a few months ago. The DOJ is from 2020, and the Wikipedia discussions are from what seems like years of discussions, with the final conclusion that it is biased in the conflict, as written on the WP:RSPSS. The downgrade of course is only relevant to the AI conflict.
    It's not new that it's partisan, we state it ourselves. Here I provide just another problem with the reliability, due to it being partisan. Bar Harel (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, the key point is the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "Here's some stuff they got wrong" (or even "here's some stuff that we can all agree they definitely got wrong) isn't a strong argument. The strongest argument is secondary coverage from high-quality sources discussing how reliable the source is. Al-Jazeera is a high-profile enough source that it should be easy to find secondary coverage of it. I'm just not seeing that in current coverage, which looks like [154][155][156][157]. That's reasonable WP:USEBYOTHERS and I feel we'd need more than a list of articles editors here take issue with to change their status in the face of that. Basically, if these things are significant enough to impact Al-Jazeera's reputation, there ought to be secondary coverage demonstrating that. --Aquillion (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with BilledMammal. A single event doesn't change a sources reliablity, but given the specifics "additional considerations" should be strengthened for the conflict area. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with BilledMammal. I think many of us remember weapons of mass destruction that never existed and were an excuse for a war to make a bunch of money for some corporatisations. TarnishedPathtalk 23:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would we say "additional considerations" in regards to NYT when it comes to US Foreign Policy given the weapons of mass destruction which clearly didn't exist? TarnishedPathtalk 23:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Unreliable (especially in Israel-Palestine conflict). Al Jazeera is state owned. It's owned by the Qatari Government. Qatar is not considered a free country with freedom of press [Freedom House]. Qatar is known to have favorable relations to organizations such as Hamas, Qatar funded Hamas for multiple years.[158] [159][160] Therefore, one must assume that one cannot trust a state owned newspaper in a topic that it's owner (The Qatari Government) has a clear interest.[161] [162][163] Jazeera is also a significant soft power asset of Qatar.[164]
    In topics in which the Qatari government has of a less clear interest. One can assume it's commentary is more reliable, yet still ought to be read with warning. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    State owned or otherwise, it's reliable (especially in Israel-Palestine conflict) and will remain so until proven otherwise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    AJ does not only report on the AI conflict. The current entry says "Some editors say" for a reason (slightly different wording but similar background for Amnesty). An RFC will be required to show that there is a consensus among editors for something else, "many editors" for example, or a "warning" which will merely be used to argue against AJ reporting at every turn. Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, I think adding a warning or "additional considerations" is relevant, but with the specifics of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I don't know if it's reliable or not in other areas (haven't really consumed Al-Jazeera for other information).
    Of course it will be used to argue against AJ reporting (specifically on contentious topics within the AI conflict), but if AJ reports incorrect (or at least unknown) information as a fact, then arguing against AJ reporting is rather valid unfortunately. Bar Harel (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Making honest mistakes and correcting them is one thing. But publishing lies to promote a political case (that is what had happened here) is something entirely different. So, yes, I agree with the original posting on the top of the thread: not only this source is biased, but it is also not particularly reliable, at least based on the example provided. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, AJ is definitely a biased source, which is not a problem per se. We can use biased sources. But the problem in this specific example is that they widely published incorrect or at least strongly exaggerated claims to support their bias. I think this is rather problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I am saying this is a generally unreliable source for factual information about the Arab-Israeli conflict - at least based on the example provided. It does not mean it can not be used in this area. And it well could be an RS on other subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • RSN is not the appropriate venue in which to wage the geopolitical battle de-jour. AJ is generally reliable, that doesn't mean that they're sacred or infallible... It means that they're generally reliable. The generally agreed upon point is that there has never been either a long form journalistic or academic article without a single error (even if those errors can only be determined in hindsight) in the history of the world. Perfection is not the standard, generally reliable is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So that is why news sources send corrections [165][166]. In this case for example, not only corrections are not sent, but there's more and more one-sided reporting [167], without any factual checks on other claims. When a news agency reports an "investigation" on one side, but doesn't investigate different claims while reporting them as truth, the reliability becomes questionable. Bar Harel (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No it doesn't... You're bludgeoning and abandoning impartiality. Stop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair, after I raised BLUDGEON Bharel committed to not responding anymore and has kept that up, so lets chalk that up to being unfamiliar with our processes and let it go. nableezy - 16:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That is my mistake, I did not see that you had already admonished them for that. Did not mean to dogpile. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is absurd that people are attempting to redefine reliability and npov as "agrees with the sources I like" and "agrees with the POV I espouse". Al-Jazeera is widely cited among other reliable sources, they are one of the very few press agencies that even has reporters in Gaza, and they make corrections as needed. And it is absurd that sources that peddled claims that were never retracted despite the evidence (eg this) are continued to be used without question, but one of the very few Arab-based sources is repeatedly challenged. Al-Jazeera remains a reliable news source with a reputation for fact-checking and it remains widely cited in other sources, the entirety of the complaint is a dislike of their reporting. nableezy - 17:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So according to you, the factual issues provided here are a "dislike of their reporting", and their biased inaccuracies are because they "don't agree with my view" and with the rest of the views on this board?

