Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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:

• 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.

Start a new discussion

ScienceDirect Topics (AI-generated pages)

Over 1000 articles are currently citing some ScienceDirect Topics page. These are machine-generated summaries of the articles published in a certain topic by Elsevier. They cannot be reliable sources because they obscure the real source and context of any given statement, potentially turning into its opposite for lack of understanding. After finding a useful statement on such a page, editors should find a suitable original source (possibly one of the academic papers listed in the page itself), confirm that it supports the claim, and use that as reference.

I suggest adding ScienceDirect Topics to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources as banned source, to better inform editors. Elsevier is strongly promoting its "AI" offering, and even though this is probably just some pretty standard machine learning (arguably less dangerous than general machine generation based on LLM), we'll probably see increased usage here as collateral damage. Nemo 08:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Topics is already listed at RSP. I had no idea so many pages use it though. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

RfC: ScienceDirect topics

Should an edit filter be implemented to warn editors trying to add ScienceDirect topics pages to articles? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Responses (ScienceDirect)

• Yes As discussed at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#ScienceDirect_topics, an implementation of an edit filter requires a discussion at RSN. As previous discussed several times on this noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_270#Elsevier_topics:_reliability_of_machine-generated_sources, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_417#Elsevier_topics_again, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Machine-generated_text_at_ScienceDirect_used_as_source) these are not verifiable references as the cited content on the page changes over time. We have over 1,000 references to these pages which indicates that its usage is a problem. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. Last night I started attempting to replace some of these links and was immediately discouraged by both the overwhelming number of them and by how many were very recently added. It is definitely not clear to most people that SD Topics would have any problems at all, to the extent that I suspect almost no one casually using it would even consider the possibility it is GUNREL. I certainly didn't realize until I saw this thread yesterday that it was AI, despite repeatedly trying to use it to find background literature for my dissertation (and this explains why I occasionally encountered wrong shit in its summaries, and why I was never able to figure out how to cite what I thought were actual review articles...).

JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. They are truthy bits of out-of-context information and most people adding them will not know they are unreliable. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per above. --Leyo 18:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per above. In my own uses of "AI" (LLM) tools to try go generate summaries, abstracts, timelines, and other "this should be easy" digests of source material, the results have been uniformly awful, with virtually every single sentence having to be corrected in one way or another (from errors of omission to errors of focus/emphasis/nuance, to frequent outright factual errors, including "hallucinations" both of claims in particular sources and of entire sources). Maybe someday we'll be able to trust such tools to properly summarize material, but that some day is not today. Never forget that what LLMs do is try to provide an answer that will look like what should be a correct/expected result. It is not a fact-checking process of any kind, but a form of simulation. That we're able to get anything useful out of it at all (e.g. it can be used to generate simplex examples of correct, though often inelegant, Javascript or Python functions to do various things, as well as regular expressions as long as they are not very complex or do not have complex test cases to match) verges on astounding.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, as we're setting editors up for failure by not warning them. Would these be useful ELs, though? Mach61 (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. On topics for WP:MED, ScienceDirect is a commonly-applied, unsatisfying source typically providing limited search results from lower-quality journals. It is frequently selected by novice editors, requiring followup editing for source accuracy in the article. More experienced medical editors would have no difficulty finding better sources by searching PubMed with the appropriate search terms. Note for the cleanup if replacing 1000+ ScienceDirect sources is the outcome: a bot can be developed to remove them (consult user GreenC), leaving a tag, but laborious manual checking of the sourced statement and editing by a volunteer are needed to refill with a good source. Zefr (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. Similar to everyone else, I have never seen it be a reliable source for research purposes, so it should be discouraged for novice editors.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
• Yes: I was unaware that those topic pages are machine generated summaries, so an edit filter would be helpful. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Sure if machine generated content. These can be problematic, but I use the sources Science Direct cites instead since as those are not AI generated and are instead published material by researchers. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. It's just misleading. Editors should cite the articles directly. Cortador (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes per all above, and probably heading for a SNOW here. The Kip 06:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, having only caught up on these pages not being the work of an editorial team due to this discussion. I think the way they do it is pretty clever and the pages can be useful, but I'll definitely be more cautious about assuming any of the papers in there are actually representative for the field as a whole, knowing what I know now. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes and SNOW I've not participated in the previous discussion, but have kept an eye on them. From those discussions it's clear that editors should be cautioned about using the source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, this is the sort of thing edit filters exist for - it's an extremely reputable-looking site from an organization that most people would normally consider trustworthy and whose summaries are going to have an academic gloss; people are very likely to try and cite its summaries without understanding that they're machine-generated. The edit filter should probably briefly explain and encourage them to cite the actual paper itself. --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

oko press Poland- propaganda can be reliable source?

oko press is cited in Wikipedia but it described themselves as propaganda tool created by mainstream Agora media to create impression that it is independent. oko press own communication announced it https://oko.press/stoi-oko-press-szczera-bolu-informacja-o-naszych-finansach if some tool is created only in order to fight other ideas it is propaganda. Can be propaganda a reliable source? i request to ecxlude oko press from list of reliable sources for Wikipedia. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC discussion started below this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC: OKO.press

What is the reliability of OKO.press?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Previous RSN Discussion: February 2021 (Considered generally reliable) & October 2021 (Considered generally reliable)

For some background, OKO.press is mentioned or cited on 129 articles across English Wikipedia. After a talk page discussion on Visegrád 24, it was mentioned that the source may not be reliable. Given this source is cited in CTOPS articles (including Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, LGBTQ articles, and Israel-Hamas war articles), an RFC is needed to reassess reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (OKO.press)

• Undecided so far. I will do some research and make a determination !vote soon. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 — The source seems to be reliable in their reporting. I have not found inaccurate reporting in their articles. This may appear to be a little bit of an Al Jazeera, where if it is state-sponsored, the reliability of their reporting of facts does not seem to be impeded. As mentioned below this !vote by Kip, the original nominator/idea starter of this RfC, Jarek19800, was that OKO.press was propaganda based on this article, which I have to admit, I am unable to actually translate past a “please subscribe” style addition they have. As the idea of this was Jarek19800s, could you provide an article indicating OKO.press either reported something factually wrong or a secondary non OKO.press source saying it is propaganda? Unless that occurs, I must stick with option 1. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The RfC was started by me due to duel-CTOPS nature involved with where the possible issue about this source originated from and I will note, COI is a very high possibility here, which was brought up at AN, leading to the perm EC protection on the page. Basically, RFC was a technicality since this has been at RSN before and is CTOPS related. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Re: Al Jazeera; as far as I can tell Agora, who partly funds OKO, is independent rather than state-controlled. The Kip 23:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 The claim above of the piece admitting they’re “anti-PiS propaganda” seems to be… off-base, to say the least. Admittedly I’m reading a Google machine-translated version, but from what I gather, the linked piece says they were founded independently with some funding from Agora due to well-documented concerns about the PiS’ increasing control of Polish state media. Biased? Perhaps a little, but on the whole they seem to be doing valid research/reporting, and I’m not exactly sold by some of the original nominator (Jarek, not WEW) arguments regarding it being “blatant propaganda.” France24 and Politico’s endorsement of their reporting + the Index on Censorship award work even further in their favor. As per usual, attribute for opinion pieces, but facts-wise they seem a-okay. The Kip 06:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your remarks. I will try to be as short as possible which can influence some clarity. Let's follow your logic: main media company in Poland Agora creates a platform Oko press in order to fight PIS. After eight years (current) there is a new govt anti PIS and 95% of media market is completely in hands of anti PIS media including Agora. If following your logic Oko press would be reliable source they shall go against this media monopoly now,shall not they? in fact they continue to fight PIS. More generally can be a media monopoly reliable by definition? Moreover head of Oko press Pacewicz is former Agora executive so let's forget about independent funding of Oko press.Personally I prefer to judge reliability of media by its origin and definition(for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source) than on base of one or two false informations but I will check what I can do also in this direction. By the way how I can prove that some information was false when there is a media monopoly in the country and the false info is local from media which covers only local issues ? Jarek19800 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You say: "for example it is obvious for all that any mainstream media in russia now is not reliable source". That idea did not get much traction on RSNB recently. But even if this is the case, Poland is a very different country. My very best wishes (talk) 04:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Your argument essentially boils down to “they’re propaganda because they disagree with PiS and are popular,” which is entirely personal opinion, and your claim of a “media monopoly” is both wholly uncited and outright false in the first place. Sorry that I and others disagree. The Kip 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1, same as Gazeta Wyborcza. It seems to be a legitimate investigative journalism site. There are no indications they promote any falsehoods or unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Google Scholar search results are quite encouraging regarding the publication's quality Other peer-reviewed publications cite it, so there's also a WP:USEBYOTHERS case to be made. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. OKO.press § Awards mentions that OKO.press has received a number of awards, including the Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Awards in 2020. As Rosguill mentioned, this detailed analysis, published by the Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego, elaborates on the "12 principles" methodology that OKO.press uses to perform fact-checking and rates it positively: "The article presents the fact-checking logic of a Polish press title published online since 2016, OKO.press, which in the authors’ view is an excellent example of reliable journalism practiced to the benefit of the public." — Newslinger talk 01:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Well regarded for its investigative journalism in 2020 by Index on Censorship, in 2019 by Politico, and in a 2020 case study by the European Journalism Centre. Looking through the cases listed in the discussion below, some of the strongest cases (i.e. from generally reliable sources) about unreliability would appear to be when OKO.press lost a court case, with the result that it had to remove a sentence by a well-known Polish activist making an allegation about a politician being in a Nazi salute photo; and RMF FM disputed OKO.press factual claims, including estimates of how many millions of PLN were received by RFM FM from oil refiner Orlen (RFM FM claimed values about 6 times lower than OKO.press did, while agreeing that the values were millions). So clearly OKO.press has made at least one, possibly more, unreliable claims, as have The New York Times, the BBC and The Daily Telegraph, which we nevertheless accept as generally reliable, not always reliable. Boud (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

General discussion (OKO.press)

• I would not describe prior discussions about this source as having a consensus for reliability. the February 2021 discussion was not formally closed and did not have a clear consensus. The same can be said of the October 2021 RfC not identified above, which had a numerical majority for general reliability but saw a lot of sockpuppet disruption and didn't have much in the way of real discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! I did not realize a 2nd discussion occurred. Would you be ok if I add that in the discussion? Also just to note, the prior discussion I linked earlier was considered in a different discussion (I don’t remember which of the 129 articles it was on), to be reliable under a 7-2 vote premise. That assessment was not my own doing, but more like a copy/paste of the assessment in that discussion…whatever article talk page it was on. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

• This move to RfC seems a bit abrupt. The discussion in the thread above didn't even get off the ground. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Having an explicit political agenda doesn't make them unreliable (per WP:BIASED). Are there examples of them publishing falsehoods? Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  There doesn't seem to be; to be quite blunt, this issue seems to have been raised entirely on the argument that being founded as a counterweight to PiS-biased media and partly funded by a liberal-leaning news organization makes them "propaganda," which is an extremely flimsy basis for such a claim. The Kip 22:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

  In 2018 polish Ministry of Justice published a statement accusing Oko.press of making false claims about financing public campaign by that ministry. [1] I couldn't find any articles investigating it further, though. Saletri (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  let's focus on fake news spreaded by oko press. this one confirms that they are propaganda tool used to take part in political war without any link to reality. all articles will be in Polish unfortunately and from media which are not a mainstream (media monopol in Poland) but fact checking is more accurate here https://www.tysol.pl/a73905-ekspert-do-oko-press-jestescie-propagandystami-lukaszenki-i-putina-bede-was-rozliczal-z-fake-news Jarek19800 (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Considering the PiS government was notorious for attempted media crackdowns, I’m not sure if I’d trust their word when accusing an independent outlet of making false claims. Governments are rarely reliable sources for criticism about themselves. The Kip 05:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  I ask you the Kip to be deleted from this discussion on the reason that you started to chase me on Wikipedia with a manner to delete my factual revisions of the articles. By chance you make it by hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers which I hope has connection with defending left- wing media portal. of course we can try to say that only by coincidence you deleted my change on Mikhail Kalinin few days ago but such idea has is stupid so you have no reliability to discuss media reliability. Jarek19800 (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  You asserted on the article that he held sole responsibility for the massacre, when the source provided simply listed him as a co-signatory. Feel free to re-add with a source confirming the former claim, but on Wikipedia we don't engage in original research. Nice personal attack, by the way. The Kip 21:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is not opening the discussion on topic of if relevant was my add to article. it is about you chased my add ons to articles on wikipedia on base of this thread here. it is of course just coincidence in both you defend left-wing elements. anyway in my opinion it is not ethic and wikipedial to transport your personel feelings from one article to another one only on base of author. In my opinion you should not continue to comment this thread to keep Wikipedia neutral as much as possible. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again;

  • Yes, I checked your edit history as I was slightly suspicious of your behavior given your assertions about OKO. This led to me finding your WP:OR regarding Kalinin. I’ve addressed it at the talk page, if you have a source backing your claim feel free to add it but the source you utilized doesn’t.
  • More PAs/violations of AGF won’t help your case here. If you truly feel I’m in the wrong, take it to WP:ANI and see what they think. Even without my “violations of neutrality,” the consensus thus far seems to heartily disagree with your assertions of “propaganda.”

  The Kip 00:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Having explicit political agenda doesn't make them (media) unreliable" true but on one condition: if there is no media monopoly in country or if opposite political media are not judged as unreliable. it means that political agenda in media is allowed only if media market is really and in reality free which is not a case in most countries including currently Poland. Jarek19800 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi everyone, I'm following the discussion and just wanted to add my 2 cents on the issue: OKO.press seems to be one of the media sitting on the fence when it comes to reliability. I read some of their articles (translated, though), but I cannot say that I have sufficient knowledge on the Polish media landscape to make a definitive call here. Why I am writing this comment is to say that reliability is not a black-or-white type question, as some articles may have a more political lean than others, reliability can depend on the contributor writing the specific piece, and finally, reliability changes over time.

  However, just to be on the cautious side, I suggest that we shouldn't use them as a sole or predominant source supporting the reliability of other sources, such as Visegrad 24 (because this is how the whole conversation began). Milentie Pokojni (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi I agree . it will put us forward until I will have time to present more comprehensive analisys of the total lack of reliability of oko press and open new thread. In meantime I found pretty reliable summary of current situation with media in Poland

  https://deadline.com/2024/03/poland-tvp-donald-tusk-recovering-1235844739/

  it is not perfect because forgets that for example in tv market we used to have 3 mainstream media Polsat- owned by Polish oligarch who was secret collaborator of communist secret police,TVN- owned by US left- wing owner and Public TV which was invaded and taken over in night by current left- wing govt security forces. by accident all 3 tv's are fiercely pro-government and have ca.95% of tv market. Conservative part of population which is not less than 30% has 5%. if this is media monopoly or not judge yourself Jarek19800 (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone CU watching this conversation? This discussion being found by three accounts, none newly created but with a total of only 30 edits between them, strains credulity. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable. I found a final proof supporting such verdict on their official page in english https://oko.press/about-us they say that they will in same way question and control any govt. in Poland current or future. It is proved drastic lie as you will not find even one article made by them with criticism on current govt.after 3 month of its activity but you will find in same time dozens on current opposition. it is manipulative, propaganda media so Generally unreliable is adequate verdict. Jarek19800 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

exxact citation is "We are a civic tool to control the government. The current one and every one after it." Jarek19800 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, bias does not automatically equal unreliability, and besides that,

I also propose to summarize and finish this conversation with verdict: Generally unreliable.

One editor cannot unilaterally label a source unreliable, especially when three other editors besides myself have come to the same conclusion that it is reliable. If you still fail to understand that, there may be other issues at play here. The Kip 02:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment for Jarek19800: A slight add-on to what The Kip noted. Wikipedia is based on a consensus between editors. You may want to check out that part of Wikipedia policy. Everything on Wikipedia is build by a community consensus between editors. No matter what happens, a discussion here won't end the world. A key thing here is Wikipedia is not about winning, but rather building and making a consensus, not based on the number of "votes" (commonly known as !votes), but rather based on the merits of their discussion.

This does not apply to this situation directly, but I wanted to point out the main theme of Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "truth". Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable by a secondary source. If you believe or know something to be true, but don't have a secondary source for it, it means nothing on Wikipedia. Again, not directly related to this situation, but a while ago, there was a confirmed instance of that ideology (based on community consensus) and I wrote up a short essay on it {Verifiability, not truth in action}. In that instance, a primary source confirmed new information after secondary sources had published the then-outdated information. After a long discussion occurred, it was found that Wikipedia needs to abide by the secondary sources and technically published a factually inaccurate table that was verifiable. I don't know if that was helpful or not, but hopefully it was. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully understand the concept of verifiability. if I say about truth I exactly have this meaning. mu beliefs are not important at all. I exactly gave min 2 undisputable examples that oko press itself directly writes" I am a liar, i was established to manipulate with fake news" It is a fact. no-one questioned that my links are unreal. It should give immediate effect of giving such verdict ( to get consensus). if my links are not true as experienced editors you should easily prove it. if verification is real than you should agree on consensus even if it is against your feelings. it is the logic you were kind to present which i fully agree. Jarek19800 (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter:, I feel as though WP:CIR may be taking effect here. The Kip 01:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

In discussion I found that you seem to put a big importance to examples of fake news as a proof of unreliability of the source. I was reluctant to this idea because I was afraid it will be hard to find facts given by mainstream media. Oko press is rather niche media in Poland and due to media monopoly mentioned by me earlier ,it rather favorized by other media platforms. Fortunately I quickly found some sound proofs as below. Good to notice that mainstream media like rmf,wp, rp.pl,money.pl confirmed lack of reliability of oko press. In min.one case court confirmed it. There is also interesting info on special treatment of negative comments by oko press (www.donald.pl)

https://www.tysol.pl/a74121-polacy-przepedzaja-kurdow-przez-rzeke-a-na-zdjeciu-litewski-slup-graniczny-fejk-dziennikarza-oko-press#.YYT_XnMK4hw.twitter

https://www.rp.pl/polityka/art1316381-godek-wygralam-w-trybie-wyborczym-z-oko-press

https://www.lasy.gov.pl/pl/informacje/aktualnosci/pellet-z-lasow-panstwowych

https://wykop.pl/link/5605383/obnazamy-fakenewsa-klamczuszki-z-oko-press

https://www.rmf24.pl/fakty/polska/news-oko-press-klamstwo-i-manipulacja,nId,7122926#crp_state=1

https://kresy.pl/wydarzenia/misiewicz-chcial-pozbawic-gen-skrzypczaka-stopnia-mon-dementuje-to-fejk/

https://www.gov.pl/web/udsc/oswiadczenie-ws-artykulu-portalu-okopress

https://www.donald.pl/artykuly/VZQaxXC6/to-tylko-teoria-zarzuca-okopress-lamanie-etyki-dziennikarskiej-i-kasowanie-komentarzy-pod-artykulem

https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/tylko-w-wp-trzy-falszywe-historie-wiceministra-patryk-jaki-odpiera-zarzuty-oko-press-skandal-absurd-kuriozum-6086449113904257a

https://www.money.pl/gospodarka/wiadomosci/artykul/sebastian-lukaszewicz-oko-press,152,0,2245272.html

https://www.press.pl/tresc/60211,oko_press-przeprosilo-konrada-wojciechowskiego_-_fakt_-prosi-o-wyjasnienia Jarek19800 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Jarek19800 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Books by Norman Finklestein

Norman Finklestein is a political scientist and activist. He writes on the Holocaust and the Israeli-Arab conflict. He has written a few books on the latter, and I wanted to know if they were reliable for verifying general statements in related articles due to their contentious and controversial nature.
Thanks, — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 23:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Caution While originally an academic, he has not held any academic position for decades (as far as I know) and he is indeed controversial. That doesn't mean he can't be right on fact, but probably wiser to have other sources to back it up. I wouldn't rely only on him, especially not for any contentious claim. Jeppiz (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  While I would agree that relying on him alone could be problematic, and I am in disagreement with a number of his views, the claim that he has not held any academic position for decades is incorrect even according to our own article on him. He left DePaul in 2007, and also taught in Turkey in 2014-15, I assume as a visiting lecturer. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to give a more specific answer without more specific information. He has written a number of works, and the fitness for citation may depend on which and in what context. For instance, some of his books were published with academic presses,, and university-press published books are usually the gold standards of reliability (though we continue to use a neutral tone in our writing and don't necessarily adopt the tone of the author, who in this case is known for a bold tone). That said, book reviews can provide additional information and may provide reasons for additional considerations, though be careful to comb thoroughly. A sample size of just one or two reviews (either negative or positive) may not capture the broad reception of books that have stirred as much attention as some of Finklestein's.

Being a published subject matter expert in general does lead us as Wikipedians to think other sources written by such an author are reliable, but at the same time, there is probably some wisdom in caution. The subject you are interested in citing his corpus for is designated a contentious topic, and Finkelstein has been considered a contentious man. In general, where academic scholarship is available, we'd do well to favor such over other sources, even ones written by academics (blog posts, to give a random example). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure why you think we should favor one side of a debate - talking about his older books here. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Biased perhaps but a perfectly respectable source, books such as Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict and Beyond Chutzpah are top drawer sources. That Israel and its supporters do not approve of him is immaterial. If some view is particularly contentious, it should be rather straightforward to back those up with secondary sources and if not then, attribute. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Caution/questionable reliability/GUNREL when it comes to facts: he has been credibly accused of questionable/misleading citations by Morris and others, has a high degree of bias bordering on fringe views (regarding Hezbollah, Hebdo, the Holocaust, and others) and has been highly controversial as a person. Some of his older works are of decent quality and can be used very selectively, but I would avoid citing him on anything in regards to law or the military due to a repeated failure to understand the subject appropriately, seen well in his coverage of the flotilla incident. FortunateSons (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Highly reliable source, his works are published by respected academic presses, such as University of California Press, and in peer-reviewed journals. His latest work, Gaza: An Inquest in to its Martyrdom, is from University of California Press. People not liking Finkelstein's positions is not relevant to this, he is absolutely a subject matter expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his academic works are WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The above comment is astounding in its attempt to dismiss one of the most cited scholars on the topic of Gaza because is is supposedly a "highly controversial person". Top tier source, and totally fine for usage here. If some source disagrees with him and it is of equal reliability then attribute the different views. nableezy - 20:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extreme caution - I'd avoid using him for anything beyond actual opinion; he's a wildly controversial resource, hasn't held a serious job in academia since the mid-2000s, and has genuinely fringe views on a variety of topics, including Holocaust denial and discredited anti-Semite David Irving and support for the October 7 attacks. There's very little reason to use him when far superior and less inflammatory sources, without fringe baggage, are widely available. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a straightforward BLP violation and if you do not substantiate the wildly inappropriate claim that the son of Holocaust survivors has denied it in any way I’ll be asking for a BLP and PIA ban in short order. nableezy - 15:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

His stance that Holocaust denial should be taught in schools by Holocaust deniers is absolutely, unequivocally fringe. That's what I'm referring to - well, that and supporting the "scholarship" of David Irving, which is pretty uniformly regarded to be discredited. That your first thought was to threaten a noticeboard report is really unfortunate. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. Like Chomsky, Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, whose whole life and scholarship reflects the impact of their witness, has no fear of fools, denialists. Their maniacal obsessions with apparently incongruent details in the Holocaust literature occasionally stimulates close re-examination of things by now taken for granted - not the holocaust in all of its overwhelming realities, but details in the narrative. Great scholars don't tremble and run. They chase down anomalies even among crank literature because their self-assurance about the general narrative will never be troubled by tidbits of discrepancy. That is not fringe. That is the pursuit of meticulousness, even when analysing motherlodes of bullshit (which is what Finkelstein in his analytical works on the endless misreportage of events in the I/P conflict, does professionally. Had you read that article carefully, you would have noted that its reasoning, far from being fringe, draws on the liberal tolerance of dissent, all the better to challenge it, espoused by John Stuart Mill. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This question should not be posed. Finkelstein is an outstanding historian of the I/P conflict, and like everyone else writing academically about it, he has a decided point of view. The refusal to allow him tenure against the consensus of his colleagues, under external pressure, in no way disqualifies him as an historian or political scientist. The University of California published, after a decade of ostracism, his work, Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom, and his earlier works were unconditionally supported by the founding father of Holocaust studies, Raul Hilberg. His citation index by peers shows the depth of the impact of his work Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

His view is you don't win a debate by shutting down the opposition, you win by proving it wrong. That isnt fringe, and it has nothing to do with his academically published works. nableezy - 04:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

It is absolutely fringe to suggest holocaust deniers should have any role in the education system whatsoever, let alone that holocaust denial should be taught in schools. And that's not the only thing he's fringe on - since being fired in the 2000s (he hasn't actually had a job in academia since - as of 2016, he had been unemployed for ten years, and he's not been employed since), his work and viewpoints have become increasingly problematic. This includes, as I listed above, the strong defense of David Irving (an unrepentant Holocaust denier whose works have been generally regarded as discredited), the advocacy for teaching holocaust denial in schools, a staunch defense of antisemitic tropes (specifically, justifying claims that the Jews "think they are better than other people", "talk about the Holocaust too much", and are "tapped into the networks of power and privilege") and more recently, the denial of any sexual violence during the October 7 attacks (which he also applauded and compared to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising). In other words: whatever credibility he had during his early academic career, it's been nearly two decades since he had a job in academia, and it really shows. Toa Nidhiki05 13:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Can't see anything there about his academically published works, see section title. Selfstudier (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't been in academia in nearly 20 years at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn’t true and his last book, again published by University of California Press, is from 2021. nableezy - 14:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

From the sourceI linked: "He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights." That's from December 2023. So I suppose he has been in academia, insofar as being an adjunct professor qualifies. I think broadly, my point still stands though - there's a clear divide between Finklestein's work before and after his leave from academia. Toa Nidhiki05 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

He was at Sakarya University Middle East Institute 2014–15. And he still is considered an expert source by the well regarded academic presses that publish his work, as recently as a book from the University of California Press in 2021. A scholar who is writing in the area of his expertise in works published by well regarded university presses is WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and no amount of whining about views you dont like changes that. nableezy - 14:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: You should strike the part where you say his views include Holocaust denial. That's a BLP violation because it's not true. He's the son of Holocaust survivors, he doesn't deny that the Holocaust happened. Levivich (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not say his views include Holocaust denial. I said he has fringe views on Holocaust denial, specifically that he supports teaching it in schools, and has publicly defended David Irving, a notorious Holocaust denier whose work has been discredited. I can clarify that specifically, but I have not accused him of being a Holocaust denier, and my wording was fairly careful, I think. Toa Nidhiki05 14:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok I appreciate the clarification, thanks. FWIW, the way it was phrased, I read it as you saying that "Holocaust denial" was one of the fringe views on a variety of subjects that he held, not that he held fringe views about Holocaust denial, but I understand what you mean. I'm not sure his views are actually fringe (as opposed to a significant minority viewpoint), but I agree that's not a blpvio. Levivich (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. He's a major political scientist, his book The Holocaust Industry has 900 Google Scholar cites [2], he has written other works that are also widely cited and well-reviewed, he is a bona fide scholar in the field. Being "controversial" does not make someone unreliable, and pretty much all high-profile scholars are controversial, like Benny Morris, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Elie Wiesel, and James Flynn come to mind. That doesn't mean we say things in Wikivoice just because Finkelstein wrote them, but Finkelstein's works are definitely WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

These 900 citations confirm that The Holocaust Industry was culturally important, but not that he is seen as serious from a scholarly point of view. I looked at one of t he first page hits at random (Byfield on conspiracy theories) and the reference to Finkelstein was about his work being used to legitimate antisemitism. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

900 citations doesn't mean it's the mainstream view, but it DOES mean that it's taken seriously. If it wasn't taken seriously, it wouldn't have been cited so many times! Even if all 900 citations are debunking Finkelstein (and of course they're not), it would still show he was taken seriously, seriously enough to be thoroughly debunked. Benny Morris is a direct parallel: widely cited, very often to be criticized, but still widely cited. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Extreme caution: Extremely controversial and increasingly fringe. His early work is definitely noteworthy in relevant debates, but his views should always be attributed and his work in the last decade or two would rarely be noteworthy. For recent positions, use secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using. BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

  In what world is this not a serious academic work that is noteworthy? That, from 2021, has 59 google scholar citations. Image and Reality, from 2003, has 470 scholar citations. How does a scholar with these many scholarly works cited this often in other scholarly works add up to "secondary sources to ascertain noteworthiness before using"? He is the secondary source, and he is an expert one, and treated as an expert by both the well regarded academic presses that publish his work and by the scholars that cite it. All of the objections here are on the basis of not liking his views, and that is not, and has never been, an acceptable criteria for reliability. An academic expert writing in a book published by a well regarded university press is a reliable source by definition, and no amount of baseless personal opinion on [e]xtremely controversial and increasingly fringe trumps that. If somebody wants to challenge a scholar writing in peer reviewed journals and books published by the University of California Press they can try that, but they are arguing in direct opposition to what WP:RS says. Which is rather surprising from you tbh. nableezy - 04:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Bob. Finkelstein gets its in the neck from the left and the right. The left hate his polemic against Wokism and the BDS movement, the right, or rather, people who skimread only with eyes for possible political fallout for Israel, can't come up with any serious evidence outlining some putative failure on Finkelstein's part to observe the strictest criteria for closely documenting from the historical record. It all boils down to "instrumentalisation". Finkelstein, also as the son of Holocaust survivors, one of whom got a mere pittance from Jewish institutions lucratively sueing banks, argues that Holocaust discourse is 'instrumentalized'. Enzo Traverso and others ply the worry bead that Finkelstein's results might be "instrumentalized" by antisemites. So one gets the absurd situation that if one analyses the way the Holocaust discourse is being "instrumentalised" you get attacked for providing possible grounds for antisemites to "instrumentalize" your results. So it is no longer the merits or otherwise of a 'forensic' scholarly study of a phenomenon that receive attention, but the politics of the way that critical knowledge may be manipulated and abused. Of the handful of names who count in evaluating his book on The Holocaust Industry what sticks out are the assessments by the former doyen of the discipline,Raul Hilberg (Hilberg was a Republican-voting political conservative whose methodological and empirical integrity was underlined by the fact that he defended the views of an ex-Maoist like Finkelstein, whose scholarship was judged of a high order and whose 'controversial' results he deemed 'conservative') and by Moshe Zuckermann, against their informed authority we then get a list of take-'em-or-leav'em newspaper opinionists like Jonathan Friedman, and some empty dismissive obiter dicta hearsay about Hans Mommsen. In the wiki list, the only serious scholar who challenges Finkelstein's work in terms of imputed flaws, is Peter Novick. Good, finally an evaluation that is not just shouting, but scholarly. Finkelstein duly replied, point by point. That is how serious scholarship works, beyond the breezy screedy argie-bargie of casual newspaper-type reviews which our page on the book selects, to give the impression he is 'controversial'. I don't get the impression here that many commenting editors are familiar with the field, let alone Finkelstein's work, as opposed with what can be googled up searching for polemical negativism about the man and his scholarship. He is a loner, deprived of an income for having written uncomfortable books on a topic where vast financial resources will guarantee one's career and professional security if one cautiously steps tippity-toe round the minefield of discourse on Israel , the Holocaust, where the only trump card invariably played is to accuse anyone diffident about the homely narrativization of the politics of an ethnic state and its 'normalcy' is 'antisemitism'. That is what your extreme caution really refers to in my view, extreme caution about allowing the factual record produced, for example, by Finkelstein in his recent Inquest into the Tragedy of Gaza', to get an airing. Very few reviews could elicit any notable distortion in his analysis of the facts laid out there. Nishidani (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There is already enough text in this section so I won't extend this debate, but just note that I strongly take exception to your second guessing my motivations to assume bad faith and that my judgement on his reliability is a demand that facts not get an airing. That's just not true and bad WP etiquette. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Why do you highlight Moshe Zuckermann as particularly notable? His citation metrics seem low-middling, including in contrast to some other reviewers, but perhaps I'm missing some other indication of his high relevance here. Freelance-frank (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Serious scholarship, a bit too strident for the taste of many but passes RS. Attribute opinions as always. Zero^talk 12:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Reliable. Not just reliable, but he is among the best sources you can get on Israel/Palestine. His scholarship is based on detailed, painstaking research that few can match. BTW, I don't think he is attacking Wokeism, but rather the (obvious) sloppy reasoning that its activists sometimes use. --NSH001 (talk)
• Caution/Questionably reliable -- per FortunateSons and frankly per his own article's criticism section of him. At a bare minimum it would require attribution and probably should be avoided on contentious topics. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes no sense. He is an acknowledged scholarly authority on, precisely, a 'contentious topic' .Nishidani (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

People don’t like his views so they pretend that’s a basis for challenging his reliability. It isn’t and never has been. nableezy - 17:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a very unfair characterization of people objecting to his use as a reliable source. How does that productively contribute to this discussion? Toa Nidhiki05 18:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a fair characterization when there are editors voting that Finkelstein is not reliable, not based on evidence of his unreliability, but on evidence that he holds controversial views. Has he ever made a factual claim that was debunked? Has his work ever had to be retracted? Is his work widely cited by other scholars? Etc., etc. The fact that he says, e.g., Israel is a Jewish supremacist state, or that there is a Holocaust industry exploiting the Holocaust, makes him controversial but not unreliable. Levivich (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Well obviously he's said things that are untrue - like, for example, that no people were raped on October 7, and that no children were taken hostage, or that David Irving - a notorious Holocaust denier and discredited academic - was an excellent historian. But these don't directly relate to his academic career, I'll admit. Here's a counter: has his work in the last two decades out of academia been deemed widely cited and reliable? Even he admitted in the interview I've posted several times that nobody cared about his 2019 book, which sold a few hundred copies. I don't have an issue with his early career, insomuch as his very public, non-academic descent into some very dark places in the last two decades. Simply put: there are dozens of credible historians who don't have the specific bias problems or extreme viewpoints Finklestein does, and would be far better served as reputable sources in his place. There may be circumstances where Finklestein's opinion is noteworthy, but that's as an opinion, not an objective source of fact. I think that's a fairly nuanced take. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I’ve posted the citations to his 2021 work published by University of California Press already. nableezy - 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And I'll say it again: if Finkelstein is unreliable because of the controversial views he holds, then Benny Morris must also be unreliable because of the controversial views he holds (like, "they should have finished the ethnic cleansing"). But of course that's not how WP:RS works. Levivich (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a discussion about Norman Finkelstein, not other people. I wouldn't be inclined to think anyone who supports ethnic cleansing should be regarded as a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

(replying to both here) In both cases, you're judging a source's reliability based on the opinions the author holds. The idea that we shouldn't use a source because we disagree with the author's opinion is totally wrong, that's nothing but censorship. Finkelstein's comments about Oct. 7 have absolutely zero relevance to whether his works prior to then, e.g. 2000's The Holocaust Industry, are reliable or not.

