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, 456, 457, 458

Additional notes:

Shortcuts

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

Start a new discussion

RFC Jerusalem Post

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The reliability of the Jerusalem Post is:

Option 1: Generally reliable

Option 2: Additional considerations

Option 3: Generally unreliable

Option 4: Deprecate

RFCBEFORE. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Jerusalem Post)

Option 4: the Jerusalem Post's coverage is extremely biased and is unfortunately extensively used throughout Wikipedia articles, to cite a few examples on these biases:

JP has been repeatedly propagating a false claim in its articles in recent months, calling the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health, "Hezbollah-run," despite it not being affiliated with them and the fact that it is headed by an independent minister. [1] [2] [3].
On 12 October 2023, JP published an article that it had confirmed seeing evidence for babies that had been burnt and decapitated during the Kfar Aza massacre that is still online with no retraction despite being debunked.
JP propagated another false claim last year that a dead Palestinian child was a doll, which, although it retracted and apologized for, also puts into question its fact-checking processes. [4]
In 2020, Reuters revealed that the Jerusalem Post allowed an online deepfake to write bylines smearing a Palestinian couple over their activism. [5] Makeandtoss (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we just not come out of a discussion about this? Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what is being referred to as RFCBEFORE. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So do we need another so soon? We can't keep discussing this every month or so. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Option 2~~ Like nearly every other source......Options 1, 3 & 4 represent faulty over-generalizations. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option #1Under the current Wikipedia context Option #1 is the best match. My original Option #2 choice is for after we reconfigure to recognize that every source is option #2. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. Bias isn't unreliability. Nothing has been presented that shows any other RS that question the Jerusalem Post. Retractions are good actually. Andre🚐 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Andre; also per Slater, wasn't there just an RfC about this? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 I would need stronger stuff than this to think otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4, as they still have clearly false statements on Oct 7 "decapitation babies" still online, after they have been debunked for over a year, Huldra (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You previously advocated that the Electronic Intifada shouldn't be deprecated because it's similar to the Jerusalem Post,[6] but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated.

Specifically, you said that for the Tehran Times or Jerusalem Post: some areas you can presume them to be correct, others not. What changed that made you think the Jerusalem Post should be banned in virtually all circumstances, instead of just an Option 2? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
but now that the analogy isn't beneficial you say the Jerusalem Post should be deprecated. If EI and JP are indeed comparable, the community consensus that EI is GUNREL should presumably apply to JP. I'm not aware of anything on EI as egregiously misleading and uncorrected as reports of decapitated babies, so I see no hypocrisy in Huldra's stance.

However, I have used JP in my editing and made what I hope have been valuable contributions using it, so I would be more inclined to argue that both are Option 2 (or, to be consistent, that both are Option 3) and that particular details reported by either source might be more unreliable on a case-by-case basis. To me, stories like the beheaded babies are less a black mark on any particular source and moreso an indication that, particularly in instances where systemic bias is at play, we ought to think of even the most reliable sources differently, along the lines of @North8000's comment. Also a reminder that sources regarded as perennially unreliable like EI and The Grayzone can be a voice of reason in certain contexts where the mainstream media isn't doing its job. Unbandito (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe they are comparable. EI has promoted the conspiracy theory that most civilians that died on October 7th were killed by Israel. [7] But the person I'm originally replying to would have a much stronger point if they explained how the standards applied to EI can also apply to the Jerusalem Post. Right now, I see a proposal to deprecate based on a single story. That's not a standard that has been applied to any other publication onwiki.

With respect to your position, what type of additional considerations would you recommend to editors using the Jerusalem Post?

I agree with both your and North8000's position that all sources need to be considered in context. But in the current Wikipedia climate, Option 2 means "marginally reliable" or "additional considerations". If the only considerations are the same as those that would be applied to a generally reliable source, then Option 1 is the correct choice. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"EI has promoted the conspiracy theory that most civilians that died on October 7th were killed by Israel." If you read the article, you will find that there is no link to EI for that statement. This, because EI has never said that, Huldra (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the context of the beheaded babies story and the example you bring up, I would say that JP and EI should be treated with special caution when making extraordinary claims that cut in the same direction as their bias, as they’ve demonstrated a willingness to drop their journalistic standards in the extraordinary circumstances of the 7 October attacks.