      Giving examples that other unreliable sources exist, does not make Al-Jazeera reliable. Bar Harel (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      Dont believe I said that, no. Also, please see WP:BLUDGEON. You have now responded to everybody who has disagreed with you. nableezy - 03:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I apologize. You have said that the entirety of my complaint is a dislike of their reporting, and that AJ-Arabic has that notice but the report is not on AJ-Arabic.
      I will refrain from WP:BLUDGEON. Bar Harel (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless anybody can demonstrate that this is a systematic issue with Al Jazeera's English language coverage of this conflict, then I don't think anything should change for now. I agree with the RSP warning that Al-Jazeera Arabic is more biased than the English-language coverage, which is endorsed by the BBC [168]:
    • Al Jazeera English is known to audiences worldwide for its varied coverage, which often sheds light on underreported stories. But its reporting - which only occasionally hints at the affiliations of its Qatari owners - comes in stark contrast to Al Jazeera Arabic. AJA's obvious stance on key regional crises and rivalries heavily colours its output. Its friendly coverage of Islamist groups - particularly favouring those aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood - came to the fore particularly with the 2011 uprisings in the region. Some of its correspondents have adopted a still harder line. In 2015, prominent anchor Ahmed Mansour offered a sympathetic account of the activities of al-Qaeda's Syria affiliate in a lengthy interview with its leader. Since a major rift between Gulf states erupted in 2017, AJA's coverage has also shifted closer to Iran.
    • Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a reminder this board is for discussing the reliability of sources, it's not for discussing other editors or their possible motives. Other boards are available if those discussions are to take place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable. I don't see anything here that would suggest that Al Jazeera (English and Arabic) is not generally reliable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable by our standards. Also, the demands of NPOV require us to use sources that provide a variety of viewpoints on contentious subjects. Note that a large number of Israeli news sources are used all the time, even some in the extreme right wing, and some balance is needed. Zerotalk 23:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There's a difference between a different viewpoint, and a problem with inaccuracies as written here.
      We have plenty of news sources on the RS board, showing a variety of opinions. When the news source goes beyond just showing an opinion, to a point where it publishes inaccurate information in what looks like an attempt to garner political influence, it is marked with "additional considerations apply". It is even more problematic when the mistakes were never corrected. Bar Harel (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also don't see anything that would make Al Jazeera less reliable here, especially since we already have the note about bias regarding Israel. This is a pretty reasonable case for bias, but interpreting ambiguous facts in an uncharitable way for Israel is not a case for unreliability as to what the facts are. Loki (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We note the bias particularly in AJ-Arabic. I don't even know Arabic. This is Al-Jazeera in English.
      Interpreting ambiguous data is fine, but there is no notion of ambiguity, unlike the majority of other reliable sources. There's a notion that the interpretation is the sole truth, and is provided as fact.
      Even when some other sources realized that they reported without much fact checking, they sent corrections as a reliable source does.[169] Al-Jazeera is giving here a prime example of what a reliable source is not supposed to do. Bar Harel (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable. The fake news they promoted to drive street demonstrations on the hospital explosion is not an isolated incident. As Karim Pourhamzavi and Philip Pherguson point out in this media research publication: "The results indicate that, on foreign policy issues which the Qatari elite regards as particularly important, the network promotes the perspectives of the state. The relationship between the Qatari state and Al-Jazeera also constrains the network's independence and objectivity". On anything the Qatari state is involved with, the Al-Jazeera distorts to fit the state view. It is the same as RT (TV network). Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That paper is specifically about Al Jazeera Arabic. nableezy - 12:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally reliable of course. This discussion is obviously born out of Al Jazeera's offering of a contrarian position to that of Western media in the current, ongoing conflict - when it is actually an especially good thing for NPOV and the world to have a range of sources. This isn't a 'the nail that sticks out must get hammered down'-type situation. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally unreliable That what's Arab governments says about Al Jazeera:
    Ovedc (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a formal RFC, "!votes" are unnecessary, if someone wants to open an RFC to see if the consensus has changed, go ahead and do that but based on the above, I am not seeing much appetite for it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd agree, an RFC is likely to result in the exact same outcome as is currently listed at WP:RSP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Generally reliable does not mean always reliable. The evidence shown is neither voluminous enough or strong enough to degrade the general rating of this source, given the murkiness that comes with war. starship.paint (RUN) 13:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Generally Reliable with Conditional Notes: Per [174] there "Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar." Al-Jazeera is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for Due to direct ownership by Qatar and extreme editorial bias , including being subject to Qatari laws that bar any criticism on the government. It should be considered a partisan source in topics related to Qatar, The Arab/Israeli conflict, and Minorities of India, and its statements should be attributed in such cases. Editors may on occasion wish to use wording more neutral than that used by Al-Jazeera in topics related to these areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marokwitz (talk • contribs)
      Not certain but I think we don't actually use MBFC for RS assessments. Selfstudier (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We do not, it is generally unreliable for being self-published. nableezy - 15:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If we used MBFC, most of the western media outlets would qualify as highly unreliable for certain subjects (that you can guess). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m not sure why minorities in India is mentioned here. There don’t seem to be any reports of unreliability on this topic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bobfrombrockley A quick search on Google shows that India also bans them from time to time on reliability issues.[4] Not sure why minorities specifically, but they seem to get banned on and off from a large amount of countries. Bar Harel (talk) 07:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      India has been giving Wikipedia grief over maps too. The reason is that the Indian government makes maps showing de facto foreign control over territories it claims illegal. We shouldn't be downgrading Al Jazeera because it uses maps that accurately reflect reality. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hemiauchenia Interesting, I didn't know that, thanks. Regarding specifically the accuracy of Al-Jazeera maps, it was actually one of the complaints in this report up top. Bar Harel (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually I was somewhat wrong reading the Time article. In that case, Al Jazeera was banned for making the minor mistake of forgetting to include the Andaman Islands, and other minor islands and the somewhat more serious omission of the disputed borders in Kashmir in a handful of 2014 maps. Wikipedia has actually been threatened by the Indian government over maps that accurately depict the borders though. I don't think this a serious reason to dispute the reliability of its reporting. This sensitivity regarding maps is more to do with the Indian government rather than Al Jazeera. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure if it's only India. I can check that, but the Hebron map I've linked above seems to be inaccurate, and from a quick look, I found some more map infographics, where the British Mandate is set at 1917 (before it existed) and the 1948-1967 section, where the "Palestinian Control" of the West Bank, was actually under Jordan (PA did not exist at the time). Bar Harel (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Clarifying my statement regarding Al-Jazeera being unreliable on India minorities related matters, specifically Hindu/Muslim. In one example, on November 6th, 2017, Al Jazeera published an article titled “The forgotten massacre that ignited the Kashmir dispute,” claiming that thousands of Muslims were killed in Jammu by paramilitary forces under Dogra ruler Hari Singh's command. However, the picture accompanying the article was misleadingly taken from an unrelated event, depicting a family from Amritsar relocating to Lahore, having no connection to Jammu and Kashmir. . See also [175] and [176] Marokwitz (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This source gives another view and mentions the fact that India also banned India: The Modi Question (for the same reasons). M.Bitton (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable. Qatari state-propaganda. At this point no different than RT for Russia-related news.Dovidroth (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally Unreliable Pertaining to Arab-Israeli conflict AJ (and especially their video outlet AJ+) let’s some wildly dubious, biased, and - at times - manipulative - reporting slip through the cracks far more often than any media observer would feel comfortable with. In my experience it is often subtle and doesn’t show steady consistency, so it’s very hard to call this and claim they are generally unreliable, as opposed to occasionally unreliable (also whether in general nor just on certain subjects)
    Doing more research on my end before I cast any final opinion on this, but submitting this report for editor review/consideration in terms of AJ bias/reliability: https://www.arab-reform.net/publication/framing-whats-breaking-empirical-analysis-of-al-jazeera-and-al-arabiya-twitter-coverage-of-gaza-israel-conflict/ Mistamystery (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable. Arab countries, and other non-"western" countries have been toying and influencing this network according to their interests, banning and un-banning again and again, while demanding the network to improve the bias towards them. This network cannot be trusted and is not a reliable source. Few examples:
    Robert Booth. "WikiLeaks cables claim al-Jazeera changed coverage to suit Qatari foreign policy". The Guardian. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
    and the list goes on an on... TaBaZzz (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Youve given a list of repressive regimes banning a press agency and are using that as evidence that the press agency is unreliable? This is getting surreal tbh. nableezy - 19:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. If that's the standard, I guess we'd have to deprecate every news organization that Trump accuses of "FAKE NEWS!!!!. al-Jazeera is appropriately classified at RSP as a generally reliable newsorg with appropriate notes. Banks Irk (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    oddly enough, they are even citing al-Jazeera as the agency reporting that they were banned. Guess they reliable for that news? nableezy - 19:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When noting "western world" sources, they are dismissed as biased. When noting repressive regimes toying on and off with AJ, they are dismissed. When citing Al-Jazeera itself, it is dismissed as well. So nothing is true for you? isn't there any truth somewhere, or would it be you to claim to be bearer of truth? TaBaZzz (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, what you cited above proves the exact opposite of what you're claiming. M.Bitton (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Their self proclamation proves they are part of the interest and bias game themselves. Not a reliable source. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    i suggest you read what has been said about the perceived bias and its irrelevance to the reliability assessment. M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it do that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Being a toy in the interests of (repressive) governments is by definition being unreliable.
    2. Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance. And being misleading is being unreliable.
    TaBaZzz (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, being unreliable has a specific definition that does not apply to it. M.Bitton (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From Questionable sources:
    • expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist - YES. as was shown by across this talk page.
    • promotional in nature - YES. Paid by Qatar and toyed by its interest and other countries interests.
    • sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - YES. They cherry-pick the information they publish in a way that mislead their audiance.
    • questionable business practices - YES. Paid by Qatar and toyed by its interest and other countries interests.
    Therefore this network cannot be trusted and is not a reliable source. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance." does that apply to this discussion as well? Because whether one agrees with it or not the OP here is full of cherry picking. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bharel: do you agree with TaBaZzz that "Cherry-picking information is misleading the audiance. And being misleading is being unreliable."? I imagine you strongly disagree given your argument's reliance on cherry picking information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reliable except in matters related to Arab-Israeli conflict The concern regarding Al-Jazeera appears to be towards is standpoint on the Arab-Israeli conflict. It should be considered generally reliable on other subjects but should be attributed in controversial/disputed topics. Ecrusized (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only so-called "concerns" are about a perceived bias (by some editors), which even if proven to be factual would still have no impact whatsoever on the fact that Al Jazeera meets the normal requirements for reliable sources. M.Bitton (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable. I recall back to the Iraq War beginning in 2003-2004 in which Al Jazeera was far more "reliable" than the U.S. media which was a cheering squad for the war. Since then I've relied on Al Jazeeera to give a more in-depth view of events in the Middle East than the often simplistic treatment we see in the U.S. media. Smallchief (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable certainly as much as any other mainstream outlets are. I know I'd trust it at lot more than most other US mainstream sources on that topic. They might have a bias, but bias and unreliability are different things. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable Almost by definition, a media outlet in a dictatorship, with virtually no freedom of press, is not reliable. It doesn't mean everything such media posts is false, but it makes in unreliable for any claim not reported elsewhere. As an additional comment, the WP:BLUDGEONING of some users in this very thread is concerning. Jeppiz (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable They have a long history of accuracy and I don't see how we could mark them as unreliable for some slight occasional bias and slip ups. If we were to apply that same logic to the New York Times in regards to weapons of mass destruction or US outlets in general for believing a lot of what the US establishment wants them to believe that serves US foreign interests then how many US outlets would we mark as unreliable? TarnishedPathtalk 00:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable Please don't bring nonsense political disputes to RSN. If we're going to be discussing the hospital as with the beginning of this section and OP, then where does the New York Times group putting out new analysis in the past 48 hours saying the explosive device came from the direction of Israel fit into things? It's precisely because of this evolution of new information over an ongoing event that previously considered reliable sources should not be brought here until after an event. Otherwise we'd be having a discussion as well right after Shireen Abu Akleh's murder where, if Al Jazeera said Israel was responsible, that they're unreliable because of that reporting. And, well, we know how that turned out. Hence why current events are not something that should be brought to RSN. SilverserenC 00:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable It is a work that gets embroiled in political issues but its not the one creating the drama around, it is simply a matter of being a respected paper from the Middle East where there is a lot of politics at play. It tries to maintain itself above said conflicts. --Masem (t) 01:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally unreliable with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict - Per the points that have been made. Way too partial to Hamas-controlled sources here without correction. -- Veggies (talk) 05:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again for those missing the memo, partiality is unrelated to reliability. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course it is—are you kidding? That's why we've deprecated sources like Sputnik and RT. They're singularly deferential to a certain point of view and divorced completely from reality. I'm not arguing that Al-Jazeera should be deprecated. Simply that, as regards the Arab-Israeli conflict, they're demonstrably unreliable. -- Veggies (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When you have demonstrated that, please let me know. Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable but could more strongly state the additional considerations applying to coverage of Israel-Palestine and of Saudi-Qatar conflict. Worth noting that the former includes the global spillover of the conflict in terms of Israel-related antisemitism: Al Jazeera Investigations documentaries about alleged an Israel lobby in the U.K. have been condemned as misleading and even antisemitic. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To all the editors bold voting, and to reiterate Selfstudier earlier comment, this is a discussion not an RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As pointed by some editors above, this is a discussion not an RfC.
    Al-Jazeera is a very popular Arab media outlet and generally reliable in news coverage, including in topics related to Israel-Palestine conflict. Al-Jazeera is regularly cited in other global media outlets as well as academic publications.

    Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • This should probably be an RfC... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:56, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this discussion should be read as an additional substantial discussion which should be logged and linked in the third column at RSP, with the fourth column updated to 2023. So far, it clearly affirms previous consensus, but it might be sensible for an editor to tighten up the additional considerations mentioned in the final column at RSP. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      to tighten up the additional considerations mentioned in the final column at RSP "Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict." seems fine to me. Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Isn't it high time that Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic were treated as the extremely distinct sources that they actually are? Having a blended entry for both is just a source of confusion. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      When a network gets asked by a western governments to "tone it down" (euphemism for self-censorship), you can rest assured that whatever the network is doing is right. M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally reliable and any mistakes or blatantly biased reporting coming from AJ are individual cases that correspond with frequency occurring in any other reliable source including the Washington Post or the New York Times.Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Generally reliable Much has been made about the reporting of the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital explosion and RS have been largely believing the IDF explanation of a Palestinian rocket. Only the recent NYTimes analysis indicates that the Palestinian rocket blew up two miles from the hospital and wasn't the cause. The cause is unknown. We shouldn't take the word of either side in the war and the mainstream press likely got it wrong.[177] O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think it's clear that AJ has a bias and that it's influenced by the government of Qatar [178], its owner, one of the most repressive states on Earth and a friend of Hamas. On the other hand, I don't see many examples of the actual lack of reliability, which is the main question here. Their treatment of the Al-Ahli hospital strike indeed raises questions. They automatically accused Israel in the live feed [179]. Then they published an investigation that, while contradicting some of Israeli claims, does not accuse Israel of performing the strike. However, they haven't added any kind of disclaimer or note to the earlier coverage, which isn't supported even by their own investigation. I think that the RSP note should reflect this, perhaps advising against using their live updates. Alaexis¿question? 16:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I would say people should be cautious in using live updates and other breaking announcements in general, from any news source, per WP:RSBREAKING. No strong opinion on whether this should be emphasised on the RSP entry and no comment on anything else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: do we have research showing they are reliable with regards to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? There are the issues that we've brought here. There are plenty of more reliability issues in other countries where they banned and unbanned Al-Jazeera constantly. There's a Wikipedia page for controversies surrounding Al-Jazeera and its bias. Up until now, I haven't really seen sources that show that Al Jazeera is reliable with regards to the conflict. What are we basing the reliability on? I've searched, and found a single research article showing that Al-Jazeera viewers regard it as reliable, but that's not too helpful. I've seen research showing the bias and framing. I'd appreciate some research showing that it's reliable. Bar Harel (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It is GR per prior discussions and the evidence presented in those except for "some editors" who think it isn't with regards to the IP conflict. If the question was being asked about the Jerusalem Post, there would probably be a different "some editors" who would consider it unreliable as regards the IP conflict. Do you have RS evidence that AJ is generally unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Never said AJ is generally unreliable, only presented problems with the English version about the IP conflict. I'll check the evidence in prior discussions. Bar Harel (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, I'm a hard worker and accepted the challenge. I've read all of the past discussions in RSN - 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1, and came out quite frustrated. In the majority of them the reliability of Al Jazeera is disputed in one way or another, and in all of them (100%) the reason that Al-Jazeera is stated as a reliable source, is because "Al-Jazeera is a reliable source". That statement is sometimes given by blocked sockpuppets, sometimes given by users in this very conversation, reiterating "Al-Jazeera is a reliable source" or "widely regarded as a reliable source". There is only one reply presented with "evidence", and the sources they link to actually state that AJE fully adopted the Hamas humanitarian disaster framing and casualties’ strategy. It accepted without any questioning the Hamas causality figures and didn’t make any effort to investigate who were killed and wounded and under what circumstances.[180] (p.152), so even the very source presented actually questions the reliability regarding the conflict.
      I've searched the web even more, and like I said, found a single article showing that Al Jazeera viewers regard it as reliable [181], and even there, they show the limitations of the study: Only age and Al-Jazeera reliance directly predicted credibility of the network and Our results suggested that Al-Jazeera users judged the network as highly credible. This study did not directly explore whether westerners who have viewed Al-Jazeera would differ in their judgments of credibility from those viewers in the Arab world. If viewers of a network regard it as reliable, it does not mean a network is reliable. They probably wouldn't have viewed it otherwise. In fact-checking websites, I see Al-Jazeera all over the place, sometimes as reliable, sometimes as not, almost always biased in the conflict. If you don't believe me, read the past discussions yourself please. Bar Harel (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As a couple of people have already said, there is the option of a formal RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I will call for the move of a formal RFC. The more I search about it, the more I find that it is systematic and widely covered:

      • The fiction they concocted - that Israeli snipers targeted Abu Akleh-suits Al Jazeera's general narrative and the one that the Qatar-owned broadcaster has been conveying about its veteran staffer in particular. To pepper the propaganda and make it even more internationally palatable, most reports of this nature highlight that Abu Akleh and her cohorts on the scene were wearing signs clearly marked "PRESS"on their protective vests.
        — Blum, Ruthie. 2022. “The Workings of the Palestinian Propaganda Machine.”[182]

      • The more Al Jazeera courts controversy, the more attention it receives and the more viewers it attracts. This makes it doubtful that Al Jazeera genuinely wants to improve its reputation or alter what the public thinks of it
        — Zayani, M. (2008). Arab media, corporate communications, and public relations: the case of Al Jazeera. Asian Journal of Communication, 18(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980802207074

      • Al-Jazeera framed their pictorial coverage in a manner that aligned with their governments' interests in the crisis.
        — Tayler J. The Faisal Factor. Atlantic Monthly (1993). 2004;294(4):41-43. Accessed October 29, 2023.

      • Our research results suggest a significant difference in news framing between TOI and AJE and indicate that these differences are statistically significant. The textual and visual analyses substantiated the validity of assumptions of biased coverage and showed that the two transnational news media were clearly ethnocentric in their news reporting on both textual and visual levels.
        — DOUFESH, BELAL, and HOLGER BRIEL. “Ethnocentrism in Conflict News Coverage: A Multimodal Framing Analysis of the 2018 Gaza Protests in The Times of Israel and Al Jazeera.” International Journal of Communication (19328036) 15 (January 2021): 4230–51.

      The bias and reliability issues shown are in Al-Jazeera English. Bar Harel (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The first source you cite (p. 152) is from one chapter of the book on Al Jazeera; the chapter is called "An Israeli View" on AJE's coverage of the Gaza War (2008–2009). Though well-argued, its arguments are very much out of line with mainstream sources (like criticizing AJE's use of the term Israeli occupation as misleading because Israel withdrew). In the passage you quote, he doesn't only criticize Al Jazeera English, he also accuses human rights organizations, Palestinian, Israeli, and global, including, for example, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, as well as the UN, of being guilty of citing the false figures of Hamas, and criticizes the Goldstone report of being discredited and filled with fabricated facts, questionable testimonies, false accusations, and baseless conclusions and having already made up their mind even before the investigation started. These talking points are not accepted as true by mainstream experts. One of the footnotes it cites in support is NGO Monitor, a bad source. If you read the other chapters (including the "A Palestinian View" counterpoint) you'll find the overall report is rather positive about AJE, and this quoting is rather selective. Downgrading AJE would only create WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is our coverage. DFlhb (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Its worse than that, the first one is an opinion piece by Ruthie Blum, a non-expert in media or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And CNN likewise concluded Abu Akleh was intentionally targeted. The last one shows that Israeli and Arab news sources have different perspectives. Shocking development, but why would that mean only the Arab one should be removed? nableezy - 14:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Check the indentation (which is confusing due to bullet points); I'm referring to this source, quoted above as criticizing Al Jazeera English for adopting Hamas's so-called "casualties strategy". DFlhb (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @DFlhb I purposefully added that source, as it was used in the previous discussion "showing" the credibility of AJE. I quoted the Israeli view, as for some reason it was completely omitted, claiming AJ is reliable. Showing only the other parts of the report isn't necessarily adding credibility.
      Right now we have no claim in the RS page regarding the AJE bias, only about the arabic version, and consider it reliable for the IP conflict. If there are so many sources claiming there's bias in its reporting of the IP conflict, how can we ignore all of them? What do we base the reliability on?
      @Nableezy Remember, my suggestion was to add an additional consideration notice, specifically about the IP conflict. There are plenty of sources showing the AJE bias, some of them further claiming it is not reliable. I, and other editors, have added an endless amount of citations, sources and evidence. So far I haven't seen sources claiming it is accurate or neutral on the conflict, apart from people stating "AJ is reliable" endlessly. I thought we like citations. Instead of bashing every source I bring, how about we'll add some that say it is reliable? None of our prior 10 (!!!) discussions have that (except that one reply). Even this very discussion has dozens of sources claiming Al-Jazeera is biased, some claiming it is unreliable, but none showing anything that gives a shred of hope that I might be wrong. How can we bring a statement in 10 discussions spanning over multiple years, making decisions based on it, and not back it up with any source - by simply claiming it's the truth? Is this how Wikipedia works and I didn't get the memo?
      Look, I'm trying to stay as neutral as possible, but right now I'm facing with a huge amount of evidence to one side, and barely any to the other. I'm doing all the work searching for sources to both sides, and I'd appreciate the help. Replying "It's reliable" is not an argument, and honestly, so far it feels like an OR.
      If you're claiming why would that mean only the Arab one should be removed? then I agree with you - let's do it on both then. Times of Israel is probably biased towards... Israel, in the PI conflict. Bring relevant sources and we'll write it accordingly. Bar Harel (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      From WP:OR "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      let's do it on both then first of all, there is no reason to do such a thing for any of them and second, should we decide to apply it for whatever reason, then it will be done for every single source out there (there will be no cherry picking or baseless comparisons). M.Bitton (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm saying that we can't dismiss a source on the basis of allegations that are widely disputed by reliable sources (and that are also lobbed at the UN, HRW, Amnesty, and even "Israeli and global" human rights organizations). That chapter's whole point is to explore a partisan viewpoint. The rest of the book presents AJE as a proper journalistic outlet, which is our criteria for being "generally reliable". DFlhb (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @DFlhb I would have agreed with you and would have preferred to close this discussion, but there are 5 others that I've added, with some actual research done, showing AJE is biased (and the thread started with additional evidence for the unreliability + DOJ reference). Other editors also added sources. The allegations are not based on a single book's chapter, and atm we're stating the bias only exists on AJ Arabic.Bar Harel (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Israeli media, also traumatized by Hamas attack, become communicators of Israel’s message "But in wartime, Israeli media, like other components of Israeli society, set differences aside and rally behind the military leadership. Some critics who don’t are dubbed traitors. Coverage of the other side’s plight is kept to a bare minimum."
      Should we now caveat all Israeli media based on this? No, because there is a presumption of reliability for major newsorgs (WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact"), that includes AJ unless there is conclusive evidence of unreliability or until there is a consensus of editors that it is unreliable, neither of which is evident at the moment. Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't really seen sources that show that Al Jazeera is reliable with regards to the conflict. Not sure what you are looking for. Do we even have any sources that show that any particular news outlet is reliable with regard to the I/P conflict? Meanwhile Al Jazeera reporting is in line with others on major events [183] e.g. According to Israeli officials, at least 1,400 people were killed in the attacks on southern Israel on October 7 starship.paint (RUN) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Al Jazeera, I noticed: promoted Jackson Hinkle (an RT contributor who is a North Korea supporter, denies the Douma chemical attack, the Uyghur genocide, the Bucha massacre, the fact that genes exist... you get the picture) as a reliable source (see here, timestamp 1:47). They also contributed to the spread of misinformation by claiming that a photo of a dead infant released by the Israelis was AI-generated (see here). That claim, too, was originally spread by Hinkle (see here, here), and they cite him in their video. VintageVernacular (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You mention two examples. The first, of "promoting" Hinkle, is them using a screenshot of a Hinkle tweet as B-roll footage to illustrate a video of a journalist debunking various claims. Hinkle's tweet is factually accurate, and the journalist never mentions Hinkle. They likely just looked for a popular tweet (that one had 10mil views) to illustrate a point. If we interpret that as promotion, we've about to declare a lot of news outlets unreliable.
      Your second example, "AI-generated", was from Al Jazeera Arabic, and it's in a tweet; we would never have used it for those two reasons. DFlhb (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Marked unreliable would be jumping the gun, I wouldn't have !voted that had this been an RfC. Currently I think it's yellow tier (in my books, that is). These incidents were just recent occurrences that worried me about their reliability, and I felt could use bringing up. Although I'd already been somewhat skeptical of them.
      But: why would a Twitter post by a news org marked reliable by WP not be a valid citation? Many news orgs publish good reports through social media, especially YouTube but sometimes Twitter as well. There's no reason to consider those unreliable simply because they're there instead of the news org's site. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Biden says he has 'no confidence' in Palestinian death count". Reuters. 2023-10-26. Retrieved 2023-10-27.
    2. ^ Jennifer Maloney (28 October 2023). "SodaStream Built a Factory for Israelis and Palestinians to Work Together. Then a War Erupted". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 29 October 2023. Hamas officials said the Palestinian death toll in Gaza since then has reached more than 7,000. The U.S. government says the Hamas figures can't be trusted
    3. ^ D. Schlienger; L. Feuerstein; M. Le Rue (28 October 2023). "Guerre entre le Hamas et Israël : les chiffres sur le nombre de victimes à Gaza sont-ils fiables ?" [War between Hamas and Israel: are the figures on the number of victims in Gaza reliable?]. France Info (radio network) (Radio France) (in French). Retrieved 29 October 2023. 7 326 Palestiniens morts. Un chiffre fourni par une seule source, le ministère de la Santé du Hamas. Un bilan remis en doute par les États-Unis. Ce qui a cristallisé la défiance, c'est sans doute la controverse autour de l'hôpital à Gaza frappé le 17 octobre [...] Mais aucune information n'est publiée sur les causes de la mort, ni même sur la proportion de combattants parmi les personnes tuées. Et les associations humanitaires ne sont pas capables de confirmer ou non ces données
    4. ^ "India Suspends Al-Jazeera Broadcast Over Map Dispute". Time. 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2023-10-26.