"deemed widely cited and reliable" is such a nonsense phrase, Toa. You know damn well that nobody "deems" works to be "widely cited and reliable" ... well, except Wikipedia.

But yes, his works have been widely cited. I already linked to Holocaust Industry's 950 citations. His 2018 book Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom has 59 Google scholar cites, not exactly overwhelming, but certainly enough to call it "widely cited" (in this field), and it's been favorably reviewed (see cites in the Wikipedia article).

More impressive is his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah, which has 358 Google Scholar cites.

So, yeah, still a scholar, still widely cited, and his controversial opinions are not a reason to call him unreliable in the Wikipedia sense. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Relative to academic historians in the field, 59 citations doesn't actually seem like a lot. Your other example is from his academic time, which I'm not contesting. Aren't there other historians who have actually been in academia in the last two decades, without a track record of genuinely inflammatory remarks (again, the David Irving thing - I've not seen a response to this, at all, but defending his status as a historian is a very, very big red flag. He's widely and uniformly regarded not just as a Holocaust denier, but a fraud). I would say the same thing about a historian from the Israeli side with a similar record, too - there is no shortage of academic work on this matter. Toa Nidhiki05 18:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Which books not reliable, according to you? Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would consider his post-academic body of work one that should be used with extreme caution. I believe I've said this multiple times now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

So not this one? 2012: Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel is Coming to an End, OR Books, New York (2012) ISBN 978-1-935928-77-5 which seems right on the money, at least going by the title.

Just to be clear, you assert that all of his published material since 2007? is unreliable? Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

His 2018 Gaza book getting 59 cites is not a lot but it's not nothing, either. For comparison, Ilan Pappe's 2017 book about Gaza has 91 cites. Levivich (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Serious caution and consider WP:DUE weight As best as I’m aware, Finkelstein’s work, while high-profile, is highly controversial and does not always represent academic consensus. As such, it probably shouldn’t be used without attribution, or even with it without consulting opposing views and ensuring due weight.

If NPOV policy and DUE mean that WP is nothing but an establishment mouthpiece, so be it. There are limits to our discretion in generating a big picture from raw data because we are a tertiary or sometimes even quaternary source. I believe there’s an essay about it somewhere (actually multiple iirc).

Further information: Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair

and its reference list

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Follow Wikipedia sourcing guidelines - exercise caution. It's hard to respond to such a general question, but it's clear that he disagrees sharply with many no less eminent scholars. Therefore we should not assume that whatever he wrote represents the scholarly consensus and should seek other voices. Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Unreliable specifically regarding American Holocaust consciousness from 1948-1967 as argued in The Holocaust Industry. Finkelstein and Novick both played a role in promoting and popularizing this idea, but reviewers of Hasia Diner's 2009 book We Remember with Reverence and Love universally suggest that this conception lacked substantive empirical backing to start with and has been dispatched by Diner's work. For instance, Kevin Spicer in his American Historical Review piece says: "In this work, Hasia R. Diner dismantles the claim promoted by Peter Novick and Norman G. Finkelstein, among others, that American Jews 'made little of the Holocaust, pushing it to the hidden corners and indeed, under the rug of their communal lives' until the 1961 Adolf Eichmann trial, which brought the horrors of the Nazi period into prominent focus (p. 4). By contrast, through extensive archival research Diner more than convincingly reveals the opposite." Henry L. Feingold in the Journal of American History concurs that Diner "completes the process of putting those false charges to rest", while Stephen J. Feingold in the American Historical Review states that "the evidence... is quite overwhelming. So resourcefully has Diner tracked down sermons and song lyrics, posters and programs, that this reviewer finds it hard to imagine any future historians continuing to perpetuate the claims that an explicit communal consciousness of the Holocaust did not really surface until the 1960s."

For what it is worth, scholars questioned Finkelstein's spotty archival work shortly after publication of THI. David Cesarani points out many major productions and publications Finkelstein missed or downplayed in his 2000 review for Times Higher Education alongside other critiques, for instance. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement from other scholars is not a case for unreliability. Zero^talk 07:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

True, but widespread disagreement from actual Holocaust scholars should make us use him as a source on the Holocaust only with extreme caution and attribution, making sure to triangulate with other scholars. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein is an actual Holocaust scholar, and this effort to redefine scholar to only include people you agree with is not in keeping with WP policies and guidelines. nableezy - 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finklestein is not, in fact, a Holocaust scholar. WWII/ Holocaust scholars roundly reject the work of Holocaust denier David Irving, who Finklestein regards as a great scholar. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if anybody is citing David Irving, so I dont see the relevance, but Finkelstein's work The Holocaust Industry received positive reviews from Raul Hilberg for example. Yes it also had negative reviews, but so do most academic works. That doesnt diminish that they are works of scholarships written by scholars. nableezy - 16:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's true that Hilberg (a great Holocaust scholar) did to some endorse Finkelstein's book, but he is an outlier. Finkelstein was a scholar of the reception of the Holocaust, not of the Holocaust itself. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Is, but sure fine on the rest of the statement. nableezy - 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein could think Hitler was a swell guy, it would still have nothing to do with the reliability of his published works. The way we know that The Holocaust Industry is an WP:RS is all the journal reviews and the 900+ citations. "The author has an opinion that's wrong, therefore his works are unreliable" is just nonsense. To show unreliability, you'd need to show his work being debunked, not his opinions being unpopular. Levivich (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's true of every author. That doesn't make an author not an WP:RS. Again, Benny Morris is the quintessential example of an RS that most scholars in the field disagree with strongly, but still an RS. Scholars disagree with each other, it's what they do. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Finkelstein's self-description is that he is not a scholar of the Holocaust itself, but only of its popular interpretations and uses. When pressed in 2015 on his figures by Medhi Hassan, he says: "I don't claim at all to be an authority on the Nazi holocaust. The book The Holocaust Industry is not about the Nazi holocaust. It's a book about how the holocaust has been rendered in popular opinion and in so-called scholarship." Of course, I argue that he makes errors beyond this, but at the very least he says himself not to be a scholar of the Nazi genocide (though he defends the statements he makes, naturally). Freelance-frank (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To ground this more concretely in guidelines, a quote from WP:RSAGE: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed.... Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." I argue that a statement from a review like the one I quote above indicates such a development ("...this reviewer finds it hard to imagine any future historians continuing to perpetuate the claims..."), which is a statement on both academic consensus and validity of the older argument.

The next paragraph says, "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate), and primary sources which purport to debunk a long-standing consensus or introduce a new discovery". I argue that this is not an issue with Diner's book based on the following parenthetical, which suggests "awaiting reviews that validate the methods". The three reviews satisfy this. Freelance-frank (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable: as an exceptionally knowledgeable subject-matter expect. I find it surprising to even see this questioned. If his views are left field then they should be attributed, as should any views, from anyone. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Most arguments made above are rather poor and miss the point, and that applies to both the arguments for and against Finkelstein. The real question should be on his academic credentials. There as well, there are pros and cons. In his favour, his books are often published by high quality academic publishing houses, that definitely helps. Against him, he has not held any academic position for a very long time. Those aspects should both be weighed, but whether he is controversial or not is not the question (or should not be). The question is what his academic credentials are. Jeppiz (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Worth bearing in mind that his lack of tenure has itself been the source of controversy, see Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair, so a slightly murky and muddied metric in this case. Better to defer to his academic citations. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Dershowitz affair was nearly two decades ago. It would be silly to suggest his inability to find work in academia to this day is not because of that incident alone. Toa Nidhiki05 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  What do you mean, "his inability to find work in academia"? What is that based on? He publishes a book like almost every year. Levivich (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  He has not had a full-time job in academia since 2006, Levivich. Toa Nidhiki05 18:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  He hasn’t held a steady academic job since DePaul University denied him tenure under political pressure in 2007. Now, after years of sporadic work and low pay as an adjunct, Finkelstein is suddenly spending ten hours a day fielding emails from people clamoring for his insights.

  "People clamoring for his insights" ... hmmmmm... Levivich (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Does it define who these people are? But again, like I said before, he doesn't work in academia and hasn't in several decades. That is a mark against him. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Publishing academic books counts as working in academia. And the same source you cited says he has worked at universities, but sporadically and as a low paid adjunct, since being denied tenure. That isn't "not working" that's "working." Also, he was denied tenure in 2007; that's not "several decades" ago, it's 16 years. You are not being accurate in your statements here. And his subsequent employment history has no bearing anyway on the reliability of his published works. Levivich (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  And he has held multiple academic posts since then. nableezy - 17:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Which academic positions has he held since 2007? Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  At Sakarya University Middle East Institute from 2014-15. nableezy - 22:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's an honest mistake, but teaching for a year at a university is not the same as holding an academic position. I can understand the confusion, but lots of universities have occasional lecturers who may teach for a semester or a couple of semesters, but who are not part of the faculty. There is no indication Finkelstein ever held a faculty position at Sakarya. Also, as you wrote that he has held "multiple academic posts", could you please name the others you had in mind? Jeppiz (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  That Finkelstein's academic career prospects were crushed by political pressure which led the university to ignore the very strong support he had both from faculty and his students in favour of tenure is well known, not controversial. When you are denied tenure, and your teaching terminated, it virtually condemns you to unemployment because any other university mulling hiring him would have to evaluate whether the inevitable public (sectorial) outcry and hullabaloo was worth the candle. When 11 years later, the University of California published his book on Gaza's Martyrdom, it flagged an acknowledgemen that his scholarship was still of the fine order demanded by that high quality academic publisher. There's no need to rub his face into the ground remarking on his poverty, unemployed status as if he were somewhow culpable. Most academics get their Phd published to secure tenure, and, once secure, enjoy their sinecures and leisurely teaching. It takes an exceptional character to bear the humiliation he suffered and still persist in the careful scholarship he manages to sustain even in very difficult personal circumstances. Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thats just silly, I didnt say he was part of the faculty, but an adjunct professor is an academic position. I may have been mistaken on multiple however, seem to recall reading about a position in Europe but I cant find it now. But regardless, he continues to be treated as an academic expert by well regarded publishers, like the University of California Press. Unless you are of the belief that just any random schmuck can get through their review process? nableezy - 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Academic credentials, at least as far as professorship alone, do not seem to be terribly useful indicators of reliability. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, aren't their creationist and climate-denying and heavens-knows-what-else professors out there? And of course, Alan Dershowitz has tenure ... Iskandar323 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  How about publishing works through prestigious university presses? nableezy - 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's definitely not nothing, but heaps of academic garbage get through peer review, with that problem more acute in some circles than others. The arguments above about citation metrics are somewhat more compelling to me than the argument about peer review alone since high citation metrics suggest people (whether in agreement, disagreement, or ridicule) at least seek fit to reference Finkelstein's work. Regarding his I/P books, plenty of the citations are to heavy hitters who I assume are referencing Finkelstein substantively. Exploration not only of the numbers, but also highlighting of some of the individuals using Finkelstein and how they are using him might improve the arguments so far, as would discussion of reviews. From poking around a little, there are some nice reviews one could reference, though some of the reviews themselves underline Finkelstein's presence at only the margins of academic discourse. Freelance-frank (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Scholarship reliable This is a malformed request, because questions of source reliability go beyond authorship and include considerations of peer-review, editorial board review, and publisher oversight. Nevertheless, where Finkelstein has been published by an academic press there is no doubt his books or journal publications are highly reliable on the topic. His work is rigorous and maintains a close and careful attention to detail. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The Athletic

The Athletic (theathletic.com  ) is a sports website that has been cited nearly 6,000 times on Wikipedia, but I have yet to see it in the perennial sources list. Opening this discussion to seek consensus on the reliability of The Athletic; I hold that it is generally reliable, but consideration should be made for opinion pieces, which is why I have taken this source to RSN.

A note that The Athletic, though it is owned by The New York Times Company and replaced The New York Times's sports department last year, is not held to the same editorial standards as the Times. The Athletic's editorial guidelines can be found here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC: The Athletic

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No one disputes the reliability of The Athletic and no one thinks an RfC was necessary to establish this. --JBL (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

What is the reliability of The Athletic?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (The Athletic)

• Option 1. However, it has the caveat that its articles are often mixtures of opinion and fact, and care needs to be taken to distinguish between the two.Boynamedsue (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Owned by The New York Times, is consistently cited by other reliable sources in their own reports. See [3], [4] and [5]. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. Thoroughly reliable in its news coverage, and its writers distinguish between fact and opinion. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• It's reliable but just to be clear, it won't be entering the RSP list if that's what you were implying/expecting, due to failure of WP:RSPCRITERIA. I don't see any evidence that this source has been perennially challenged, and being widely-used is not in and of itself sufficient grounds for list inclusion. Left guide (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the criteria you linked, an uninterrupted RFC is sufficient. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 04:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems like an interpretation of the criteria in a way that it was never meant to serve, and a misuse of the purpose of the RSP list. Where has the reliability of the source been legitimately challenged or questioned before? If everyone already agrees it's reliable and there has never been a reason to challenge it, we don't need an RSP entry to affirm that. Being omitted from the list doesn't make it any less reliable. We don't just add entries to the RSP list willy-nilly like this; it's already long enough as it is, and this sets a bad precedent. Please also see the explanations at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 318#ESPN and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 319#ESPN ( www.espn.com ), which refers to a similar type of source (widely-used sports journalism outlet that virtually everyone already agrees is reliable) for why this isn't RSP-worthy. Left guide (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1. The Athletic is what Sports Illustrated used to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 per all above. One of the better sports-journalism sites out there. The Kip 07:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1. The Athletic is quite good, and has the sort of detailed sports reporting that is increasingly rarer. It is written with the tone and style of a magazine, so it can have some flavor and opinion to its writing, but I trust that Wikipedians will know when to not treat hyperbole, metaphor, or other forms of figurative language as if they were intended to be read literally, and won't treat statements of opinion as fact. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1, highly regarded sports journalism. It's not at all clear there's any serious dispute to address here - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Reject RfC as unnecessary Mach61 21:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This should probably have been rejected as no reason was given as to why it should be unreliable. But anyway, Option 1; well-regarded online news source with some excellent journalists. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC as The Athletic is effectively the sports section of the New York Times. [6] No new RSP entry should be made on this RfC and The Athletic can be contained within the entry on the New York Times. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  It has many years of history before ownership by The New York Times, which is worth considering independently. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 – As the sports department of the New York Times, I am convinced. As per before the acquisition, it was well-known and widely cited, and I couldn't find any actual criticism of its reporting. TLA^tlak 13:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• Unnecessary RfC, for the reasons Left guide indicated. WP:RSP documents sources there have been perennial discussions about. Frequent use on its own doesn't make addition necessary. CBS News is cited thousands of times without being on WP:RSP, likewise with PBS NewsHour. In the absence of major, perennial disagreements about reliability, this seems like a way to bloat the list. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• Unnecessary and unneeded There's no need to start an RFC unless previous discussions have come to an unambiguous conclusion (as I'm typing this the edit box specifically warns "RFCs should only be started if there have been previous discussions."), and RSP is only for perennial sources. There have been many discussions and even RFCs without sources being added to the list. It is not a compete listing and never attempts to be. Unless there is serious opposition to this source, or some other contention, this isn't needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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: Allkpop

What is the reliability of Allkpop for K-pop-related articles?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Allkpop is the English-language K-pop and celebrity gossip site and fan blog owned by 6Theory Media, which also owns Tokyohive. The site contains extensive Korean culture-related news coverage and rumours that are aimed at non-Korean audiences, this does not itself as a generally reliable source and also claims to be cited by major news organizations. They also made occasional interviews and special reports, which counts as first-hand journalism. It also licensed to stream MAMA Awards. I consider the site itself was generally unreliable for K-pop articles.

allkpop.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com sjh (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You should provide more context but here's all the previous discussions that are about allkpop: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

It's also listed under WP:WikiProject_Korea/Reliable_sources#UR as being unreliable although that's just a Wikiproject. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Traumnovelle: Some articles like this are poor for using as a source. Although this site publishes rumours and conjecture in addition to accurately reported facts, however, some information on this site may or may not be true and Allkpop makes no warranty as to the validity of the claims. sjh (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If the site itself doesn't consider itself reliable I fail to see how it can be considered reliable for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

“Makes no warranty as to validity” is just a standard legalese disclaimer; websites of many RS have similar disclaimers. Judge reliability based on substance. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Allkpop)

Let's see... this article describes Allkpop as the "latest celebrity gossips and news" and the website claims to be "the premier source for all the latest K-pop celebrity gossip and news". This website is generally unreliable (option 3), and for the love of God, please do not use this in a BLP. That's a disaster waiting to happen. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 12:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: That's fine if other reliable sources like this can be used in a BLP too. sjh (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I Agree with @Davest3r08Davest3r08 Slacker13 (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 3: Super Unreliable. WikiProject Korea deems it unreliable and it is a celebrity gossip site. Definitely should not be used in BLPs, like ever. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 3 - generally unreliable:. Per various arguments provided above. Shadowwarrior8 Shadowwarrior8 21:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Allkpop)

Hi SarahJH07, I've removed "RfC:" from the section heading to prevent confusion since this discussion was not set up as a formal request for comment, which would solicit input from editors through the feedback request service. If you would like to make this discussion a request for comment, please apply the {{rfc}} template to this discussion according to the instructions at WP:RFCST and add "RfC:" back to the section heading. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 21:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The Shortcut: reliable source?

The author would be Matt Swider, who created this site on November 8, 2021. He has 25 years of experience being a renowned technology journalist, is the former US Editor-in-Chief of TechRadar and is among the top tech reporters in the US on Twitter. He has his journalism degree from Penn State University and launched Gaming Target while also contributing to publications Ars Technica, G4TV, GamePro, PlayStation: The Official Magazine and even some local US newspapers. https://www.theshortcut.com/about

I want to highlight, that my intention is to add this source to the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Baby_Inc%2E to add the relevant addition of targeted harassment by Sweet Baby Inc. employees to a specific user and the ban of this employee by this action on twitter as the source of the controversy, not any form of opinion by the article itself. The sole purpose of the source "The Shortcut" would be simply as a secondary source (WP:PSTS) to explain the facts.

It is in this function a material cited to produce a more neutral perspective on the whole controversy, because other reliable articles try to state bias opinions of the authors about the ideology of members of this group as facts about the origin of this whole controversy. To solve this Problem:(WP:ACHIEVE NPOV) Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective.

To allow a neutral perspective, it is necessary to highlight the whole context of the source of the controversy. The controversy happen over the things Sweet baby employees have done on Twitter prior to it. Without this information the whole topic can only be based on bias opinions. The text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact. It is a fact, what a certain individual wrote on twitter and how twitter reacted to this comment. It is not a fact, what an author want to see as the political or social source for the support of a group afterward. This can be mentioned in a neutral manner after a statement of the fact, that it was not the actual source of the controversy.

i want to highlight, that this is my first post on this board. This post was created after a talk about this source with the user Rhain on his talk-page and after his suggestion to post this to this board. --2003:DF:A715:5000:C8E3:2AB:2B62:BBDA (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems quite doubtful this is an RS we could use on Sweet Baby Inc. The about page makes it clear their focus is on 'pass on that time-and-money-saving information to people in their inboxes, like any good journalist would want to do'. Their are some mention of reviews, but it's not the main focus and even for reviews they say 'Brevity – no one wants to read a 10,000-word review. Often, people just want to ask: “Is this good? Should I buy something else?”' While they do mention 'independent journalism', whatever the credentials of their writers and editorial team, there's barely any mention of any focus of the site on the sort of more basic journalism needed to cover anything remotely contentious so I think there's strong reasons to doubt they do a good job at it. The site may or may not be okay for opinions on reviewed products, and for info on stocks levels etc. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd add while perhaps they're not a pure WP:SPS like most Substacks are since they have an editorial team, I'm not totally convinced it's the sort of editorial oversight we'd expect, especially when it comes to anything involving living persons. I mean their 'senior editor' seems to be the writer of an awful lot of articles covering contentious stuff [13] making it very unclear who's the one who actually reviews these sort of things. Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I just want to highlight, that the opinions of the site and their editorial actions is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS, but i want to stress, that this source could be used as a secondary source (WP:PSTS) for specific and vital parts of the controversy to achieve NPOV. WP:BLPSPS is probably the case for the article opinion, but not in the specific small content, that would be used as a source, because the article is the source of material about a living person, that was original written and published by the person themself (WP:BLPSELFPUB). The Shortcut would only be the secondary source of this self-published, primary source to avoid WP:TWITTER-EL

--2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To make it a bit easier to understand. I could misunderstand something. But to quote WP:PSTS:

WP:SECONDARY

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

The Reliability is necessary to insert an analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim of the secondary source.

WP:PRIMARY

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I just want to use the primary source in the secondary source without inserting strictly any form of analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim by the secondary source to remain in the primary policy. 2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

" mean their 'senior editor' seems to be the writer of an awful lot of articles covering contentious stuff"

Would like to add Wikipedia isalready using alot of journalistic sources that has senior editors that do the same thing 2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:5129:3CA4:1A94:B21A (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

While I don't think The Shortcut is a good source for reasons already stated, this is kind of a fair point. I mean, this all kicked off from that Sweet Baby stuff and the Kotaku source article was also written by one of their Seniors Editors. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The Shortcut currently appear to have two articles directly about Sweet Baby Inc. They are; Sweet Baby Inc. detected: What actually happened and why should you care?, and Sweet Baby Inc.'s Wikipedia page is missing key facts – here's the unbiased context. There is also one other article that mentions Sweet Baby Inc in passing. All three were written by the same author, Adam Vjestica, formerly a writer turned hardware editor for TechRadar, and current senior editor at The Shortcut.

I would be sceptical of ruling this source reliable, solely for the purpose of laundering screenshots that purport to be tweets made by staff employed by Sweet Baby Inc. Even if it were reliable, there would be a question of whether this actually constitutes due or undue weight that would need to be assessed at the article's talk page. They are asserting certain things as factual that no reliable source that I've read about the recent events have asserted, while also downplaying the intense level of harassment and doxing attempts made against the company and its staff. However some of it does match with what some unreliable culture war focused sources, like Bounding into Comics, FandomWire, and That Park Place have said. The first article by The Shortcut on the Sweet Baby Inc situation does come across as more than a bit like victim blaming, and their second one about our article on the company takes umbrage with our content, despite it being verifiable to actually reliable sources.

In terms of use by others, I've not been able to turn up anything substantial from a quick search, aside from one brief mention in an article by The Verge about Twitter restricting the reach of links to Substack. Nor have I been able to find any RS writing about the site in general. It's possible I'm using the wrong search terms though, given the publication's choice in name it's difficult to filter them from background noise about shortcuts in games, or use of shortcuts on computers. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That second article's claims that some of our article is incorrect—despite it being very clearly sourced to reliable sources—is certainly not helping its case. I would also hope that a news article claiming to have "the unbiased context" would do better than to present an out-of-context quote from the company's CEO about convincing employers to listen to one's ideas (as if that somehow proves the company is "forcing diversity"), or the completely unrelated quote from an "ex-employee" (former intern) whose comments have no relevance to the company whatsoever. The article also focuses on the accusations by "gamers" but does little to give any context from the other side (besides "journalists staunchly defend their version of events" and "this is something that Sweet Baby Inc. has denied"). Reliable sources are allowed to be biased but to claim you're not—while, in my opinion, proving otherwise—is not a good start. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Heh, I'm actually kinda sceptical of the research The Shortcut claims to have done. They said According to The Shortcut’s research, there was also no encouragement given to “avoid the games” that Sweet Baby Inc. had been involved in., which is odd considering the still live Steam curator group has sixteen reviews in it, all of which are "Not Recommended" because the involvement of Sweet Baby Inc in each game's development process. Now it's true that the curator's about description does say that it's a tracker for games involved with the company, but the researchers at The Shortcut clearly couldn't have looked too deep into the group as they clearly missed the reviews. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I just want to highlight, that the opinions of the site and their editorial actions is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS.

I once again state, that i honestly don't care about the opinions of editors of the Sweet baby Inc article on wikipedia or the opinion of The Shortcut to somehow push a claim, that one of these opinions about this controversy would be RS etc. This is not a topic to make critics about the articles of The Shortcut, explicit articles released after the opening of this topic.

In the same sense it is highly not NPOV to call tweets, made by a staff employed by Sweet Baby Inc only "purport" for this topic, while the actual RS used on the Sweet Baby Inc. here on Wikipedia article used the same account tweets and even some of the same tweets in their articles and even Wikipedia is using this right now to state facts in this article.

To claim at the same time, that these tweets would be WP:DUE is inconsistent as well, because it would make a large area of this topic in the Sweet baby Inc page about these tweets again on Wikipedia similar undue weight and it would have to be removed, thereby making the whole controversy missing a huge part of its origin.

it should be highlighted, that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game, it is the typical word used on Steam for any review. Maybe a lack of understanding about Steam gives you there a unjustified sceptical view.

--2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a topic to make critics about the articles of The Shortcut, explicit articles released after the opening of this topic. In this discussion, per your request, we are assessing the reliability of The Shortcut. This is absolutely the place for us to be critical about their content, whether or not it is factually correct, and whether or not they have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That is what this noticeboard does.

Now if you're asserting that The Shortcut is not a reliable source, then we don't really have anything more to discuss here. If it's not reliable, there's no way we would use it in any article, let alone one that's currently at the focal point of a controversy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

And my request was 3 times already to differ between primary facts in a single article and the opinions of the site and their editorial actions as this is not part of my question about RS, i am aware, that The Shortcut opinions are probably not RS, but i want to stress, that this source could be used for a primary source(WP:PSTS) for specific and vital parts of the controversy to achieve NPOV in a vocal point of a controversy.

I even explained this heavily with quotes by Wikipedia:

But to quote WP:PSTS:

WP:SECONDARY

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source.

The Reliability is necessary to insert an analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim of the secondary source.

WP:PRIMARY

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.

I just want to use the primary source in the secondary source without inserting strictly any form of analytic, evaluative, interpretive or synthetic claim by the secondary source to remain in the primary policy.

It is oblivious, that someone, who is trying to judge the same Tweets once as a fact and than as unreliable and as "purport" and than even tries to argue about WP:DUE ignores simply huge parts of this argument, that

a) these tweets are partly backed by already RS sources to be self-published primary source. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. WP:TWITTER-EL

b) ELNO#10 makes it necessary to give a different reliable source for the primary source, that the tweet in itself.

c) it is possible to use The Shortcut as a source for a primary source by simply following WP:Secondary Policy, to not make in the article an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim with The Shortcut, because it is not for itself a reliable secondary source. It still can be a reliable source of a primary source.

--2003:DF:A715:5000:21F2:F985:6D74:3A9E (talk) 05:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

to achieve NPOV NPOV does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. There is no need to compromise on sourcing standards to try to reach a balanced article. More generally, it seems it is indeed your hope to use the Shortcut to 'launder' the primary sources / tweets themselves (as Sideswipe9th mentions above), so you can then insert them into the article. This as a source for a primary source concept you have come up with is novel, but it is not supported by Wikipedia's policies in letter or in spirit. You're not going to find some loophole that lets you get tweets into the article no matter how much WP:WIKILAWYERING takes place, particularly not when you are conceding that The Shortcut is not a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

thx for linking these 2 links, as i am new to this format of writing, i will lay down my case and excuse my Lawyering, if it took place. But i will hint, that certain elements of this controversy is clearly a matter of WP:UNDUE or WP:FALSEBALANCE and despreatly need to be fixed.

For example: The curator group received increased attention in February when a Sweet Baby employee asked others to report it for failing Steam's code of conduct. in the article in question was for no reason altered from the actual RS quoted for it.

"They asked their followers to report it and its creator due to it failing Steam’s code of conduct," 93.237.171.157 (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you are new here, I'll mention that WP:REGISTER has some advantages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game Not only is a "not recommended" tag a clear recommendation to avoid the game, back at the end of February before the social media stuff happened the logo for the Sweet Baby Inc detected curator was the Sweet Baby Inc company logo with the red no symbol superimposed onto it. The curator list itself contains only games that Sweet Baby Inc have been involved with in some way, with verification taken from the company's website, newsletter, game credits, or in the case of one game a blog post by the game's primary developers saying they had brought in Sweet Baby Inc for narrative consultation. The curator list was very clearly intended to tell its followers to avoid games that this company had some sort of involvement in. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a typical example for the reason, why Editors, who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. One of these actions would be to demand, that you are in a similar discussion on the talk page on this article, that uses WP:PROVEIT for your argument, but ignore this policy in this case.

Once again you ignore the simple facts, that Steam calls any negative review a recommendation. The negative recommendation to a game in public is not a public statement to avoid it, even if this is claimed by others/you.

In the recommendation description is simply a link to the prove of involvement of the company in a game. This is not a statement to avoid the game.

The curator list was very clearly intend to list the games Sweet Baby Inc was involved in without even giving any reasoning for the dislike. The about page clearly state the actual purpose of the list to be a tracker for games involved with Sweet Baby Inc. 93.237.171.157 (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

and RS actual stated, that the curator list doesn't give a reasoning for the negative recommendation beyond a proof of their involvment. --93.237.171.157 (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

93.237, this would be so much easier if you just said exactly which source(s) you want to cite and what statement(s) you want to cite it/them for. Woodroar (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS - If you're going to accuse someone of blockable offenses, provide diffs. and reasoning.

Saying a game being tagged as "not recommended" by a steam curator means the curator isn't telling you to not buy the game is a terrible hill to pick to die on and hurts any arguments for inclusion on the source.

It is, in my opinion, an argument made in bad faith by the author that hurts the credibility of the article. Given people followed the group to know which games not to buy, I would go as far as to say the entire statement is irrelevant.

That being said, there may very well be statements inside that it can be sourced for which we needed the door to open on in a secondary source, which this is.

Maybe something in there is worth attributing to him, or is worth sourcing to the article as something that indisputably happened. I don't know what, but that's why we have the discussion process. I won't make a sweeping statement like "the entire thing has no value,"

It would be nice if you proposed some sentences or additions from the source, because right now, I don't think it's appropriate for every statement contained within. DarmaniLink (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

As someone who actually reads Steam reviews, I find the claim particularly funny. Perhaps it's just because of the games I'm checking out, but a fairly common review is one which starts off with something like "it's a pity Steam only allows me to recommend or not recommend since I don't feel either of those fit". To my mind, most people who actual use Steam reviews understand that not recommend is explicitly telling readers IMO this game is probably not worth playing and recommend is explicitly telling readers IMO this game might be worth playing. Of course since it's a binary you're forced to pick a side even when you're neutral or it's complicated. But the forum seems to have chosen the "don't play" side and with all the other stuff they say this isn't surprising since it's precisely how they feel. I'm guessing they didn't even start their reviews with the classic "I didn't actually want to pick a side" line I mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think even SBI's biggest detractors would claim the group isn't about telling people what games to avoid, that's what "not recommended" means. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

> ...that the review system of Steam doesn't give any other option of wording for a review, except recommendations and that a recommendation is not a call for avoiding a game

Reviews on the Steam Store page only allow positive or negative reviews. Curators on the other hand (such as Sweet Baby Inc Detected) have the option to give an 'Informational' review instead. At the current time they have 0 positive, 0 informational, and 16 negative reviews. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I missed this yesterday and don't pay much attention to curator reviews myself. It's even funnier than that an argument is being made that the negative review is not intended to recommend against the games. Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't really feel like wading through the knee-deep foul-smelling liquid that seems to surround this topic, but it seems really alarming and silly to suggest that we consider a source unreliable because it says that a Wikipedia article is wrong. It should not be our general practice to bury our heads in the sand like this. jp×g🗯️ 19:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

While I'll reiterate that I don't believe The Shortcut is reliable, I would agree with the above point that saying a Wikipedia article is wrong does not mean the source is unreliable. Some editors often like to cite Verifiability, not truth and it does apply.

To sidestep the whole Sweet Baby mess and give a less controversial example, it sometimes happens that only one or two reliable sources review a niche anime that was very popular and well received by users and most website reviews, but the Wikipedia page then says it was poorly received because two of the often cited approved reliable sources tend to have similar (and sometimes the same group of) writers who often rate anything with fanservice negatively.

Wikipedia will be wrong at times. Sources will be biased. Editors will be biased too. Sadly, we can only do what we can do. DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• I've not seen anyone suggest this. I certainly didn't. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that many arguing against here are the editors of mentioned page and has a conflict of interest and NPOV 2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:B1DE:39CE:CD20:A460 (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not what either of those terms mean. Editors familiar with the article are perfectly capable of evaluating its sources—sometimes especially so, considering their familiarity with the subject (though not always). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 10:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I would like to argue that since since The Shortcut has written an article that is against what the editors have written in the wikipage the editors have a special interest in getting it denied. 2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:3025:B178:5D26:80AD (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's best to assume good faith. Contributing to an article does not make an editor less qualified to judge a source and its editorial policies. Personally speaking, if something I have written is incorrect, I would like to see it corrected. Besides, several users who have not edited the article have already provided their thoughts too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The ediotors have also listed GY-Online as a source in the SBI wikipage, but havent used any information or quotes from it. 2001:9B1:CDC2:2400:3025:B178:5D26:80AD (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether or not The Shortcut is reliable. If you would like to discuss other sources used in the article, I would recommend finding other venues to do so. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this source is reliable when it comes to factual basis of the material. Other sources previously used in the article don't really affect reliability of this one for one simple reason - these sources, for the most part, don't even mention information used here, and when they do mention it, some part of information gets omitted. I don't think that information provided here contradicts any major points in previously used sources, please do correct me if I'm wrong - with citations. Cheers --Moon darker (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

My main issue is "to what extent is it reliable." We would probably have to use it with a caveat that any statement which would need to be attributed, so anything which doesn't reference a tweet or otherwise summarize primary source material should likely not be included. Which, I'm fine with. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

If a variety of reliable sources report on story elements A, B, C, D, E, and F, while one or two sources report on those plus G, there's a good chance that something is wrong with G. It may be incorrect, or it can't be corroborated, or it's simply irrelevant. Look, most journalists don't work in a vacuum. If they aren't reading the other articles, at least they know about them, and they're checking in with their own sources. The push for clicks and avoid getting scooped is real. That virtually all reliable sources covering a subject are ignoring some details is a good sign that we should, too. Woodroar (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Almost all articles that omitted the G predated ones that included the G, thus the whole point about vacuum is mostly irrelevant. Moreover,

• G can't be incorrect because it's a simple citation of a primary source
• It doesn't need to be corroborated because see p. 1
• It is relevant because it started the whole controversy in the first place

Moon darker (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, it's a citation to a primary source along with interpretation of that primary source. That is why it can be thought of as having a truth value and needing corroboration. Imagine I say "Magna Carta was first signed in 1215, and set the stage for video games some seven and a half centuries later." If someone says to me, "Wow, that's a really dumb thesis," a rejoinder of "but Magna Carta WAS signed in 1215!" is not exactly convincing. This also goes to your final point--it started the whole controversy in the first place according to whom? We have to approach Wikipedia articles as though behind a veil of ignorance (with apologies to John Rawls). If you come in knowing what an article should look like, you're bringing baggage. That doesn't mean you can't contribute, of course, it just means it is suboptimal. Then again, reasonable minds can certainly differ on any of these points. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Lets imagine both of us know absolutely nothing about the situation (did I understand your take on veil of ignorance correctly?).