However, I do see a difference between these two missteps. Following the publication of that WaPo article, use of the Hannibal Directive on 7 October has been confirmed by Al Jazeera and Haaretz reporting, lending some credence to EI’s claims. I would not use EI to justify putting the claim that most of the Israelis killed were killed by friendly fire, but they are correct to say that significant aspects of the attack remain unexplained in the absence of an independent investigation, which Israel has prevented. The position that EI’s claims are a conspiracy theory is itself a partisan claim for which there is a shrinking body of evidence. JP’s claims of beheaded babies on the other hand have been thoroughly debunked and will almost certainly stay that way. If anything, JP’s error is more egregious. EI’s position may yet be proven true or debunked by future evidence. Unbandito (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. While I don't agree with most of your comment, I agree that the Jerusalem Post should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims in the direction of its bias. That's my understanding of WP:GREL and the source can still be added to RSP as generally reliable with such a note about what its biases are. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t necessarily disagree with that, though I wouldn’t rank JP as option 1 given the reasons others have provided here related to their unwillingness to issue corrections and their lying about verifying information they reported. I think JP should be regarded as one of many sources that we triangulate with others to reach the closest approximation of the truth. Consequently, I think any positive ranking of JP would warrant a re-evaluation of other partisan sources of the opposite persuasion (like EI) to ensure they are being assessed consistently. Unbandito (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? EI is GUNREL. EI is not the equal and opposite of JPost. Andre🚐 20:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a circular argument. The previous designation of EI is not itself evidence that the designation is accurate. I’m suggesting that the evidence brought forth here about JP should cause us to reassess EI. If JP is not considered GUNREL, EI probably shouldn’t be. I’m going to leave it at that to avoid going further off topic. Unbandito (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your argument conflates bias with reliability. EI should and is not reliable for facts, and is also biased. JPost is generally reliable for facts, and also has a bias. Andre🚐 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to do so, if you believe whatever consensus is reached at this discussion is contradictory to the previous one. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 13:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you push misinformation like "children weren't beheaded" (as various articles do now), there's no end to how deep you'll go. See Haaretz ("the evidence of extreme cruelty perpetrated by Hamas terrorists is unendurable even for people inured to death - including confirmation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s description of beheaded babies"), Sky News and The Media Line; and of course, there's the quite reliable Jerusalem Post itself, and frequently repeated confirmations by the US President. Here's first-hand testimony from Qanta Ahmed ("I Saw the Children Hamas Beheaded With My Own Eyes"). Deprecating sources for publishing accurate, reliable information while keeping sources that have pushed misinformation... Yeesh. --Yair rand (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not accurate & I would request you not repeat misinformation. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I would ask that you (and ideally Wikipedia articles) not repeat misinformation. The difference is that, as reliable sources have made clear, I am not the one peddling falsities. --Yair rand (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those who want some truth on this issue: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. TLDR: no public evidence of the "40 beheaded babies" claim, or that Hamas beheaded any babies; coroners report that recovered headless corpses, including some of children, but they couldn't determine how those corpses lost their heads, e.g. because they were cut off with a knife, or because they were blown off in an RPG explosion. Lots of media sources all over the world got this wrong, but most of the most reliable ones just republished the claims without speaking to their veracity. Levivich (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Jerusalem Post did not claim there were "40 beheaded babies". Their actual claim about beheaded children (which Huldra is using as evidence that Jerusalem Post is unreliable) was, in fact, accurate. --Yair rand (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isnt true at all. JPost still says that there are verified photos of beheaded babies. There never was and there still is not. nableezy - 21:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, that's this JP article, btw, still up, no corrections issued AFAIK. "The Jerusalem Post can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct." The five fact checkers I linked above -- PolitiFact, FactCheck, IPSO, Le Monde, and WaPo -- all say these claims are unverified or unfounded. Levivich (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did. Here, for example, they quote a UK former MP as saying "The forty beheaded babies has been downscaled to one dead baby", and then JPost follows that quote by writing, in JPost's own voice, "Testimonies from the survivors and recordings taken from Hamas have proven the atrocities that occurred during Hamas’s October 7 invasion of Israeli territory." This is saying that the "40 beheaded babies" was "proven." Here, in an op-ed they ran, "But Israeli troops are not ... kidnapping babies or beheading them ...", which implies that Hamas are doing that. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 - it's a cut below Times of Israel and Haaretz, several cuts above Arutz Sheva and i24 for example, and if it is the only source for some claim then asking for more or better sources is totally reasonable imo. But still a mostly reliable source and citeable as such. nableezy - 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I glanced over a couple of JP articles while doing research for #IDF claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no and was not impressed by its quality; it seemed to be parroting the government position without qualification or critical thinking. But I dislike how results from discussions like this are often used to purge sources from articles in a manner similarly lacking critical thinking, so I'll refrain from voting. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1. The fourth Jewish source at RSN in recent memory. I'll repeat that it's bizarre that when the previous RfC on an Israeli or Jewish source closes, a new one quickly begins. Hezbollah runs Lebanon and no other publication was previously tricked by a deepfake student. The decapitated babies story is false but was widely picked up by the Western media at the time. As OP said about an Arab source: All medias have biases, but that doesn't necessarily affect general reliability, unless it has been consistently false or misleading; Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have religions so there is no such thing as a "Jewish source." This is a bizzare framing of events that shifts the focus away from the Jerusalem Post's misinformation.