    Retroactive application of reliability

    I want to inquire about Inderjit Singh Jaijee. From what I've gathered about this author, he is a human rights activist in the Punjab region. He used to be a marketing executive until Operation Blue Star occured in 1984, whereupon he dedicated his life to activism. He was also a MLA in the Punjab Legislative Assembly for a year (1985-1986). He is also associated with the Baba Nanak Educational Society (a religious organization judging by its nomenclature) and the Movement Against State Repression (which does not appear to be a particularly prominent organization given that I wasn't able to find anything about it)

    Jaijee does not have an educational background in any relevant humanities discpline like history, anthropology, political science but he does have two books that were published by SAGE-[184] written in 2019 and this book [185] written in 2011. I'm not denying the reliability of these SAGE published books but would his earlier books which were not peer reviewed also be considered reliable in light of his later accomplishments-[186].

    In my opinion, they would not, owing to Jaijee's lack of experience and training in academia and the lack of peer review; it was also written over a decade prior to his first SAGE published book. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability is set out in WP:RS. In general, an author of an RS does not get a halo effect which raises the level of everything they have written to RS. One exception would be the rare cases where a superstar in their field self-publishes (in a way which other RS recognizes). Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything published by academic publishers is an academic work. Even academic publishers (and their peer-reviewers) sometimes accept activist works for publication in the interest of openness and debate regarding contentious topics. (And of course, many academics are also activists on the side, sometimes openly and sometimes secretly.) Our only recourse is WP:NPOV, whereby we give reduced weight to the activist views, compared to academic views. WP:RS should not be regarded as a black-and-white criterion, whereby something is to be regarded as "reliable" or "not reliable". Reliability is only the minimum requirement, not the be-all-and-end-all of what goes into Wikipedia.
    Books published by popular publishers don't get a free pass. The fact that the same author later published something by an academic publisher gives a little bit of concession to the work, but not a whole lot. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea that there is a classification system of published works and that "activist works" and "academic works" are two disjoint categories in this classification is bizarre. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Arabiya

    Per alarabiya.net HTTPS links HTTP links we have over 3,500 citations to Al Arabiya, a news organisation based in Saudi Arabia. While originally independent, the Government of Saudi Arabia acquired a majority stake in its parent company MBC Group in 2018. Previous discussion on RSN looks to be sparse and inconclusive. While due to its ownership, it's probably not usable for things relating to Saudi Government, like Arab News news (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Arab_News) is it usable for things not directly related to the Saudi Arabian government? Would it be usable for its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar to Arab News, but they are widely cited in other reliable sources, including its coverage in the Arab-Israeli conflict. For example, I get 1,795 articles in JSTOR, some of them covering al Arabiya but most of them citing them. I would put them after The National and al Jazeera and Arab News personally. nableezy - 02:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Nableezy. Coverage of Israel/Palestine is good, but additional considerations would apply in relation to topics relating to Saudi ge o political interests. BobFromBrockley (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In general this appears to be a standard WP:NEWSORG, and generally reliable. I'd agree somewhat with BobFromBrockley in relation to reporting of Saudi Arabian interests. Looking through their reporting (on Saudi Arabian interests) it's not that it wasn't accurate, but that it was incomplete. It's a situation best solved but using it amongst other sources to ensure a proper POV is maintained. In wikispeak I guess not so much 'additional considerations apply', but instead a cautionary note about WP:BIAS in the specific area of Saudi Arabian interests. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An additional considerations apply is most definitively needed. Can't be considered impartial given Saudi royal house ownership/control. XavierItzm (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Books by Anthroposophists are not RS

    See [187].

    Reason:

    I would hope that nobody would seriously suggest using Steiner or any organ of the anthroposophy/Steiner-Waldorf walled garden, as a source for anything, even the colour of the sky. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

    Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Back in the day there was an arbcom decision about this[188] (since rescinded). Anthropologist publications are reliable for what they say, but their use should be limited to when it's necessary to give a brief exposition of Steiner's ideas which must (NPOV) be contextualized with reputable, rational, secondary sources. Bon courage (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say Anthropologist publications are reliable for what they say, but their use should be limited}, do you mean to refer to anthroposophist publications? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific edit above [189] deals not with writings by Steiner, but with writings by other authors about Steiner, for example a book by Daniel Nicol Dunlop. They are biography books. They may be RS or not, depending on specific author and context. For example, something like "Steiner was an admirer and assiduous reader of Brentano" could be a correct statement and reliably sourced. No need to label all of them. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think anything from within the anthroposophist milieu would fall afoul of WP:FRIND. It's like scientology, Bon courage (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with the caveat that its like religions in general and not just scientology. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Citing someone who was a priest on the subject of their interactions with other priests and even on religion may be appropriate, depending on sources and context. Being a priest/an anthroposophy supporter/a communist/etc does not automatically disqualify anyone as a source. My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree; sources closely affiliated with a political party/religion/philosophy/cult/whatever can be cited in the "about self/what we think/what we believe" realm. And some of the tags did seem a bit over the top, like tagging (paraphrasing)"Steiner preferred x English translation of the book title over y translation." Banks Irk (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I take it, from a quick survey of the tags, is that the authors and publishers for the tagged sources are all associated/affiliated with Anthroposophy . Banks Irk (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy does appear to have correctly identified the issue here: a walled garden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, generally speaking present-day professional philosophers do not read Steiner's books. There are two reasons for it:
    1. He declared that he is clairvoyant, and published what many see to be "occult ramblings";
    2. He belongs to the German Idealism, which was out of fashion in the 20th century; it is true there were and still are neo-kantians and neo-hegelians, but German Idealism was/is essentially over.
    That's why his philosophical books are generally speaking only read by Anthroposophists, people from the cultic milieu, and religion scholars specialized in Western esotericism. Hence the ordeal of walled garden. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is technically WP:FRIND more than WP:RS, but there are also clear WP:RS issues. I definitely don't think that Temple Lodge Publishing, which describes itself as publishers of quality books on modern spirituality, inspired by the work of Rudolf Steiner and his spiritual science, Anthroposophy, is a reliable publisher - they're effectively either a vanity press or WP:SELFPUB depending on how you look at it, but they certainly grant no reliability. The other things seem to be likewise SELFPUB and shouldn't be cited directly either. --Aquillion (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    New Zealand Herald, Whanganui Chronicle, opinion piece?

    The content was added to the article four years before the reference was published. [190] Is it reliable, quoting the Wikipedia article where it was recently added [191] as a reference? - Hipal (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the claims involved appear to be regarding health effects, I'd venture that this falls under WP:MEDRS for which a newspaper OpEd is not a reliable source. Banks Irk (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim involved is about the time and power requirements of producing hydroxide from tap water, not about health effects. There are two issues: 1) Whether alkaline water has health effects, and 2) Whether these devices even produce significant alkaline water in the first place. Claim 2 isn't a health claim. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether alkaline water has health effects clearly falls under WP:MEDRS
    Whether the devices are effective in producing alkaline water from a chemistry/engineering perspective is not something that we should be using a newspaper op-ed as a source. As an aside: Dr Campbell citing a Wikipedia article on the subject doesn't actually bother me. A qualified person writing that Wikipedia got something right isn't a red flag. Banks Irk (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As always, we're limited in that most academics ignore fringe stuff rather than responding to it. Per WP:PARITY, we don't need to insist on top-flight journals to debunk devices like these. MrOllie (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Three other sources that are already in the Water ionizer article have supported the claim that they do produce water that is alkaline. Two of those are studies (one, about ionizers in particular, the other about electrolysis production of alkaline water, which is the same mechanism) that give measured pH of the water produced and show that it is alkaline.
    More info here: Talk:Water ionizer#Water ionizers raise the pH of the water they're ionizing.
    There is snake oil in the health claims, for sure, but the mechanism of action is well-explained, well-understood, and well-studied. We shouldn't be using an op-ed that quotes the Wikipedia article itself (without vouching that it is correct) to contradict two studies that disprove the claim. No other evidence, other than this circular op-ed, has been provided that these devices do not produce alkaline water. Ronnocerman (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I mean "mechanism of action of producing alkaline water", not "mechanism of action for the health claims". Ronnocerman (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, no. Those other sources support that someone somewhere has built a water electrolysis machine. I could support that myself, since I built one in high school chemistry lab. That doesn't undercut the source in question. We know that the ones being sold to households don't do much because the buyers aren't complaining about their electric bill doubling. I don't plan to debate the content issue here any further since it is largely off topic to this discussion. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Wikipedia:PARITY, I am documenting the large amount of evidence to the contrary as to why we shouldn't be including a fringe theory from an op-ed piece that these do not produce alkaline water. Ronnocerman (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is about the reliability of the reference. Please don't disrupt the discussion with other topics. --Hipal (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I had thought that Wikipedia:PARITY was part of reference reliability, but perhaps it is not and that's instead a follow-up conversation for the talk page. Ronnocerman (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. This is not the place for that discussion. Banks Irk (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable. The NZ Herald is one of New Zealand's two major newspaper groups. If it's the op-ed nature of the piece that is the problem, then the article it links back to at [1] is a straightforward piece of news reporting. I assume that Wikipedia:PSEUDOSCIENCE would also apply here. Daveosaurus (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The narrow dispute here is not over sources for whether alkaline water has any health effects. It is over sources for whether the ungodly expensive kitchen countertop alkaline water machines actually produce alkaline water or not. The linked article doesn't address the second question. In a partial amendment to my earlier comment above, I am a bit troubled that a direct quote of a Wikipedia article wasn't in quote marks. there are other reliable sources in the article that support the statement that these machines don't actually make alkaline water. Banks Irk (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/whanganui-woman-says-her-4000-water-machine-is-a-life-changer-but-experts-say-otherwise/EZ5L2A2QW5O7OA6LHV7X4SAOTQ/?c_id=1503426&objectid=12047470

    Reliablity of Pinkvilla

    Is Pinkvilla reliable for use in BLPs? (Further context at WP:RSN#Is SVG.com reliable?) — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No. The articles proposed as references are tabloid gossip and the writer's byline underlines it's unseriousness and triviality. Banks Irk (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please post links to the actual articles from Pinkvilla that you're referring to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ActivelyDisinterested, here are the links: — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliablity of LegalEagle