We have 3 inseparable messages that set things in motion (all sources agree here, right?). Try to measure an emotional impact, on average, on a human being:

• The @Steam curator harassment group Sweet Baby Inc detected is lead by this person, @kabrutusrambo. Here's them trying to be slick so they don't get reported. Even with the discriminatory language filed off, the group itself still fails the code of conduct. (here we have dry, although loud, statements of facts, not much in terms of emotional load)
• anyway report the f**k out of this group (sudden change, but still, it's not a personal attack or anything like that, just a call for action on an inanimate object)
• and report the creator since he loves his account so much (now, this is both a personal attack and a threat to an account of a person who has invested in it for 13 years, as we know from a screenshot attached to a tweet. It might resonate with any normal human being, but it will certainly resonate with any gamer)

This primary source does not need an interpretation, it's a dry fact in the timeline of events: employee X stated Y1, Y2, Y3 which resulted in Z. The fact that reliable sources omit Y3 doesn't make it any less valuable than Y1 and Y2, that's just 3 parts of one statement. Do you really deem it suboptimal? There must be something really wrong with me, because I don't understand your point. It doesn't seem like not having any background knowledge on the topic makes things look any better in these tweets either. What is the justification for not including it besides "the sources we've already used don't include it for some reason", what IS the reason? If this tweet is so unimportant, maybe the gaming community wouldn't use it at all? How come nobody cares about the first two tweets, besides the statement about Steam CoC? Have a nice one. --Moon darker (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The "suboptimal" part is when an editor (and we all have been guilty of it from time to time) sets out to conform an article to what she "knows" happened. And that can be either a conscious or a subconscious tendency. From my point of view, nothing in the real world is as simple as "a + b resulted in c." There is an infinite chain of causation which led to a and b, and a context around c. Forgive my examples, but let me try one again: imagine you see a video of me yelling obscenities at and taking wild haymaker swings at a person. It would tend to make me look pretty bad. Now imagine another video of the same event, which shows that just prior, the target of my assaults spit on and said horrible things to my wife. The second video might not make you think I was justified in my reaction, but I think most people would agree that it would affect their view of the behavior. I guess in the end I am simply saying that a lot of perspectives can be brought to bear on an event. I know you have yours, and for all I know it is the correct one. But it simply isn't one that is currently shared by the reliable sources (though that may certainly change). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

the RS use din the article to quote her demand to close the group mentioned the same demand to the creator of the group, but this part of the sentence (and his creator) was not mentioned in wikipedia and it still remains not mentioned on the page.

(on the sidenote, it would be increadible easy to mention, that the account of the employee was banned to violating X-policies similar to the article already mentioned the changes to the discord/group functions for similar not clear defined violations)

For some reason some editors dont want it to be in the article, against the factual statements of both in RS. --2003:DF:A715:5000:6D2D:5361:A474:1C3E (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• The source doesn't seem to have meaningful WP:USEBYOTHERS or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so I don't see anything that would make them a high-quality RS - their own ABOUT page can't do it; being a RS is about their reputation, not what they say about themselves. Of course, reliability is contextual, so they might be usable for uncontroversial things. But they're definitely not usable on Sweet Baby Inc., a contentious topic; and the particular claims you want to use them for (implying specific individuals are guilty of harassment) is WP:BLP-sensitive besides, so it would require high-quality sourcing. The rationale you give for want to use them is backwards - WP:FALSEBALANCE doesn't allow us to put our "thumb" on the scale and use weaker sources in order to reach what some editors personally feel is a better or more accurate balance; it might feel balanced to you, but in practice approaching balance that way it means that you'd be introducing your own perspective to the article. We determine balance and WP:DUE weight by the weight in the best available sources, weighted according to their reliability and significance, not based on editors' personal views of the subject; if the best available sources don't cover something, the answer is not to dig for lower-quality ones. --Aquillion (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• They're probably marginally reliable for tech news, but I agree with Aquillion that they lack 'use by others' and a 'reputation for fact-checking and accuracy'. For basic tech news (launch dates, specifications, etc..) this would be fine, but reliability is contextual and the details in this particular use fall squarely in BLP territory. WP:BLP clearly states Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources, and in this case the sources does not meet that expectation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Entertainment coverage of the New York Post (including Decider and Page Six)

What is the reliability of entertainment coverage, including reviews, from the New York Post (nypost.com  ) and its sub-publications Decider (decider.com  ) and Page Six (pagesix.com  )?

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

— Newslinger talk 21:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Added Page Six to RfC question per Endwise's suggestion in the discussion section. In your response, please clearly specify the publication and/or sub-publications that your evaluation refers to, and the types of coverage (e.g. film reviews, celebrity news) that you are evaluating. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

• Option 3 or Option 4. There is no need to make a carveout for the New York Post. The Post's entertainment coverage is part of it being a gossip tabloid at absolute best. This is not a paper of quality or renown. Given that so much of its entertainment coverage is about living persons, and the previous RFC noted the Post's fondness for fabrication, allowing any such carveout is likely to be a WP:BLP danger. There's a consistent flow of fresh BLP-violating trash from the Post, especially from Page Six but also from the rest of the paper/site. I would suggest the safest thing is to deprecate its entertainment coverage entirely. At the least, we must note that the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• I don't know enough to speak on the Post, but for Decider, I'd say option 2. Some of their articles are clickbaity gossip and tend to over-dramatize stories (for instance, this), but those tend to fall under WP:TABLOID. On the other hand, they have some longer-form articles/interviews (example 1, example 2) and reviews (example) that seem perfectly fine and where I have no reason to suspect their reliability. Given that the least reliable articles seem to come from sources that shouldn't be used in any case, I see no reason to extend the "generally unreliable" moniker to all Decider articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. I've found the NY Post entertainment coverage to be mostly gossipy and i'd avoid it... In fact really all i would use the Post for is sports coverage, which is mostly ok as they employ some good sports writers.. everything else there I would avoid. Spanneraol (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Question - what does "entertainment" mean in this RFC? Celebrity gossip or film reviews?  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah... +1. For example this article from NYPost is a pretty standard concert review (not unlike other such reviews they post), and I'd have no issues with someone using it on Pixies (band). The celeb gossip crap posted on NYPost, Decider, and Pagesix.com is a different beast however and something I'd probably argue is generally unreliable. Endwise (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  I assumed we were talking about entertainment news reporting rather than reviews. Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC examines all entertainment coverage (including the entire scope of Decider) from these publications, which encompasses both film reviews and celebrity news. If you consider one of these publications to be more reliable for some topics than others, please say so. Please be detailed and specific in your responses, so the RfC closer can carefully evaluate the responses and give a comprehensive closing statement. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2, weakly – The Post is tabloid-y but entertainment as a whole has elements of tabloid-y content. For instance, if I was working on an article about internet slang such as Looksmaxxing, I wouldn't have much of an issue using The Post for some cultural reception info. Also concurring with Endwise, I wouldn't have an issue with it for music or a film review. Celeb gossip shouldn't really be used from any tabloid anyway? I don't know much to speak on the other ones. TLA^tlak 03:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 on Decider and Page Six. I can't find many (or any significant) examples of RS referencing its reporting based on a cursory Google News search for terms like "Decider reported" or "according to Decider", etc. That said, I also can't find any instances of its reporting being specifically identified as inaccurate or unreliable. Given that, I think Option 3 is the best bet. Chetsford (talk) 03:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC); edited

03:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 2. I understand why the New York Post can be problematic, but film/music/television/etc reviews are fine. I guess we have to explicitly allow that carve out so overzealous editors don't go around removing them. Jessintime (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Frankly I don't see the reason why reviews from well known film critics (like the Kyle Smith (critic) listed above) or interviews that asks the right questions cannot be used as a primary source just because they are posted onto an unreliable platform. S5A-0043^Talk 11:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. I'm the person who started the Decider question, as pointed out by the discussion below. Most of the entertainment articles from the sub-publications seem to be from established journalists so I do not have a problem with those, but if contentious claims are made, maybe using that source is not the best. It's kind of like the Screen Rant situation. Spinixster (chat!) 13:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Bad RfC. Because the general matter is already under discussion in the unclosed previous post, because a pro-censorship result on this guideline page is not policy and cannot override WP:NOTCENSORED, because it's not clear what's "entertainment" (to me sports is entertainment), because context matters; because blanket bans bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 Applies to Decider only. CapnZapp (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 They may not be reliable for facts but reviews are opinions. It's a case-by-case basis as to whether the review deserves inclusion such as the author and their credentials. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 5: No formal determination is necessary. Sometimes the paper has smart stuff in it, and sometimes it has dumb stuff in it. If people are incapable of understanding this, they shouldn't be writing encyclopedia articles. Moreover, there's no amount of bureaucratic source classification that's going to make them capable of doing so. jp×g🗯️ 19:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2: Only for entertainment proposes. Nothing more. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 I'd continue to steer far away from the Post for general news, especially politics and CTOPs; however, for entertainment news/reviews, the points raised by Jessintime and Traumnovelle stand. The Kip 06:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 (entertainment to be construed broadly and include sport and celebrity) their political issues are well known, but the points above, inclusion with attribution may be valid in cases where they aren’t highly controversial and the reviewer is acceptable. FortunateSons (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 I am not a fan of carveouts like this for sources that we already consider generally unreliable. The editorial standards for entertainment news are highly unlikely to be better than for any other topic, so what we're really saying here is that it matters less for the topic of entertainment than for other topics, and I don't really buy that. I also notice a lot of the "option 2" votes above really seem to be about reviews specifically, which are already allowed (with attribution) because they're opinion and not factual. I'd therefore say most of the option two arguments here fall under the "generally" in "Generally unreliable".----Licks-rocks (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - As per others, and to allow us to exercise judgement from time to time while avoiding automated or semi-automated censorship.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Reviews are inherently opinions even if they can be considered expert opinion. I don't see any reason why we would avoid using the NYP reviews but might use reviews from many other sources. For example, why refuse a NYP movie review but accept one from say a Huston news paper? BTW, this is also one of the flaws with our RSP blanket RfCs. They are often way too broad when we should be looking at claims on a case by case basis. Springee (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3. Of course exceptions can exist, just like for any unreliable source, but it's necessary to actually present and articulate those exceptions on a case-by-case basis; the default is unreliable. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on. In-text attribution alone is not a substitute for this reliability. And the Post doesn't reach that threshold - publication there, whether as a review or an opinion or whatever, confers no reliability. It can still be cited occasionally, but only in the same way that Reddit posts or YouTube videos or blogs or personal websites can be cited - publication there means nothing because they lack rigorous editorial controls and the reputation that would give their masthead meaning. And like those, that means the default can only be "unreliable." --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think "entertainment" is too broad a category. There's a massive difference between "review of a film/TV show" and "tabloid coverage of celebrities", both of which could fall under "entertainment". I wouldn't be particularly bothered if the NYPost's reviews were found to be usable, but I don't think this RfC should be taken as an endorsement of using tabloid gossip sources about celebrities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - The default is unreliable unless there is some reason to think otherwise. Everyone has an opinion. I certainly have never heard of the NYP as a goto source for entertainment (other than their often humorous views on politics and economics). O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I think this RfC as worded is maybe unnecessary. It seems clear the community thinks GUNREL sources like NYPost can still be usable (depending on context) for something like film/music reviews, but probably we should've already known that. I think a more useful consensus to come to for the actual issue at hand would've been something like "it is not appropriate for David Gerard to blanket delete all uses of NYPost without regard to the context, and he should stop". Endwise (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 Journalism is, by its nature, not highly reliable and so each case needs to be judged on its merits. Looking at a sample used in the article Entertainment Weekly, I'm not seeing any particular cause for concern. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 per Chetsford and Aquillion, basically. Entertainment news coverage must be evaluated by our standards for factual reporting, including WP:BLP, and there, the Post doesn't really have a leg to stand on. For reviews, as opposed to news, the default presumption should be that they are simply unnecessary. The case-by-case burden is on those who wish to include them. WP:RSOPINION content still requires some degree of reliability - we need to be confident that the source will not publish opinions that make egregiously incorrect statements, that they at least tend towards hiring people who know what they're talking about, and so on, as Aquillion argues. In broad strokes, opinions published in venues whose factual reporting is generally unreliable aren't opinions that we need to cover. If I'm a subject-matter expert in one area, my personal blog might be an acceptable source for exceedingly uncontroversial statements in that area, but there would still be no reason to cite my blog post reviewing a movie I happened to see. My blog would be "generally unreliable" outside very narrow limits; using it as a source for unrelated opinions would be unencyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2 for reviews, no change for "entertainment news", Page Six or Decider. When deciding whether to include a review, the core question is whether the reviewer is someone who's opinion carries weight. If a noteworthy critic like Richard Roeper took a contract writing film reviews published in the NY Post, the reliability and importance of his review isn't altered by the venue it is posted in. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2, since no examples of falsehoods have been provided by the editors who voted for 3/4, and due to the presence of well-known critics, per u:S5A-0043. Alaexis_¿question? 22:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 2. Its reviews are fine, and they tend to carry some weight among critics (particularly so for the New York City musical/theatre arts scene). Additional considerations apply because there are some broader problems when using for contentious information on BLPs, but I think that the culture and entertainment reviews are fine. The notion that, as one editor puts above the New York Post must not be used for any statement concerning living persons is a bit overkill when applied to mundane information (who the lead actors are in a Broadway play, etc.), and I would stress that such language is a gross oversimplification of the source's utility in this scope. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC
• Option 3 I would say to generally just avoid unreliable sources for everything, including reviews. It's not worth the time and effort to look at every article and decide whether it is acceptable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)*
• Option 2, Most sources need additional considerations. The sources/articles should be looked at upon their own merits. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 for Decider. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Entertainment coverage of the New York Post)

The New York Post has been discussed nine times on this noticeboard, including a 2020 RfC which concluded that the source was "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly NYC politics with 2 qualifications: a/that it was more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976, and that it is particularly unreliable for coverage involving the NYC police". Discussion at #Reviews from unreliable sources indicates that there is an ongoing disagreement over the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment reviews, and the currently unanswered question at #Using Decider / Decider.com for interviews and reviews indicates that the reliability of Decider (a publication of the New York Post) is an open question. — Newslinger talk 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. — Newslinger talk 22:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio. — Newslinger talk 22:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

NYP I don't read and so have no opinion. I sometimes read Decider's "stream it or skip it" and haven't gotten any feeling their reviews are noticeably inferior to most other entertainment venues... What would be the justification for changing Decider's entertainment coverage to "generally unreliable" or "deprecated"? I am asking because this discussion needs to clearly summarize any reasons put forward to blacklist this site (and "please read several miles of previous discussion, it's all up there" doesn't cut it). CapnZapp (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any proposal to blacklist Decider. Since Decider is operated by the New York Post, which was found to be generally unreliable for factual reporting in the 2020 RfC, one of the goals of the current RfC is to determine whether Decider should be considered likewise or otherwise. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this should also cover pagesix.com, a celebrity gossip site ran by NYPost which does entertainment reviews as well. Endwise (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Checking the page, it seems like the only (if not primary writer) right now is Nicholas Hautman, and per his about page, He joined the New York Post in 2021 after nearly six years at Us Weekly, where he started his career. He graduated from Hofstra University on Long Island in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in journalism. Spinixster (chat!) 01:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable suggestion, since Page Six is already listed as a sub-publication of the New York Post at WP:PAGESIX. I've added Page Six to the RfC. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Do not pre-empt any conclusions Please don't act as if your preference has already achieved consensus, User:David Gerard, as you did here. Your edit summary NYP is generally unreliable, prima facie WP:UNDUE is inaccurate. The current (pre-discussion) consensus is that NYP is generally unreliable "for factual reporting especially with regard to politics", not that it is generally unreliable in every aspect. CapnZapp (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

"generally" means "generally", not "not generally" - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No it does not. Generally means generally only when there are no qualifiers. Otherwise those be pointless to add. Do not ignore the qualifiers. This entire RfC relies on the fact that you are wrong. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with some users, David Gerard. You have been removing reviews on film article that come from the New York Post without any consideration of the consequences behind that and you did so by your own biased views of the reliability of the sourcing of New York Post. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

His editing history is especially egregious since he participated in this very discussion and still went ahead and made his edits, as if this wasn't still an open RfC that could possibly rule against his wishes. If and when it does, I hope and trust he will self-revert all his premature edits. CapnZapp (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I can understand David Gerard's point of view based on the phrasing of the 2020 RfC's closing summary. For example, the sentence "Gambling is generally a poor financial decision, especially when the gambler is in debt" states two things: that gambling is generally a poor financial decision, and that gambling is generally an even worse financial decision for gamblers who are in debt. Likewise, "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics" means that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, and that it is generally unreliable to an even greater extent for political reporting. This RfC seeks to clarify whether the New York Post's entertainment coverage should be considered differently. — Newslinger talk 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"generally unreliable for factual reporting" means just that. It does not mean "generally unreliable" full stop. Otherwise those three words "for factual reporting" would not have been added. There is no uncertainty about what the earlier RfC meant. It specifically spelled out "factual reporting" meaning that the "generally unreliable" rating only applies to that. Other stuff - like entertainment - was specifically excluded from the decision. David Gerard didn't read it that way but that doesn't mean his reading is valid. Just to be crystal clear: This RfC does not seek to "clarify" this as if the earlier RfC was unclear. It can, however, seek clarification since the earlier RfC did not apply to entertainment articles. I trust and hope you and I agree on this, Newslinger. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Factual reporting does not exclude entertainment reporting. For example, Decider exclusively focuses on entertainment reporting, yet still publishes plenty of non-review articles that only make factual claims. The New York Post's and Decider's reviews and recommendations also contain factual claims, as most reviews do. The 2020 RfC's closing summary said that the New York Post is "Generally unreliable for factual reporting", and it did not say that the New York Post was any more reliable for entertainment reporting than it was for most topics, so the 2020 RfC was clear that the New York Post was considered generally unreliable for entertainment reporting as well. The current RfC offers editors an opportunity to re-evaluate the reliability of the New York Post's entertainment coverage. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You yourself started this RfC quoting the current status quo: "Generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics". This can only be read as the RfC taking a position on "factual reporting". Obviously facts can and will appear in reviews, but you didn't start this RfC to discuss the fringe cases when an editor cites a NYP review to verify a factual claim, you presumably started this RfC to see whether the community wants to discourage editors from using NYP reviews in entertainment articles. The context right here is David Gerard trying to justify his jumping the gun by saying that the earlier RfC does mean this already, but we should not express any understanding for that POV - we are specifically talking about it here and now, so taking action before allowing this discussion to conclude is obviously premature. CapnZapp (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if you mean the complete opposite, that NYP was previously considered generally unreliable overall but you want to see whether the community can exclude entertainment from that assessment, his actions remain just as premature - trying to get his edits in before this RfC changes the status quo is frowned upon, to say the least. (If this is your stance, our RS/P summary should have read "generally unreliable" full stop with no qualifiers) CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

This User:David Gerard is just wasting a lot of people's time here on Wikipedia with his BS editing based on his own personal views; he tags pages for speedy deletion when there is zero reason to do so, removes content out of the blue, engages in edit wars; will someone block him or should we keep wasting time to keep this bully at bay? Itemirus (talk) 08:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Middle East Monitor

The New York Times recently published an article on the proliferation of fake news from Russia, specifically a story about Zelensky’s mother-in-law purchasing a villa in Egypt.

Most sources that publicized this claim are already considered generally unreliable, with the exception of the Middle East Monitor, which is used widely on Wikipedia and whose involvement the New York Times describes as:

It also appeared on the website of the Middle East Monitor, or MEMO, operated by a well-known nonprofit organization in London and financed by the government of Qatar. A journalist who once reported from Moscow for The Telegraph of London, Ben Aris, cited it at length on the platform, though, when challenged, he said he had just made note of the rumor. “I don’t have time to check all this stuff myself,” he wrote.

The article is still up, meaning they've failed to correct the error when it was revealed to them, and the statement by Aris is highly concerning, which suggests a general issue at MEMO of them publishing and promoting fringe conspiracy theories without any attempt to verify that they are true. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your summary, this is highly concerning particularly combined with the (probably fringe) views described in the page.

I would consider this worthy of an RfC after insofar as criteria are met, is that something you would agree with? FortunateSons (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a misuse of the board. Instead of asking "Is source X reliable for statement Y" as is the norm, we instead assert unreliability without reference to any dispute. Cheered on by the chorus. Is the offending information cited to MEMO anywhere on WP? Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

All the MEMO report says is that El Mostaqbal reported this. And they did. And it also says The allegations have been denied by both the Ukrainian embassy in Egypt as “Russian propaganda”, while Orascom Development, the owner of the El Gouna resort issued a statement saying the reports were “completely false.”' MEMO does not report that this is true, they report that it was reported and that the both the Ukrainian embassy and the Egyptian government denied it. All of that is true. nableezy - 16:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That seems fine then. I wouldn't say this could cast any doubt on a source's reliability.--Boynamedsue (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It attributes some to El Mostaqbal; others it puts in its own voice:

Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury.

Al-Alawi never existed, and was not found dead, whether by a cerebral haemorrhage or other means.

In a recent interview, the deceased’s brother Ahmed Al-Alawi said that Mohammed’s investigation was his brother’s first big job, but that he started to receive death threats following its release.

Al-Alawi, having never existed, also never had a brother.

Further, regardless of what it puts in its own voice and what it attributes, I find it very concerning for a source to be pushing fringe conspiracy theories without any level of scepticism, and for it to fail to correct that error when it is raised with them - to me, those are indications that the source is generally unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it attributes that too. You're quoting out of context. What it says about the body is Al-Alawi’s body was discovered in the Red Sea city of Hurghada, with fractures and bruises found on the body. The cause of death was due to a cerebral hemorrhage as a result of a severe brain injury. The report, citing a source, also disclosed that the journalist had been beaten by a group of people. That is, once again, citing the report. And there is no error in what they report, they are saying that so and so reported such and such. And that is true. They also say that so and so say it is Russian propaganda. That is also true. Your claim that they are "pushing fringe conspiracy theories" is completely unsubstantiated, they are relaying what was reported and attributing it to who reported it, and also attributing who says it is not true. It has a link to the interview, making that attributed as well. You are misrepresenting what they are reporting. nableezy - 22:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, that is attributing to the report that "the journalist" had been beaten by a group of people. It's not attributing the claim that he died.

Further, the interview is linked, but MEMO is saying in its own voice that the interview was given by Al-Alawi's brother - the brother who doesn't exist.

Regardless, is it not concerning that MEMO spends so little time verifying its stories that it is literally pushing Russian conspiracy theories, stories that it refuses to retract? This is not the behavior of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It is very clearly saying all this is from the report. You can tell that by the word "also". What is there to retract? That El Mostaqbal reported this? They did. nableezy - 22:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading differs - the "also" refers to their earlier explicit mention of the report. And what there is to retract is the entire story; they are presenting - and thus promoting - Russian conspiracy theories as credible, saying things such as the report disclosed rather then the report alleges. The fact that they attribute parts (but not all - clearly you at least agree that the story presents both Al-Alawi and his brother as real people) doesn't change that. BilledMammal (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The story they are "presenting" is that El Mostaqbal reported this. That remains true. At most it is missing a "purported" in front of brother when linking to the interview. They very clearly are reporting who said what, and who said its not true. They even include the claim that it is Russian propaganda. There isnt any part of what they are actually reporting that is an issue. nableezy - 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That really isn’t how an average person would read the article, and even if it was, their statement and lack of retraction is nevertheless a reason not to use them in any area with controversy. FortunateSons (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Im aware of your feelings on sources you dislike, along with your efforts to remove them from certain topics, you dont need to repeat them multiple times in the same section. There isnt anything in this to retract, what they reported is accurate, and I see no reason why this source is not perfectly usable. If you feel they should issue a correction there is a link at the bottom of the story for you to contact them. nableezy - 23:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Even you agree they present the brothers as real people; don’t you think they need to retract that?

And the NYT has already contacted them; their response was concerning, as I quoted above. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t appear to be true at all. nableezy - 13:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Which aspect? BilledMammal (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

That it is their response and not some independent reporter's who writes for a different site. nableezy - 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if we disagree on that I hope you can see their failure to retract this story as concerning. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That is certainly different from using “alleged” at the very least, if they are using such a source. Additionally, the conduct described above is certainly still concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Selfstudier that this discussion seems a misuse of the noticeboard. It is not relevant to some article and the publication isn't in RSP. But looking at the dicussion the thought occurred to me, I bet it has to do with NGO Monitor, and sure enough we have [14]. Why am I not surprised. NadVolum (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s not misuse of this Noticeboard to discuss whether a widely used source that we now discover has a penchant for pushing Russian disinformation and conspiracy theories is reliable.

As far as I know, this has no relation to NGO monitor. BilledMammal (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A "penchant" denotes a widespread tendency, "pushing" denotes a conscious decision to spread something, again with the strong implication of repetition. Here we have a single report, which attributes the story to somebody else and states that it has been denied.

I agree that, if MEM regularly published articles sourced to Russian propaganda, or if they had published this story as fact and repeatedly asserted its truth we would have to look at whether it was reliable for news relating to the Russia/Ukraine conflict. But that is not what this is about, is it? --Boynamedsue (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I say a penchant because of Aris’ response when challenged. The issue appears systemic.

Further, while some is attributed, not all is, despite the entire story being disinformation. ::::But that is not what this is about, is it? This is about the reliability of the source, nothing else? BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Bah, one not even much of an incident, and it is systemic? Then every newsorg is unreliable by that standard. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s systemic because MEMO told the NYT "we don’t make any attempt to verify stories before publishing them". BilledMammal (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I can’t find anything by Ben Aris on MEMO. I can’t find he has any position there either. His Twitter profile doesn’t mention MEMO, so I don’t know what his unwilling to verify things has to do with MEMO. It also isn’t a normal thing to use quote marks for things nobody ever said. nableezy - 10:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears MEMO doesn’t publicly list the author of their articles. And I was paraphrasing - or do you think I was doing so inaccurately? BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What we can say for certain is that NYT is attributing the unsubstantiated claim to Ben Aris (whose name doesn't appear anywhere on MEMO's website). M.Bitton (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

He doesn’t even say he writes for MEMO and the sentence structure is he referenced the MEMO article, and from his twitter he does. But he writes for BNE Intellinews. Paraphrases don’t use quotes. If anything that would be a sign of unreliability and disinformation. I see no evidence whatsoever that he writes for MEMO, much less represents them and their editorial policies. nableezy - 13:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

My reading differs - and clearly so do others here. BilledMammal (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What others? Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is one immediately above my reply? BilledMammal (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please provide any evidence that he writes for MEMO or has any position there. A listing of his articles at MuckRack shows nothing at all. He is also not listed anywhere on MEMO's list of editors and regular contributors. Please provide any evidence at all for the claim that MEMO said anything like what you say they said. nableezy - 13:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the invitation to provide any evidence at all for the claims made has been ignored, I’ll assume that means the claim itself has been dropped. nableezy - 17:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

At least they attributed the claims, unlike the New York Times (enjoy reading this discussion about the self-declared beacon of journalistic integrity). M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on where the linked thread discussed attribution? The only comments I can find when searching by term are my own. FortunateSons (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The linked thread is about a fabricated story by NYT (it goes without saying that attribution is way above those who sink that low). M.Bitton (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I am aware, I participated in that thread. However, the claims about the article in the NYT are both highly disputed and unrelated to the issue of attribution. As the New York Times generally enjoys a high reliability and the linked discussion did not come to a different conclusion, I am confused about the purpose of your comment. Could you elaborate? FortunateSons (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Simple, if the NYT can screw up, so can MEMO and the NYT screwup is rather more severe than anything MEMO is allegedly guilty of. All this is just trying to make a mountain of a very small molehill. Selfstudier (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Unreliable for the story about Zelensky's mother-in-law. In general, I think that we should be very careful with using a source financed by Qatar (one of the worst countries when it comes to the freedom of speech and a supported of various Islamist movements) and that has been described as a "lobby group." Alaexis_¿question? 22:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Generally reliable. It is obviously financed by Qatar, but so is every other self-proclaimed independent media state-financed, including the BBC, which has been publishing extremely misleading coverage of the war. All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; which applies more to the New York Times than Middle East Monitor, as far as I have seen. Nothing justifies downgrading the reliability of this source so far. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I would ask people not to !vote here, this is not an RfC, and if it were it would be a bad one as it is not formulated in anything approaching a neutral way. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 Selfstudier (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Having a quick look, there are also issues on their coverage of the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion; they haven't corrected their articles from immediately after the explosion that blamed Israel without equivocation, and even months later they continued to repeat those claims such as in this article where they say Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza. BilledMammal (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Your position appears to be if a source doesn’t repeat some dominant POV of western sources that means it is unreliable. But that isn’t what that means, and there remains a dispute about the responsibility for that explosion, and a source taking a differing view than say the NYTimes doesn’t make that source unreliable. nableezy - 06:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Presumably BilledMammal's position here is simply that Middle East Monitor is claiming as fact something that is either untrue or unproven.

Also, @BilledMammal, the source you've provided was not published "months later" after the attack.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right - I misread the date. Published a month and a half later. BilledMammal (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m saying a source that continues to unequivocally blame Israel despite most evidence suggesting PIJ is to blame is probably unreliable, and is definitely highly biased. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Some evidence advanced by allies of Israel suggests that, other evidence, such as the analysis by Forensic Analysis, suggests otherwise. You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable. And last I checked, that is not what reliability means here. nableezy - 11:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Beyond that, your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption. Sheesh. nableezy - 11:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"You are saying that if one does not take the conclusion of Israel that it is unreliable." Obviously this is not what BilledMammal is saying.

However, regarding "your retelling of this source is itself unreliable, the only place it includes that line is the title of a cartoon in the caption", this is concerning actually. BilledMammal has seemingly misrepresented the source by claiming that "they say 'Hundreds killed in Israeli attack on Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza'", despite that fact that this "claim" only appears as the caption of a cartoon at the bottom of the article.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, we treat captions the same way as we treat the rest of the article - there is no WP:HEADLINES for captions. If I am wrong, please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Really?

From WP:Headlines: "Headlines [...] may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles."

You don't think that applies to captions? Especially a caption on a cartoon...

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 11:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the concern is that headlines are often clickbait created by individuals other than the journalist or researcher, while captions aren't because if a reader is seeing the caption they have already been convinced to click.

However, if I'm wrong and that does apply to captions we should update WP:HEADLINES to explicitly include captions, as I suspect I'm not the only editor who believes that policy doesn't apply to them. BilledMammal (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I suspect most editors don't think about that at all. Selfstudier (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Given how many editors aren't even aware of WP:HEADLINES you are probably right, but I still think that if I am wrong and it does apply to captions we should clarify that policy. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is indeed the conclusion BilledMammal is reaching. That if one does not favor the conclusions of Israel’s allies it is unreliable and or biased. nableezy - 12:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

And if I'm reading it right, that cartoons are part of the moderated journalistic content of a newspaper. NadVolum (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment there is also the argument of fringe to be contended with: they are alleged to be a “a news site which promotes a strongly pro-Brotherhood and pro-Hamas view of the region. Memo’s director, Daud Abdullah, is also a leader of the Brotherhood-linked British Muslim Initiative, set up and run by the Brotherhood activist Anas al-Tikriti and two senior figures in Hamas.”. Additionally: “The Community Security Trust, the main Jewish organization monitoring all forms of racism, highlighted on its website that Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor”. (sources from MBFC, but citations checked) FortunateSons (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  MBFC is not a reliable source. Selfstudier (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, which is why I directly checked the citations (visible because mine are longer than theirs) and linked them. Feel free to check them yourself. FortunateSons (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Pass. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Holding views you dislike is not and has never been a factor for a sources reliability. nableezy - 13:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Not, my personal dislike is not a factor. However, WP:FRINGE and other policies exclude some extreme views that go beyond bias, something that being strongly pro-terrorist-org (according to many countries) and ‘peddling conspiracy theories' probably meets. FortunateSons (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  That’s the opinion of a lobby group. And many countries consider Israel to be a genocidal racist country, does that rule out all pro-Israel sources? Again, not holding views you dislike is not a criteria for reliability. Full stop. nableezy - 13:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Community Security Trust is primarily a charity, referring to it as a lobby group is at least misleading. Additionally, both of my sources are RS per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the views that MEM is allegedly expressing are definitely unusual enough to be concerning. FortunateSons (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  CST just copped a whacking £54 million handout from Sunak to bolster the defense of UK Jews apparently under a tremendous siege by raging antisemites that make London unsafe for them. On the other hand UK-Med is setting up a hospital jerryrigged with pieces of local timber to cater to 100 Palestinians a day, while 500,000 need attention. Apparently it is less safe for a British Jew to live in London, than it is for a Palestinian to live in Rafah.

What you call unusual or fringe views happens to be those that articulate the views, news and facts of a two-sided conflict, as those are perceived by one half, the defeated or crushed party. NPOV demands extreme care to maintain balanced narratives, and drying up access to the few newspapers that take on the burden of expressing the generally silenced perspectives of one party only consolidates the WP:Systemic bias we have to cope with in this area.

There are many cogent reasons why we should retain our use, always careful, of less 'mainstream' sources. The most important is the systemic bias of our default newspaper RS, New York Times, the Washington Post, The Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Ynet and even Haaretz (the Guardian gives more coverage but not much) is known to all, and was underlined by a remark made in the NYTs the other day. The Israeli sources we accept are all now extremely pro-war and partisan, and much of their reliable content exemplifies a battle to show whose coverage is more patriotic, something that in turn feeds into the copy and paste Western newspapers. Chipping away, as has been done recently at the putative unreliableness or 'fringeness', even of the handful of newspapers that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective, is nothing more than indicative of a tendency to spin reportage according to the dominant perspective of one of the contendents.

A study by the University of Arizona’s Maha Nassar found that of the opinion articles about Palestinians published in The New York Times and The Washington Post between 2000 and 2009, Palestinians themselves wrote roughly 1 percent. Peter Beinart, The Great Rupture in American Jewish Life,' The New York Times 22 March 2024

I.e., NYTs practice (and they are the most 'liberal' of the venues cited) is to delegate 99% of opinion articles on Palestinians to non-Palestinians (Americans, American Jews, or Israeli Jews normally). Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

First, the opinion is of Haaretz, not the "lobby group".

Second, we aren't here to right great wrongs; we don't use unreliable sources because no reliable sources contain the perspectives we believe should be included.

Third, your comment about the percentage of opinion articles seems irrelevant. How many opinion articles in the NYT about Russia are by Russians? How about Turkey? China? Israel? I suspect Palestine isn't a significant outlier among non-anglophone states of global interest.