Yes, as I previously mentioned, biases do not affect reliability; but as demonstrated above, the Jerusalem Post is both biased and unreliable. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If editors are only banning sources aligned with one viewpoint, this can skew the POV of entire topic areas. This occurs at RSN because we examine sources in isolation. I'm framing the discussion in this way because only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months and I believe that is negatively affecting the Israel and Palestine topic area.

Specifically, you haven't shown the Jerusalem Post is "consistently false". You've shown they were fooled by deepfake technology in 2020 when deepfakes were new. You've shown they reported on a decapitated babies story most Western media outlets also reported on. You've also shown they retract false stories. Finally, your biggest point is that they call the Lebanese Health Ministry "Hezbollah-run" when the government of Lebanon is controlled by Hezbollah, and many hospitals in Southern Lebanon are run by Hezbollah social services.[13]

In this topic area, where most media sources blamed Israel for bombing Al-Ahli Arab Hospital and then immediately had to retract, some level of mistakes are tolerable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 15:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The government of Lebanon is not controlled by Hezbollah, they are a part of a coalition government and members of that party hold the ministries of public works and labor. The public health ministry is headed by a member of the Future Movement, a Sunni party, not Hezbollah. Your claim about "only sources with a Jewish or Zionist or pro-Israel viewpoint are being declared unreliable in recent months" ignores a number of sources that have been deemed unreliable that are not any of those things, and the conflation of Jewish and Zionist if made by a non-Zionist would draw outrage for antisemitism. But Al Mayadeen was deprecated, Anadolu Agency GUNREL, CounterPunch GUNREL, The Cradle deprecated, The Electronic Intifada GUNREL, The Grayzone deprecated, Mondoweiss other considerations (you opened that arguing for deprecation), Press TV deprecated. The claim that "Jewish sources" are being targeted is absurd. If anything, your history in these discussions show that you consistently oppose sources that are not pro-Zionist, and repeatedly attempt to deflect in discussions about sources that are pro-Zionist by claiming it is an attack on "Jewish sources". It be great if that stopped. nableezy - 15:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: You said yourself Hezbollah is part of the government. They also have an effective veto power in Lebanese politics and have more power than you acknowledge, including providing basic services in areas Israel is bombing. [14] The Jerusalem Post is being hyperbolically biased in a way that is impossible to cite on Wikipedia. We should apply the same standard we apply to all sources. If Mondoweiss is going to be Option 2, I can live with that so long as the standards are consistently applied.