    Is LegalEagle reliable for use in BLPs? (Further context at WP:RSN#Is SVG.com reliable?) He has claimed to be a lawyer, so I don't really see anything unreliable here. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Its entertainment. Not a subject matter expert. Not a reliable source, for BLP or otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree. Unless there is something that shows he is a subject matter expert, this needs to be treated as a regular blog. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's definitely a qualified lawyer with a law firm. While his YouTube videos are entertaining and informative, I don't really see any circumstances that we would want to cite him as a source on a Wikipedia article, especially a BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At best he might be considered a self-published subject-matter-expert for law per WP:SPS (this would require that his work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publication, ie. he's published something outside his Youtube channel.) But even if he meets that bar, he still can't be used in BLPs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. He could possibly be used for unexceptional points of law that don't relate to BLPs, or for interpretation and analysis for the law that don't relate to BLPs (though probably with attribution if it's a legal matter that there's any dispute over), but not for anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has become tedious, and, as noted in the prior discussion, you aren't even bothering to link to the specific source, statement and article, forcing us to search back through old AFDs. This isn't a good source. I find it hard to imagine that there are any reliable sources that would establish the notability of feuds between YouTubers. Banks Irk (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In BLPs? No, definitely not, Aquillion has already quoted the relevant section and it's unambiguous. However, as he's a professional lawyer, I'd definitely consider him a subject-matter expert under WP:SPS. Loki (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What part of SPS would be satisfied by being a "professional lawyer"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. I see no evidence that anyone regards him as an expert,and he has zero independent publications listed. Banks Irk (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends what the claim is. Is there an example of a claim where someone wanted to use LegalEagle as a source? Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As I wrote above, the OP has been particularly unhelpful in this regard. But if you go through the links he provided in an earlier thread, you can discover that someone wants to cite a YouTube video from this YouTubeer about whether a different YouTuber legally or illegally doxxed yet another YouTuber in a YouTuber feud. I take it that the question is whether this is a RS for the existence of the feud, as well as for the notability of the feud. Handbags at Dawn! Banks Irk (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the number and history of questions, my impression Davest3r08 is simply asking it of every source that might be of relevance to the whole SSSniperWolf thing. (add: Though I see that will now be done on Wikipedia talk:SSSniperWolf sources overview, which is probably for the best) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • About being published by reliable independent publications, would Wired, Entertainment.ie, The Oakland Press and KTEM count to establish him as a subject matter expert? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      None of those are examples of him being published. These aren't articles that he wrote. Banks Irk (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Banks Irk, WP:SPS says "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published", not articles? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Three of these are just links to his YouTube videos, and the fourth is an interview. This is not publication of his work by an independent reliable publisher. In this context, a proposed SME in law, what we would want to see is books, law review articles, articles in bar journals or similar periodicals within the scope of his expertise, that he wrote himself. Banks Irk (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that's true. I think if a respected newsorg quoted a lawyer for their opinion, that would obviously be sufficient under WP:SPS to count them as an expert opinion elsewhere. And I know people on here do not like YouTube videos but there's nothing inherent in the medium of video that makes a source unreliable. An expert opinion delivered via video is no less an expert opinion. Loki (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that is Not even wrong. Some entertainment writer posting "I like this blog" does not establish expertise and doesn't constitute independent publication of a link to the blog. This is wrong at every conceivable level. Banks Irk (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      These are articles about his YouTube videos not his legal opinion being published by a third source, so they wouldn't count for the purposes of SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree (and lawyers get interviewed all the time by the press; we shouldn't open the door to those passing interviews meaning any lawyer who gets interviewed becomes an expert). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you making an ill-timed joke or is that a serious question? If serious the answer is a hard no... That does not count, has never counted, and almost certainly never will count. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Horse Eye's Back, I'm not joking, I'm just not familiar with how WP:SPS typically gets interpreted. I don't see why the medium should make a difference and WP:SPS says "work" without specifying it must be written text. So a video or podcast should be able to count. When e.g. The Oakland Press embeds (not merely links) his video, I see that as The Oakland Press publishing his video. Whether embedding is different from self-hosting here I don't know, but as the end result for the visitor is the exact same I'm not sure it should matter. The video on Wired is an original video he made for Wired, so that seems like Wired publishing (and hosting, it's not embedded from YT) his work to me.
      Banks Irk did provide examples of what would be expected (for which I say thanks) without mocking me (for which I also say thanks), but WP:SPS doesn't seem to require either whole books or periodicals within the scope of expertise, only "reliable, independent publications". Perhaps those requirements are documented elsewhere. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Either they published it or they embedded a link to another publisher... Can't do both. Entertainment content doesn't in general count, someone who played a doctor on TV isn't a SME based on the publication of that television show and that doesn't change if the person playing a doctor is a doctor in real life. The LegalEagle is a character. They produce entertainment. Confusing the actor and the character is a mistake. "X responds to tweets" is also patently entertainment content... If somebody publishes "Kim Kardashian responds to tweets about the middle east" that doesn't mean that Kim K is now a wiki SME on the middle east. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Devin Stone is a real lawyer who has sufficient expertise to answer legal questions. If you went into his law office and asked him a question about the law, he could charge you for an answer because of that expertise. That he's publishing his expert opinions on legal matters on YouTube instead doesn't change that they are in fact expert opinions, though with the large caveat that the law is complicated and questions about legal matters do not necessarily have a single correct answer.
      That all being said, WP:SPS says we can't use his video on Youtube for WP:BLP matters. However, if Wired has asked him to do a video on legal matters and publishes that video, we should treat that as if Wired had published that in text. I think I'd say similarly for The Oakland Press embedding his video as well, though I'm less confidant about that. Neither of those videos are about the BLP-related issue that Davest3r08 is talking about, though, so they're still not sufficient to allow in his video about that topic. I think they're very much sufficient for counting him as an expert opinion under WP:SPS on non-BLP matters tho. They're no different from a newsorg quoting a legal expert, which would obviously count. Loki (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No, these example are not even remotely sufficient to meet the standards of SME. First, some entertainment writer at a newspaper writing "Legal Eagle" posted a video about X case, with a link to a YouTube video does not establish that anyone competent recognized him a a SME in legal matters. Second, that does not constitute third party independent publication by a RS on legal matters. This argument is not serious enough to merit further discussion. I know what is required to be a subject matter expert on legal matters. See one of the hundreds of articles we have on actual experts. Yale Kamisar, for example. This guy has never written a single word/sentence/paragraph/article/book in an independent, reliable, scholarly source on legal matters. To claim he is a SME is a bad joke. Banks Irk (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There's nothing in WP:SPS that says that "independent publication" means you have to publish an article in a scholarly journal. Indeed, for many types of SME that is not feasible. What about a subject matter expert on basketball? Or politics? There are no scholarly journals for either of those topics, so does it follow there can't be subject matter experts in those topics? Loki (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (1) Being a subject matter expert on law, or physics or engineering or medicine or rocket surgery is a very different matter than being a subject matter expert on basketball...or politics. And, even so, subject matter experts on basketball (i) have independent, qualified, reliable sources identifying them as SMEs and (ii) have written articles and books published by reliable, independent publishers on the subject matter of their expertise. This guy has neither. This is not a close question. Banks Irk (talk) 02:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with your point in general and asked something similar a while back. I think the critical part is context and what facts are being used. As an example, I would be far more inclined to accept Burt Rutan's opinion on why a particular airplane was very efficient or Ralph Firman's opinion on how racecar suspension functions vs the views published in popular automotive press. But I think when we use such SPS would depend greatly on what claim is being supported. It's deep in context matters. Springee (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, using LegalEagle as he is a SPS and just being a lawyer isn't sufficient to establish that he is a subject matter expert nor that his opinion is DUE. Consider that his credentials are little more than we know he is a lawyer and he is on youtube. There are a large number of other lawyers on youtube. How would we decide which ones are reliable and which aren't? Would we limit it to lawyers like Alan Dershowitz who is very notable for is work outside of youtube? Perhaps in cases where the person is well known outside of their youtube channel a case can be made but then in what context? In general I don't think the answer should be a solid "no" but I do think the standard has to be much higher than just "is lawyer, has youtube channel". That seems little different than "is lawyer, has blog". I think the case would be much stronger if the question were about a SPS from say the dean of a well known law school talking about a particular legal question where they are a known expert (extensive publications on the topic, acknowledged by others in the field) then I would be more inclined to use their perspective. Springee (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. I see some arguments along the lines of "this guy doesn't write law review articles, he posts videos; it's the same thing, just in a different medium." No, it's not. I could start a blog. That wouldn't make me a SME. I am a SME in real life, with independently published books and articles in scholarly journals in the area of my expertise and third party publications recognizing me as an expert in my field. Those things are what establish me as a SME, not having a Vlog. Banks Irk (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear, my argument is not that a self-published video is the same thing as a law review article, and I explicitly do not think that. It's that having published a law review article is not necessary to establish that a lawyer is an expert on the law. All lawyers are experts on the law, that's what the law degree means. Loki (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The videos contain disclaimers that his videos are not legal opinion/advice. Someone else publishing his personal opinions might make him a subject matter expert of his personal opinions for the purposes of SPS, but nothing else. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Loki, that argument is simply wrong. Having a law degree does not make one a subject-matter expert on the law, as others have repeatedly pointed out above.Banks Irk (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      All lawyers are experts on the law: even granting that, their self-published material is not a reliable WP:EXPERTSPS until they meet the criteria set forth in our verifiability policy, which is that their work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. A law review article isn't necessarily the only way to achieve that (e.g. a book published by an academic press would also clearly count) but simply having a law degree is not sufficient. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of K. K Publications

    Is New Dimensions of Indian Historiography. a reliable source? It was published by K. K Publications; I am not familiar about this. Ajayraj890 (talk) 05:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no familiarity with Indian history, but based on a quick look: No ISBN for the linked book, title in comic sans, publisher's website lists no company officers or editors by name, I can't find the linked book the publisher's website, publisher appears to be a bookseller first and publisher second, publisher is not listed in any of the academic publication venue lists I have access to, publisher's name is easily confusable to a subsidiary of Western Publishing. While none of these are evidence of non-reliability per se, I'm not really seeing anything to establish credibility either.
    If this is being referenced for something non-controversial, surely there are better sources that could be used, and if the claim is controversial/exceptional, then I wouldn't find this a very confidence-inspiring source (see WP:ECREE). Ljleppan (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The book cites Wikipedia. Not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Airmail, scandal articles ?

    Source: Hannah Ghorashi; George Pendle. "A Swedish Conwoman, An Indian Prince, And a Grift Gone Terribly Wrong". Air Mail. Retrieved 16 October 2023. [https://airmail.news/issues/2023-10-14/the-grift-the-prince-and-the-twist]

    Articles: Airmail and Amar Singh (art dealer)

    Content:

    1) On Amar Singh (art dealer)

    Only article used to verify entire 'Controversy' section of wiki (below section linked to this source). This is the only section in the whole wiki without more than one source. Since I am new to this, I don't think it reads perfectly as NPOV?