Finally, regardless of reliability, I think it is clear that this is a biased source that should only be used with attribution, particularly now that FortunateSons has presented that Times article. BilledMammal (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it was telegraph and Haaretz, not Times :) FortunateSons (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The opinion I referred to is conspiracy theories, the holding views you dislike is referring to the Telegraph article. Holding views that agree with the Brotherhood or Hamas for that matter has nothing to do with reliability. You may want this to be a Zionist project where only sources that toe a certain line are allowed, but it is not and it has nothing to do with reliability. Not liking the views of a source is not and has never been a factor for a sources reliability. There is nothing disqualifying about holding views that promote a supposed pro-Brotherhood or pro-Hamas view of the region. Would holding that the Palestinian refugees have a right of return be disqualifying? Because that’s a pro-Hamas viewpoint of the region. You may keep trying to change the purpose of this board to be that of instituting a political test on sources, but I’ll keep calling it what it is. nableezy - 16:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Let’s WP:AssumeGoodFaith and beWP:CIVIL here. FortunateSons (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

When people attempt to rule out sources because of the views they hold they are misusing this board and attempting to institute a political test of their liking to sources. Again, holding pro-Hamas views has nothing to do with reliability, nor does holding pro-Israel views. You are the one making this about the views they hold. Is it a sign of unreliability to hold views associated with a state credibly accused of an ongoing genocide? Should all news sources that have been identified as pro-Israel be censored because of those views? Or do you only apply this test to the views you don’t like? nableezy - 16:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn’t the moral position of the source, its opinions are just clearly perceived as fringe by the sources cited by me. While there is some systemic bias, being in favour of terrorist groups is going to very likely put you in fringe territory regardless of which terror group it is: the same would have probably applied to a pro-Rote Armee Fraktion source had Wikipedia existed back then. If said source was also distributing conspiracy content enough to be noticed by MSM for it, even worse. FortunateSons (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Fringe doesn’t mean what you think it means. Holding pro brotherhood or pro Hamas positions isn’t fringe. nableezy - 17:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think supporting terrorist groups and spreading conspiracy theories while not fact-checking or retracting stories is a factor when it comes to assessing the reliability of a source. It’s ok if you disagree FortunateSons (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I have ur permission to disagree as well? Thanks in advance. Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, you did ask so nicely FortunateSons (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

None of that is true, please don’t make bogus assertions and expect people to pretend like they are true. nableezy - 18:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

They were referred to as all 3 by RS, and the story is still up FortunateSons (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No, holding pro-Hamas viewpoints is not "supporting Hamas", and the Community Security Trust isn’t a reliable source, sorry. Again, holding views you don’t like is not something that matters here. Holding views that one right wing source calls pro-Hamas has nothing to do with reliability. It’s a funny thing that happens here, people forget we are supposed to include all significant views published by reliable sources but then try to define what is reliable based on the views sources hold so as to suppress those significant views they dislike. But bias, supposed or otherwise, has nothing to do with reliability. So despite the effort to create a list of beliefs one must not hold to be cited our policies remain diametrically opposed to such efforts. nableezy - 18:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me, publicising media while being pro-Hamas and having a mission statement which includes The use or misuse of information is central to the conflict in the Middle East. There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organised, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today. The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap. and As such, we regularly interface with politicians, editors, lobby groups and various other stakeholders to facilitate a better understanding and appreciation of the Palestine issue. is totally and meaningfully different from “supporting Hamas”.

The CSR wasn’t discussed as an RS (though I would be tempted to say they are generally analogous to the ADL). Additionally, we do exclude fringe views already, and we don’t need a pro-Hamas viewpoint for the sake of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE], there are decent pro-Palestinian sources even before the war and particularly now. FortunateSons (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely fringe about MEMO or its views, and therefore, nothing to exclude. Frankly, this joke is now officially a time sink that is wasting our resources without a snowball's chance in hell of achieving anything. M.Bitton (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea that a pro-Israel viewpoint should be included but we should be excluding sources for having similar views to Hamas, besides being a basic association fallacy, is one that is not in keeping with our core policies. If you want a website in which only views that you like are allowed you can go start your own, cus this one ain’t it. nableezy - 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If it helps, I believe that we also should exclude any news source with the same reliability issues that’s pro Ku-Klux-Klan, pro Jewish Defense League, or probably pro Kach (political party). We don’t have to WP:FALSEBALANCE our way into pro-terrorism viewpoints. There are good and diligent sources that express pro-Palestine views and those ought to be included even where I disagree with them, Memo just isn’t one of them. The inclusion of RS and the exclusion of fringe and unreliable sources is an important part of Wikipedia. FortunateSons (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

But not pro state credibly accused of genocide I guess. And again, there is zero evidence of pro-terrorism, repeatedly making false statements isn’t the best look. nableezy - 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me, they are not pro-terrorism, just pro-terrorist-group. FortunateSons (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes the others (like NYT) pro-Genocide (when committed by a friend). M.Bitton (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That also is not true. What your one right wing source says it has pro Brotherhood and pro Hamas views of the region. Which could be in favor of anything from lifting the siege on Gaza to supporting the rights of Palestinian refugees to agreeing that Hamas has a legitimate right to resist foreign occupation and racist domination. None of that has anything to do with anything, and your attempt to redefine RS to exclude views you dislike is not one that has any policy backing. Nor even much support on this board. nableezy - 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, you're confusing bias with reliability. The anti-Palestinian bias of the New York Times doesn't prevent the NYT from being treated as RS. M.Bitton (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and there are significantly biased (not:fringe) sources that are also reliable, and this isn’t one of them. Nevertheless, I agree with your last comment that this discussion is unlikely to produce results, we will just have to wait for when this comes up again. FortunateSons (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You've been told this before, but I'll repeat it here: 1) Fringe doesn't mean what you think it means. 2) There is nothing remotely fringe about either MEMO or its views. M.Bitton (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Who receives what donations is always depended on a variety of circumstances and is unrelated to reliability in this context.

I too would prefer if there were more and better mainstream reliable sources on the pro-Palestinian side then there currently are, but using an unreliable and fringe source is not the solution to the western systemic bias, it’s the long term creation of reasonable and reliable sources on both sides, something that I (and probably you) don’t have the ability to do. As said above, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not the solution to a geopolitical and sociological issue. FortunateSons (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Look we have here this long thread and have proved what exactly? Not a whole lot, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, both 'sides' provided good arguments for the inevitable RfC, otherwise, who knows. Maybe someone else will find something additional to contribute. FortunateSons (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Two editors fomenting a storm in a teacup does not a case for an RFC make. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are at least 5 participants, and considering the conduct and use of the source, I think it’s quite likely that it will be an RfC at some point. FortunateSons (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, perhaps when there is an actual live dispute over the use of the source on Wikipedia, that could be considered. Selfstudier (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, something that I would consider probable FortunateSons (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh well if the great bastion of race-baiting that is the Telegraph has made some aspersions about people with foreign sounding names, I'm sure we're good as gold to take the info as writ. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Might want to take a look at the author of that piece. Selfstudier (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If a news outlet is routinely posting disproven information, incorrect information, or misinformation, it probably isn't a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Really, never knew that. Are you saying that applies to MEM0? Another evidence free accusation? Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, but that isn’t the case here at all so I don’t see the relevance to that general statement. nableezy - 18:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• No case has been established. I've never paid much attention to MEM and I don't think I have ever cited it. However, to eliminate a source requires much better evidence than I see here. Once arguments that really amount to "I don't like its politics" are removed, there is practically nothing left. Overall this is an unusually weak case. Zero^talk 01:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
• I see MEMO as a non-reliable source that has no editorial standards and exists mainly to amplify a particular political position. I haven’t seen incidents of it actually promoting falsehoods apart from the one mentioned by the OP. But I believe the CST is a very reliable source (not a lobbying organisation, and far more reliable than the ADL, who are currently being discussed elsewhere on this page, so if they say MEMO promotes conspiracy theories I take that seriously. I don’t think, contrary to some comments here, that we should relax our standards in order to accommodate more that give voice to a Palestinian/Arab perspective: there are plenty of far stronger sources that do (Al-Jazeera, +972, Al-Monitor, The New Arab, the Independent, the Guardian…). I also object to the ad hominem attacks and assumptions of bad faith that have been a feature of this discussion. In a thread above, I am accused of not considering Norman Finkelstein reliable because I want to hide the truth; in this thread a second person agreeing that this source is unreliable is described as soon as coordinated chorus; and the accusation has been made that this is somehow instigated to defend NGO Monitor. (The fact that I’ve defended Al-Jazeera and 972 and opposed NGO Monitor as reliable sources doesn’t seem to stop such allegations.) Instead or these allegations against editors, defenders of this source would be better off giving examples of use by reliable sources or other actual reasons to trust it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's all very well, where though is the actual evidence of unreliability? It wasn't CST saying that they promote conspiracy theories, that was Haaretz (Anshel Pfeffer) saying that - "The Community Security Trust, the main Jewish organization monitoring all forms of racism, highlighted on its website that Corbyn is also scheduled to appear soon at a conference of the conspiracy-theory peddling anti-Israel organization Middle East Monitor, along with the anti-Semitic and Holocaust denier cartoonist Carlos Latuff." What are these conspiracy theories?

  So no, the burden remains with those accusing the source of unreliability to demonstrate that, not just allege it. Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, use by others. How about (Wikipedia Library links): Insight Turkey ([15]), Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses ([16]), International Crisis Group ([17], [18]), Journal of Palestine Studies ([19]), Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ([20]), Arab Studies Quarterly ([21]), and that's just when I got bored going through the JSTOR results. That enough evidence to go against your completely evidence-free opinion here? nableezy - 16:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

ProPakistani.pk

We've been relying heavily on ProPakistan,pk a Pakistani news platform, for various articles, including many BLPs. However, it's crucial to note that ProPakistan.pk isn't a conventional news outlet but rather a PR startup. Their content often comprises paid articles and press releases which implies a potential bias. Therefore, their reporting may not always be impartial or reliable. How should we address the use of ProPakistan in WP articles, particularly BLPs? Saqib (talk · contribs) 20:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I have combed through their website and performed an extensive Google search, I did not find an evidence of them being a PR firm or their content being paid articles. If there is an evidence to the contrary then it should be provided here. As it comes to bias, a source does not have to be neutral to be reliable. They do not seem to be a self published website as their about page shows a rather large editorial staff. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Their "about'" page mentions board members of ProPakistani, and consists mostly of individuals heading different categories in the organisation. The CEO of ProPakistani also owns Eikon7, an advertising and digital marketing agency and this also raises questions about ProPakistani impartiality. A closer look at their writing style reveals sensational, puffery and sometimes milsleading articles, such as dubbing Dr. Asim Hussain as the richest man on earth or misrepresenting Waqar Zaka as a cryptocurrency expert. These instances, along with occasional engagement in fake news [22] [23][24] and promotional content like [25] [26], highlight the need for careful consideration before declaring ProPakistani as a RS, especially on BLPs. Just a friendly note, I hope you're not hounding me as you're not regular here. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 14:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We would not know with certainty whether those are instances of fake news or promotional content unless we have something to the contrary in other reliable sources. As for your allegation of hounding, I am really not sure why do you always jump to bad faith conclusions, you could have assumed good faith by thinking that I might have added WP:RSN to my watchlist given we had lengthy discussion about another source recently. Just so you know I have over 3,000 pages in my watchlist, many of them I never edited before and with over 45,000 edits you cannot accuse me of hounding if I show up anywhere on WP at this time, just look at your contributions to find out how many different pages you contributed in last 24 hours and then see on how many of them I showed up to hound you, additionally this was not the forum to accuse me of hounding as it will drive away the focus from the actual matter for which we came here for but since you accused me, I had a right to reply. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Both pieces of news were debunked here and here. You could have done a simple Google search to verify this. And I've actually discovered several more instances of fake news published by ProPakistan. I will provide them later. --Saqib (talk · contribs) 17:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Please remember WP:ONUS when you demand others to perform searches for you, both of the pieces by ProPakistani talk about Iran "warning" Pakistan and Iran "threatening" Pakistan. Warning and threatening to impose fine is not akin to actually slapping the fine. The second link you provided is a twitter link, how can something from twitter debunk anything? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Our sources should have a reputation for reliability. Is there any evidence this source is cited by experts?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, since this is a tech-focused news website, its stories are often cited by other RS. However, it's worth noting that many RS also cite the Daily Mail. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

In regard to BLPs I would urge some caution in the same vein as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Anything article that sounds overly grandiose about the subject of the article should be handled with care. No comment about it's use in other areas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Exactly, that's exactly what I intended to convey. There are several Pakistani news websites, including ProPakistani, which operate as sham news-style websites. Like paid reporting in Indian news organizations, they too frequently publish sponsored content and PR -based articles, often without adequate disclosure. I'm curious if the section can be amended to include mention of Pakistan as well? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's needed, although the section could proy do with some generalisation rather than more specifics. Nigerian media operates in a very similar way, with otherwise reliable sources including undisclosed advertorials, and I would be surprised if we see more of it in other countries. So maybe the section should be made about the general issue, rather than specific countries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: When it comes to BLPs, If the article isn't overly grandiose in its treatment of the subject, is it acceptable to include it? Furthermore, if it is too grandiose, can we include the content with attribution? Also, what is the source of your caution, did you find evidence of paid reporting? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If the article isn't overly grandiose in its treatment of the subject, is it acceptable to include it? Yes I would think so.
Furthermore, if it is too grandiose, can we include the content with attribution? I would use caution, sometimes it might be warranted and other times avoided.
I found no direct evidence of undisclosed advertorials, but that's kind of the point. A few articles seem somewhat otherly enthusiastic for the subject, but there are articles marked as sponsored content (for instance[27]) which is definitely mark in their favour.
Ultimately editors are expected to use their own good judgement when evaluating sources. If it sounds to good, then maybe leave it out. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Israeli based news sources

Hey everyone. I thought of dropping in here and asking if there are consensus for the use of the following Israeli-based news sources particularly in the coverage of the ongoing Gaza War. I've seen Al-Jazeera being used for coverage of Israel-Palestine topics, alongside other Israeli news sources. Al-Jazeera has been considered reliable, but I'm unsure what about considering Israeli-based sources?

• Times of Israel
• ynetnews.com
• The Jerusalem Post

--ZKang123 (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, all of them are used, and generally considered biased in regards to the conflict but reliable; they are cited by others.Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources does not list anyone but Haaretz. FortunateSons (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post is highly misleading, given its record in war propganda; example when it mocked a dead Palestinian child claiming they were a doll. They did indeed apologize and retract the statement, but that just shows you how they operate. As for the Times of Israel, they are misleading in some aspects, including how for example they take great care to cast doubt into Gaza's casualty figures, even falsely claiming they were partly due to misfired Palestinian rockets; while at the same time, mentioning nothing of the friendly fire accidents when talking about Israeli casualties; they literally seem to do this mental gymnastics on every article they publish on the war. As for Ynet, I never read it so I wouldn't know. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

There is credible reporting that Gaza’s casualties are partially caused by misfired rockets, both historically and currently by RS, so at least some deaths due to misfires are pretty clear, something significantly less certain regarding friendly fire (whose highest credible count during Oct 7 is less than 20 and which received coverage , plus 3 hostages later, as well as about 20 soldiers). FortunateSons (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. In every article about the war they list the casualties on both sides in the last paragraph. In it they cast doubt on the 30k figures on Palestinian side, including with them the claim of casualties due to misfired Palestinian rockets, as if that’s a significant portion; ‘’’while at the same time’’’, mentioning nothing of friendly fire on the 1200 Israeli figure. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Because there is no broad support (at least by western RS) for any significant amount of casualties by friendly fire on October 7., with some sporadic casualties (our own article lists less than 15 people). FortunateSons (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies and retractions mean that their editorial process is working and are generally a good sign. Are there any other examples of JPost's supposed lack of reliability? Alaexis_¿question? 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• In my experience:

• ToI and Ynet are marginally biased, but typically reliable and about as neutral as an Israel-based source can be.

• JPost is considerably biased toward the Israeli right, and treads on the line between "reliable" and "use with attribution." Considering the availability of the two above, I personally lean toward the latter end of that scale.

Edited my comment as I'd confused Ynet with i24, which is outrage propaganda. The Kip 04:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have found ToI to be reliable in general (except for some reason when the article is bylined ToI staff rather than a named reporter). JP is awful, pretty much a government mouthpiece since the war started and ynet is OK most of the time but not always.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how they are “awful” in the context of unreliability? FortunateSons (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

They seem to mark the worst stuff as opinion so I'd say they're reasonably reliable as far as biased sources go. I agree with Selfstudier about TOI. NadVolum (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Times of Israel is rather reliable and independent, and frequently criticizes the Israeli government. It obviously takes an Israeli POV, but still reliable. Jerusalem Post, in what little I've seen, is more sensationalist and populist in tone. Even regardless of bias, it's a poor quality source in general. I don't know Ynetnews well enough to comment. Jeppiz (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Ynet is fine, ToI is fine, JPost is generally closer to garbage than fine. Better than things like i24 and obviously Arutz Sheva, but closer to that end of the spectrum than Haaretz, Yedioth Ahronoth, and ToI. nableezy - 22:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Like every source in the world, The JPost also has a certain leaning (and I hope we all agree that there is no objective media outlet). However, it is definitely not a "government mouthpiece", "awful", or "closer to garbage". One can see from the articles linked here, here, here, here, here and here, that they also write critically of the Israeli government. (I wonder if Al-Jazeera, which was mentioned here as a reliable source, has even one small article that does not blatantly side with the Palestinians in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) .Eladkarmel (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As per Eladkarmel and FortunateSons. Both JP and Ynet have a long-standing history of journalistic integrity and professionalism. Naturally, these are Israeli outlets, so there is some leaning towards the Israeli POV, just like Al Jazeera, funded by Qatar, is not entirely neutral. Still, it is perplexing how some editors casually dismiss these journals as "garbage", "awful", "government mouthpiece", "war propaganda" etc. without any substantiated basis. These journals regularly publish articles that go against the government or that reflect major divisions within Israeli politics or public opinion. GidiD (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• It is important to reiterate that having a bias does NOT equate to being unreliable. That said, in controversial situations such as the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict bias can influence what gets covered and how it is covered. It is therefore important to give in-text attribution when reporting which outlet is saying what, and not present information from either side as undisputed fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think I presented in-text attribution from Jpost. Eladkarmel (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Patriotic journalism is completely normal in every country, and is not a reason to discredit the local news outlets. Israel has a free press; its major newspapers, like YNet, are as reliable concerning Israel as the Washington Post is concerning U.S. news topics. The news organizations mentioned above have a reputation for having real fact-checking at Western standards and easily meet the reliability standards of Wikipedia. Marokwitz (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, except the Jerusalem Post does a little more than that. It is a purveyor of outright lies and misinformation and actively indulges in Pallywood conspiracy theory. It is a pathetic rag and devoid of journalistic principles. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Any chance you'll stop using this harsh language? It's really not helpful nor does it convince anyone. Eladkarmel (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm glad that the only thing you take issue is with the tone. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually yes, for me it is the basis of any discussion. There is a saying in Judaism that says:Proper behavior precedes the Torah. Eladkarmel (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for this @Eladkarmel, I'd not heard that saying before; I appreciate that.

  Regarding your concerns about tone however, while I agree that @Iskandar323 should be more professional here, I do find that WP:Civility is often overly prioritized on Wikipedia, while polite misconduct, which is much more pernicious, often goes undealt with and unaddressed.

  - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Western standards" eh? Seems rather Eurocentric, don't you think?

  I'll remind you that WP:Competence is required, especially as this discussion relates to a contentious topic area

  - IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ironic timing too, since a lot of "Western standard" sources have been coming under extreme scrutiny of late for their journalistic incompetence and extreme cultural/political bias. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  If you think the press in China, Russia, North Korea, or any Arab or Muslim country surpasses that in Israel, the US, and Western Europe, then... I don't know what to say. Feel free to call me Eurocentric. Marokwitz (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Interesting stereotypical pick of Western bogeymen. Africa, Latin America and the rest of Asia also exist, fyi. Your words not mine on your Eurocentricity. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  This user should probably not be editing in this topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It seems a little odd to me to discuss the reliability of Israeli-based newspapers in general, but of the three listed there seems to be consensus that ToI and YNet are broadly reliable but less re JP. I agree it tends towards a more sensationalist tone and more severe bias, so it's definitely weaker (but probably stronger than the more tabloidy i24). There is one specific allegation of actual unreliability here: its promotion of a fake "Pallywood" allegation, as documented by the excellent BBC Verify team (These claims were amplified in an article by the Jerusalem Post, an influential Israeli newspaper, which showed an image of Muhammad in rigor mortis after his death and said it proved he was a doll. After a backlash, the paper removed the article from its website, saying on X (formerly Twitter) that the report "was based on faulty sourcing". That's definitely a count against it, mitigated by the removal, but probably not enough to consider it generally unreliable. Are there other specific examples? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• Just a reminder that bias doesn't necessarily make a source unreliable, attribution is always an option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I've been busy and unable to check on this discussion. So from what I can tell from consensus, Times of Israel and Ynet are reliable, but JPost might not be? Btw, I'm asking because I just notice there have been consensus for other newspapers (Al-Jazeera) reporting on Israel/Palestine. I've also read many articles from the Israeli side which doesn't seem reported by other outlets (especially on the spike of antisemitism around the world). So I'm unsure whether they could also be cited as well.--11:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

educationengland.org.uk

• (old url) educationengland.org.uk: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.educationengland.org.uk
• education-uk.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.education-uk.org

The site is created and run by a single individual with no evidence of satisfying WP:RS. Despite this, it is currently being used in over 190 articles in the main namespace. Therefore, I would like to reach a consensus on whether it is considered reliable before proceeding to remove all links. Thank you. GSS ^💬 07:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like WP:QUESTIONABLE because, by his own admission, the articles and comments on the website are all primary, written and published by the site owner. There appears to be no editorial oversight or independent fact-checking. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Glane23: Yeah, that's what I tried to look for but couldn't find. It seems like the founder is the only person writing articles, and there is no fact-checking machinery in place. So, I guess it's fair enough to remove the links for not meeting the requirements set at WP:RS. GSS ^💬 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that this is not a generally reliable source, it also hosts several official documents that are not available anywhere else on the internet (or are at least behind paywall), for example:

• https://education-uk.org/documents/fleming/fleming.html
• https://education-uk.org/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html
• https://education-uk.org/documents/clarendon1864/clarendon1.html

These are often cited [28] on Wikipedia and I think removing these would not be an improvement, unless there is an issue with the authenticity of the hosted documents. I did not find any indicition of such a problem, though.

So overall I would support removing citations not to an official document hosted on the website while keeping the other ones. When the document is also available somewhere else, I would replace the citation's link, like this: [29]. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bendegúz Ács: Thank you for highlighting this. I agree with you on this point. What if we use archived links through the Wayback Machine instead of linking directly to the website? This would ensure that the content remains accessible, especially considering that the owner is planning to cease redirection of educationengland.org.uk in February next year. And for future uses, if any links from this site contain official documents that aren't available elsewhere or are behind a paywall, they should be cited through the Wayback Machine. GSS ^💬 16:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, archiving these documents and using the archived version would definitely be an improvement. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The link to the document path is cited in around 148 articles at the moment, so I will try to archive them. GSS ^💬 17:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If you need bot help you can post a request to WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 17:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you GreenC, I was already working on that and have filled a request. GSS ^💬 18:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Glane23 and Bendegúz Ács: The links under the "document" parameter have been archived per request at WP:URLREQ. Please add your comment if the remaining sources can be removed as unreliable, except for those under the "document" parameter. I will wait for a consensus before starting the removal. Thank you. GSS ^💬 04:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm good with removing the unreliable sources per the above, especially now that the "document" links have been archived. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 12:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I can still see some unarchived references, for example:

• Latymer_Upper_School#cite_note-Fleming_Report_1944-14
• Counties_of_England#cite_note-34

I don't know how they were missing by the archival bot, but I just found them by searching in the article sources: [30]

Bendegúz Ács (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's because they are using education-uk.org domain and not educationengland.org.uk -- looks like 5 pages. Maybe someone can manually add archives. -- GreenC 17:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have archived them now, feel free to remove the remaining, non-document citations. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My bot has a feature to "nuke" citations ie. completely remove the entire cite, including ref tags. There is also an option to replace with "citation needed", if there are no other cites next to it. If you want, post a request to WP:URLREQ with a section name "education-uk.org" (so the bot can link to that section in edit summaries). -- GreenC 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't usually prefer an archived copy over a working website. This is what we call a Wikipedia:Convenience link – you're really citing "the official government report", and the only legit copy we can find is on someone's website. So, rather than having a citation to the reliable source/government report with no link (which is an acceptable option), we would have a citation to the reliable source with a link that is "convenient" for the reader. A convenience link does not have to be pointed at a website that is otherwise reliable; it only has to work and not be a copyvio. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This is true in other cases as well, the most common one appears to be ancestry.com. An unreliable source that also hosts many primary documents that may be reliable. The source in question appears to be self published and the author (Derek Gillard) appears to have some small use by others but no other publications that I can find, so it probably isn't a reliable source in the WP:SPS fashion. This though is seperate from any primary documents that the site is hosting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Surrogate services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media

This is an RfC on the surrogate services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), not on its external service (Voice of America). The surrogate services are: Office of Cuba Broadcasting/Radio y Television Marti, etc.; Middle East Broadcasting Networks/alhurra/El Saha, etc.; RFE/RL; Radio Free Asia; and any other surrogate outlets under USAGM control the identify of which has not been publicly revealed.
As each of these are a DBA brand of a single organization with a single controlling mind (USAGM), this RfC proposes to address them collectively.

Extended content

As a refresher or orientation: An external service reports to Nation A (foreign audience) about Nation B (sponsor nation); examples include the BBC World Service, Deutsche Welle, Radio Prague, NHK World, Voice of America, etc. In the Cowan & Asenault typology, it is a public diplomacy activity and exists to provide easy access to reliable news as a means of establishing the goodwill of the sponsor. A surrogate service reports to Nation A (foreign audience) about Nation A (foreign audience); examples include RT, Press TV, teleSUR, Radio y Television Marti, Radio Free Asia, etc.) According to the below sources, it occupies an amorphous space between public diplomacy and information warfare and is generally targeted at states hostile to the sponsor. See: Cowan, Geoffrey (March 1, 2008). "Moving from Monologue to Dialogue to Collaboration: The Three Layers of Public Diplomacy". The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 616 (1). "The Changing Scope of U.S. International Broadcasts". cfr.org. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved March 19, 2024. "External Services and Organizations". Global Broadcasting Systems. Routledge. 1996. ISBN 9781032624600. Swainn, Michael (March 1978). "The BBC's External Services Under Threat?". Journal of the Royal Society of Arts. 126 (5260). etc.

Question A: For coverage 2017 and later, are the surrogate services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Question B: For coverage before 2017, are the surrogate services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media:

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Chetsford (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (USAGM)

• A4 / B3 for reasons I describe in the discussion section. I further suggest that pre-2017 online articles be considered post-2017 for application of this RfC unless an archive exists from an independent source (e.g. Wayback Machine). I don't think the integrity of outlet-maintained archives can be presumed. (Pinging Newslinger as he suggested the informal discussion that preceded this be reformatted as an RfC.) Chetsford (talk) 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

• A1/B1 while their reporting has some bias, they are cited by others and usable for facts. While some lack of independence can be concerning, even state-funded media from authoritarian states is not per se less than GREL. While they are not strictly independent from the people directly in charge, they are definitely independent from the US as a whole, and undoubtedly independent from their geopolitical interest, at least to the degree that Al Jazeera is (an RS). They are cited by others, and while the change in structure is (morally) negative, it ought to have no impact on general reliability. In particular, RFA is undoubtedly reliable per prior discussions. FortunateSons (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• A1/B1 though lumping so many outlets together makes this RfC of questionable validity. Each outlet ought to be evaluated separately as was already done with WP:RADIOFREEASIA. Reporters/editors are distinct for each outlet as there's a quite a bit of linguistic and regional nuance from one outlet to another (e.g., Uyghur-language reporting at RFA versus Arabic-language reporting at Alhurra). - Amigao (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• A2/B2. I don't see firm evidence that the organisational change has affected the editorial standards. The sources provided by u:Chetsford show that there were issues before 2017 as well, including the control of RFERL by the CIA. Also, no evidence of their unreliability has been provided. The history of government control, the current ownership structure and the common sense indicate that these sources should be used carefully for contentious topics, especially for establishing due weight, hence vote for Option 2. Alaexis_¿question? 21:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
• A1/B1. I think that the 2021 RfC on Radio Free Asia captures well the notion that the source is generally reliable. The other surrogate services are independent of that newsroom, but a similar rationale applies to them: the newsrooms continue to be editorially independent, and I'm not seeing good evidence that organizational change has affected quality. If there are issues with a particular outlet, it would make sense to have them considered independently, but I'm just not seeing evidence that the surrogate services are broadly marginal (or broadly unreliable). As for Voice of America, I likewise see a general reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and that is ultimately what makes it a reliable news source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest SNOW as Nom. Clearly a consensus to revisit what -- I think I've clearly expressed -- are in my opinion malformed past consensuses will not be reached here today. As a result, this RfC serves no purpose other than creating clutter on the Noticeboard. I suggest it be WP:SNOW closed. I appreciate the participation of the other editors and thank them for their time. Chetsford (talk) 23:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate you taking the time to set up a well-researched RfC, and apologise it didn’t go the way you would have liked it to.

  That being said, I think a proper RfC (at least enough for clear closure and an inclusion on the perennial sources list) would be beneficial here, as I think it’s quite possible that some use will be disputed later, and this discussion is likely to be of value then. Therefore, I think, I think the RfC is valuable enough to oppose SNOW. FortunateSons (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (USAGM)

• OP's rationale:

1.The organizational architecture of the surrogate services post-2017 makes them functionally non-WP:INDEPENDENT of the United States government. And the subjects of interest to the U.S. Government are panoptic, leaving no possible carveout of independent reporting.

• On December 23, 2016, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 was passed which dissolved the semi-independent Broadcasting Board of Governors and placed these media outlets under a single official appointed by and serving at the pleasure of the president of the day. All surrogate services are 100 percent funded by the U.S. Government and their staff are U.S. Government employees on the GS payscale, recruited from usajobs.gov and in some cases their reporters have to undergo pre-employment SF-86 security screenings (e.g. [31]) by the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency.
• In addition, these outlets operate under an exclusive congressional statute which grants them absolute immunity from all civil liability. [32] As such, they are the only media outlets in the U.S. which face no legal risk for errors in their reporting or pecuniary incentive to avoid mistakes.

2. Each of these outlets has been widely criticized by highly reliable sources -- including their own staff -- for engaging in shoddy journalism, succumbing to political pressures, or concealing the hierarchy of their editorial control. There are too many to mention, so I'll just provide a small sample covering a couple brands over a 50 year period to show this is an endemic issue.