    Extended content

    "== Controversy ==

    On 14 October 2023, Singh was accused by Air Mail of using threatening and misogynistic language in phone-call recordings with a former partner, who, Singh claimed, had lied about her identity and cheated on him. In August 2023, Singh made contact with journalist Hannah Ghorashi to tell the story of a relationship he had with a young Swedish woman named Liza-Johanna Holgersson, who, Singh claimed, had lied about her identity and cheated on him. During her research for the piece, Ghorashi received three phone-call recordings from Liza, purportedly involving Liza and Singh, of an ostensibly threatening and misogynistic nature. In the alleged recordings, a man is heard to call the girl a "fat bitch" and an "anorexic cunt", asking her "do you think you even rank in the top 50" of "the most beautiful girl[s] I've been with"?", and threatening "if you hang up on me I'm going to make moves against your family" and "a war is going to begin". The man threatens to turn an article he is assisting journalists with, into "an assassination" against the woman in the recording, and that as a consequence she will be locked out of "Spain, Italy, Germany" as well as the UK and the USA, but "maybe some African countries [she could] go to". The man ended by saying "I need respect, worship, and glory after your abuse and you're not providing it". Singh initially refused to comment when questioned by journalists about the voice recordings, later claiming that they had been produced by "A.I.". Digital forensics expert Alfred Demirjian reported with a 'reasonable degree of scientific certainty that there was a 87.2% likelihood that the recordings were of Singh, his professional opinion on the recordings being produced by A.I was “bullshit".[1] Singh's lawyer, Timothy Drukker of Fishman Brand Stone, stated that the recordings were "not of Mr Singh", while a cease and desist letter from Liza's representative "Johan Stadth" of "Fjällman Juridik", transpired to be a fake e-mail from someone seemingly trying to impersonate the Gothenburg-based law firm Fjällmans Juridik, sent from a domain that had been registered on 29 September 2023 - the day the fake email was sent. The genuine law firm Fjällmans Juridik said that there was no one working at their firm by the name of Johan Stadth.[1] An apparent non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between Singh and Liza, seen by journalists, stated that Liza was "not allowed to release any recordings of Kanwar Amar Jit Singh into the public domain or private domain", and that if Singh broke his part of the NDA, namely that he would not pursue any member of Liza's family, then Liza would be entitled to any painting by Joan Mitchell within his collection.Singh later asserted that the story about him provided to journalists was fictitious research for a movie plot entitled "Thirst for Fiction", however Singh has been accused of having attempted to bribe a female journalist on two occasions, and utilised lawyers, in an apparent attempt to quash the story.

    Singh told journalists that a book stolen by Liza from his apartment in August 2023 was a signed first-edition of Truman Capote's Breakfast at Tiffany's which had cost him nearly $10,000 at auction, however journalists believe the receipt they were shown by Singh as evidence of this purchase may have actually pertained to an unsigned first-edition bought at Swann Galleries in New York City for $700.

    Singh claims that the stories provided to Air Mail (which included an official Metropolitan Police report about the theft of a book from Singh's address on 11 August 2023) were all research for a film proposal entitled "Thirst for Fiction" to "test the elasticity of truth in the digital age".

    Singh has been accused of attempting to bribe Ghorashi on two occasions in relation to the publication of the story, claims which he denies.Singh accused Air Mail of being a "white led newspaper" with a "racist and homophobic agenda".

    Singh is alleged to have claimed on Instagram that he donated a painting by British-Liberian artist Lina Iris Viktor to the "Smithsonian Museum" in Washington, D.C., however according to journalists the Smithsonian Institution had no record of the painting being in their collections, and the artist's studio declined to comment. Singh is also alleged to have claimed on Instagram that he donated $10,000 to nonprofit 'Art at a Time Like This', however according to journalists the organisation in question claimed that "there wasn't a donation from Singh", but rather he had helped to facilitate a donation.

    Some journalists have questioned if Amar has donated art to museums. October 2023, journalists were unable to find evidence that his donations totalled $5 million.

    According to Airmail in 2020 it owed creditors $435,192."

    2) On Airmail (magazine) page

    I don't feel the addition below adds anything to the wiki page's notability. It stands out, possibility an advertisement for the writers/parties involved?

    "In October 2023, Air Mail published their longest investigation yet, titled The Grift, the Prince, and the Twist [1] written by Hannah Ghorashi and George Pendle, involving Amar Singh and Liza-Johanna Holgersson"

    Any help and more experienced eyes on this would be appreciated. GlasgowGoatHerder (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • AirMail is run by two renown and experienced journalists with long established reputations for accuracy and integrity. It is a reliable source, even for a BLP. (I collapsed the blockquote as it is just too long; a link would be more than sufficient.) Banks Irk (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b Hannah Ghorashi; George Pendle. "A Swedish Conwoman, An Indian Prince, And a Grift Gone Terribly Wrong". Air Mail. Retrieved 16 October 2023.

    www.burgasmuseums.bg

    Is www.burgasmuseums.bg, the website of the Regional Hiistorical Museum of Burgas, reliable as a source for the year of death of one of its employees? In memoriam post is here. Article is Ivan Karayotov. I realise the museum website is a primary source. For what it's worth, WorldCat also supports the year of death. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    www.burgasmuseums.bg would be reliable for that purpose. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. This source is fine for this content. An obit closely related to the subject is often problematic for content about the deceased or for notability, but not a problem for date of death. FYI, I don't think this is a primary source in this context; a death certificate would be a primary source. Banks Irk (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say it was acceptable as a source, unless there are specific reasons to question the date. The museum is clearly of significance, and it seems unlikely they'd get something like that wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all. Tacyarg (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Thaiger

    A quick search indicates this site is already used as a source on various articles so this may be worth taking a look at.
    The site accepts guest posts. It's not quite clear if/how these are indicated, I haven't been able to find one. They could be rare or I was unable to identify them as such.
    I couldn't find an editorial policy, but I did find [195] which appears to have been posted as an article. Not ideal but it does make some statements about striving to be accurate and fact-checking.
    [196] was written by Jimmy Donovan who is not listed on [197] but his page says "Jimmy, currently with The Thaiger, translates his global journalism experience to bring insights about Thailand to life." While "currently with" sounds like he's employed, maybe this is a guest blogger. On the other hand, [198] was written by Lilly Larkin who is listed on [199].
    My gut feeling: don't use for any BLP. Otherwise possibly acceptable for uncontroversial facts if the author is listed on [200] but preferably use more established sources, especially for international (unrelated to Thailand) news. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nothing about this website inspires any confidence in its reliability. Few of the senior staff and none of upper management have any journalism background. The writers are mostly identified by handles or pseudonyms as if they were anonymous bloggers or Wikipedia editors. If you look up the Donovan's Linkedin, for the particular article cited you'll see that he is a second-year student in college. There is no trace of Larkin anywhere other than at Thaiger, and the lack of prior bylines at other publications and the improbable breadth of the subjects on which she is credited as writing at Thaiger makes me question whether she is a real person. According to the Thaiger website [201], during a 4-hour period today, she wrote 22 different articles, on a staggering range of subjects and events around the world. That is not plausible, and I also discovered that her name is a character in Final Fantasy. This is definitely not a reliable source, and especially not for a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Banks Irk, the character in Final Fantasy may or may not be user-generated as it's part of an MMO. This is unclear to me, and [202] is currently down for maintenance. But the character doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere else (no Fandom page or whatever), so I'd say it's probably unrelated.
        But her name (and photo, I checked) not showing up anywhere else is a bit concerning. And I agree that writing >15 articles/day on a regular basis while doing proper research on all of them seems improbable. It's possible if they're just parroting other sources, but in that case we'd be better off quoting the original source. Or maybe if she's a workaholic and most articles would be within a more narrow subject range which is her expertise. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        If Larkin is a real person, and I continue to have my doubts about that, her 16 articles today (I guess she's slowed down after posting 22 yesterday), give a hint at what's really going on. Once again, the range of subject matters and geographic areas in the stories are highly improbable - obituaries of mostly non-notable people from around the world, fluff profiles of athletes around the world, gaming, manga, Bollywood, TV, a handful of what might pass as actual news from around the world, - none of them having any logical connection to one another. What nearly all of the stories have in common is that they start with "the internet is buzzing", "the internet is currently abuzz", "the latest buzz", "the internet has been inundated"...and minor variations of the same theme. So, they are basically just aggregating social content off the internet and reprinting it, perhaps with some minor variation (hard to say without finding the original sources) as their own under this byline. This site should never be used as a source. Banks Irk (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom Dannenbaum in Just Security for an attributed view at 2023 Israel–Hamas war

    A user has challenged the usage of Tom Dannenbaum writing in Just Security for the quote "This order commands the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a violation of international humanitarian law and a war crime (ICC Statute, article 8(2)(b)(xxv)). It may also satisfy the legal threshold for the crime against humanity of inhumane acts (7(1)(K)) and, depending on what happens from here, other crimes against humanity, such as those relating to killing (murder and extermination) (7(1)(a-b))." Just Security is an online forum for the rigorous analysis of security, democracy, foreign policy, and rights and is hosted by the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU Law, and you can see its advisory board here. Dannenbaum has written extensively on the topics of international humanitarian law and war crimes, see scholar results or his list of publications at Tufts. He is also quoted by Deutsche Welle on this specific topic and says much the same thing to them (they have He said that the siege of Gaza qualifies as "starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, which is a war crime itself.") Is this a reliable source by a scholar with relevant publications in the field or is it an unreliable self-published work? nableezy - 03:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't a SPS. The author is indeed a subject matter expert who has been widely published. It is an opinion piece, but it's reliable for use with attribution. Banks Irk (talk) 03:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have written at length on my concerns with this source, here.
    One of my primary concern was Nableezy's substantial quotation of this opinion piece, to support a single viewpoint. This extended coverage conferred on an opinion piece, published on an online forum, in my respectful view, is WP:UNDUE, given the controversial and serious nature of this article, which is already excessively lengthy and convoluted.
    Nableezy appears to have trimmed down his coverage of this source, following the concerns raised by me and a few other editors, prior to posting on this Noticeboard, which certainly addresses the concerns.
    One issue remains is that this same author has given a more balanced opinion, condemning both Israel and Hamas, in this interview published by Deutsche Welle, cited by Nableezy himself/herself, than the opinion he gave in the online forum.
    In my view, if this author must be cited, then this Deutsche Welle source should be used, rather than the source from the online forum. Deutsche Welle is a more reputable and credible source of information, as compared to that online forum. It also presents a more balanced opinion from the same author, and should therefore be preferred. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an online forum in the conceptual sense, not in the practical sense, so please don't imply otherwise. It's essentially an analytical platform that publishes expert opinions and analysis on security topics. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can’t comment on if it’s DUE in the specific article (might be helpful to give that context) but it’s not an SPS and he’s clearly a subject matter expert anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument was that it is not a reliable source as a SPS, so I was seeking comment on that. If the argument is no DUE, then usage by DW would go towards showing it is DUE, but thats for another noticeboard. nableezy - 04:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't SPS and the individual is clearly a subject-matter expert anyway, and can reasonably be cited with attribution. That they are also cited by DW making similar statements reinforces the reasonableness of this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely qualified and valuable for the article, but the quote and statements from Oxfam, HRW, Amensty could be better contextualized for the reader. This 2020 IRRC article (which cites and explains Dannenbaum's position in the section "Interpreting the prohibition against starvation: A permissive approach to sieges") is probably a helpful starting point. Unfortunately i don't think WP is really capable of an adequate explanation of the issues for the reader in it's news reporting, so it's just "quote and attribute" without context. fiveby(zero) 15:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with most of the above, Tom Dannenbaum appears to be a widely published subject matter expert in the closely related fields of International Relations and International Law. Should be attributed of course but this does seem to be more of a due weight question than a reliability one per say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    cmswire.com

    This website is used 212 times on Wikipedia; however, I question if it is considered a reliable source. While the about page of the site does say it has editors, I do not see an editorial policy and it also says that it has over 400 contributors ("contributor community"). This makes me feel the site is accepting more guest posts than actual written and reviewed stories by its own staff. Only discussion I see on this is from 2012 and it isn't very clear. Hoping for more opinions on this. CNMall41 (talk) 06:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: Jacobin

    What is the reliability of Jacobin?