• Until 1971, RFE/RL reporting and editorial policy was secretly controlled by the CIA [33]. This was not voluntarily revealed by it and only came to light after an investigative expose.
• James Brown, director of RFE/RL from 1978 to 1985, chronicles extensively the political pressure he frequently came under to adopt an "ultra aggressive" editorial tone in his 2014 book Radio Free Europe: An insider’s view.
• A 2009 report by the U.S. Government's own GAO found that, from 2004-2007, Radio y Television Marti had a "perpetually poor standard of journalism", editorialized "the presentation of individual views as news", incorporated "offensive and incendiary language" in its reporting, and reported on "unsubstantiated" rumors. [34]
• A 2008 report by the University of Southern California found that Alhurra "relied on unsubstantiated information too often ... [and] allowed the on-air expression of personal judgments too frequently". [35]
• In his 2013 book Propaganda, Power and Persuasion: From World War I to Wikileaks, David Welch (Director of the Study of Propaganda at the University of Kent) wrote exhaustively about how Radio Free Asia is "very selective" in the news it reports and about the "inherent bias in RFA's programming" and that it frames its reporting on China with the intent of emphasizing the "disharmony" in the Harmonious Society.
• In 2018, Mother Jones chronicled the aggressive and questionable tone of Radio y Television Marti's reporting, including its news reports that deounced George Soros is a "multimillionaire Jew" and the "architect of the financial collapse of 2008". [36]
• In 2019, the USAGM commissioned a new report on Radio y Television Marti. That report - authored by professors at USC and journalists from Telemundo - concluded Radio y Television Marti was "riddled with bad journalism" and "ineffective propaganda". [37]
• As recently as 2021, USAGM's own staff representing all the brands have stated that management has taken "actions that did not align with USAGM’s firewall principles". [38]

Chetsford (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

A cursory reading of the 2021 report is mostly referring to actions in the “gray zone”, and that they are being addressed. That sounds like standard journalistic issues and not impactful to reliability. FortunateSons (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition, it sounds like at least some of those primarily refer to bias and not unreliability. FortunateSons (talk) 11:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"In addition, it sounds like at least some of those primarily refer to bias and not unreliability." Hmmm ... I think you may need to do more than a cursory reading, then. Chetsford (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• For the record, all publications under this umbrella that have been previously discussed at RSN have been found to be generally reliable in discussions over the last several years, see WP:RSP for details. Given that many of the complaints are about Radio y Television Marti specifically, maybe it would have been better to have separate RfCs for each outlet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed a comment by Chetsford that referred to a prior version of this comment where I did not add "previously discussed at RSN" that is now redundant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Insofar as I can tell, almost none of the brands under this umbrella have been previously discussed at RSN, including Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Radio y Television Marti, etc. Moreover, the existence of prior discussions does not preclude revisiting consensus. From my review of the minority of instances of prior discussion, the community was presented with limited and inferior information, relied on its original research into their reliability to the complete preclusion of the panoply of independent evaluation that has occurred, and did not consider post-2017 changes to the organizational architecture of the USAGM.
  I also disagree it would be better to have independent RfCs about each outlet as this is a single outlet (USAGM) that simply operates under different branding schemes, not unlike CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español, etc. They're all in the same facilities, they have a common HR and legal team, their staff seamlessly float between brands, they report to the same boss, they have the same funding source, etc. It would be illogical, incoherent, and nonsensical for one to be RS and another to be non-RS. Chetsford (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• User:Amigao - "lumping so many outlets together" -- Just to clarify, I don't think anyone would reasonably view these as different outlets. This is a single outlet (the U.S. Agency for Global Media). It operates several different brands. None of these brands have the technical ability to independently broadcast programming, they are collectively served by USAGM's Office of Technology Services; RyTM and RFA signals both go out over the same physical transmitters. None of these brands hire their own "reporters," USAGM HR selects and hires them and each of them gets a paycheck that says "United States Treasury" on the top. None of these brands do pre-hire vetting of their own "reporters"; they are all vetted by U.S. military security services using the SF86 form [39] to determine their "loyalty to the United States." None of these brands have a different terminal boss, they all report to a political appointee of the president who can hire and fire employees. So, again, I think the only reasonable reading is USAGM is the outlet. These are merely Doing Business As names under which it operates. Chetsford (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  They are not exactly "Doing Business As" names. To be more precise, they are distinct 501(c)(3) organizations that are funded and supervised by USAGM. Their technical and financial infrastructure is provided by USAGM. That is public, well-documented, and does not necessarily create a contradiction with WP:INDEPENDENT, which centers on editorial independence. So far, I'm not seeing anything concrete here that would demonstrate an overall lack of editorial independence. - Amigao (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  • That's incorret. They are not 501(c)3s. They are operating units of the U.S. Government and their staff are employees of the U.S. Government, no different than the Office of Insular Affairs or the Defense Contract Management Agency. A 501(c)3 might would provide a measure of independence as it would create a cushion between elected officeholders and the editorial function. But that does not exist here. Chetsford (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

    RFA, RFE/RL, and MBN are indeed 501(c)3 organizations. You can check out their Form 990 filings here: 1, 2, and 3. Amigao (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• User:FortunateSons - "it ought to have no impact on reliability" -- While it ought not to, WP:RS affirm with absolute certainty it does. Why do you believe Telemundo is not reliable to make the determination that RyTM is "riddled with bad journalism" and "propaganda" [40]. Why do you believe USC's Annenberg School of Communications is not reliable to make the determination Alhurra relies "on unsubstantiated information too often ... [and] allowed the on-air expression of personal judgments too frequently" [41]. I've cited a dozen RS who have said these brands are completely unreliable based on in-depth analysis they've undertaken (i.e. not a quick Google News search to see if they're cited elsewhere). Anyway, my question is - when you dismiss RS like that with the unsourced conclusory statement "it ought to have no impact on reliability" you are making an affirmation of your perception of the status quo or an expression of hope? Chetsford (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  while the change in structure is (morally) negative, it ought to have no impact on general reliability. specifically refers to the change in structure, not to the discussion as a whole. FortunateSons (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Right. But when you say "ought to" were you expressing your hope/desire/wish it has no impact on reliability? Or were you indicating you have sources that negate the extensive documentation by RS that it's unreliable? Also, if you believe these are reliable, do I read that to understand you'd be okay with someone sourcing Radio y Television Marti to insert into our encyclopedia that George Soros is a "multimillionaire Jew" responsible for the 2008 financial crisis (as it reported [42])?Chetsford (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Ought in this sense refers to “not substantiated by policy”

Regarding the coverage, it was retracted and the employee put on administrative leave. While I would prefer us removing any network that violates a modern definition of antisemitism from the RS list, that is simply not covered by policy, and I am not permitted to insert my personal view on what makes or breaks an RS. FortunateSons (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"I am not permitted to insert my personal view on what makes or breaks an RS" But isn't that what you're doing? Presented with a dozen different sources - many of which are in-depth, academic content analyses - affirming USAGM is unreliable, you have !voted based on merely conclusory statements without presenting any counter-evidence from any RS affirming their reliability? Chetsford (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have voted in my reading of the sources (those whose language I understand) and my interpretation of policy. I am not allowed to make new policy just because I don’t like the conduct of a source. FortunateSons (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"I am not allowed to make new policy" Aren't you doing that, though? Our WP:IIS unambiguously precludes using a source that has a vested interest in a given topic and USAGM is simply an operating unit of the USG, funded by it and with less independence than even the Securities and Exchange Commission (which at least has a separating board). Instead of indicating even a tempered view of "additional considerations apply" you've given it the maximalist "generally reliable" with no caveat or limitation even for reporting on the USG itself. While I could disagree - but at least understand your position - if you presented counter-information or sources that contextualized what was presented, you haven't done that. It appears you're creating a policy carveout for the USAGM? Chetsford (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am evenly applying the same policy that lead to the results at Wikipedia:RADIOFREEASIA, which means that bias is an issue (as written in my vote), but there is no general lack of reliability to justify depreciation. Government funding (no matter the method of oversight) has not yet been considered a justification for depreciation in democratic countries to the best of my knowledge. Particularly RFA is clearly broadly cited, and as you have argued that they belong together, so you should then accept the RFA RfC to apply to all. While issues of bias (and style) are apparent, a broad lack of reliability is not. Therefore, I maintain my vote. FortunateSons (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia:USEBYOTHERS for RFE too: Business Insider, JPost, Forbes, The Hill, Time, France24, BBC (from 2013), BBC and many more FortunateSons (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Further to usage by other sources, WP:GREL sources like The Atlantic and The Economist not only use RFA's reporting but have also praised it. Examples: 1, 2, 3. Amigao (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Citation 73 primarily discusses issues of (actual and perceived) bias, and (page 27) the bar is less than 15 percent of stories having less than 2 (not necessarily 0, according to the endnote) sources, something negative but not necessarily catastrophic.

For linguistic reasons, I am unable to read 72. FortunateSons (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I most wholeheartedly disagree with the veracity of your summary. Chetsford (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor. FortunateSons (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Alaexis, in your !vote you said " no evidence of their unreliability has been provided". I just wanted to make sure you had a chance to see the evidence of unreliability I provided, above, namely: that RS described it having a "poor standard of journalism," that it lied for 40 years about the identity of its editor-in-chief, that RS says it broadcasts "propaganda," that RS described it as "riddled with bad journalism," that RS notes it relies on "unsubstantiated information," that RS state it relies on "rumors," etc.? Chetsford (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've looked at them again. It seems like a lot of criticism is levelled against Martí, so that doesn't automatically mean that all other outlets are equally bad. Also, even your report acknowledges that Por otro lado, a favor de Martí, el panel detectó pocos errores de hecho, which is the impression I get from other sources you've provided. There is definitely bias and selective reporting but no examples of uncorrected falsehoods. I'm open to considering Option 3 just for Martí. Alaexis_¿question? 08:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Radioworld?

Any thoughts on radioworld as a RS? We've got the better part of 100 articles that cite it now, but my immediate reason for caring is that I cite it twice in Arthur O. Austin, which I'm getting in shape for WP:FAC. On the one hand, it feels a bit like a blog. On the other hand, it does have what appears to be a real editorial staff and the Editor in Chief does appear to be an subject matter expert. I'm thinking they're OK to use for non-controversial technical information in the area of broadcast radio, but I'd like to hear what other folks think. RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RoySmith,

I've just had a look at the website. I definitely understand your argument but I don't think having real editorial staff makes much difference. I'm not saying the information in the articles (Under the "Columns and Views" tab) is inaccurate, but there are no citations to verify any of the content, which is Wikipedia's key criteria for sources, verifiability. I think it would be suitable to use in conjunction with other sources if you're willing to identify them?

As for using the source for non-controversial information, perhaps someone else can chime in here, but I don't think we want to set a precedent for changing the criteria for acceptable sources based on where they'll be used - IE, we should hold all sources to the same standard; neutral, secondary etc..

Just my thoughts..

Starlights99 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The article in particular I was using is https://www.radioworld.com/columns-and-views/arthur-o-austins-continuing-legacy, which does cite sources for some things. But, thank you for the input. I'll see if I can find the original articles and cite them directly. RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RoySmith

I just had a look at the link you sent. I think this should be fine. The way I would do it is pull the key information from article and find the relevant sources (at the bottom of the article) to reference from. I guess it's a case of skipping the blog, and going straight to the information and sources the blog has compiled together.

Starlights99 (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of WION

Following both previous discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Is WION a reliable source? and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 335#WION News, should WION News can be considered as unreliable? 103.230.81.135 (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment I would kindly ask you to add the voting options used for RfC on this noticeboard. FortunateSons (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this article about a Communist millionaire from The Free Press reliable?

The Free Press was founded by Bari Weiss a couple years ago. It's been discussed here a few times, but I didn't see a clear consensus that applies today. It started as essentially an upgraded blog for Bari Weiss, but now has a number of other staff members and some kind of editorial process. It has some fairly strong political perspectives, especially on gender issues.

I'm thinking of creating an article for James 'Fergie' Chambers, a Cox family heir and far-left activist, and came across this article: He’s Got $250 Million to Spend on Communist Revolution frpm The Free Press. It's an in-depth profile with participation from Chambers himself, neighbors, government officials, etc - well beyond a blog post. The author is Suzy Weiss, who appears to be Bari's sister. There are a few other articles on Chambers (1, 2, 3, 4), but, if reliable, this would be the best of them and a major source for our article. Do you think it should be considered reliable? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Weiss' ventures have been uniformly propagandistic for years. Furthermore, if this is what you've got for sources to establish notability it's likely insufficient. Simonm223 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 100% on creating the page yet - I wanted to ask about the Free Press article before doing anything - but it seems like he's probably notable to me. The Berkshire Eagle is a reliable regional newspaper, LA Magazine is reliable of long standing, and Axios is generally considered reliable as well. Mother Jones is probably the weakest as it's also (like the FP) opinionated/biased, but that's four reliable sources with articles squarely focused on Chambers personally, three of them in-depth. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Bari Weiss cast her Free Press explicitly in contrast with sources that our community regards as reliable like NPR and the New York Times: In Bari Weiss's words: If you’re someone that used to read the New York Times and listen to NPR in the morning, and now you’re thinking to yourself, 'I don’t know if I can trust what I hear or read there anymore,' where do you go? (as quoted by Los Angeles Magazine). If Free Press is designed to operate in contrast to that of reliable sources, I wouldn't consider it reliable. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources are allowed to be biased. What Weiss means here is that her magazine will take a different editorial stance than the NYT or NPR. That does not inherently render the source unreliable in and of itself. Zylostr (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 397 for the old discussion. Some of the arguments are loosely based on @Red-tailed hawk, so consider this attribution.

That’s an interesting question, in no particular order:

On the basics: they appear to be generally politically moderate enough and not express fringe views that would make covering wealthy people or communism through them untenable on that basis, being somewhere between (neo)liberal and conservative in their coverage. While some of who they platform is definitely questionable, I see no issue regarding reliability on that front.

On the very basics: staff, professional journalists, growth, no major mishaps, taken at least somewhat seriously by other sources, not SPS, so no objections here. It also appears that they are hiring additional staff, so it’s unlikely that any of those are about to change.

The primary issue (the age of the source) has been addressed enough to categorise them, which would be generally reliable but biased, so attributable where appropriate.

Therefore, I would recommend a cautious use due to the relatively new age, otherwise reliable for BLP. FortunateSons (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. A quick search finds no WP:USEBYOTHERS and no secondary coverage; there's no hint that this source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. What they say about themselves isn't sufficient to make them a RS, and what limited coverage exists (above) is not what I would call positive, so from our perspective they're still a WP:SPS. I would revert BLP-sensitive additions made using this source on sight as poorly-sourced under WP:3RRBLP. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think with over 20 employees and contractors, we are beyond SPS, right? FortunateSons (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

No, not really. Number of employees has no significance whatsoever - group blogs are quite common and are still WP:SPSes. All that it means is that the person running the blog has money, or people who agree with them who join on. WP:RS stems from the source's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Anyone can set up a website, claim to be reliable, and write anything they please on it, but reliability comes only from what other people say about it, not what they say about themselves or how they present themselves. If there's no coverage indicating that a source is reliable, then it is not reliable, at least not at the standard WP:BLP would require; and is probably usable only as a self-published source. --Aquillion (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m not saying it has to be reliable just because it’s not SPS, but there is a difference between a media company with editors, experienced journalists, etc. and a group blog. FortunateSons (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Based on the sources given, I can't imagine any article you write would be appropriate, and not an attack page. I think you'd want some less hostile, biographical sources to make a page on someone. Parabolist (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's possible to create a neutral article by pulling pieces of information from non-neutral sources, so long as they are independent and (especially) reliable. If you come across sources you think would be an improvement, for sure let me know, though - every bit helps. Thank you to everyone for your comments thus far! —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see anything that would prevent this specific piece from being used, as it seems considerably higher-quality than most of what Weiss/TFP has previously put out - that said, don't take this as an endorsement of TFP overall, I would shy away from their use otherwise. The Kip 04:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• There is some WP:USEBYOTHERS: [43], [44], [45], [46] which is not bad considering that they were founded quite recently. Unless there are specific issues with their reporting about James Chambers, it can be used as a source. Alaexis_¿question? 09:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Hindu Post link is highlighted for me as a generally unreliable source, but I can't find it at WP:RSP. If it's indeed unreliable, please ignore it, there are still three other sources which mentioned the Free Press' report. Alaexis_¿question? 09:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is also this FortunateSons (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  As WP:USEBYOTHERS says, How accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation (emphasis added). One random website using another random website doesn't make the latter more reliable. In the modern media environment, plenty of mediocre-to-actively-awful sources point to other mediocre-to-actively-awful sources. In order to establish that Weiss' Free Press truly has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, we would need sources that are themselves top-tier, like national papers of record, and they would need to use Free Press items in a substantial way (e.g., not merely reporting that Free Press was one of several websites to make a particular claim). At the moment, it's a long way from meeting that standard. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• For those interested, there is a draft page available to edit here: Draft:Fergie Chambers. It currently incorporates material from The Free Press, but the immediately prior version (available in the edit history) did not. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Per WP:NEWSORG "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis." The Free Press, like many media sources, publishes a mixture of opinion/commentary and reporting. Of course, context matters (and, not everything published in reliable sources needs to be included, per WP:RSOPINION, WP:PROPORTION, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The particular article at the heart of this discussion is a piece of first-person news reporting by a reporter. It is certainly not the only article on Fergie Chambers, nor the only media outlet that has published on Chambers. Since it indeed touches on a living person, exceptional or contentious claims found only in the FP article might be omitted until better corroborated (and considered under WP:PROPORTION) but uncontroversial statements with little reason to doubt them should be fine. In a nutshell, the Free Press news articles may be usable on a case-by-case basis. It is a very new media company with a mixture of news and commentary, but I see established journalistic writers, a declared editorial board consisting of professionals from legacy media, and the issuance of corrections in pursuit of accuracy. Its newness precludes an abundance of in-depth secondary sources, and the controversial history or opinions of its founder may color editor's perception of the outlet as a whole, but I see it as somewhat similar to Semafor or The Messenger - a new and growing media company that practices journalistic standards, regardless of editorial slant (remember: reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective).

I see a good deal of misinformation in this and previous discussions of the Free Press (e.g. here and here): people calling the current version of the Free Press a self-published source are largely incorrect. From Wikipedia's own explanatory page, Identifying and using self-published works: Identifying a self-published source is usually straightforward. You need two pieces of information: Who is the author or creator of the work? Who is the publisher of the work? If the answers to these questions are the same, then the work is self-published. If they are different, then the work is not self-published. Bari Weiss is the founder and owner of the Free Press, and an editor. She can reasonably be presumed to be the publisher. However, journalists Emily Yoffe and Peter Savodnik are credited as senior editors.[47][48] The managing editor is credited as Margi Conklin. Oliver Wiseman is also credited as an editor. And, as others have mentioned, the Free Press has a staff of around 20, with contributors including Eli Lake[49], Joe Nocera[50], Kat Rosenfield[51], Douglas Murray[52], Matti Friedman[53], Martin Gurri[54], Walter Kirn[55], and others. Not everyone may agree with a certain columnist or writer's view, but the Free Press has multiple editors with experience in traditional journalism, and several established staff writers. So long as the author, editor, and publisher are not the same person, no works by these or any writer, save Bari Weiss herself, fit the definition of self-published source. Another indicator of reliability is the issuance of corrections, which the Free Press does (e.g. [56][57][58][59]). It is no longer simply Bari Weiss's newsletter. However, since the outlet is so new, it is possible that earlier articles, especially those originally published on the Common Sense Substack, may have had less editorial oversight and be considered less reliable. Attribute when appropriate.

WP:USEBYOTHERS is demonstrated in some cases, although the outlet's age may preclude more. I don't subscribe to the FP nor follow it closely, but casual Googling for a previous RSN discussion finds uncritical usage by several established, credible outlets such as New York Daily News[60], National Review[61] and The Forward[62] but again, the more contentious a given statement is, the higher the bar for scrutiny and due-weight (which is different from reliability).

A lot of us have given our own personal opinions of the website. I'm more swayed by the views of journalists and experts. Columnist Jonathan Chait, recently writing for New York magazine, gives both praise and criticism to the outlet (his main gripe seems to be that the FP does not focus enough or as harshly on Donald Trump as he'd prefer, and that its selection and tone of articles tends to favor Weiss's worldview). He writes: "The journalistic premise of The Free Press is that, because the mainstream media has abandoned traditional norms of objectivity on subjects related to identity issues, a coverage gap is available to be filled. Also, progressive activists employ pressure, both externally (through social media) and internally (through the tactics of left-wing staff) to force coverage to comply with the progressive line. This critique is not without truth. .... Media organs have corrected some of these lurches to the left but not entirely. That bias has allowed The Free Press to break a number of stories that were either missed, ignored, or misreported by the mainstream media. It debunked widely circulated claims that a Canadian Catholic school for Indigenous children contained mass graves, a conclusion the mainstream media eventually confirmed. It broke stories about a Brooklyn public school using a Qatari-funded map of the Middle East that eliminated Israel, political drama at the Audubon Society over demands to change its name to de-honor its slave-owning founder, and Harvard biologist Carole Hooven's account of her cancellation for stating that sex (but not gender) is binary."

In summary, I think this particular article may be used with caution. It is not self-published. For the purpose of the article at hand, personal views of Bari Weiss matter about as much as the views of A. G. Sulzberger to the New York Times. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Models.com rankings

This subject was raised back in 2021, but not actually resolved in any substantive way. [63]. We currently cite the Models.com website in 777 different articles, [64] and in a great many of them seem to be using the website to cite various descriptions, rankings and/or ratings for models as "Icons", "New Supers", "Top 20 Sexiest Models", "Top Newcomer", "Money Girl" and no doubt more - I'm not going to check all 777 articles. To my mind, such indiscriminate throwing around of labels would make them of questionable merit in any source, but from looking at the website itself it appears to be even more problematic. As their About page [65] makes clear this website sells 'memberships' which enable a member to "Manage Your Brand" etc. See also the Help page ("Use Models.com like a Pro to discover talent, promote yourself or manage the talent you represent... [66]), and FAQ ("How to upload campaigns, editorials and more" etc, etc [67]). This is clearly in no way an independent source, able to independently assess or rank models. It is selling a service, to facilitate those who promote them. Accordingly, as I see it, the use to which this website is being put is entirely improper. It is promoting its 'members', and we are citing this promotion as if it is some sort of objective commentary. We clearly need to stop citing the website this way, and I could even see an argument for blacklisting it, given how frequently it has been misused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The thing is that most models there who are labeled as "Icons", "New Supers" etc, are literally that. For example Vittoria Ceretti who has appeared on the big 4 covers of Vogue, has been part of numerous solo advertisment campaigns and has achieved fame makes her a supermodel, same goes for Bella Hadid or Gigi Hadid. Or Gisele Bündchen who has been labelled as an "übermodel" she really is an "Icon or a Legend" in terms of modelling. There are requirments in which they list their models, "Top 50" means top 50 models who have had a good season and I've seen most of them and it fits them. Also all models on the "New Supers" category are Supermodels. I get where you're coming from but as long as the ranking is correct, in which the website reviews it while making the selections, I don't really see a problem. Maria1718182 (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Your personal opinion as to who does or doesn't deserve to be labelled as an 'Icon', a 'legend' etc is of no relevance to Wikipedia policy regarding which sources are acceptable to cite for any particular content. I suggest you take the time to familiarise yourself with said policy, as I suggested on your talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It isn't my personal opinion rather the opinion of the industry and certain sources such as Vogue being one of them. Go and see how the models.com selections are made about these kind of labels, if they're selected as 'New Supers', their work has been taken into account. I simply said I have regarded these certain models and I agree with what models.com listed them to be. Maria1718182 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Also if it was a promoting site, many models would have labelled themselves as supermodels especially newcomers. So selections are made based on certain criteria which is on models.com. You simply have to click on it. Maria1718182 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If Vogue describes someone as a supermodel, we can consider citing them for it. As for the rest of your comments, once more, they have no bearing on Wikipedia policy. We don't cite sources because we agree with them. We don't cite them because they claim to have 'criteria'. We cite them when if, and only if, they meet our criteria. And as far as this website goes, it seems self-evident that they have a direct commercial interest in promoting, through the application of such 'selections', those that pay for membership. This invalidates them as a source of independent assessment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I was summoned here by another user for obvious reasons so let's see what basic googling brought me to:

A.Harper's Bazaar - "Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner make Models Top 50 debut". These two women need no introduction. They said and I quote Gigi Hadid and Kendall Jenner have both made Models.com's prestigious Top 50 list for the first time. They join the likes of Edie Campbell, Lindsey Wixson and Georgia May Jagger in what is widely considered to be the definitive guide to the top models of the moment. [...] the Top 50 list tracks the girls who are currently making waves within the fashion and beauty industries, thanks to their number of contracts, campaigns and editorial bookings.

B. Multiple editions of Vogue (yes, Vogue) have cited models.com as a reliable source or have used their lists as a metric of notability. Vogue Australia in October of last year: South Sudanese-Australian model Abény Nhial was nominated last year as Models.com’s 2022 breakout star of the year, and since, has gone on to hold a spot on the website's top 50 models list[.] and back in 2014 when Vogue Italia did a cover of 50 actual supermodels, the likes of Linda Evangelista and Naomi Campbell, [they saidhttps://www.vogue.com.au/fashion/news/50-models-cover-vogue-italias-50th-anniversary-issue/news-story/01c2e7202f1a12cc7235eae9722af508] The cast of models reads like a Models.com top 50 list. Teen Vogue published an article on a Models.com exposé. Teen Vogue published an article when Gigi Hadid was chosen by Models.com as Model of the Year The list is a great indicator of who's who in the industry. Vogue France deemed it notable when male model Kit Butler was chosen as Models.com's Model of the Year in the men's category. Even all the way back in 2011, Vogue sought it fit to mention that runway legend Natasha Poly was (ranked number two in the world on Models.com, for the record).

C. The New York Times, literally in the first sentence of this article, says Lara Stone, the gaptoothed Dutch-English model often compared to Brigitte Bardot who was at the top of models.com’s Top 50 models in the world list from 2010 to 2012, has done many things in fashion. Apparently this list is so notable that it precedes Vogue covers and being a Calvin Klein exclusive, in a New York Times editorial.

D. Interview on Ondria Hardin here: Things haven’t slowed down since: ranked as one of Models.com’s “Top 50 Models,” the North Carolina native was a fixture at the SS 2017 shows, walking for the likes of Miu Miu, Chanel, Balmain, Dries Van Noten, Versace, and Michael Kors.

E. GQ Australia used Models.com's lists, plural, as in other lists in addition to the Top 50 one, as a reference of notability 5 times in this article a month ago. Also called them prestigious and coveted.

These are only a few examples. So what exactly is the real argument against this website? It is so clear what the subversion here is. They have a masthead if anyone bothers to look at the bottom, so clearly there is a staff of people doing all of this as a job and it isn't some random blog ran from a loft in Greenpoint. Who gives a damn if they have a Pro section. Nowadays Vogue only let's people read one article before making people sign up or log in, and won't let people people see the runway slideshows (which, get this, we on Wikipedia need to use to verify work). To say that they're "not independent" because they expect to earn money as a business, no different than any other website (that includes the websites of magazines that have actual corporations behind them) is utterly nonsensical. Trillfendi (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The real question is whether Models.com is widely used in the model industry or not. This far, the only argument seems to be that AndTheGrump does not like the site and Maria1718182 likes it. Neither's feelings are very relevant. If it is an obscure site, we should not use it. If it is a widely used site in the modelling industry, it should be used for that industry, with proper attribution. Jeppiz (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My objections have nothing to do with 'not liking the site'. I am asking whether it can appropriately be used for promotional content regarding clients who may pay for 'memberships' which give access to editorial control. As a general principle, (see e.g. WP:SPONSORED) we consider Sources that do not clearly distinguish staff-written articles from sponsored content to be questionable. If this was just a one-off usage, I'd simply have removed it, but since the website has been cited so often, and since their doesn't seem to have been any prior discussion that resolved the issue, I am asking for broader input, based on the evidence available which suggests that its use as a source for rankings and other potentially-promotional content is compromised by a commercial relationship with its clientele. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I checked the website once again about the membership.

"Individual model or creative profiles on Models.com are by invitation only based on career accomplishments, longevity and industry influence."

This is what is says. It means that these models are selected based on certain criteria, you have to give credit for your work and models.com only allows certain people on their website as models. Maria1718182 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The whole work of models (new gen) is basically there which helps to cite how many shows they've walked in, editorials, advertisments and you have to give credit for your work as cited by the website, you can't just claim it. I think it is important for wikipedia since they seem to keep track of it, and in my opinion it's a reliable site for numbers such as runway shows etc. As for the rankings AndytheGrump may be right, because there are models who haven't contributed to the industry that long and are considered as "Supermodels", which makes you think if the site is reliable in terms of the rankings. Maria1718182 (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• From the about is page it's clear their content comes from the source, membership allows you to add details. At best that makes it self-published, and so should be handled as such. Specifically it should be fine as a source of information about themselves so long as The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. So it can be used for details of what shows they've been in etc, but not for exceptional claims or matters of opinion. If you want to use 'supetmodel' you're going to have to find a different source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• For those who don't know the history, models.com started out as a spinoff site of the 90s era New York Web. From the beginning NYW had a sort of breathless "what's hot right now" approach, informed by NYC nightlife culture, that carried over into models.com. Some of the early archives of models.com rankings are kind of creepy to read! But there's no doubt, at all, that the site is now used widely within the industry, so much that companies providing stats and data about covers and runway appearances and so forth know they are monitored by their competitors and generally provide accurate information (except for height, haha). So I don't see a problem using it as a reference for things like Vogue covers or runway shows.
  That said, we shouldn't substitute models.com's rankings for our own notability guidelines, and we should avoid simply reproducing models.com's in-universe rankings without attributions, supporting citations, and context (e.g. not just "models.com Hot Newcomer" but "When asked for a list of eight new models she particularly liked, stylist Gabriella Karefa-Johnson selected Divine Mugisha as one of the eight for F/W 2024"). Put another way, a person isn't notable on Wikipedia because models.com ranks them highly, they are notable because of the underlying things that meet our guidelines. (Though I'm not sure we've ever come to a consensus that fashion shows or magazine covers count as the "other productions" specified in WP:ENT, actually.) As long as we're using it to support the actual stats/references we should be citing rather than just gesturing to the models.com ranking or editorial commentary as a substitute for that sourcing work, we don't have to worry as much about whether "Hot 50" means the most covers or highest EMV or most Instagram followers or Stephan's faves or which agency paid the fee or whatever. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it time to re-evaluate the ADL?

The ADL is a bit of an odd entry as a GREL source at RSP, and I'm wondering if this is simply a function of there never being a fully fledged RFC on the matter, and merely a handful of relatively informal discussions. The ADL is functionally a pro-Israeli advocacy group that has also dabbled in civil rights more generally. At the moment, the organization is deemed largely GREL with a few caveats: "There is consensus that ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S. There is no consensus that ADL must be attributed in all cases, but there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed. Some editors consider the ADL's opinion pieces not reliable, and that they should only be used with attribution. Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all." I find the last two of these points particularly odd. Does this mean that there are opinion pieces that would be considered reliable and not require attribution? And how and why? Don't we ordinarily attribute almost all opinion, unless issued from an utterly impeachable source? And only some editors consider the ADL a biased source for the Israel/Palestine conflict? Again, surely it is a dead ringer for bias in that area? This question has recently intensified. Since October, the ADL has increasingly veered towards supporting not just Israel, but expressly Zionism, and equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism Anti-Defamation League staff decry ‘dishonest’ campaign against Israel critics. And now "many civil society groups are increasingly reluctant to partner with the non-profit. The ADL has facilitated trainings between US and Israeli law enforcement officers and allegedly spied on progressive and Arab American groups. (The ADL settled a lawsuit stemming from the spying allegations but denied wrongdoing.) In 2021, about 100 social justice and civil rights groups signed an open letter urging other organizations not to work with the ADL. Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas, which the group vehemently denies. ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”." - so not just advocacy group, but a group working with law enforcement to interfere with freedom of speech and, well, the last line there speaks for itself - preech false equivalence of the propagandistic variety. Is this really GREL? As good as the best a news source can offer? And from the intercept: How The Adl’s Anti-Palestinian Advocacy Helped Shape U.S. Terror Laws – standfirst: Long before 9/11, Zionist groups like the Anti-Defamation League lobbied for counterterror legislation that singled out Palestinians, a new report reveals., and quote: Emma Saltzberg, the U.S. strategic campaigns director for Diaspora Alliance, an organization that fights “antisemitism and its instrumentalization,” told The Intercept that the ADL’s call for terrorism investigations is contrary to its stated mission as a civil rights group. And then finally we have Jewish Currents, with ADL Staffers Dissented After CEO Compared Palestinian Rights Groups to Right-Wing Extremists, Leaked Audio Reveals, the groups in question here including Jewish Voice for Peace, which the ADL CEO Greenblatt called “extremist” and compared to right-wing extremists. Is this really a source that we consider GREL, with only a ho-hum, "some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine? Only some? Who doesn't? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Has this come about by way of a current dispute? A recent article in the Guardian opens in their own voice, with

ADL has only doubled down on initiatives defending Israel and the policies of the Israeli government amid criticism and staff resignations.The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, sparked controversy in 2022 when he placed opposition to Israel on a par with white supremacy as a source of antisemitism.

and continues in a similar vein. The bias is severe enough that I think this source should be considered gunrel for IP matters. Selfstudier (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't come by way of a particular dispute, but by way of the ADL repeatedly being brought up as GREL source in conversation with respect to the conflict, which seems entirely beyond the pale at this point. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

They are definitely a clear case for biased but reliable, I’m not sure who fully disagrees with biased in an I/P context. I would call them pretty objective when it comes to other topics, particularly right-wing and other antisemitism.

Regarding reliability, they are broadly cited, even during this conflict, and there are no other issues concerning reliability that are apparent which are not covered by bias.

While a phrasing change is a reasonable idea, probably by removing the opinion sentence and clarifying that the some users part refers to “that should be used with caution, if at all.” and not to the biased part, I see no reason to remove the ADL from the GREL list or to even re-discuss the topic. FortunateSons (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing can hardly be changed without a re-discussion of the topic. One does not make changes willy-nilly to RSP. But thank you for your constructive engagement on the possible oddities here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

We could definitely remove the second to last sentence for being specifically outside of policy, if we find unilateral consensus here, no? I think editors who could be perceived to be on “any side” of this conflict are still here to build an encyclopaedia, and using unattributed opinion pieces if we don’t do it for a Paper of Record is nothing anyone should support. As I consider the last sentence to be merely a linguistic and not a content error, requesting a new close could fix that, right? FortunateSons (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

If there is additional sourcing available similar to that of the Guardian, I fail to see how this source can be considered as anything other than generally unreliable for IP matters. If such sourcing exists, an RFC to clarify that seems desirable. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I suppose if one had to point to one particular issue, it would be this Guardian phrase again: "ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”." - I would say that this strays far beyond mere bias and into the realm of quite chronic falsehood. This is an extremely problematic position. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The linked tweet (so not what we would use anyway) sounds within a reasonable interpretation of the facts, though I’m not very happy with tone (read: bias) either. Some of the “grass-roots-activism” is definitely supportive of at least some of the methods and goals by Hamas which were otherwise criticised by (western) media. As unfortunate as it is, warnings were somewhat reasonable based on some of the attacks on Jewish and Israeli institutions and organisations outside of Israel which happened over the last few months. FortunateSons (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And bias is kind of covered, so unsure we need to change anything. Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Its statistical reporting of antisemitism has also been rubbished by tenured law professor David Bernstein [68], so even if we're cool with the propagandizing, its facts are a problem. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources doesn’t list Tablet (magazine), but I’m going to stick with biased but reliable unless shown otherwise, despite it being somewhat right-wing.

With the exception of the bomb threats (were I disagree with the outcome but understand the argument, as I would count 163 bomb threats against Muslim institutions to be Islamophobic even if not intended to be as such), I would say that the ADL response appropriately addressed most of the issues at hand. Do you disagree? FortunateSons (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I emphasized the author precisely because it was a professor, so regardless of the hosting source, it's a subject-matter expert speaking. He highlighted among other flaws an extremely skew-y methodology, misleading presentation, and ultimately concluded: "The ADL itself is primarily to blame for how its own study has been misconstrued and misused." The ADL's response was the usual fluffy PR waffle and hardly addressed the meat of the concerns, or any of the specifics, in the slightest. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have found past reporting to be pretty clear, but I guess that’s subjective FortunateSons (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

David Bernstein is a right-wing tenured law professor who strongly believes that measuring, monitoring and indeed most forms of opposing racism are generally bad pursuits, who in 2017 was attacking the ADL for its reporting on antisemitism under Trump, but even he does not criticise the way they recorded data, but the way mainstream media reported their findings (which he said their press release was partly responsible for). The meat of his concerns that the what the ADL calls antisemitic incidents are not violent incidents and therefore shouldn't make Jews feel unsafe. We absolutely should not see his opinion piece as indicating unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. He also criticises the type of incidents captured, including those found later to be unrelated to antisemitism but which the ADL did not discount. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

But ADL were very upfront about this in the report: Jewish institutions, including Jewish schools, community centers, and museums as well as synagogues, were the targets of 342 anti-Semitic incidents in 2017. This is an increase of 101% over the 170 incidents recorded in 2016. However, this number includes 163 bomb threats made in the first quarter of the year; the vast majority of which were alleged to have been perpetrated by a troubled Jewish teenager located in Israel. Excluding those bomb threats, the total number of incidents targeting Jewish institutions is 179, an increase of 5% over the 170 incidents targeting those places in 2016.[69] To me, this transparency shows we can use them as a source for facts, and perhaps just double check that we're not misinterpreting what they are counting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

But it's still calling threats by a Jewish teenager antisemitic incidents? Are they implying self-hatred? Iskandar323 (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The question here is: does the ADL giving the figures both with and without these reported incidents in the 2017 report, and being explicit about doing that, mean they're not reliable for facts? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's one question. Another is whether they are competent at categorising information in the first place. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the ADL's reputation, that is what we should be basing this on? Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I find the fact that even the group's own staff have been protesting at its partisanship and targeting of other civil rights groups over the past 12 months (Jewish Currents (March 2023), The Guardian (January 2024)) is pretty indicative of the issues at hand. Even if the ADL hadn't arrived at naked partisanship prior to Greenblatt, it surely has done so under his leadership. Now Jewish Voice for Peace, for example, have been grouped with the antisemitic crowd for advocating for Palestinian rights. So now, at least in the IP conflict sphere, the ADL appears to be anti-civil rights where it conflicts with its pro-Israel messaging. Given that the organisation's original merit was deemed to be in categorising far-right extremist groups, when it makes analogies between Jewish Voice for Peace to far-right groups and calls them "left-wing extremists", it is using the weight of that voice oppressively. So it is now leveraging its position within the civil rights community to take a stand against other Jewish groups when they conflict with it ideologically, which is remarkable to say the least. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like they are becoming more partisan recently including with their domestic coverage. I don't see any reason to cite their output on the I/P conflict—it's not like they do original reporting or scholarship in that area. (t · c) buidhe 01:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• As the person who opened the original ADL RfC, I specifically asked the Israel-Palestine question because it seemed to me that the ADL was partisan on this topic, an opinion I still hold. While I think the ADL is a useful source for far-right extremism ala the SPLC, there are much better sources for the I-P topic area. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  Does anybody ever use it as a source on I-P itself? That would be bizarre. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  I recall it being used to state that the phrase "from the river to the sea" is antisemitic, which is the sort of usage I had in mind. I don't think it's unusable to represent its own opinion, but it's views definitely should be attributed to the ADL rather than stated as fact. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Bias is not an issue, factual accuracy is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Sure, so do you think it is a factually accurate statement that Jewish Voice for Peace are left-wing extremists? Because my sky is blue reading of that is that it is tripe. Based on the ADL contention that anti-zionism = antisemitism, Jewish Voice for Peace are also antisemitic. So are we happy with allowing the ADL to label (as fact) other Jewish groups as antisemitic – essentially the classic "self-hating Jew" pejorative for those that don't toe the line, but sadly not in this instance rolled out for comedic purposes. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That all smacks of OR. What do RS think? Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Well it isn't. I presented you with the Jewish Currents and Guardian articles just above. Did you miss my comment, and have you actually read the contents? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

You mean the stuff about what some of their staff think? Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Aside from that RS reporting, there's also this Times of Israel piece on the ADL's long-standing antipathy towards Jewish Voice for Peace. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That an RS reporting disgruntled staff, not them saying it is unreliable, and the new source seems to be the one calling JVP far-left, not the ADL. Nor doers it seem to be overly crucial of the ADL. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we missing the point that the ADL is an advocacy group that publishes material without peer review or anything by way of an editorial board? If it were a lobby group that advocated on behalf of companies, it wouldn't get anywhere near RSP, but because it is a lobby group that advocates on behalf of a country (a foreign government in the context of the US) it appears to get a free pass. The tuppence from the Nation entitled "The ADL Goes Full Bully: The organization’s new campaign against anti-Zionist and Palestine-solidarity groups is a clear sign that it lacks the credibility to lead on civil rights issues." Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No i am missing the part where RS say (in their words) it is not reliable, and with this I am out, and I suggest others users drop out as well rather than bludgeoning the process, we have all had our say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe ADL is a reliable source for facts in the topic area where it has expertise, e.g. in reporting on right-wing hate groups or conspiracy theories. The problem is about its judgement in using contentious labels such as "extremist", which are labels WP generally ought to avoid anyway. It is also the case that it is hasty in labelling Israel criticism as antisemitic and fails to distinguish between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. For this reason, we should not say "X is antisemitic", citing only ADL. However, as it is heavily cited and notable, it would often be noteworthy for us to say "ADL describe X as antisemitic", balanced with noteworthy opposing views where applicable. In the specific example given above, if any publication of the ADL called e.g. JVP extremist or antisemitic, that might be noteworthy (especially if reported by secondary sources) but not something we should relay in our own voice without attribution -- but it anyway appears that this was the personal opinion of the CEO rather than an official statement of the organisation. ADL has absolutely no expertise on Israel-Palestine itself, and I cannot imagine why anybody would cite it in that topic area. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful for editors to link to a Wikipedia article that uses ADL for the I-P conflict for context. Oxfam is an advocacy group, and I have seen a secondary source quote Oxfam for use in the I-P topic area, so I am not sure if ADL being an advocacy group excludes it from being reliable. Wafflefrites (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's green because it doesn't misrepresent facts. The main contentions I'm seeing here that I feel like I can refute are that:
  • The ADL is unreliable to use for factual statements of anti-Semitism because it conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.
    • In response to this, it already states in the RSP listing that the ADL must be attributed for claims of antisemitism. This is already the status quo and doesn't necessitate going down in reliability.
  • The ADL is biased in the Israel-Palestine topic area.
    • This is again, already the status quo and RSP says to use it with caution in that area.
  • The ADL accused some campus groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) of supporting Hamas.
    • Students for Justice in Palestine supported the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. [70] [71] The exact quote from SJP is contained in their "Day of Resistance toolkit". [72]

      • Today, we witness a historic win for the Palestinian resistance: across land, air, and sea, our people have broken down the artificial barriers of the Zionist entity, taking with it the facade of an impenetrable settler colony and reminding each of us that total return and liberation to Palestine is near. As the Palestinian student movement, we have an unshakable responsibility to join the call for mass mobilization. National liberation is near— glory to our resistance, to our martyrs, and to our steadfast people.

    • This is what the ADL was referring to when it said that SJP supported terrorism. [73] Generally, when someone makes a statement in support of a terrorist attack, it's assumed that they also support the terrorists that committed the attack. @Iskandar323: says that:
      • I suppose if one had to point to one particular issue, it would be this Guardian phrase again: "ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”."
    • I would like to hear how the above statement isn't "pro-Hamas".
    • I also don't understand why this degrades the ADL as a reliable source. Currently, the ADL targets many groups that make violent threats against Jewish people, such as neo-Nazis that glorify the Holocaust. Another quote from SJP's toolkit:
      • Settlers are already fleeing the land, their ‘dedication’ to the settler colony is easily broken. The dedication of Palestianians for their national liberation is unshakable.
    • If I'm not mistaken, this is glorifying the genocide of Jewish Israelis and acclaiming how many were turned into refugees during the conflict. The ADL's position has not changed during the conflict or since October 7th. Generally, they oppose groups that advocate for the murder of people because they are Jewish, regardless of if it is Europe, America, Israel, or anywhere else in the world.
• The burden of proof here is to show that the ADL isn't publishing the truth. As far as I can see, this burden hasn't been met. I welcome inline replies as I put this in point-form. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  No source is presumed to be reliable. The burden of proof is precisely the opposite: those arguing that a source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy should be prepared to show it's the case. (t · c) buidhe 03:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  The claims made by the source are substantially true and it's already been shown to be reliable in previous discussions. There's been no evidence offered to show that this has changed. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Chess: I don't believe I raised a single specific point about this group called the SJP, but instead focused entirely on JVP. One might call it somewhat strawman-ish to respond to entirely different specifics than those that were raised. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  JVP is an extremely controversial group in the Jewish community, not just for its anti-Zionism but also its association with radical Palestinian groups and individuals, including convicted terrorists. You can literally read about in on their own Wiki page, but it’s no surprise a mainstream Jewish group like ADL would regard JVP very poorly. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• It's very frustrating to see the decline of the ADL into a propaganda org for Israel over the last few years because it has been a valuable resource for tracing American nazis and neo-nazis. I would suggest the exercise of extreme caution in the use of ADL sources - likely inappropriate for anything even tangentially related to Israel. But if it's dealing with issues surrounding Americans that it is identifying specifically as Nazis in a context not involving Israel it would likely still be at least somewhat reliable in that context. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've also found this In These Times piece charting the ADL's slow-motion abdication of its civil rights leadership role. There's also this Boston Review piece in a similar vein, though not sure if it's guest analysis or opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Anti-Defamation League: Israel’s Attack Dog in the US

  "Posing as a civil rights group, the ADL has long operated as an intelligence organization targeting Israel’s critics. So why does the media still treat it as a credible source?" Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is a complicated one because:
  • The ADL is clearly unreliable regarding the I/P conflict. They're mainly cited for whether or not a group is a hate group, but they regard essentially any opposition to Israel at all as antisemitic, which is not anywhere near a mainstream position on this issue. Just going by their public statements, they'd accuse the vast majority of nations in the UN of antisemitism just based off their official positions towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. No newsorg in the world would repeat those accusations in their own voice, so it's clear their accusations in the area are not credible.
  • Despite this, when talking about antisemitism outside the context of I/P, the ADL clearly are a reliable source, and often a useful one.
  • This would normally justify two entries (compare WP:FOXNEWS and WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS), except that it's fairly often the case that these two areas of expertise converge on each other and cannot clearly be separated. For instance, it's sometimes the case that pro-Palestine organizations do things that could be viewed as antisemitic, such as protesting outside a Jewish-owned business that donates significantly to Zionist causes. For an organization to have credibility in this situation it needs to be able to judge the situation neutrally, but the ADL clearly can't, even though there is some credible reason to think there's antisemitism going on.

So I think my general inclination would be to lower the ADL overall down to yellow, and make a separate red entry for the ADL on Israel/Palestine. Loki (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps keep green for the moment on things not related to Israel and Jews, but I think yes, just having a warning in it about such matters is inadequate when it actively harasses Jews who are against Israel's expansionist policies. NadVolum (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The ADL does sloppy research on 'hate symbols'

It has repeatedly come up on related pages that the ADL cannot be trusted when it comes to researching symbols. The research they put forth is utterly terrible and would not pass an introductory course on the matter.

An example that caused a headache over at our own Black Sun (symbol) article (back in 2019) is their entry on what they call the "Sonnenrad" ([74]). This entry appears to have once been intended to be about the the Black Sun (symbol), but an earlier version appeared to have no idea what the word Sonnenrad was used for (and seemed to have been copied and pasted from an earlier, non-ADL resource without much thought).

As the entry today says (probably after someone their encountered our discussion of it), the German noun Sonnenrad is literally 'sunwheel' and can refer to any number of other symbols, including the swastika. Nonetheless, the ADL still hasn't bothered to make a separate Black Sun entry, an important neo-Nazi symbol today.

Their symbol database is full of other poorly-researched entries with dubious 'facts', like on the group's entry for the Wolfsangel symbol (entry). Here the ADL claims it is "an ancient runic symbol", which is completely false. It is not a character from any historic ("ancient") runic script. And I know they've repeatedly been asked to correct this by scholars.

Most of their entries on historic symbols are just a mess (like this one, where they use the "life rune" term throughout without noting that this comes from 1900s Völkisch circles and is not 'ancient'). And that's just the beginning of the issues with this article — all their articles on runes are just a total mess. They are certainly not something we should be considering reliable.

The ADL could easily correct the many issues in these entries at any time by bringing on an expert. To date they have expressed no interest in doing so despite positioning themselves as authorities on these topics. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/sonnenrad seems to actually say all of what you say about the sonnenrad, seems pretty balanced to me. Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Adjusted above. While still garbled, confused, and incorrect, the ADL revised the entry to make more sense, and that's why there are only images of the Black Sun with it. This sloppy 'research' led to an obnoxious discussion over at the article's talk page ([75]) and it's why the ADL lacks a Black Sun entry, despite the attention the topic has received. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  So what do they say that is factualy incorrect? Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  Besides the Wolfsangel example above, the misinformation about the Black Sun, and the lack of research about the "life rune"? The whole database is riddled with errors, provides no authorship information (who wrote this garbage?), and cites no sources. I could easily put together a long list here. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  What misinformation about the black sun, what do they say about it that is wrong? Not a long list, one factoid they get wrong, just one. Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  I'm discussing historic issues with the site. The current entry is better than the old one but it remains a garbled mess that isn't clear that what it's discussing, not even calling the Black Sun symbol by name. And the Wolfsangel isn't an "ancient rune", for example. Poor 'research' like this continues to cause issues on relevant Wikipedia entries. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

All Black suns are sonnerad's that is not incorrect. And the Wolfsangel is a rune as all runes are "Runes were used to write Germanic languages (with some exceptions) before they adopted the Latin alphabet, and for specialized purposes thereafter." so yes it is a rune that dates back to at least 1299, Thus is can be argued that even Ancient is not wrong, as it is a matter of perspective. So this is a POV issue, not an inaccuracy one, so with this you have the field. Ohh and correcting errors is a sign of being an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"so yes it is a rune that dates back to at least 1299" — lol, what on earth are you talking about? The Wolfsangel has never been a part of any historic ("ancient") runic alphabet. That's an objective fact. It does however get confused for 'an ancient rune' by non-experts and here we see this happening with the ADL, which is unacceptable for a resource positioning itself as authorative.

Are you remotely familiar with the runic alphabets? Do you know what a rune is? We have plenty of articles on these topics.

I strongly suggest that you do some very basic research before commenting further. When someone has genuine concerns about reliability and demonstrates poor research, step one is for you to become familiar enough about a topic to discuss it before attempting to do so.

Furthermore, there's one Black Sun (Schwarze Sonne) symbol and it's from the mid-1930s-early 1940s. It gained its name in the 1990s and it's just a type of 'sun wheel', which is nothing more than a category with a questionable name. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I remember this discussion occurring at Azov Brigade, I forget the conclusion though. Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Together, the lack of sourcing, the lack of care, and the cavalier nature of these entries suggests it is a bad encyclopedic resource. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Our own articles must have citations and authorship. However, that is not a requirement for sources themselves (or not necessarily). The lack of bylines in The Economist, for instance, is a bit of a pain, but does not render it non-RS. A lack of citations or hyperlinks in a magazine piece would not render it non-RS if the magazine were otherwise deemed reliable. If there are factual errors, that is another matter, and those seem more worth highlighting. Freelance-frank (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Not all sources provide their sources, but most sources have some sort of provenance. News sources have editorial boards, academic papers have peer review, even think tank papers normally have a list of sources, and the ADL has what exactly? Blind trust? Iskandar323 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It literally states, sourced, on the Wolfsangel page that this symbol is sometimes mistaken for a rune, but appears in no runic alphabet. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems like that the list of perennial sources should note that the ADL is unreliable regarding hate symbols. Cortador (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... this is actually all fairly convincing that the ADL just shouldn't be a reliable source in general. Especially failing to correct the Wolfsangel mistake is a big one: that's a clear mistake of fact and while making it doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on them, not correcting it absolutely does. Loki (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that, in general, most of the organizations that purport to make lists of "hate symbols" just kind of throw whatever crap in there. For example, if you look at the ADL's "hate symbols database", you will see entries for:

• 1-11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 18
• 23
• 28
• 33/6
• 38

I don't really think a classification should be taken seriously when, of the two-digit numbers between 10 and 40, ten are hate symbols. jp×g🗯️ 10:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

• This all depends on what it's being used for. If you're writing about a symbol as an ancient rune, no, the ADL is not a good source. But the Hate on Display project is widely cited in both scholarship and the press. To be clear, the scholarship is not history, archaeology, etc. but about the actual subject of that project: hate/hate speech/hate symbols. On that the ADL is seen as an authority (even if their popularity is decreasing over the last few months...). Yes, there are a lot of numbers in the database because there are lots of symbols that have been either created or appropriated by one or more hate-related purposes. If the claim is "what is the meaning of 12", the ADL is not a sufficient sources for saying "oh, it's a symbol of hate". If the question is "what symbols do the Aryan Brotherhood use", then yes ADL would be a good source. As for whether to include it in an article like 12 (number), that's a good WP:WEIGHT debate for the talk page. Even in the historical criticisms above, OP acknowledges they've made improvements, and that doesn't even concern the main contribution of the project, which (again) isn't a history of the symbol in general but how it's used as a hate symbol. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Colnect

Anyone know about the reliability of this website?

Specifically, I'm looking into this for this commemorative stamp.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What page do you want to use this site for? Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Deir Yassin massacre#International. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Not really, its a stamp site (and see below, whats its reputation?). Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The "Improve our Catalog" button suggests it's like IMDB, it might be classifiable as that sort of source, see WP:IMDB. -- GreenC 18:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought so, Wikipedia's own articles describes it as a wiki and the specific page allows you to login and to 'improve the catalog'. This certainly suggest it's WP:UGC, and given the topic area I would find a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Office of Cuba Broadcasting of the United States Government

Are the platforms of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting of the United States Federal Government's U.S. Agency for Global Media (including Radio y Television Marti, RyTM's website Martínoticias.com, and any publicly undisclosed entities):

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

Note: A previous RfC dealt with the U.S. Agency for Global Media (AGM) of which Radio y Television Marti is one of its DBA names. Half of the participating editors, as of this date stamp and excluding nom, have requested individual DBA names of USAGM be addressed as separate RfCs and indicated their belief that the original RfC is malformed by not doing so. Chetsford (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey (Office of Cuba Broadcasting)

• 4 While it's possible to find individual instances of WP:USEBYOTHERS, implicit in that is the idea that refusal of use by others (when stated) acts as a rejoinder. Moreover, common sense would dictate that robust content analysis on an outlet's unreliability or propensity to publish falsehoods should be given more weight in source evaluation than a drive-by "according to X" mention in a different RS. In this case:

• A 1992 report by the GAO found that OCB's inhouse "critic and his predecessor have repeatedly expressed concern about editorializing" while two outside consultants found its "programs lacked balance and did not comply with standards". [76]
• A decade later, nothing had improved. That year, the GAO found that, from 2004-2007, Radio y Television Marti had a "perpetually poor standard of journalism", editorialized "the presentation of individual views as news", incorporated "offensive and incendiary language" in its reporting, and reported on "unsubstantiated" rumors. [77]
• In a 2006 headline, the New York Times described RyTM as "U.S. propaganda". [78]
• In 2018, Mother Jones chronicled the aggressive and questionable tone of Radio y Television Marti's reporting, including its news reports that deounced George Soros is a "multimillionaire Jew" and the "architect of the financial collapse of 2008". [79]
• In 2019, journalism professors at USC and journalists from Telemundo concluded Radio y Television Marti was "riddled with bad journalism" and "propaganda". [80]
• A 2019 article in Tufts Universitys Fletcher Forum of World Affairs classified RyTM as part of a medley of U.S. Government "influence operations". [81]
• As recently as 2021, USAGM's own staff -- including staff from RyTM -- stated that management meddled with editorial independence by taking "actions that did not align with USAGM’s firewall principles". [82]

Chetsford (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• 2 or 3 Don’t see any need to deprecate, but also not sure where this source would be used for given it’s a US outlet aimed at Cuba staffed by Cuban exiles. Clearly biased, if used, should be used with caution. Toa Nidhiki05 05:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• 2 both pre and post 2017 There are some (concerning, but not catastrophic) issues and clear bias, but relatively insignificant issues with quality and clear bias does not make a source unreliable per se. Therefore caution should be applied, particularly when using it for controversial issues. FortunateSons (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• 4. It's a propaganda outlet broadcasting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, among other things. Cortador (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• 4 per the sources presented by Chetsford. While biased sources can sometimes be used, sources that publish false or misleading information cannot; and sources that have a systematic bias that pushes them to intentionally publish false things are one of the cases that deprecation exists for. Bad journalism alone would just be unreliability, but systematic bad journalism in the service of a particular perspective is not something we ought to use as a source anywhere, because it is clear that the problems are not simple incompetence but the result deliberate intent. The OCB has done things like creating fake social media accounts to spread propaganda, or pay journalists under the table to press a particular point of view. We wouldn't accept a source like this from any other government; when a source is outright being used as an example of government-run propaganda in most academic studies discussing it, we're past the point where there's anything salvageable to it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• 4 per Aquillion and Chetsford. Anything notable enough to include in an article would have much better sources. NightHeron (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• 4 This is a source explicitly designed to deceive and disseminate propaganda. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• 3 per u:Chetsford's arguments. Alaexis_¿question? 19:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• 4 An explicit state-sponsored propaganda outfit with no desire or ability to check facts.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
• 4 The difference between 3 and 4 for me is whether a source is merely failing to verify facts, or if it's outright attempting to deceive. Many sources have no fact-checking process, but because they're not attempting to deceive they can at least be counted on for very basic things like what their own opinions are or certain kinds of direct quotes. Propaganda outlets like the OCB don't even meet that bar: since they're trying to lie to the reader, the appropriate thing to do when they say something is to think it's less likely to be true than it was before. Loki (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Office of Cuba Broadcasting)

What sites are covered by this RfC? Template:Link summary might be useful here to understand the extent of usage on Wikipedia. - Amigao (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This RfC covers the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) and any platforms it operates.
As of the date-stamp, OCB is known to operate two platforms: Radio y Television Marti (broadcast) and martinoticias.com (online). There is functionally no difference between RyTM and martinoticias.com (i.e. CNN and cnn.com; Fox News and foxnews.com, etc.).
Because this RfC covers OCB and any platforms it operates, it would also include platforms the existence of which is not today publicly known. In other words, if — next year — it was discovered OCB was covertly publishing a bimonthly magazine called ¡Ahora o Nunca!, that magazine would be covered by the RfC unless it were disentangled through a separate RfC. (The construction of the RfC in this way is necessary due to other USAGM brands having been previously discovered disseminating lies about the identity of their controlling mind, relationship to one another, or even the very fact of their existence. See, for example: [83]).) Chetsford (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• martinoticias.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

So around 56 links in the mainspace as of the time stamp. - Amigao (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

While RS evaluation doesn't necessarily preclude OR, I'll try to avoid it as it's not necessary in this case due to the vast array of evidence that already exists, however, I do note instances of martinoticias.com being used to source articles on baseball players stating that they "defected from" Cuba while all other RS (that aren't, themselves, sourcing martinoticias.com) are using a much more moderate "immigrated from" instead. This seems to validate what the sources suggest is RyTM's editorial objective of reporting whatever wild and unrestrained assertions it feels useful to undermining the vanguard role of the PCC, even if those assertions are completely untethered from reality. Chetsford (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of videos by William Spaniel/gametheory101/Lines on Maps! as a subject-matter-expert on politics and war?

Who?

William Spaniel is a professor who also posts videos about armed conflicts and their political and social implications on YouTube.

Why use those instead of a published source by him?

Provides better coverage of specific issues that don’t necessarily have academic coverage, and is also a decent compromise between reliable but non-academic news sources and waiting months or years for proper academic coverage.

Why this noticeboard?

Because use for geopolitical conflicts, particularly Russia/Ukraine and the Middle East, are naturally highly contentious and a discussion here may pre-empt smaller and less productive discussions later.

Specific question:

Are videos by William Spaniel useable as a SPS by a subject-matter-expert in matters of war and politics, particularly current armed conflicts? FortunateSons (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

IMO Spaniel is fine as a source as long as he's attributed, and is used appropriately i.e. whatever he is cited for comes from the perspective of a game theory professor. Spaniel frequently makes it clear that his videos are not to be used to e.g. assess the validity of intelligence reports. Cortador (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Just “William Spaniel, a professor of political science at the University of Pittsburgh”, or a more specific attribution? FortunateSons (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@FortunateSons That attribution sounds good to me. Cortador (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• The channel, because I didn't see a link to it yet.--Licks-rocks (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I missed that, thanks FortunateSons (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any additional thoughts on the usability of the source? FortunateSons (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

He's been published by multiple independent reliable sources in the area of political science, conflict and game theory, which certainly meets the points laid out in WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you! FortunateSons (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera reliability

Very concerning incident this week surrounding AJ reporting and keeping on their website for more than 24 hours erroneous reports of rapes committed by IDF soldiers in Al Shifa hospital.

AJ quietly deleted all references to the supposed incident and has not provided any retraction. A former editor (and current AJ journalist) has come forward to provide context, but the organization has remained mum.

Keeping up this completely unverified story for a day, then removing without retraction is potentially in serious violation of RS standards. I understand AJ more often than not abides, but this is an egregious violation nonetheless, and well beyond any acceptable journalistic rules:

Reportage:

Times of Israel: Al Jazeera takes down video falsely alleging IDF rapes in Shifa Hospital

Haaretz: Al Jazeera Deletes Video Claiming Woman Was Raped by Israeli Forces in Gaza Al-Shifa Raid

New York Sun: Al Jazeera Says Its Story That IDF Soldiers are Raping Gazans Was Fabricated Mistamystery (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This reportage all comes from sources with deep ideological biases and as such I'd question us taking them at their word that Al Jazeera isn't reliable. Frankly it'd make a mockery of WP:NPOV to deprecate Al Jazeera but not Times of Israel. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You're evading the core point. Al Jazeera staff literally confirmed the retraction. This has nothing to do with the reliability of the sources provided, it's well attested beyond those three posts. Mistamystery (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And you're evading my core point. That it'd be disingenuous to begin treating AJ as unreliable on the basis of this considering the multiple times that Times of Israel and Haaretz have reported IDF talking points as fact that later proved to be misinformation, often without retractions. Simonm223 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

1. Please provide examples of IDF talking points that were published and later proven to be "misinformation", as opposed to later updating of information.

2. This is far more significant. This is direct reporting from what they claimed to be a verified source who was - in fact - completely fabricating the story. Mistamystery (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How about the Jerusalem Post claiming a killed baby was a doll and then silently removing the story from their webpage? And no, al-Jazeera never claimed it was a verified source, that is completely made up. nableezy - 17:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post appears to have made an announcement retracting and apologising for that story, which is more than Al Jazeera has done. I also note you’ve described JPost as JPost is generally closer to garbage than fine, so I’m not sure why you think saying Al Jazeera is no different to JPost is a defence of Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the Jerusalem Post actually said that this wasnt a baby, this was a doll and the evidence was fabricated, and all of that was a lie. Al-Jazeera only said that there is a witness saying that this rape happened, and that was true. Al-Jazeera later determined that person was not being honest, but they did not report as fact something that was a lie. Jerusalem Post did, and does often. Like here claiming there are confirmed images of burned and beheaded babies from October 7 (there is not). That story is still up for the record. nableezy - 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that story is still up. Unbelievable. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

How about? The argument above stays. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

They asked for examples of Israeli misinformation, I gave that. nableezy - 17:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.palestinechronicle.com/no-words-can-describe-the-suffering-horrific-testimonies-from-al-shifa/

"Al-Jazeera obtained horrific testimonies of Palestinians trapped inside the Al-Shifa Medical Complex in Gaza City, which has been besieged by Israeli occupation forces for the last six days."

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2024/03/361577/eyewitness-accuses-israel-of-raping-women-during-ongoing-al-shifa-raid#google_vignette

"Civilian Jamila al-hissi, who was trapped in a building near the health facility, in an interview with Al Jazeera reported that the IOF was, kidnapping, and killing women during their raid at the hospital.

“They raped women, kidnapped women, executed women, and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them,” she told Al Jazeera."

https://peoplesdispatch.org/2024/03/25/executions-detentions-and-sexual-violence-israels-brutal-siege-on-al-shifa-hospital/

"Al-Hassi’s testimony from Al-Shifa described how Israeli soldiers stripped a woman sheltering there and proceeded to rape her in front of her husband and other men, threatening to kill them if they looked away."

https://countercurrents.org/2024/03/eyewitness-says-israeli-soldiers-raped-women-before-killing-them-in-al-shifa-hospital/

"Eyewitness accounts are horrifying. Jamila Al-Hisi, a woman besieged in the Al-Shifa Medical Complex and managed to finally get out told Al-Jazeera the Israeli occupation soldiers are raping women and killing them."

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240325-un-expresses-grave-concern-over-rape-of-women-in-gaza-by-israeli-soldiers/

"According to Al-Jazeera, reports have emerged of rape crimes committed by Israeli soldiers against women in Gaza during the Occupation army’s raid of Al-Shifa Hospital.

Jamila Al-Hissi, who found herself trapped in a nearby building, recounted that the Israeli soldiers were involved in the abduction, rape and killing of women during the raid of the hospital.

“They raped women, kidnapped women, executed women and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them,” she said."

https://mondoweiss.net/2024/03/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-170-israel-assaults-al-shifa-nasser-and-al-amal-hospitals-in-one-day/

"According to Al-Jazeera, reports have emerged of rape crimes committed by Israeli soldiers against women in Gaza during the Occupation army’s raid of Al-Shifa Hospital.

Jamila Al-Hissi, who found herself trapped in a nearby building, recounted that the Israeli soldiers were involved in the abduction, rape and killing of women during the raid of the hospital.

“They raped women, kidnapped women, executed women and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them,” she said."

https://www.watanserb.com/en/2024/03/23/tragic-testimony-palestinian-woman-reveals-horrors-amid-gaza-hospital-siege/

"Jamila Al-Hessi, besieged in the vicinity of Al-Shifa Complex, said in a phone call with Al Jazeera on Saturday that the occupation forces burned and killed entire families."

https://en.abna24.com/story/1446410

"Al-Jazeera TV channel quoted the Palestinian Jamila Al-Hassi, who was besieged in the vicinity of the Al-Shifa Complex, as saying: “The occupation forces burned and killed entire families, and raped and killed women.”

Mistamystery (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're citing other sources, what al-Jazeera reported was that Jamila Al-Hissi claimed these things, and she did. Al-Jazeera never reported it was true. nableezy - 17:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this list Mistamystery? These are all unreliable sources, I believe, quoting al-Jazeera. While we count use by reliable sources as evidence of reliability, I don't think we count use by unreliable sources as evidence of unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This was answered already in the chain. Not saying those sources are RS. A user was trying to claim - even based on RS sources provided - that the incident didn't happen. Was just showing further evidence of the reporting (as well as spread) Mistamystery (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

We’ve seen this before with Al Jazeera; in the last discussion I presented evidence of them declining to retract false claims about the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after fresh information emerged.

This isn’t the behaviour we expect of a reliable source; we don’t expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to be transparent and own up to their mistakes. I think it’s past time to consider Al Jazeera as "additional considerations apply", at least on the topic of the Israeli-Arab conflict. BilledMammal (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's NYT doing their own retraction of witness evidence that was up for far longer than AJ's (1 day). How awful, let's immediately put NYT on additional considerations apply list (sarcasm). Oh, and we've seen this before with NYT :) Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that’s the sort of behaviour we expect from a reliable source; a public retraction. If Al Jazeera had done that we wouldn’t be here now. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Former managing director of Al Jazeera, Yasser Abu Hilalah, took to X to share that an investigation revealed the news to be fabricated and that the witness, Jamila Al-Hissi, had "exaggerated the details to provoke an emotional response" in an effort to draw attention to the violence in Gaza, particularly during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Good enough for me...and we shouldn't be here now for the latest episode of how awful AJ is according to pro Israel editors, because they report witnesses saying bad things about Israel occasionally (unlike Israeli media which say bad things about Palestinians all of the time, every day, without any witnesses. Selfstudier (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not for me. Al Jazeera needs to be making that statement, preferably on their own website - the New York Times story you linked is a case study in how a reliable source should respond when additional information reveals they were in error, while Al Jazeera is a case study in how a reliable source should not respond. BilledMammal (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that is a continuation of the crap story they put out in the first place on the subject, which they first off refused to retract. Selfstudier (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Even after all of its witness accounts have been either shredded or cast into significant doubt. So yeah, let's drag NYT before the jury first. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

They reported that somebody claimed this, which was true, and then when they determined it was false retracted the story. Thats what is supposed to happen. They did not say that it was true, only that there was this claim being made. And then determined it was false and removed the claim. That is precisely what a reliable source is supposed to do. That BilledMammal thinks they need to follow the Western sources on Al-Ahli Arab Hospital for a disputed story is interesting but also not all that relevant to anything here. nableezy - 17:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s not what I said, and I ask that you stop continuing to misrepresent me on this.

And what should have happened is Al Jazeera publicly saying they got it wrong, rather than pretending it never happened and leaving their readers with a false impression. BilledMammal (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You said that they made false claims, when their reporting has not been determined false by anybody besides intelligence agencies of Israeli allies. I dont think Ive misrepresented you but feel free to clarify what al-Jazeera needs to have retracted that is proven false, and what that proof is. nableezy - 17:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim that Israel is indisputably culpable. That claim isn’t supported by the evidence and should have been retracted when additional information emerged, as genuinely reliable sources did. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is supported by evidence though, you just dont agree. Which isnt all that relevant, but when reliable sources disagree we attribute things, not just say oh this one must be wrong so they are not reliable. nableezy - 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is definitely concerning, but as almost no source has been particularly good with respect to fact-checking during the conflict, I would suggest we wait how this plays out over the next few days. FortunateSons (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Further reporting:

https://www.ynetnews.com/article/syks8u1kc

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-793560

https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/al-jazeera-deletes-fake-story-about-idf-rapes-in-gaza-hospital-j1uquwad

https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/al-jazeera-quietly-deletes-story-falsely-alleging-idf-raped-palestinians-in-gaza-hospital/

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-hamas-admits-women-not-raped-by-idf-at-shifa-hospital-following-al-jazeera-report

https://voz.us/al-jazeera-retracts-and-takes-down-its-rape-allegations-against-idf-at-al-shifa-hospital/?lang=en

https://www.mediaite.com/news/al-jazeera-removes-video-alleging-israelis-raped-women-in-gaza-as-former-managing-director-calls-claims-fabricated/

https://allisrael.com/al-jazeera-retracts-idf-rape-accusations-admits-story-fabricated-by-female-witness

https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake-news-harmed-israels-reputation-in-less-than-24-hours/

https://taarifa.rw/al-jazeera-israel-disagree-on-idf-rapes-in-gaza/

Mistamystery (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Tell us something new. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Cites i24, complains about al-Jazeera lol. The originator of the propaganda about 40 beheaded babies, and you uncritically cite them and Free Beacon and Honest Reporting lol. nableezy - 17:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: i24, really? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, as stated below, there was a user early in the discussion who was attempting to deny the incident happened at all. Links were provided re: breadth of coverage, not establishing additional RS. Never claimed they were. Mistamystery (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Ill repeat the pertinent parts here, because there is a bunch of misinformation being spread here. Al-Jazeera reported that a woman claimed that Israeli troops had raped a pregnant woman at al-Shifa. They included a video of that person saying this. They did not at all say that this has been confirmed or verified. When they determined it was not true, they removed the video. I havent checked their Arabic site to see if they reported on why they found the claim to be false, but no al-Jazeera did not claim that Israeli soldiers raped a patient at al-Shifa, they reported that somebody at al-Shifa claimed to have seen this. And that was and is true. And also, for the record, this was al-Jazeera Arabic, which we generally dont cite anyway, not al-Jazeera English. nableezy - 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it was on Al Jazeera English’s live blog. On 24 March, Al Jazeera released an update on its liveblog entitled, "Israel forces raped, killed women during raid on al-Shifa, witness says." Al Jazeera's update used statements of a witness, Jamila al-Hissi, who stated that "They raped women, kidnapped women, executed women, and pulled dead bodies from under the rubble to unleash their dogs on them.”

On 25 March, Al Jazeera took down its video of Jamila al-Hissi’s statements but kept its written update posted when Times of Israel last checked. Former managing director of Al Jazeera, Yasser Abu Hilalah, wrote on X, “Hamas investigations revealed that the story of the rape of women in Shifa Hospital was fabricated.” Abu Hilalah reported that al-Hissi “justified her exaggeration and incorrect talk by saying that the goal was to arouse the nation’s fervor and brotherhood.”