    Previous RfC from March 2019 July 2021 can be viewed here. NoonIcarus (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • "English-only media such as Declassified UK, Jacobin or The Canary are the vortex of a whirlwind of republications, translations and mutual quotations that multiply the dissemination of political propaganda and disinformation to millions of Latin Americans every week while disguising their true origin: propaganda organs of Russia, Cuba and Venezuela."
    This graph should help visualize the portals that Jacobin and other outlets are linked with: Portales de la mentira.
    In the last RfC, to demonstrate reliability concerns, I cited an open letter by around 200 Ecuadorians, including left-wing academics and activists, that criticized for republishing The Grayzone and for attacking Yaku Pérez, an ecosocialist and indigenous candidate. However, this is far from the only time where Jacobin has cited deprecated outlets with an editorial voice or has had reliability problems. For example, the article "In Latin America, the Long Shadow of Colombia’s Far-Right Is Receding" includes plenty of fringe information, including that Colombian paramilitaries were present in the 2002 coup against Chávez, that Colombia supported paramilitary incursions into Venezuela (citing a Telesur (RSP entry) video as a source, by the way), and that the country actively sought to sabotage and promote a military intervention in Venezuela (citing the blog Aporrea, which at the same time cites Russia Today and Venezuelan state media). I'm sure that other editors will be able to provide more examples of misleading or false information for this RfC.
    Then there are articles such as "Black Ribbon Day Is an Ahistorical, Antisemitic Fraud" ("Black Ribbon Day is also known as the Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism. But this veneer of humanistic solicitude is a facade for historical distortion and antisemitic rhetoric, perpetuated by far-right movements across Eastern Europe."), or even "The Srebrenica Precedent", subject to memes ("The Srebrenica massacre, which started on this day in 1995, was a tragic event. But-"). I can already hear people pointing out to WP:OPINION, but in this cases is important to bring up positions to question the representation in article of points of view that are not held by a majority.
    Jacobin's bias, publication of misleading or false content and its use of deprecated content means that its current assessment seriously needs to be reviewed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RFC The linked prior RFC was not from 2019; it was closed in early 2022. There is no live dispute about the use of the source for a statement in any specific article at this time. I'd also note that, if you actually read the extremely long linked "report", the short quote reproduced above is the only mention of Jacobin; there is no substantive discussion of it elsewhere in the report. There is no reason to revisit the prior RFC. This should be summarily closed. Banks Irk (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The report was released some months ago, this year, and that's demonstrably not the only time it mentions The Jacobin, talking about John McEvoy (who has also worked for The Canary), his publications and republications. It would be helpful if you can offer some insight on the other examples I provided. The date I provided, however, resulted from copying a previous RfC, my apologies. I have already corrected this.
    I should also mention that the previous close was challenged (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 384#Jacobin, RfC closing review), since the assessment was moved from yellow to green; the only thing is that the review happened months after the closure, and not immediately after.
    Over two years have passed since the last RfC was opened, and Jacobin's reliability has been questioned several times ever since, so a RfC is perfectly in order. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that is simply wrong. There is no substantive discussion of Jacobin in that report whatsoever. There is a single note, in passing, that Jacobin is one of the many sites where McEvoy has his work published. There is not one word about the reliability of Jacobin itself or any article which it published by McEvoy or anyone else. Please provide us with specific examples, with links, of where there have been discussions/disputes over the use of Jacobin as a source arising since the last RFC was closed in 2022 other than the CR. Banks Irk (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ, since the report's graph not only shows Jacobin's relationship with troublesome agencies (including Sputnik), but also those that have republished its unreliable content in the past. That's alright, however: as an example, one the latest disputes regarding reliability is in the National Democratic Institute (NDI), where Jacobin is used to back up the claim that the NDI played a key role in the opposition's victory in the 2015 parliamentary elections, omitting events that made the government unpopular before, such as the shortages of goods and the 2014 wave of protests. Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested:, who was alos interested about recent changes.
    When you say CR, are you referring to closure review? At any rate, examples of questioning of the source in this noticeboard include February 2022 (Springee, where the editor was actually invited to relitigate the RFC), May 2022 (Volunteer Marek) May 2023 and as recently as June 2023 (StellarHalo). These mentions are not notifications, as I don't want to give the impression I'm unduly influencing the discussion, but anyone is free to reach out to the users to learn more about their thoughts and concerns on the matter. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why I was mentioned above. I don't think Jacobin is a generally good source but I don't see new evidence being presented here. Absent new evidence a general RfC isn't warranted. If there is a specific use then we should discuss it instead. In general I think these blanket RfCs are a net negative for Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    .I'm no fan of Jacobin, especially it's whataboutism of Srebrenica, but I don't see anything that changes anything from the last RFC. WP:RSOPINION, WP:BIASED and WP:NEWSORG all apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm not sure there is anything sufficiently new here to warrant a new RfC about Jacobin in general. Although Jacobin is mentioned in the tagline of the article, it is only mentioned once after that, as a site which has published articles by McEvoy. It has in fact published just four pieces by him[203] and does not seem to have ever used Mision Verdad as a source, so it is not a key outlet in this disinformation network. Having said that, I have long been unhappy with the RSP summary of the many RSN discussions of this source, where the consensus has clearly been much more negative than the summary. It is clear that several editors have major issues with its use in specific areas (e.g. Russia/Ukraine, Venezuela) and that this should be flagged, and that it publishes content by a few conspiracy thinkers (Branko Marcetic was mentioned in the last discussion, McEvoy flagged here) and again this isn't highlighted in RSP. So I'd favour a rewrite of the RSP and possibly a change from green to yellow as a better reflection of the community consensus. A second point is that the report NoonIcarus introduces (and reports in Spanish that it links to) evidence the unreliability of some sources not currently listed at RSP and which we may not have discussed before: Mision Verdad[204][205], the main focus of the report, is used in 4 articles;[206] Declassified UK, another focus of the report, is used in 32 articles;[207] TheCanary, McEvoy's main outlet, is still used in 72 articles despite being red flagged on the RSP;[208] CiudadCCS, currently used in 12 articles,[209] is noted as reproducing RT/Sputnik disinformation;[210]. This linked article say Mision Verdad is used as a source by VTV, and this one says that VTV, La Iguana, Últimas Noticias and Venezuela News uses RT and Sputink as sources; we use VTV in 75 articles.[211] I would suggest, therefore, that we should review and remove use of these outlets as sources in Wikipedia articles. We should also make sure we don't use McEvoy himself as a source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad RfC/Close per previous RfC As noted by other editors the prior RfC was from early 2022 and discussion since then was started by banned editor. Therefore I don't see that this is a live issue and it lacks WP:RFCBEFORE. Ping me if anything changes in discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 14:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yen.com.gh

    I'll refrain from saying what I think this time as it's rather easy to be wrong..
    Yen.com.gh is a a news publication from Ghana. It's already widely used as a source for various claims, including on BLPs. Some examples from the first page of search results: Jerry Rawlings#cite ref-11 (the source was added while he was alive), Nana Akufo-Addo#cite note-106 and Asamoah Gyan#cite ref-5. Yen.com.gh has an editorial policy and an overview of their editors.
    Our article on them says "It covers local and international news, politics, business, entertainment, technology, sport news and users’ generated news content." They indeed report on user-generated content, e.g. [212] which describes an event that's.. let's say, less important than the presidential election.
    For transparency: I found this article while looking for Sssniperwolf sources, but I have a feeling that article shouldn't be used on a BLP. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your instinct is correct. This is not a reliable source. It is a tabloid-journalism gossip piece from a publication that includes user-generated content. That is without getting into at least a half-dozen subcategories of WP:NOT Please stop bringing these questions here. I thought that the editors who were interested in feuds between YouTubers were going to discuss these kinds of sources at Wikipedia:SSSniperWolf_sources_overview and not here. If I may be so bold as to make a prediction, you will not find any reliable source on the subject that would pass muster at AFD after five tries. Banks Irk (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Banks Irk, I honestly do not know why Alexis is bringing this here. I started a discussion at the talk page for only the talk page and nowhere else. — Davest3r08 (^_^) (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Banks Irk, I brought this question here because there seem to already be 450+ articles that use Yen.com.gh as a source and no prior discussion on the site seems to exist.
        I actually added the transparency line in an edit after posting the question. Maybe I shouldn't have. Sssniperwolf brought me to Yen.com.gh, but if few or no existing articles would be using Yen.com.gh as a source I wouldn't have asked about it here.
        FYI, new (better) sources surfaced since the last AfD was closed. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Daily Mail being used as the subject of discussion on Sarah Jane Baker

    Sarah Jane Baker is a transgender woman who transitioned in prison. The Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror, two UK tabloids (the first being the most widely read newspaper in Britain, despite being unreliable enough to have its own shortlink, WP:DAILYMAIL, saying we can't use it as a source except in rare cases, and the second not much better), both wrote big articles that she did this at UK government expense. This was untrue; in fact it was so untrue that Baker, who was refused surgical transition by the government, out of desperation castrated herself with a razor blade four years after the false articles.