It is problematic using live blog updates in Wiki articles. The content is hard to verify

here, rape story still up https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/24/israels-war-on-gaza-live-19-killed-as-israel-again-fires-on-aid-seekers?update=2794606

except now I have to go change the link in the wiki articles that are using this story, because those links no longer link to the rape story due to the nature of live update snippets updating and pushing down content. I had to web search for the story Wafflefrites (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You better click on the live blog link I just posted. The links to the story keeps changing!!!! Who knows if it changes again. How are we supposed to verify information in the future if the live update links no longer point to the story? Wafflefrites (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you archive it? FortunateSons (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know how to archive. Do I need to take a screen shot? Are there instructions on Wikipedia that you can point me to? I don’t like these live blogs…. They lack context. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right, AJE reported that the witness said this. What it says is

"Israel forces raped, killed women during raid on al-Shifa, witness says
A Palestinian woman who was trapped in a building near al-Shifa Hospital has told Al Jazeera that Israeli forces raped, kidnapped and killed women during their ongoing raid on Gaza’s largest hospital.

Jamila al-Hissi, who spent six days inside the besieged building before being forced out by Israeli forces, told Al Jazeera Arabic that al-Shifa was a “war zone”."

Which is all true,Jamila al-Hissi did tell al-Jazeera this. They did not report it as fact though. nableezy - 18:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This may work better. The fact that they haven’t even silently retracted or otherwise corrected this claim that they now know to be false is extremely concerning; this is not the behaviour we expect of a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The sheer high emotional bombardment of an item that - at minimum - mere requested notice be made of a clear journalistic ethic violation - is telling enough, and reeks of a gang up. People need to cool their jets and get calm before they hit the keyboard.

This isn't about other sources. This is about Al Jazeera. They had a source on air and on their website (who they vetted prior to having on air) state on air that rapes were happening at the hospital, when they weren't. If they have a source on air for an interview, it's because they have determined their information to be factual. They're not just putting live mics in front of people without speaking to them prior.

The story then turned into a major story on its own and went both global and viral (as well as, apparently, having an on ground impact in Gaza itself, it further sources are to be believed).

Standard journalistic practice is for outlets to retract - officially, clearly, and publicly. Not their staffers off-hand. On their website (and in print in the good 'ol days), which did not happen here. Which is why notice was made. It's not controversial.

This is not a measuring contest between outlets, or a competition between Hogwarts houses. The outlets are not in an ethics race, and points are not added and detracted or exchanged. This post is about Al Jazeera and Al Jazeera alone. They platformed and published falsehoods that were spread widely and had immediate impact, and failed to properly retract. That's it and it's irrefutable. Mistamystery (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And the additional links were posted because one of the editors doubted the incident even happened, not because they're reliable sources. Thanks. Mistamystery (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No, they vetted prior to having on air is completely made up. They said that there is this witness that claims these things. Thats it. Earlier you said Please provide examples of IDF talking points that were published and later proven to be "misinformation", as opposed to later updating of information. and when that is provided you just wave it away. Al-Jazeera broadcast testimony they later determined was false and retracted it. nableezy - 18:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's global standard practice to pre-interview people who appear live on TV shows. They don't just hand a hot mic to people and let them say whatever they want. Either way, the news source conventionally holds themselves accountable for what they allow to air. They don't exist to air speculation.

Also - I had asked for proven IDF misinformation - you referred to a JPost piece. Mistamystery (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Seriously asking for evidence that the IDF tells porkies? Even the mainstream press is reporting that as a fact nowadays. Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mistamystery: You haven't become aware of any instances if IDF misinformation unquestioningly repeated in Israeli sources in the past six months? Do you think that suggests a clear eyed view of the media landscape? And in this context, we're meant to go along with your take on Al Jazeera? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What is this general attitude of "Al Jazeera can only be criticized so long as we discuss other sources" being spouted by people on this chain? There is a clear incident of a news outlet failing to vet a source before spreading contentious, false information - and then later failing to issue a retraction. That is the beginning and end of the matter. Please start separate chains if we are to assess other news outlets. Mistamystery (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The only purpose of the "notice", afaics, is to foment another useless discussion about nothing very much at all. Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is Middle East Eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mN1SRUx0R8&ab_channel=MiddleEastEye

Al Jazeera may have removed its video but Middle East Eye still has it on YouTube. Caption says “ Jamila al-Hissi, a Palestinian woman who was besieged for six days in a building in the vicinity of al-Shifa hospital, told Al Jazeera that Israeli forces raped, tortured and executed women inside the hospital.” with no mention of retraction or clarification on the debunked statements Wafflefrites (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, she did tell al-Jazeera this. The video is her telling al-Jazeera this. What they reported is true, that al-Hissi said this. nableezy - 18:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

They reported a witness who made statements that were later found to be false. Once the statements were found to be false, they didn’t update their audience. Using these types of blog reports with little to no context are no better than putting information you see people tweet on Twitter and pasting it into Wikipedia. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont even know if thats true, have you checked their Arabic website for any updates on the story? nableezy - 18:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My issue is with the liveblog. The live-blogging is just like reporters tweeting info. The links keep changing making info difficult to verify and there is little context. I posted a link to Times of Israel above about a former Al Jazeera director saying that Hamas found the allegations false https://www.timesofisrael.com/al-jazeera-report-alleging-idf-rapes-in-shifa-hospital-retracted/

The Al Jazeera English is still up https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/3/24/israels-war-on-gaza-live-19-killed-as-israel-again-fires-on-aid-seekers?update=2794606 Wafflefrites (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

@Wafflefrites: No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is the live-blogging of a RS? Can you please share with me the Wikipedia link or policy that says this so that I can share in my edit summaries before I go reverting other users’ work? Wafflefrites (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The link you shared just says NOTNEWS. Al Jazeera is a RS, other editors are not going to understand why they can’t use this live blog thing. At least Times of Israel is also a RS, so in these cases I suppose at this point is just the burden of putting in other sources per SOURCESDIFFER, which is what I did when I found out the info had been debunked Wafflefrites (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, I think we need to declare Al Jazeera unreliable for attributed statements. They clearly make insufficient efforts to verify these statements, and worse they fail to retract them even after the statements have been proven to be lies - what other outright lies are on their website and now in our articles that they just haven’t bothered to retract?

To put it simply, we can no longer trust that Al Jazeera isn’t promoting disinformation with such quotes - if the quotes are due for inclusion then other sources will have reported on them independently. BilledMammal (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats nonsense, because what they attribute to al-Hissi is what al-Hissi said. News sources dont verify things they quote others saying. The NYT does not verify the quotes they include are true either, and sometimes they are later found to be false, for example here they are reporting that things that were said to them that they reported, without verifying, are not true. Should we not include quotes from the Times now? nableezy - 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The article you link shows the New York Times retracting a claim they now know to be false. The reason why Al Jazeera’s behaviour here is so concerning is because they aren’t doing the same. BilledMammal (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The original article remains with no retraction, including the claim they now admit is false. And this all happened in the last day, why wouldn't you allow al-Jazeera the months it took the NYT to determine something they quoted to be false the same deference? You wrote They clearly make insufficient efforts to verify these statements, how does that not apply to the NYT here? nableezy - 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Because Al Jazeera has already determined it to be false, they just haven’t publicised it.

The New York Times published an entire article that prominently says they were wrong; ideally they would have updated the original article as well, but they have met our expectations of a reliable source. Al Jazeera has not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Who's to say when NYT made this determination, how long it took them to make an article about it. But the relevant part here is you saying They clearly make insufficient efforts to verify these statements. Do you think other sources make sufficient efforts to verify statements that they quote? Thats the whole point of attributing a quote, you're saying I dont know this is true but they say it is. nableezy - 19:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, and worse they fail to retract them even after the statements have been proven to be lies. The blind faith is concerning, but not why we can no longer consider them reliable - we can no longer consider them reliable because they now know the claim is false, but have failed to retract it or issue a correction. BilledMammal (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It's been a day, and did you check their Arabic site for any updates? nableezy - 19:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t seen any. If you have, please link it - and regardless, an update on just their Arabic site would be insufficient given this story was also published (and still is published) on their English site. BilledMammal (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Al Jazeera is no better than RT. It is Qatari state media and should be deprecated as a propaganda organ. Coretheapple (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  If above is all there is, no reason to do anything at all, never mind deprecate. No evidence of anything systemic. Selfstudier (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion began two hours ago. Coretheapple (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Al Jazeera as Qatari propaganda and Hamas mouthpiece is one of the major issues that renders it necessary to dispose of as a reliable source, like RT, such as the debacle the other day of informally retracting a false story about rape at Al-Shifa, which is journalistically unethical, after Hamas denied the story. Another major issue is peddling antisemitimic conspiracy and their blatant distortion of historical facts, like posting Holocaust denial videos, claiming that Jewish employees of 9/11 targets were informed of the attacks beforehand, etc. All this can bee seen on the Al Jazeera controversies and criticism. SalomeofJudea (Maria) (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion appears to be becoming some sort of race to the bottom to come up with the least substantiated idle aspersions to make about Al Jazeera as possible. It is far more revealing about the editors making the aspersions than it is about Al Jazeera. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note should be added in WP:RSP. Quietly deleting false information does not comply with the editorial standards used by reliable sources. Al Jazeera cannot and should not be considered a reliable source for topics related to Qatar and the Arab/Israeli conflict. According to [84], it has a "Mixed" rating for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias favoring Qatar. It does not qualify as a high-quality source due to direct ownership by Qatar and extreme editorial bias, including being subject to Qatari laws that prohibit any criticism of the government. It should be considered a partisan source in topics related to Qatar, the Arab/Israeli conflict, and minorities in India, and its statements should always be attributed in such topics. Marokwitz (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check is itself not considered a WP:RS. And more generally, reliability is based on a source's broad reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; one incident doesn't generally change a source's reputation until / unless there's broad or sustained coverage to indicate its impact. As previous discussions have determined repeatedly, Al Jazeera has strong WP:USEBYOTHERS and reasonably high-quality coverage describing them as reliable; and right now, the only criticism of them for this seems to be from similarly WP:BIASED sources, which obviously isn't going to be enough to change a source's reputation or assessment on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

That was a "stealth edit" and is unethical. Coretheapple (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This Arab News article is likely relevant, as is this National Review article. BilledMammal (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the outcome of these lawsuits was? I’ve been unable to work it out, but it may be informative as to whether we can trust Al Jazeera on various topics of interest to Qatar. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Arab News, owned by the Saudi royal family, is certainly not a reliable source on Al-Jazeera or Qatar given their long standing geopolitical rivalry. And the National Review lol. nableezy - 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me make sure I’ve understood you correctly. Arab News is not reliable on Qatar due to it being owned by the Saudi royal family, and due to Saudi having geopolitical interests in regards to Qatar?

If I have understood you, why aren’t you applying the same standard to Al Jazeera? BilledMammal (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia instituted a blockade of Qatar with one of their demands being that al-Jazeera be shut down, a blockade that was active at the time of that article. If Qatar does that to Israel then feel free to raise that here. But unless you want to rule out Israeli sources talking about the Palestinians I dont think the point youre trying to make is actually one you should be trying to make. nableezy - 20:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

And Qatar is a major funder and ally of Hamas.

As for Israeli sources, which are controlled by the state? And I remind you, I didn’t raise this line - you did, when you dismissed Arab News for reasons that if applied equally would require us to dismiss Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, the reasons are not the same. Saudi Arabia engaged in an act of war against Qatar, and demanded the shuttering of al-Jazeera. And I wouldn't cite al-Jazeera for material on the Saudi royal family for the same reasons. And for the record, all the major Israeli news papers get funding from the state and are subject to the state military censor, so that distinction you think you are making isnt quite as strong as you think it is. You have argued that a lobby organization with ties to the Israeli military reprinting an actual piece of propaganda from the Israeli military is a reliable source (here), but want to act like because Qatar has provided funds to the government of Gaza that they are ruled out somehow. Well, ok, you can make that argument if you want, but I dont have to pretend it is a serious one. Arab News, especially while the Saudis were engaged in hostile acts against Qatar and demanding that al-Jazeera be shut down, is not a reliable source for Qatar or al-Jazeera. nableezy - 20:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, it was not an act of war.

Regardless, your entire argument seems to be that you think Saudi’s opposition to Qatar makes Saudi news sources unreliable on Qatar, but Qatar’s support for Hamas has no impact - and you have not justified this beyond thin assertions that Saudi’s opposition is more significant than Qatar’s extensive and long-term support.

I suggest you focus on the substance of the articles I presented, rather than trying to discredit them with arguments that a reasonable individual could equally apply to Al Jazeera. BilledMammal (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

A blockade is an act of war. That is very basic. And no, that is not my argument. My argument is that a state engaged in an act of war against another state shouldnt be taken as a reliable source about that other state. And Arab News is an arm of the Saudi state, much moreso than al-Jazeera. And no, a reasonable person cannot apply that to al-Jazeera, as Qatar has not engaged in an act of war against Israel or any other state for that matter. As far as the substance, I did that when I said lol. nableezy - 20:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. The Kip 21:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My understanding is that Saudi didn’t implement a blockade but instead closed their borders, which some sources characterise as a de facto blockade. You could characterise it as an act of war - but you could equally characterise providing billions to Hamas as an act of war against Israel. But we’re off topic here and you’re clearly not going to consider the sources that raise issues with Al Jazeera; I’m going to step back from this line of discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Except Israel was on board with Qatar providing those funds lol. But sure, you can consider whatever you like to be whatever you like it to be. nableezy - 20:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Yeah, Netanyahu encouraged that funding. Was he committing an act of war against Israel? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Al Jazeera Media Network is not a reliable source. Look, as many nowadays know, it's no secret that the Al Jazeera Media Network is owned and operated by the government of Qatar, which is an authorian monarchy: it's ultimately just the Qatari royal family persecuting (and executing) whoever they want and for whatever reason they deem. This inconvenient reality is something Al Jazeera avoids talking about unless absolutely necessarily (AJ+ for example attempts to explain this away by comparing this situation to that of the BBC being owned by "British Taxpayers", lol—similar attempts at dodging this incredible situation can be found on other Al Jazeera sites). No matter how Al Jazeera wants to dress sit up, in all cases the buck stops—quite literally—with the Qatari royal family. Time and time again we see the ideological biases and preferences of the Qatari royal family creep into Al Jazeera reporting. I see no reason why we should not instead be using better sources than those owned and operated by the Qatari royal family. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Al-Jazeera is routinely cited by other reliable sources, this is just a series of baseless assertions with no evidence or even relevance. nableezy - 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Al Jazeera also also routinely receives criticism for pro-Qatari slant, and the fact that it is basically an arm of the Qatari royal family has come up here many, many times. My advice: Find a better source, ideally one not funded and operated by a notorious dictatorship best known for its outrageous human rights abuses, or expect inevitable pushback. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

    Unsupported assertions dont merit responses. We determine reliability based on, for example, WP:USEBYOTHERS, not on, for example, a random person on the internet aka a Wikipedia editor disliking a source. nableezy - 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

We determine reliability by wide range of parameters, as you know. Additionally, Al Jazeera is a hot topic in WP:RS discussion spaces specifically because of the fact that it's funded and operated by the Qatari government. That's a fact and is far beyond 'just not liking it'. How often do we see other 'reliable' sources pushing for example holocaust denialism? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Another effort to downgrade AJ after the most recent effort failed to do so and nothing has changed since then, this incident is an almost irrelevancy, possibly worth a mention in the relevant article, nothing more. Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is already covered in the current RSP entry. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• The standard for moving the reliability needle on a source as widely used-by-others, scrutinized, and ultimately praised by both peer-reviewed publications and press organizations as Al-Jazeera (and especially Al-Jazeera English) is peer reviewed literature that refutes the pre-existing literature. See my comments from this discussion for links and quotes to relevant sources. Arguments that do not include that standard of evidence are wasting people's time, and the frequency with which these lackluster attempts occur form a basis for arbitration enforcement measures. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Two comments:

1. Many users need to read WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is a discussion of Al Jazeera. Comments about Times of Israel or Jerusalem Post are irrelevant to the matter of Al Jazeera's reliability.

2. Proposing to downgrade Al Jazeera's reliability based on one single incident looks wildly exaggerated. I suggest this discussion be closed as no change to how we treat Al Jazeera. Jeppiz (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No Times of Israel and JPost published a story that said Al Jazeera’s story was false per a statement from a former Al Jazeera director and a Hamas investigation. Al Jazeera basically published someone’s lies about witnessing rape, and other sources such as Moroccan News and Middle East Eye repeated it. Wafflefrites (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Al Jazeera’s story is still up, as is Middle East Eye’s and Moroccan News. The former director had the integrity to call out the news source Wafflefrites (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Mediaite and i24 aren't exactly reliable sources, and I personally wouldn't trust a website called "AllIsrael" to report objectively on things regarding the conflict. The Kip 20:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I myself have had concerns at times regarding Al Jazeera's reporting on the conflict, but that's moreso been due to my own admitted bias rather than journalistic malpractice on their part. While such reporting as above is actively problematic, I'm not seeing much of a reason to fully downgrade; remember, like the recent discussion on the New York Times, generally reliable does not mean always reliable. I don't think we need to do anything here, besides obviously not use info from a retracted claim/piece; at most, I could see dropping AJ's Arab-Israeli reporting to WP:MREL/"Additional considerations," while keeping the rest at GREL (like how we've divided Anadolu Agency's reporting between general topics and CTOPs at WP:RSP), but even that feels like a slight stretch unless a stronger case is built. The Kip 20:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I would support that, with a note that they don’t always make retractions after falsehoods have been identified. In terms of a stronger case, take a look at the Arab News and National Review articles I provided above. BilledMammal (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  That isnt a stronger case, thats two highly partisan pieces making claims that serious sources have ignored. nableezy - 21:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Both of those sources are WP:MREL, with one (National Review) being a source I simply don't trust and the other (Arab News) itself being government-backed, as well as published in the midst of the Qatar diplomatic crisis. I'd need to see something on the level of BBC or WaPo for a proper case. The Kip 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I think I agree with this assessment most, I too have seen issues but nothing catastrophic. I think post-war a discussion on a slight downgrade on I/P specifically is reasonable, but this conduct is at most a facet. FortunateSons (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the issue here. The claim was directly attributed to a specific person who made the claim. The person's claim was debunked. Al Jazeera honestly weren't even required to pull the articles at that point, many other outlets haven't when they've published attributed claims that were debunked. I do think the comparison to the Jerusalem Post and specifically the "dead child is a doll" claim to be relevant, especially since their reporting wasn't attributed to a person, but the outlet directly making the claim.

Regardless, this thread seems to be largely based on nothing. Though I am noticing certain highly emotional and seemingly POV responses from some editors against Al Jazeera, like BilledMammal above. I think this discussion is more revealing on editor conduct than anything else. Silverseren^C 21:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What's a continual problem on Wikipedia is that editors with the strongest POV and bias are the editors who flock to highly controversial topics like the Israel/Palestine conflict. They are simply unable to see things from a neutral perspective. This is too much drama for me but my read of it is this has been discussed already, and nothing has changed and this whole conversation is a waste of time. AusLondonder (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

On another note...The National Review? "Most editors consider National Review a partisan source whose statements should be attributed." The idea we should get rid of Al Jazeera because of an opinion piece in a right-wing American magazine is simply unbelievable. AusLondonder (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Amen to that. The Kip 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is not the first or the only problem with AJ's reporting of the IP conflict. The source clearly has a bias, which is noted in the RSP entry and is described by RS [85]. Their journalist moonlighted as a Hamas commander, or at least was very much embedded in Hamas militia [86].

It doesn't mean that all their reporting is unreliable but we also should take their biases into account, for example when determining the weight of a certain event, or when there is an exceptional claim.

Now we fail to do this. AJ is the single most used source for Israel–Hamas war article accounting for >10% of all citations, and often their reporting is presented in wikivoice. Alaexis_¿question? 22:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The IDF is a reliable source now? nableezy - 22:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I take what they say with a grain of salt but I haven't seen any response to the evidence they provided. Has AJ explained what their journalist was doing with a rocket launcher? Alaexis_¿question? 07:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Those following this war are probably aware that the IDF rarely provides anything even remotely akin to evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the page it says "Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports." Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that when people depart from that, by posing more general questions about a source for example, it often does not go well? Isn't an RFC the appropriate tool for this kind of thing? Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the Wikipedia article that it’s used in Al-Shifa Hospital siege#Misinformation on rape allegations

I have balanced it out with a Times of Israel article finding. Originally, the article section and title was much worse https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege&oldid=1215351572#Mass_rape_claim_made_in_Arab_and_Iranian_media

I actually did not question the Al Jazeera source. I only knew to question and started searching when a third editor put up a maintenance tag here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Shifa_Hospital_siege&oldid=1215487636#24_March Wafflefrites (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The article section is much better now thanks to that third editor’s maintenance tag and The Times of Israel’s additional reporting on the accidental misinformation that was in the live update and then repeated by sources like Moroccan News, Middle East Eye, Mondoweiss. Actually rereading it, it seemed the first editor also question the original source’s content and but posted it anyways. Wafflefrites (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to downgrade or adjust their reliability, other than perhaps to add an additional disclaimer about its close ties to the government of Qatar. We already caution the source as partisan on Israel-Palestine issues, but I've not seen anything to suggest they are outright unreliable on the matter. Toa Nidhiki05 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05, the problem is that this notice doesn't work. As I said earlier, this is the single most used source for the Israel-Hamas war article, with predictable consequences. The problem with AJ is usually not outright falsehoods but rather what it chooses to cover and whose voices it amplifies. When it writes "according to X, the forces of Y did Z" I'm pretty sure that they are not lying, but many other sources would not report it without further corroboration. Still, as long as it's green on RSP, editors feel that it's good enough for Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 22:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors feel that it is good enough because it is good enough. The characteristic you describe of selective information publication is common to all news. This is the basis of bias. You present AJ's choices as if these are unusual, when this is par for the course for all media. But the grosser bias throughout this conflict, as now well documented, is the anti-Palestinian bias in most Western media, which has been breathtakingly appalling. Iskandar323 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It also ignores that Times of Israel is cited 81 times, compared to al-Jazeera's 83, Jerusalem Post 11 times, Ynet/Yedioth Ahronoth 20 times, Haaretz 20 times and so on. Israeli sources are cited considerably more than Arab sources. And it takes a special kind of boldness to say as long as it's green on RSP, editors feel that it's good enough for Wikipedia when that same user makes a comment like this about CAMERA while attempting to use it and sources of that quality regularly. nableezy - 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Eh, I don't remember myself using CAMERA actually but that doesn't really matter. The problem is not that the sources originate from Arab countries but that the said countries have a terrible record when it comes to free speech and naturally their reporting is influenced by the agenda of their governments.

I'm not saying it should never be used, rather that it's now used way more that it's justified and thus its bias seeps into Wikipedia. Alaexis_¿question? 07:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't judge sources by their country of origin, but by the track record of quality and accuracy in their content. This baying for Al Jazeera's blood because it comes from Qatar (ignoring its decades-long track record of quality reporting) is becoming McCarthyite. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you’d like your memory jogged further. nableezy - 10:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to downgrade AJ based on this. Generally reliable sources are not always reliable so one or two errors does not add up to evidence of general unreliability. We should avoid news blogs and avoid attempting to immediately put every single thing reported in the news into articles, but we already have policy for that. Reporting on I/P is fraught with bias, so we need to triangulate reportage, with AJ being one of the strongest sources not biased in favour of Israel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy that specifically says newsblogs should not be used? or is it softer wording like they should be avoided? Many of our I P articles are extremely “newsy” with a “Reactions” section with quotes from commentators from various countries. Plus there are a lot of I P articles lately that use the Al Jazeera liveblog. I did take a look at some of the older links though, It seems the links stabilize, but are not archivable.

I think the issue might not be Al Jazeera, but overuse of its liveblog and quotes from commentators in the liveblog Wafflefrites (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:NEWSBLOG merely says be cautious. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that’s what I thought. I wasn’t going to go around mass reverting other people’s work without a specific policy saying that you cannot use liveblogs. Plus, the some of the liveblog info most likely could be verifiable if you dig around for other sources… it would just be a lot of work replacing and finding better sources. But, yes, some of the I P articles that use Al Jazeera may actually be using the daily/hourly reported snippets and sound bites. I am not a fan of Al Jazeera using commentators and video taping them, and taking it out of context though without further investigation. I am glad that a proper witness investigation was done by Hamas later though to figure out what was going on. Wafflefrites (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable. At least as reliable as the New York Times, and my comment on that outlet (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_430#The_New_York_Times) applies just as well to Al Jazeera: "The test for a generally reliable source is not "never fucks up ever"." Daveosaurus (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The test is not "never fucks up ever", but it is "when they fuck up, and they know they fucked up, they correct it". The issue with Al Jazeera is they don't appear to be doing the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Except, as Nableezy and others have exhaustively reiterated, they didn't even "fuck up" - they released content that was clearly attributed from the start and did not translate the claims from that source into their own voice. They then removed it a day later. This is unlike the NYT, which took garbage testimony from Zaka and others and translated it into unsubstantiated claims of "systematic" sexual violence and left it up for a month without even a whiff of internal scrutiny. Then, when external pressure arose, it begrudgingly raised questions over its original story (though not its fallacious reporting), and began an internal inquest into who ratted it out. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

They published a lie, and they continue to fail to retract it.

The New York Times published a statement from a medic who may have been mistaken about the location or who may have lied, and they wrote an entire article retracting it.

Both were attributed, but that wouldn’t justify the New York Times not retracting it, and it doesn’t justify Al Jazeera not retracting it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying that someone says something is never going to be a lie. Publications retract falsehoods that they make in their own voice. They are not required to apologise on behalf of false witnesses. Anyone can perform this criticism. I understand that this was something in a live blog. We avoid using live blogs anyway, in part because they're not fully fact-checked stories, and it's ludicrous to imagine that media outlets will go back and add notes and updates live blogs retroactively. Has the NYT anywhere published a piece explaining how Zaka put out a pack of lies? – as demonstrated by basic residency figures. No. They've merely hinted that a subsequent video 'undermines' some of the bunk that was put out. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

For us to trust sources we need to know they are responsible. Publishing quotes that contain information they know to be false without telling the reader that the information is false is irresponsible and contributes to the spread of misinformation. Further, it can result in us including falsehoods without informing our reader that the information is false.

Here, Al Jazeera had behaved irresponsibly, by failing to do the bare minimum of retracting the quote. Ideally, they would go beyond this like the New York Times has done, and publish an article explaining what happened, but given their bias I am not expecting them to do so.

Given your comments about the live blogs, can we at least agree to note on RSP that Al Jazeera’s rating does not apply to their live blog? BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

That's unnecessary. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and live blogs is the newsiest news. They should rarely if ever be used as permanent sources on any pages. We also have WP:NEWSBLOG, which is very clear that news blogs should be used with caution due to the looser fact-checking involved. So it's already in the guidelines, as well as being common sense. So the main complaint here is that they didn't issue a formal retraction online or in print about a live blog entry. To this, I would ask: do outlets typically formally retract live blog entries, or do they just edit their live blogs? Can you provide a historic example of a news outlet specifically issuing a retraction for information from a live blog that never made it into an article? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

do they just edit their live blogs The issue is they haven’t even edited their live page; it’s still up.

As for NEWSBLOGS, it’s not clear that applies to Al Jazeera’s; it talks only about pages labelled “blogs”, but Al Jazeera’s is labeled a "live page". BilledMammal (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Where's it still up? A few links have been posted, but they don't go anywhere useful. And yes, it is clear what a live news feed/blog looks like. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Here; I also linked it above.

It’s not clear to me that such live feeds are what NEWSBLOGS is talking about; it appears to be referring to something closer to opinion columns (host online columns they call blogs) BilledMammal (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So as Nableezy notes, all it says is that the woman told AJ "X", which is still true. It's not in their voice. What do you want them to do? Falsify the record and erase it, as if the woman didn't make that statement, and they didn't record it? These blogs close at the end of each day and it's not typical for them to be edited after the fact – again, that would be falsification of the timeline of reporting. The video has been deleted directly from the media library rather than by means of editing the live blog. The testimony meanwhile does not already appear in any actual written-up news or analysis, so nowhere does AJ claim to have validated or corroborated the claim, and so there's nothing to update or correct. How many statements do you think exist out there of IDF spokespeople claiming they're not targeting civilians? Obvious garbage, but again, not a problem because they're attributed statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK, ffs. Looking more and more like WP:BLUDGEONING. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Worth noting that when Blinken trotted along to Qatar to ask Al Jazeera to dim their coverage of the war "no specific offending examples of the station’s output were given" – so the US had nyada and couldn't even muster up a proper complaint. The political problem with Al Jazeera is its incisive reporting, due to it being "one of the few news organisations with a functioning bureau in Gaza", and its shining of a torch where Israel and the West would prefer it didn't. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure "functioning" really captures the current situation. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If anything, that AJ has only made a couple of decisions even vaguely resembling slip-ups that anyone thinks worthy to write home about in six months of very isolated war reporting is bloody miraculous, and stands to its credit. It's difficult to verify truth in a war zone. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

References

newreligiousmovements.com / cultdatabase.com

Sources: [87][88]

Article: Antioch International Movement of Churches

Claim: "Antioch is listed in a cult database as a New Religious Movement. New Religious Movements (NRMs), often referred to as cults or sects in popular language, represent a broad and diverse range of religious, spiritual, and philosophical groups that have emerged mainly in the last few centuries. These movements are characterized by their relative novelty compared to traditional, established religions, and often by their innovative or unconventional beliefs and practices. The Antioch international movement of churches is also listed on cultdatabase.com."

Remarks: The site 'cultdatabase.com' now redirects to 'newreligiousmovements.com' so it looks like these are the same source. I see no evidence that this source has editorial oversight, a positive reputation, or even any name of a publisher of the site. We therefore cannot tell that this is published by a recognized expert. So it seems non-RS to me for this claim, and it also seems to me that these claims about the Antioch movement are UNDUE if they can't be sourced anywhere else. Finally, the statements in this claim about the concept of NRMs are not in the source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

A further remark, although cultdatabase.com now redirects to newreligiousmovements.com, the two sources contain different content. Making both citations support the same and still round each other out. The URLs cultdatabase.com and newreligiousmovements.com sound like definitive resource sites for a database collection. Furthermore the concept of NRM description is from the same site, https://newreligiousmovements.org/what-is-a-new-religious-movement/ in the "what is a new religious movement" section, which can also be added as a citation, if needed. Austin613 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Austin613, why would you trust newreligiousmovements.com? Who writes it? Who verifies the content? What is their editorial policy? What is their reputation? Schazjmd (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, a correction is needed, it's newreligiousmovements.org. There's a hint there they may be a nonprofit organization. I don't have any reason to believe it contains false information. But these are great questions. They have a contact page, it's best you ask them yourself. https://newreligiousmovements.org/contact-us/ Austin613 (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake on .com/.org, sorry. I don't see any basis for the claim taht these sources have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Even if we email them, that won't establish such a reputation. Do you have any evidence that they have such a reputation? I have been looking and I can find nothing so far. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

newreligousmovements.org appears to be one of the websites operated by Apologetics Index, who maintain a number of "counter cult" sites. They are not generally regarded as reliable, and are operated via a Christian religious group currently in the Netherlands. They are highly partisan and have been criticised in the past. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. How did you determine and verify they are owned and operated by Apologetics Index? Austin613 (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The connections became apparant when I looked at older versions via archive.org. I am open to being mistaken, but if I am we still have an anonymous organisation running the site, which means that I am uninclined to consider it as reliable. - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

And if it is a different and anonymous organization, it's one that seems to still share Apologetics Index's un-academic "countercult" posture. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not picking up from archives of newreligiousmovements.org showing evidence of ownership by Apologtics Index. I also don't see "countercult posturing" in newreligiousmovements.org content. To me, it looks like they seek to be rather matter of fact.

Nor can we tell whether the current owner authored that previous domain it seems the owner of cultdatabase.com just took the domain over. There is a several years gap between the last archiving of newreligiousmovements.org and the last old archiving shows an expired domain.

The new content and layout looks very different. Although personally I think the jury is still out, there are indeed still a lot of questions and unknowns yet to be answered. And in the interest of time, for now, I concede the consensus seems to be in this yet to be verified state as unreliable. Austin613 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The database's countercult perspective is evident in how it has a dedicated page for "Cult Warning Signs" and is willing to call minority religious groups "cults", an inflammatory use of language that does less to encyclopedically inform about a religious group and much more to serve self-serving interests of businesses, law enforcement, and politicians (2022 Fairfield University American Studies Conference paper written by Megan Goodwin, a PhD-trained academic who is director of the Sacred Writes religious studies scholarship program at Northeastern University). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Generally unreliable No clear indication of authorship or publication. No sign of editorial oversight. A closed box and entirely useless for the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Not remotely reliable, probably just AI-generated bullshit. Who wrote this? Why should we believe it? Did a human even write this? The entries provide no sources and could very well have just been generated by ChatGPT. Consider for example the site's entry on "Odinism"( [89]). Where to even begin here? First of all, again, no byline, bizarre factual errors everywhere of the type you'd expect from a generative AI prompt, no sources, no further reading. Then there's the AI-generated graphics. Worse than nothing: don't use this crap. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Sainik Samachar: The Pictorial Weekly of the Armed Forces, Volume 27

Is this [90] a reliable source for citing medieval history of India? Imperial^[AFCND] 15:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

As it's magazine it would be helpful to know what particular peice you want to use and who the author of the particular piece is. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello @ActivelyDisinterested. Unfortunately, I lost the copy of the magazine. I was about to use it for the Deccan Wars. Dropped the plan anyways. Sorry if I wasted your time. Imperial^[AFCND] 17:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Arcadia Publishing

While there has been prior discussions regarding Arcadia Publishing, no definitive conclusion has been reached, and the publisher is not listed on Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page WP:RSPSOURCES. Thus, advocating for the inclusion of sources from Arcadia Publishing, I propose adding Arcadia Publishing to the reference list and citing Monica Hudson's book Images of America, Carmel-By-The-Sea, as an example of a reliable source, based on Hudson's research with 60 families as the foundation for her book. Arcadia Publishing should be listed as Generally reliable in its areas of expertise WP:GREL.

Monica Hudson's book Images of America, Carmel-By-The-Sea by Monica Hudson, with a reference to Author Monica Hudson walks Carmel”s storied path. The article by Lisa Crawford Watson describe Hudson's character: “I”ve known Monica for many years through our shared interest in local history,” said Jeanne McCombs, Special Services coordinator for the Monterey Library, who, with Dennis Copeland, co-authored “Monterey Album; Life by the Bay,” also published by Arcadia Publishing. “Monica is knowledgeable and professional, and her presentations are fact-filled and fun. I was so pleased she agreed to be a part of the Heritage Society”s Lecture Series. These lectures foster an appreciation for all aspects of local history, which deepens our understanding of who and what we are as a community today.”

The New York Times said on July 23, 2019, "The goal of Arcadis books is to reconnect people to their past through "hometwon history." In addition, Arcadia, noted for its unique approach to publishing local titles, acquired Pelican Publishing, Wildsam and River Road Press. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

References

This publisher was previously discussed here in 2020 at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 321#Reliability of Arcadia publishing and last month at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 426#Arcadia Publishing. From a search of the RSN archives, there also appears to be other passing remarks such as the quality of books published through Arcadia is essentially the same as if they were self-published and Arcadia Publishing, which has apparently been scrutinized for quality concerns in the past. Pinging @Graywalls and Netherzone: who have been extensively involved in some of these sourcing discussions both here and on local talk pages. Left guide (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think describing Arcadia as essentially the same as if they were self-published is a bit too broad and can't necessarily be applied to all Arcadia books. A review for the academic journal Ohio Valley History described Arcadia in the following terms: some of the books are somewhat superficial and deserving of the denigrating term "coffee table" volumes. On the other hand, many of Arcadia's authors are well-respected professionals with a lifelong interest in their communities. As co-editor of the Encyclopedia of Northern Kentucky (forthcoming from University Press of Kentucky), I have proudly worked with nearly all of the authors reviewed in this essay, many of whom have contributed entries to the encyclopedia. They include librarians, historians, a professor, two historic preservationists, two planners, a medical doctor, a nurse, and a journalist/publisher. (Paul A. Tenskotte, "The Blossoming of Regional History and the Role of Arcadia Publishing", Ohio Valley History 7, no. 2 [Summer 2007]: 85–91, here 85. I cited this same passage in the linked thread from last month.

Rather than dismiss Arcadia wholesale, my sense is to assess their books and series with available evidence. Are there reviews of the books that tell us what to think of the quality? Do the authors have credentials or past publications that prompt confidence? But in saying this, I feel like I'm just saying what was already said last month, and I'm not really sure what Greg Henderson thinks will be accomplished by starting this thread so soon after the last. Arcadia's a mixed bag, and there are users who really distrust it and other users who think it should be assessed on a case by case basis. If this is ultimately about disagreements on what to include in articles, I'm not sure how talking about the publisher on this noticeboard is going to resolve those article talk page conversations. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 19:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s déjà vu all over again! Why are we discussing this again? Arcadia is not a high quality source, it's essentially the same as a self-published book, and hyper-local coverage. I think Arcadia is fine for finding historical photographs that are out-of-copyright for use in articles, but do not think they are a reliable source for Wikipedia content.

• 2009 discussion: the quality of books published through Arcadia is essentially the same as if they were self-published.
• 2017 discussion: Some of their stuff is excellent; some complete crap.
• 2020 discussion: use with caution, and probably avoid.
• February 2024 discussion is linked above in Left guide's Hydrageans' comment.
• There are other discussions as well on individual article talk pages.

Re: the NYT, it also says: written by geeky enthusiasts whose qualifications tend to arise largely from their residence in the places in question." and "each title follows a similar formula: an introduction consisting of a casserole of minutiae rather than any overarching argument, followed by an unexpectedly moving series of photo-packed chapters that feature quotidian people engaging in all the banal activities that compose a life." and ""The Arcadia vibe is more grandmother’s attic than Smithsonian Institution, more library lecture than college class."

Shouldn’t we be striving for reliable sources that are from top tier publishers, peer-reviewed academic presses and journals, or notable newspapers? Netherzone (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, Left guide linked the February 2024 discussion; I just replied in thread under Left guide's comment.

While Netherzone and I may disagree about about how to approach characterizing Arcadia books, I think we both agree that this thread, started so soon after the last one, isn't likely to generate any new consensus about the publisher, and not one that deems the whole imprint GREL. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 20:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - the proposal that "Arcadia Publishing should be listed as Generally reliable in its areas of expertise WP:GREL." It sounds like the OP wants that stated on RSP, if so, I strongly oppose. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose the proposal that Arcadia Publishing should be listed as Generally reliable in its areas of expertise WP:GREL at the WP:RSP reference list, as there is clearly no consensus for this viewpoint. Netherzone's historical analysis of past discussions on this noticeboard sums it up perfectly. Left guide (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of CNN for transgender topics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close. Nobody agrees with the OP that re-using a sentence is a sign of unreliability on this, or any other, article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

---

As demonstrated here, the exact same text has been copied between multiple different articles on transgender topics by several different authors on CNN's website. This may warrant a reevaluation of CNN's reliability with regard to this subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The apparently repeated text on CNN is as follows: Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender — the one the person was designated at birth — to their affirmed gender — the gender by which one wants to be known. The linked substack post was written by Jesse Singal, a writer who has been described as pushing a transphobic point of view and whose content overstates the prevalence of detransition and understates the medical consensus around gender transition. If anything, I think this goes to show that CNN is doing its due diligence in accurately framing stories involving trans medical care while Singal is distorting the news. Hydrangeans (she/her) (talk | edits) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Jesse Singal is most certainly not a reliable source for anything to do with Trans people so I'd say his personal opinion on his blog regarding CNN can be disregarded quite sufficiently. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Singal has a significant amount of experience writing about transgender subjects for publications such as New York magazine and The Atlantic. Furthermore, it's irrelevant that this is a self published source, since anyone can independently verify their sloppy editorial practices. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is having a standardized manual of style for definitions sloppy, in your estimation? Parabolist (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between having a manual of style and copying and pasting a significant amount of text between dozens of articles. Notice that nowhere in our manual of style does it suggest that we do such a thing. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing medically wrong with the quoted text, and there's nothing in principle wrong with CNN settling on a highly-workshopped description of a politically contentious subject and using it repeatedly. This has all the shock value of discovering that their in-house stylebook requires reporters to say "X, the social network formerly known as Twitter". In other words, none at all. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would even consider this a case of CNN using editorial oversight to provide a comoany-wuide neutral description of gender affirming care to alliviate the need for individual reporters to try to find the right language. Which is a good thing on news reporting articles. — Masem (t) 19:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Using this scientifically accurate definition consistently is, if anything, a good sign. Cortador (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should, Jessie Singal (buddy with "Gender exploratory therapists" like Genspect[91]) complaining in his self published blog that CNN states Gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from their assigned gender — the one the person was designated at birth — to their affirmed gender — the gender by which one wants to be known does not make it seem unreliable at all. Quite the opposite in fact. I mean, he says There’s a strong case to be made that CNN’s sentence, as written, is false. Gender medicine is at best unproven, when it comes to the standards society (and regulatory bodies) expects medical researchers to adhere to. What does unproven even mean in this case? Trans people have been prescribed hormones since the 1920s... What alternative treatment is he suggesting? Utter tabloid nonsense. Funny enough, a real media watchdog group recently reported on how a major newspaper doesn't provide balanced coverage of trans people, but instead we're discussing Singal's concerns I guess. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks more like editorial policy in action to me. Just like here on wikipedia, they're not going to relitigate this internally every time, so they aparrently have a post-it note somewhere with "If you're going to cover X topic, use Y language, and make note of Z fact". Which, kinda silly that they're apparently plagiarising their internal post-it note every time, but that doesn't seem like a problem to me as long as the internal post it note is a result of previous research. Which in this case it seems to be. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issue here beyond Singal griping about a journalist following an in-house style guide for the publication they're writing for. Discounting affiliate networks who republish content from CNN, I've found a CBS News have used the same phrasing in one of their articles as well. I'm sure I could find other examples outside CNN if I tweaked with the search parameters.

An American Medical Association board member used similar phrasing in a quote from a position statement released in June 2021, and I wouldn't be surprised if this position statement or a similar one from one of the other mainstream American medical bodies that support gender-affirming care are the originators of this comment.

If anything, I'd say this increases the reliability of CNN when it comes to reporting on trans health issues, because it ensures their articles have a consistent editorial standard, while also demonstrating Singal's unreliability. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a false equivalence, because the AMA didn't set a de facto editorial policy of adding that exact text into multiple documents. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As others have said, this just seems to be reflective of house style rather than anything nefarious. Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the overwhelming consensus above that this doesn't in any way call into question CNN's coverage. I suggest this be closed, as we are clearly not going to act on Singal's thoughts on CNN, as everyone except OP seems to agree. Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Also agree that this does not call into question CNN as RS, the purpose of this noticeboard. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't call CNN in general into question, but it does call into question their coverage of this specific subject. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur with the call for closure here per WP:SNOW. XOR'easter (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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.

Relevant discussion at NBOOK

I opened a discussion to cover a recent conversation at AfD. The gist is basically "can/should notability (ie, coverage) of individual books establish notability for the main series". (IE, the books are all released as part of a main series and are not meant to be seen as independent standalone works ala how Breaking Dawn is part of Twilight and not a standalone book.)

I'm not asking anyone to weigh in at the relevant AfD, but I would like some eyes at the NBOOK discussion for this. This relates to reliable sources because it becomes kind of a sourcing issue, so I wanted to bring it up here - if anyone has any input, please discuss it further here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

MathWorld

The topic of MathWorld whether they are reliable or not has been discussed in WT:WPM, and many articles are relying on it, especially in the external links. See the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics#Is Wolfram Mathworld reliable?. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Minor correction: the discussion is at the Talk page, here. XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• My take is that MathWorld is generally a reliable tertiary source, insofar as it summarizes secondary sources that it provides as references. It is less good itself as secondary source involving synthesis of published sources (and usually not as a primary source, for which I think the standard caveats apply). Usually, a good practice with MathWorld is to chase down any references to secondary literature, often by more than one hop to get to a really good reliable source (e.g., MathWorld frequently references OEIS, a source about which I have similar doubts). So I wouldn't use it for anything controversial, but it's fine as a general source in most cases, and no one should balk at having MathWorld replaced by a much better source in many cases. Tito Omburo (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that MathWorld fulfills the basic reliability requirements of tertiary sources. Within mathematics, the terminology used in the academic discourse is not always consistent and one potential problem with some articles on MathWorld is that they use one definition of a term where other definitions are also possible without clarifying this to the reader. This is not ideal but also not strictly speaking wrong and it does not seem to me that the problem is severe enough to characterize MathWorld as a whole as an unreliable source. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• MathWorld doesn't have a working filter for terminology; they might treat as standard a term which is just a thing a guy said one time. Sometimes this leads to Wikipedia having articles it shouldn't. They're not actively bad, but they're not all that carefully vetted, either. XOR'easter (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. At least when it comes to this particular aspect I think mathworld must be treated as an unreliable source. Gumshoe2 (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Is an acclaim by Jan Needle an expert SPS?

Is this acclaim by Jan Needle an expert SPS? FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the use of this going to be? Jan Needle was a fiction author, and the text likely comes via the publishing house. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m trying my hand at a first article about the author, I’m looking to source the family background without going directly for SPS by the subject. I’m sure I could cite her book, but I would rather try not to. FortunateSons (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary ABOUTSELF statements are allowed, and are better than the write up on an Amazon page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you FortunateSons (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

notablebiographies.com

Apparently as a result of this comment notablebiographies.com was put on the blacklist in 2013.

The reasoning by User:Fladrif was that the publisher Advameg Inc. is "a content farm looking for eyeballs for advertisers across multiple similar websites. Many of these have been previously discussed and rejected as sources.[92] The biographies are anonymously written. There is no description of the editorial policy, and no identification of who the editors are."

I came across the block when I tried to use https://www.notablebiographies.com/newsmakers2/2006-A-Ec/Biya-Paul.html as a source in Paul Biya.

Notablebiographies.com presents no ads and the biography is signed "Catherine Victoria Donaldson".

Even though Notablebiographies.com is certainly a mediocre source of questionable reliabilty it might still be a useful to attain biographical information that cannot be found elsewhere. Would it maybe be more appropriate to flag it as such instead of blacklisting it altogether?

best regards, KaiKemmann (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, when I looked at previous comments on Advamed Inc. I found that the Paul Biya biography seems to be a copy of this biography in encyclopedia.com (which is likely the legitimate source).

To make it easier for future editors to understand the copy-source relation (and find an alternative source to use in the article) maybe an addition to the infobox that appears when trying to save an edit containing a blacklisted source would be useful.

E.g. like this: "Some blacklisted sources present mere copies of an original or more legitimate source text. To find resources on the internet that could have served as the original source text copy one or more sentences of the blacklisted source and use a search engine to look for the exact quote (by putting the text in quotation marks)."

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that Encyclopedia.com is itself an aggregator, the publisher of that particular bio is Cengage. Which I believe is fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Encyclopedia.com has apparently even been acquired by Cengage through Gale.

Since all of this takes a bit of effort to explore, would it make sense to assist users in refining the warning messages about blacklisted sites as I suggested above? If so, where would I go to suggest this?

thanks, KaiKemmann (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that notablebiographies.com was added due to a request on https://MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist in 2019. You can ask about the reasoning on that talk page, or you can beg for an exception on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. Items can get added to the spam blacklist for bad reasons so don't be optimistic. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Scott Yenor as a source

See Revealed: US professor was behind extremist site that spread conspiracies Yenor is used as a source in several articles (one is ok).[93] The others use ;https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/07/19766/'] as a source - or at least some do. Doug Weller talk 16:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Your first link does not seem to work FortunateSons (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed link. Schazjmd (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed everywhere he's been cited. I removed one plainly cruddy old POV addition by someone at 1968 Civil Rights Act. There's some noncontroversial 19th-century history references at other articles from the same teachingamericanhistory.org website that are otherwise backed by other citations. The other citations on a couple feminism topics are from the Witherspoon Institute article you linked (to which he cites an article he wrote for the Heritage Foundation), but the citations are just used to support a one-sentence noncontroversial characterization of Judith Butler. (The rest of his characterization of queer theory in the paragraph is certainly reductionist and probably contentious, but it's not being cited.) (Also c.f. Nussbaum that interpreting Butler is basically choose-your-own-adventure.) I think the source ain't great, fine to replace, but in terms of use so far (in all of 5 articles?) it ain't broke. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Doug Weller talk 17:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

NYC Local Journalism, the Israeli Press & coverage of pro-Palestine Protesting

Two things here -

1) Ran into the Within Our Lifetime page and decided to do some cleanup. When I added a source from the publication Hell Gate, it was challenged as an unreliable blog. . .except it isn't that. It's a worker-owned journalism cooperative, and they're doing some really great hyperlocal work in New York City (source: I am a resident). It's just newer than a publication like Gothamist. Now, I think the person who challenged me just didn't like that the article criticized NYPD, but a bigger question looms - does Hell Gate count as a reliable source? Further, what is the line between worker-owned journalism, professional journalism that happens to take place on a substack (I'm thinking of Heated as an example, which produces pretty stunning journalism), and something genuinely unreliable in a world where mass layoffs are shrinking legacy publications?

2) Is there a point in which you can just delete a source because there is simply no neutral reason that it was cited or wrote an article on that topic? Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz and other Israeli news sources keep publishing technically citeable things about hyperlocal groups and issues in New York City. The things they will be saying will be blatantly demonizing random youth groups and run counter to all reliable local journalism. I'm not saying that Times of Israel, Haaretz, etc. are wholly bad publications, but it's just really bizarre, it's like if I wrote an article about Chicago but the only newspapers I used to cite it were French newspapers that hated deep dish pizza.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know enough about 1, but for 2:

No, if what an Israeli RS newspaper publishes is relevant content, it can and should generally be cited. They are RS like any other, it would be like generally not using a privately used newspaper to cover a communist country just because it may naturally be more hostile. Sources don’t have to be neutral, just reliable, and most major Israeli publications are.

If you are writing an article about a Chicago pizza place and it got a scathing (hypothetical) review from Le Monde, you should include that if any of the content is relevant, despite their potential bias. That being said, you definitely can add local coverage to ensure NPOV and DUEWEIGHT, just as you can here. Just be aware that weighing a Newspaper of Record against a local paper is difficult. FortunateSons (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate your thoughtful response. I definitely have conflicted feelings when, for example, several of these publications express opinions about certain New York City groups that are only echoed by the New York Post, which is judged by Wikipedia itself to be unreliable, even when it is occasionally correct. In this case, I have to wonder if my example should be more like, if generally reliable Russian newspapers started painting Ukranian anti-war groups in the city as evil Ukraine supremacists, and the only publications that agreed with them here were generally unreliable, like the Post. Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 01:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

That is definitely a complication, and I understand your concern. On a practical note, I would generally trust the more leftist newspapers over the local one (Haaretz and +972 where relevant), and be cautious and check for plausibility yourself with the right-leaning ones, and include or exclude based on the usual policies. Anecdotally (and in different locations, vague as not to doxx myself) I have found statements by Israeli RS to generally be accurate regarding which groups have problematic affiliations or beliefs and which don’t, but that could be my own bias as someone in the diaspora. FortunateSons (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

1. No, Hell Gate is not a reliable source. It might become one, but currently it is not. Unlike most reliable media, there is very little editorial insight and responsibility to be accurate.

2. Yes, Haaretz and Times of Israel are reliable. We do not blanket-ban publications just because of the country (see racism). Jeppiz (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It is quite frankly a little humorous to accuse me of racism in this particular case when the very issue I am bringing to the table is regarding Islamophobia against certain hyperlocal groups protesting the Israel-Hamas war in New York City. I have no issue with Israeli news sources reporting on issues of interest to them, but I think it is worth asking why a publication in Israel might fixate on groups in New York City.

Being a source generally regarded as reliable does not mean its reporting is flawless - see the reporting in the Atlantic on transgender children that was immediately judged to be biased. Consider me I suppose of a critical consumer of journalism, I don't mind being painted with that brush. Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 01:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

1. I'm not familiar enough with Hell Gate to be sure of it specifically. What I'd say is that the newness of a periodical isn't strictly what's at issue for reliability; it's just that being newer it's more difficult for it to command a reputation so it's harder to demonstrate and persuade about its reliability. But there are sources about Hell Gate: perhaps those can provide more insight into its reliability. New York Times (alas, the subscription/paywall), Editor & Publisher.

I'd also add that being worker-owned doesn't seem like it should automatically be a problem either. W. W. Norton is worker-owned, but its books aren't "self-published".

2. Here, it's hard to express a general principle since whether a newspaper from one place is going to be reliable about reporting on another place depends. Jacobin could hypothetically do a report on some strike in Cork, Ireland, and it's not the geography that's at issue. The comment that we don't blanket-ban publications just because of the country is missing the point, I think—the problem here isn't whether the newspaper is from Israel but whether its coverage is due and matches the broader consensus that other journalism provides, and it's reasonable to compare to more local journalism that one would expect to be familiar with conditions on the ground (in this case, NYC journalism). All this to say that it's not like it's the case that you can never trim a source and its content from an article just because the source is a prominent national newspaper. If its coverage of the topic is at odds with other reliable source, that's a very reasonable reason to trim it. On the noticeboard right now there's a thread about certain newspapers in Israel, mostly about their coverage of Israel–Palestine and Israel–Hamas matters. And there's, to my mind, some persuasive discussion there about the Jerusalem Post and its predilection for sensationalism. Another thread, about the ADL, has given me a lot of pause about a source that's been listed as GREL at WP:RS for a while but I think could very reasonably been recategorized because of a seeming change in its coverage to have more inaccuracies than prior.

Short version: being worker-owned shouldn't be on its own a problem for reliability, and newness is only a problem if we aren't able to find coverage that tells us the source has standards and is run by professionals; and while the prominence of a newspaper is persuasive, if its content is contrary to wider consensus in sources or isn't due, it doesn't get to automatically be in the article. Per the verifiability policy, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there is partially missing context on the use for local areas in the US (and Germany, probably also elsewhere) that I forgot to mention above: anecdotally, some of the English-speaking Israeli newspapers have somewhat significant local readership, particularly within the Jewish community, and thereby represent a pretty common view point, including for NYC. That obviously comes with the issues associated for the newspapers that are read and written by members of marginalised communities (like an understandable but high degree of sensitivity to discrimination). FortunateSons (talk) 11:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! This makes a lot of sense. Hell Gate is generally backed up by other Reliable Sources (in fact, in the context I used it, I was able to add on other reliable sources that backed up its claims.)

The exact reason I wanted to discuss 2 here is exactly what you claimed - Israeli sources cited often wholly contradict local ones, even though their reporters are obviously not on the ground. For example, they will claim certain groups are Islamist that no New York publication (outside of occasionally the Post) is claiming to be so - including the Times, which is the RS generally regarded among New York leftist communities to be the most suspicious of community groups led by Muslim New Yorkers. If the only source that agrees with you in New York is the Post, then it feels like there should be some sort of carve-out of reliability on at least certain topics.

There seem to be thoughtful reporters at Haaretz on a number of topics, but which hyperlocal community groups in New York City are Islamist does not seem to be one.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 01:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if "carve out" is the right term since sources being generally reliable doesn't mean they're universally unreliable. Editors who try to insist that a report from a generally reliable newspaper that is contradicted by other sources we can reasonably consider generally reliable are, I think, applying our guidelines too stringently. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I have luck with the Wayback Machine bypassing the subscription paywall but you didn't hear it from me.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 01:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• The standard for deeming a source reliable is that it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. To determine whether a source has such a reputation we need to see what other sources say about it. So what are other sources saying about Hell Gate? Blueboar (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  I haven't seen local newspapers talk negatively about Hell Gate because the people who created it are all highly regarded in the New York media. If you look here at their editorial staff, you see people who have written for some of the most prestigious publications, such as the New York Times Magazine and the Village Voice, as well as highly regarded local publications, such as Gothamist. Hell Gate also accepts submissions by freelancers and accepts a limited number of them, which suggests a high level of editorial oversight.Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 01:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Acccording to the author link on citation #33; "Luke Tress is a JTA reporter and a former editor and reporter in New York for The Times of Israel." So they do seem to have NYC-based correspondents, or direct contacts, for their NYC reporting.

For new hyper-local papers (and any new news source) the main inherent downside as others have pointed out is not having an established reputation for accuracy and rigor (or lack thereof). (Also, news sources in general are way overused imo -- by the time some minor event is past WP:Notnews, a newspaper is WP:Primary.) But if they have professional-grade editors and journalists and a stated editorial policy, then there is at least a baseline accountability such that they should be a fine usable source. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• As noted above, one of the best ways to show reliability for new-ish news groups is to see how they've been covered by others. And Hell Gate seems to have a fair bit. In addition to the two sources given above, there's also NiemanLab, The Guardian, and WNYC and that was just the first two pages of Google search results, so there's likely more available for a deep dive. The description of their makeup as well and how they're essentially entirely well known journalists from major papers definitely makes them reliable in my eyes.

As for your second question, hyperlocal fixation from a non-local news outlet is indeed strange. Papers can occasionally cover such local material, often when many other major papers are picking it up as well. But if it is a consistent thing and always with a negative tone, then that does raise concerns on how well the articles can be used. Because if the bias is making the coverage misleading repeatedly, then the outlets can't be considered reliable on that subject matter. If, for example, The Beijing News had produced a large amount of articles focused specifically on negatively commenting on hyper-local protest groups in the US protesting against Chinese government actions in Hong Kong, we would have rightfully not considered it the best source to use for general coverage of said groups or protests. We might have used some of the newspaper's articles as a statement on their response to said protests, but using them to cover actual information about the groups or protests would be inappropriate. Silverseren^C 02:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

LiveJasmin has an RfC

LiveJasmin has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alexfotios (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Is thecanary.co a reliable source for Olivia Frank?

I’m looking to cite this article for a minor claim regarding a non-living person, is it a reliable source for claims about her? FortunateSons (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I am given immediate pause because 1) the article has no byline; 2) the About/FAQ page has Who owns and runs the Canary? See our full team here, but that link is malformed. When the link is fixed to what appears to be the real "team" page, there are again no names listed, although you have a chance to contact "individual journalists".

Oh, wait, I now see that a previous RfC on The Canary found it "Generally unreliable for factual reporting", so probably best avoided. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that looks bad. Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Metasequoia.net

I came across this website [94], its presentation and UI makes me question its reliability on first glance but upon further inspection it seems to have very comprehensive and detailed information which could be extremely useful for articles such as Metasequoia, Metasequoia glyptostroboides, Hu Xiansu, etc if it is considered reliable. Can someone take a look to see if it is reliable or not for sourcing? Thanks. Zinderboff(talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh no that looks like a prime dedicated nerd website (and I say that most lovingly). Sadly counts as self-published, so you can't really cite it, but the websites lists many published resources which can be cited, or which themselves have sources that can be accessed and cited, so you can get around citing the website for the most part by citing the sources the website cites, just like how you would go about citing "from wikipedia" in an essay for school: don't cite wikipedia, cite wikipedia's source! --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh ok, thanks for the help, really appreciate it! Zinderboff(talk) 02:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The author is listed at the bottom, with their CV. It's legit WP:EXPERTSPS for any of their original content. Anything they link to, check for the author affiliation yourself (in the "about" section or the bottom banner of a website), but the author seems to be linking to decent sites at a glance. Then of course there's all the books, if you can find them. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Zinderboff(talk) 02:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Heated

Since I mentioned it in passing in a previous section, I thought I would bring it up in its own section!

The Heated substack is well regarded by publications like the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vox, the Guardian, MSNBC, and the New Yorker. It does a ton of amazing reporting, such as this article about plastic production in Texas. (Obviously I am a fan and a subscriber, but to be clear I have no other affiliation with this newsletter, nor by the way do I have one with Hell Gate which is what my previous comment was about.)

However. . .it has only two staff, and obviously, it is affiliated with Substack. Is this a reliable source or not?Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 01:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You should give links to those well regarded pieces of coverage from the newspapers in question. That's the best way to show the point, not an article from Heated. Because how good their reporting is is, arguably, unimportant for reliability concerns. How well regarded they are from already known reliabile sources is more important. Silverseren^C 02:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

EthniCelebs

The above mentioned website has been marked as an unreliable source by an editor. Just wanted to know whether the community feels the same or if it can be used as I found no other source to verify Karlie Kloss' ancestry on the web. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like EthniCelebs is a user-generated site, and thus not something we can use. John M Baker (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussions that questioned that site: [95][96][97][98] Schazjmd (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Per [99] heck yes, it's unreliable, especially in a WP:BLP-context. As a rule of thumb, no website with celeb or famous in the name is a general RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with all above. Probably EthniCelebs is correct in many cases, but no way of knowing when they are right or wrong unless other sources confirm it - and then we don't need EthniCelebs. So no, not reliable. Jeppiz (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

If the name alone didn't give me sufficient pause, the broken english in the submission criteria certainly would, and if that still didn't give me pause the mention of us in their submission criteria would be the dealbreaker. Just, No. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Big NO. Nothing has changed since 2016[100], including their Terms of Services: The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although we may vet information to ensure its accuracy, we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate. And even without this self-declaration of non-reliablity, the very nature of the site (user-proposed content that is vetted by unknown people with unknown credentials) makes it unusable for WP. –Austronesier (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As it's been brought up multiple times and continues to be added to articles (even by experienced editors), could we list it at WP:RSPS as unreliable? Schazjmd (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we can per linked discussions and WP:RSPCRITERIA. Being such an obvious WP:USERG fail, I'm not sure we should bother, but there is little harm in it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

godreports.com

Source: [101]

Article: Antioch International Movement of Churches

Claim: "Despite initial skepticism, he eventually became a college pastor at Highland Baptist church. As a young pastor, Seibert was mentored by a Pentecostalist named Robert. Robert convinced Seibert to the existence of miracles, such as claiming to resurrect an assistant after he had been declared dead for 3 days."

Remarks: This site looks to have a "board of directors." But, to my eye, the articles don't look like they're approaching issues with a critical or fact-checking perspective. For example, this article literally asserts that a man was raised from the dead in Mexico City. And it generally reads like a friendly PR piece. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing an account being reported as fact vs the fact of a reported account. The source and inclusion is about the fact a claim was asserted, not that the claim is factual. Austin613 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Does this source have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? Is it an independent source? Seems not. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Mark Ellis seems to have a senior broadcast journalism experience in the field of Christian news. https://www.assistnews.net/mark-ellis/ Christians have a reputation for not lying. When it comes to religious reports, I'm not sure what you're expecting when it comes to "fact-checking" religion, are you expecting us to determine a fact based religion? It's the fact of the report not the fact of the religion that should be under scrutiny. Austin613 (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're answering my question: do you think that this source has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, per WP:RS? I do not think that it does. And we are not depending on this source to tell us theological truths; we are depending on it to tell us facts about the founding of this movement. I mentioned it's assertion of a miracle becasue I think that bears on how they think about issues of fact-checking and accuracy in general. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well it definitely has a bias! I think we should consider it reliable as far as that bias allows and attribute anything it says. Same as instead of saying Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead we would say according to the Gospel of John Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. NadVolum (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A miracle is theological, so for your purposes I don't see what that has to do with fact-checking and accuracy. You presented a source and its citation in context of a WP article, and those responding (including myself) seem to consider that its use there is not inappropriate. We're generally aware of how RS works. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This is what I've been saying. It's not like we're verifying the miracle happened as fact, we're stating an account was claimed to have been stated or confirming this is an example of the type of miracle claim that Antioch believes can or has happened. With the proper context and description, it's allowable. Austin613 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we are using the source to verify the miracle that it asserts. Let me put the point like this: do you think they fact checked the resurrection of a man in Mexico City like a reliable journalist would? Or did they just assert it without fact checking it? This qustion is relevant to whether they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking as required. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole point and context of the inclusion for this claim is that this is what Jimmy Seibert and Antioch believes happened. That an incident like this is something they have stated and is in line with their beliefs. It's not about whether the incidents were fact checked or verified at all. Austin613 (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. It does not have the reputation for accuracy and fact checking that is required. Intrigued, however, I found that you can borrow a book by Jimmy Seibert from the internet archive called The three loves. [102] It describes Seibert's spiritual journey and mentions Robert Ewing's influence in glowing terms ... but there nothing about the raising from the dead story. There is a story about raising a man from the dead (p 165) in the book but it is described as taking place in Mongolia, is simply a report from someone else; nothing to do with Robert. Maybe Ellis got confused. Slp1 (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Slp1, would it be appropriate to rely on that primary source (*The Three Loves*) for information on Ewing's influence on Seibert? Asking becasue this is another dispute we've had at the talk page: use of primary sources for information like this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."

"A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."

"In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal. For example, the Moon landing conspiracy theories article may include material from reliable websites, movies, television specials, and books that are not peer-reviewed. By parity of sources, critiques of that material can likewise be gleaned from reliable websites and books that are not peer-reviewed." Austin613 (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Shape magazine/shape.com

Would Shape (magazine) alongside its website be considered reliable sources? 2600:100C:A219:7127:60B1:E95B:D162:FE4B (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there a specific use you had in mind? It could be reliable for certain things but not others, certain fitness details might be subject to stricter requirements per WP:MEDRS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Flowpaper.com

I ran across this in a reference. The source seems to be definitely self-published, and flowpaper.com seems like a place where you can self-publish something and make it appear like it's a source for Wikipedia. Wanted to check here first and see if anyone else has the same opinion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely self-publishing, whatever the specific source is could be reliable depending on who the author is see WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Could be reliable, but probably not a good source if one is looking to see if a person has enough coverage to merit an article on Wikipedia. The subject of the bio wrote the piece themselves and that reference is being used to pad the reference section. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

No good for notability, but could be used per WP:ABOUTSELF as long as it's not to self-serving. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSWEEK

Well would anyone here warrant the inclusion of the following Newsweek citation on the article Catherine, Princess of Wales? It discusses the evolution of the name "Kate Middleton" with regards to the Princess though she has never herself openly acknowledged the name (the name's inclusion in the main article is itself a disputed one). If its considered unreliable, I would readily have it removed. Here's it- Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Afaict it's the cite for this sentence: "It has been noted that the British media opt for "Kate" in their headlines as a result of search engine optimisation, but mostly use "Catherine" in the body of their articles." The source may be ok-ish in context, but per WP:PROPORTION, should we bother to include it? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång We already have three citations to support the clause as to how she picked up her common name "Kate Middleton". But user Starship.paint who added it asserts that the Newsweek citation alone speaks of the fact that the British media opt for "Kate" in their headlines as a result of search engine optimisation, but mostly use "Catherine" in the body of their articles. Regards MSincccc (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

How does the Newsweek claim compare to actual articles, if Kate is only being used in headline and not the body of articles they may have a point (WP:HEADLINES would seem appropriate). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

That claim actually appears to be true. Take this recent article by the BBC for example. The title reads "Archbishop of Canterbury's Easter sermon refers to Kate and King Charles" and then you start reading and you get a sentence like this "He spoke of listening with 'compassion and sympathy' as Catherine told of her cancer diagnosis." Keivan.f^Talk 15:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The source is reliable for what it says, anything beyond that and how that should interact with WP:COMMONNAME is a discussion for the article's talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for this statement in Marian apparition?

The statement is "However, the question remains: we do not have a satisfactory explanation for the apparitions, whether they are true or not" and the source is in International Forum in Porto “Science, Religion and Conscience” October 23-25, 2003 Actas do Forum International, Centro Transdisciplinar de Estudos da Consciência, 2005 Consciências, 2, Editores: J. Fernandes, N.L. Santos, ISSN: 1645-6564, p. 199-222, something by a physics professor.[103] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say no. Conference proceedings do not normally undergo the same level of peer-review as journal articles, and this does not seem to be a notable conference. The author (no offence intended) also seems non-notable and his academic output is low and rarely cited (as per Google Scholar). Jeppiz (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I would think it's an exceptional claim to suggest apparitions could be true, the source is probably more reliable then many used elsewhere but doesn't reach the required level to back up such a statement in wikivoice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be attributed as opinion. Whether an explanation is "satisfactory" or not depends very much on who you wish to satisfy.Boynamedsue (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The author discusses the psychology of delusional states which is outside of his professional expertise. What strikes me more, however, is that the statement entirely misrepresents the paper. The cherry-picked near-verbatim(!) quote in Wikivoice is in the opening part of the paper, but if we really want to include Meessen's opinion here, we should go to his concluding paragraph and note that he does not ascribe any physical reality to miracles and apparitions outside of the observers' neurons/minds.

Actually, his conclusions about altered states of mind that produce delusional experiences in ritual contexts are not new at all. So instead of citing Meessen for his actual views ("The seers are honest, but unconsciously, they put themselves in an altered state of consciousness."), we should cite the real experts saying virtually the same thing: ...no one seriously disputes that tens of thousands of people who are physiologically and psychologically typical saw an event that they themselves concluded reflected the direct action of the supernatural. As the extremely skeptical Radford (2013) notes, "No one suggests that those who reported seeing the Miracle of the Sun—or any other miracles at Fátima or elsewhere—are lying and hoaxing. Instead, they very likely experienced what they claimed to, though that experience took place mostly in their minds."

As so often, we're actually not dealing with a RSN question here, but an NPOV issue. The article Marian apparition mostly has Catholic walled-garden sources, which completely runs against our principles of an NPOV encyclopedia. –Austronesier (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research institute (part of Patna Museum)

Hi, concerning editing articles on Indian history (in particular the state of Bihar), would the publications of the KP Jayaswal Research Institute be considered reliable? They were formed by the Government of Bihar and they are based out of Patna Museum. I have access to quite a few of their publications but want to know the consensus on them.

Their website for reference: https://kpjri.res.in/.

Thanks in advance! Ixudi (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)