    Yet the episode of the tabloids writing falsehoods about her transition is notable enough to mention; the Independent writes about them. I included a link to the actual DM articles in our article; I added a comment in our article text that these articles are not being used as sources for facts, they are the subject of the discussion; I added an entry in the article talk page FAQ (Talk:Sarah Jane Baker/FAQ#Q5) which says that is specifically what is called out in WP:DAILYMAIL as "The Daily Mail may be used in rare cases in an about-self fashion." User:David Gerard deleted the Daily Mail link anyway, saying "A talk page agreement cannot override a general consensus at RFC", by which, he presumably means the RFC that established WP:DAILYMAIL, which was held here. So even though this isn't about using the Daily Mail as a reliable source, this is the best place I thought of to go (since it is about the WP:DAILYMAIL rule, and since David Gerard says he won't respect any agreements made on the article talk page). So, can we link to a Daily Mail article when it is the subject of the discussion? Is this what WP:DAILYMAIL means by "may be used in rare cases" or isn't it? --GRuban (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Short answer is no. Never use the Daily Mail as a source in a BLP. If I understand the dispute here: (1) The Daily Mail published something that was false (2) other, reliable publications, published that the Daily Mail published something that was false (3) Can I link to the false article at the Daily Mail that other publications say is false?. No. Moreover, if every reliable source on the planet tomorrow had the same full-page headline THE DAILY MAIL PUBLISHED SOMETHING FALSE we still wouldn't link to the story at the Daily Mail, under WP:NOTNEWS because it would he same as if they all had the same full-page headline SUN RISES THIS MORNING. Banks Irk (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Banks Irk, I kinda doubt "the Daily Mail is full of shit, look what they did now" would really qualify as WP:ROUTINE like an announcement saying it's Christmas. It's possible I'm wrong, but it seems different to me.
        While it may be obvious for us, it's probably not a universally known fact that the Daily Mail is full of shit. And if some particular thing they wrote is bad enough for independent reliable sources to report on it, why shouldn't we treat it the same as Jimmy Joe Billy Bob's blog? There may be reasons not to include a link to Jimmy Joe Billy Bob's blog either, but that would mean the reason is independent from the Daily Mail being the Daily Mail.
        The outcome here could still be we shouldn't link, but the actual reason would probably be something else like being highly cautious because it's a BLP or actively denying the Daily Mail any possible rise in search engine rankings.
        Side note: if all the major independent reliable sources had the same full-page headline "Sun rises this morning", and that headline is not a routine thing, I suspect our policy maybe allows an article like "Sunrise of 1 November 2023". But we wouldn't write any such article based on the weather section of those newspapers which is routine. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        You do have a valid point. If there were enough notability, one might consider whether something like this merited inclusion in the long list at Daily Mail#Noted reporting, where articles criticizing the Daily Mail are linked, but not the Daily Mail stories themselves. That would be the appropriate pattern here, but I question whether even the criticisms are warranted in a BLP. Banks Irk (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Context: GRuban wrote the "FAQ" they're citing here - not the product of talk page discussion but something they just wrote themselves a few days ago - then linked it at the top of the talk page as if it were a list of settled matters, then referenced it in a comment restoring the Daily Mail. I objected that a talk page can't establish a local consensus against a broad general RFC consensus, especially when their own document emphasises that the Mail story is a tissue of lies of a quality that would be unacceptable to use in a BLP. Anyway, the fact of the Mail's lies is IMO more than sufficiently described in the RSes - linking the potentially defamatory document in article space doesn't actually add anything - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. The subpage "FAQ" is not a talkpage discussion, and frankly, it probably should be deleted or moved to their own page. I even question whether it is appropriate in a RSN BLP to even include the story debunking DM under WP:DUE among other policies and guidelines. But that is not a RS issue. Banks Irk (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Banks Irk, I even question whether it is appropriate in a RSN to even include the story
      Did you mean BLP here? From what I understand, WP:DUE doesn't apply to WP:RSN. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, thank you. I meant BLP not RSN. A combination of too many acronyms and the fact that my fingers are not to be trusted in the near vicinity of a keyboard. Banks Irk (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need for the Daily Mail article and it shouldn't be restored. There been multiple discusions and RFCs about the source, unless it's specifically an ABOUTSELF statement (which this isn't) it shouldn't be used.
    As an aside referencing isn't a place to add "See also" material to external sites. This is the purpose of the External links section, and the Daily Mail would probably fail WP:ELNO#EL2. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that David Gerard isn't the first editor to remove this with the talk page FAQ being used to restore it. Talk pages cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because they've pulled things like this before, you'd probably want to link an independent archive (like a Wayback Machine capture) of the original article even if you were to link the article for some reason. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, that's how we link it on e.g. (Almost) Straight Outta Compton - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think people forget that one of the reason that the Daily Mail was deprecated is that they lie about their own content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the page history, the Daily Mail was being used as a reference, which it absolutely should not be. I could see an argument for it being included in External Links or See Also with the appropriate context but definitely not as a reference. Loki (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Well, that's a pretty clear answer: looks like David Gerard had it right. Thank you folks, I appreciate your time. --GRuban (talk)
    My first inclination here was that because the DM article itself was the subject of discussion from other RSes (in here, how the DM pushed this lie) that a link to the offending article would be reasonable so that the curious could see this article. But I can also see the logic to keep it out, and the fact that the RSes covering that article link to it as well. This is a rare but not exceptional case where what an non-RS has published soarks a controversy covered by RSes (Pizzagate, Alec Jones, Fox News, etc.) Perhaps we need to say not when we have broadly prohibited a source that even In such cases, linking to the source is not appropriate and to rely on the linkages provided by RSes. Masem (t) 13:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem, soarks a controversy What does "soarks" mean? While I can infer from context, I can't find it in the dictionary. Maybe a typo for "soars", but on qwerty the K is on the other side of the keyboard. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One letter typo from 'sparks'. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, meant sparks. Typing off phone. Masem (t) 15:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Self-published book by subject's son being used as a source on Joseph McGinley

    1. Source: Mac Fhiongaile, Niall (1985). Dr Mc Ginley and His Times. Niall Mac Fhiongaile.
    2. Article: Joseph McGinley
    3. Content: The book is being used to cite facts about McGinley's personal life ("he was awarded the gold medal for surgery") and about his involvement in the Irish War of Independence.

    I have marked this source as unreliable, since Google books lists the book as self-published (although the National Library of Ireland (NLI) lists it as published by "An Crann" in Leitirceannain (Letterkenny). (The only reference I can find to anything call "An Crann" in Letterkenny is this NLI record about a local journal / serial. There is an ongoing discussion about the matter between mysefl and Rockypopod. (The discussion has been held on our respective user talk pages, but I have now copied the entire thread to Talk:Joseph McGinley to promote centralized discussion.) Rockypopod and I are in disagreement about the reliability of this source. I'd ask readers of this noticeboard to weigh in on the matter. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pretty much completely unusable. I can't come up with a scenario in which this sort of source would be usable on anything other than the author's page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. I find two books written by Mac Fhiongaile. This one, and "Donegal, Ireland and the First World War" - which is described as a series of biographies of local persons during the war. These are also the only two books I can find that are shown as published by An Crann by any source, and other sources list the publisher as Mac Fhiongaile himself. It is fair to conclude that the books are self-published, and I do not think that its use in the article falls within any of the permitted uses of a SPS. There is nothing to qualify him as a subject matter expert. I would note that the O'Duibhir book used as a reference cites Mac Fhiongaile as a source. That doesn't disqualify O'Duibhir, but it also doesn't make Mac Fhiongaile an expert. Banks Irk (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if they were a SME its hard to imagine many use cases that wouldn't count as unduly self serving. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthroposophy

    Source: https://repository.arizona.edu/bitstream/handle/10150/621063/azu_etd_14891_sip1_m.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

    Usage of the source: see Talk:Anthroposophy#Epistemology, Ontology etc.

    Question: does it fail WP:FRIND?

    Joaquin Muñoz: I don't have a smoking gun, but by the way he uses the word "we" seems like a Waldorf education insider. See: https://issuu.com/anthrousa/docs/bh22-web/s/10838439 . More eyes needed. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Objective peer reviewed research published independent sources, there are many more of these: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1476718X211051184
    There are over 3000 Waldorf schools in major cities around the world:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/technology/at-waldorf-school-in-silicon-valley-technology-can-wait.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Objective? The author Attfield is trustee of a Waldorf school.
    There are over 3000 Waldorf schools What is this, an attempt at argumentum ad populum? Does not work here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional research recognized and published by independent journals and publishers: how do these overall not meet WP/FRIND ?
    https://www.scielo.br/j/er/a/8nyN7QDpx6JYdh4VvYsPBHN/
    https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ej432784
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15507394.2017.1294400
    H. A. Alexander, Reclaiming Goodness: Education and the Spiritual Quest (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001); D. E. Hall, A. M. Catanzaro, O. Harrison, and H.G. Koenig SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Another source

    Source: https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069

    Usage of the source: see Talk:Anthroposophy#Epistemology, Ontology etc.

    Question: does it fail WP:FRIND?

    Seems like a thoroughly Anthroposophic writing, just read its summary (who else would make such arguments about applying the "social tripartition"?). tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, so these are all published via independent reliable journal sources - on a call here, but these should meet the standards listed via WP/FRIND hm SamwiseGSix (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reason: most mainstream academics have never heard of the Steinerian social tripartition, and most of those who have heard of it, consider it antidemocratic hogwash.
    "On the anti-democratic aspects of Steiner’s conception of politics see Zander, Anthroposophie in Deutschland, 1314-21 and 1695-96." https://social-ecology.org/wp/2009/01/rudolf-steiner%E2%80%99s-threefold-commonwealth-and-alternative-economic-thought/
    Another WP:RS: Hill, Chris (2023). "'Gustavo Who?' — Notes Towards the Life and Times of Gustavo Rol; Putative Mage and Cosmic 'Drainpipe'". In Pilkington, Mark; Sutcliffe, Jamie (eds.). Strange Attractor Journal Five. MIT Press. p. 194. ISBN 978-1-907222-52-8. Retrieved 1 November 2023. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Steiner's writings are clearly focused on political 'equality' eg one person one vote, as the C&H piece outlines. He was run out of Germany by the early 1920's by Adolf Hitler himself, who personally ordered his Nazi followers to 'wage war on Steiner' - he died soon thereafter. Though some fascists later attempted to leverage some of his ideas many years after his death, he was clearly and obviously anti-fascist, plus attacked and persecuted by the fascists of his time:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-who-was-rudolf-steiner-and-what-were-his-revolutionary-teaching-ideas-433407.html SamwiseGSix (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, it does not work like that. I have two mainstream academic sources against one hearsay rendered by a journalist. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cited two academics, a journalist, and two additional Google Scholar Links. Steiner advocated for sustainable 'democracy' based on 'political equality' eg one person one vote - he was run out of Germany by the fascists and died soon thereafter in Switzerland. Some of the fascists would much later on attempt to leverage some of his ideas to further their control and anti-human agenda - for additional info, please see below:
    https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-7500-3_12
    https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-who-was-rudolf-steiner-and-what-were-his-revolutionary-teaching-ideas-433407.html
    https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=o-c4DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA5&dq=rudolf+steiner+political+equality+democracy&ots=S6A0G1fjE_&sig=KXR3Rl_XHZ8O7Z_sskbODZZEAEs#v=onepage&q=rudolf%20steiner%20political%20equality%20democracy&f=false
    https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dpG6CrEzrysC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=rudolf+steiner+political+equality+democracy&ots=D9kF2tCPTB&sig=OtPMY9yoCecDYFS7iTHySZI_M7E#v=onepage&q&f=false SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Therefore facilitating NPOV, with independent sources.. SamwiseGSix (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't like the guideline WP:FRINGE, vote with your feet. We don't need your help. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1183001972"