Specifically, the standard for deprecation we've developed as Wikipedia editors that we should focus on how a source is used in articles. In the cases of Mondoweiss, I advocated for deprecation and was proven wrong because there wasn't the track record of demonstrable harm that deprecation would prevent, as well as a focus on opinion pieces. The most I could show was that it promoted October 7th denialism. The Jerusalem Post has not met that standard because "Hezbollah-run health ministry" is arguably true and isn't citable onwiki.

The reason why I mention the Jerusalem Post is both Jewish and Zionist is that it regularly covers Jewish issues outside of Israel in the diaspora section.

None of the double standard criticism applies to you. I largely agree with your reasoning that the Jerusalem Post is worse than the Times of Israel/Haaretz (those are the best Israeli newspapers). I disagree mainly because WP:MREL doesn't mean "mostly reliable source", it means marginally reliable. Without clear delineation of when it is reliable/unreliable, editors will try to mass-remove the Jerusalem Post from articles if they think it's being used in an inappropriate context (like BLPs for Mondoweiss). A WP:GREL outcome would not mean you're obligated to accept it for all statements of fact, but that it's "mostly reliable" as you've said.

What I'm pointing out is since April, we've had RfCs on the ADL+Jewish Chronicle+Jerusalem Post, and there are editors that take different positions on the Jerusalem Post in different discussions.

I would oppose the introduction of "Hezbollah-run health ministry" to articles especially given the precedent set at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier—it's technically true but doesn't have much context. That being said, nobody has seriously proposed to use that qualifier and I don't see how biased language makes the Jerusalem Post unreliable. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is technically not true, it is not arguably true in any way. Hezbollah does not run the health ministry in Lebanon, full stop. I didnt vote to deprecate. I only objected to your repeated claims of targeting "Jewish sources" which is demonstrably untrue. And I think that diversion is both untrue and, to be honest, outrageous in that it implicitly claims a racist motivation in questioning any of these sources reliability. If somebody is attacking a source because it is a "Jewish source" that should be block worthy. But as far as I can tell nobody is, making the accusation itself what is block worthy. nableezy - 17:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to have unconscious bias and that is not a blockworthy offence. Arguing that there is systemic bias in our treatment of sources is not an accusation of deliberately racist motivations on the part of individual editors. It is effectively impossible to counter systemic bias if I am not allowed to acknowledge its existence.

What I originally said still stands: the pattern of examining sources in isolation at WP:RSN is causing systemic bias issues because we cannot determine if we are treating sources differently depending on their affiliation.

Examining sources by contextualizing them with other sources will more effectively evaluate the reliability of the Jerusalem Post by reducing the impact of bias.

In this case, I contrasted with Al-Jazeera and asked whether the Jerusalem Post has met the consistently false or misleading standard applied there. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing either; Haaretz is an Israeli Jewish-owned RS publication that is highly critical of Israel, even critical of the Jerusalem Post, so this argument does not hold to scrutiny. Being "pro-Israel" is not opposed to being critical of Israel; on the contrary, many pro-Israel sources are highly critical of Israel's policies because they care about Israel. As for the decapitated babies debunked claim, the difference is that unlike the Jerusalem Post, western media did not claim to see evidence for this in their reporting. As for the claim about ministry being Hezbollah-run, this is an extraordinary claim and a personal opinion that is not supported by any reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the Jerusalem Post is highly critical of Haaretz[15], a publication whose owner said Israel imposes apartheid, that Hamas is full of freedom fighters, and that Israel should be sanctioned to bring about a Palestinian state. Haaretz is not a replacement for the Jerusalem Post, which is the main right-wing newspaper in Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then clearly, conflicting editorial policies and opinions of newspapers have nothing to do with religion nor ethnicity, so we can move on from that argument. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 Seems like a reliable source and was recently RFC'd/discussed. No source is ever perfect and so all things considered, this is reasonable. Chess makes a good point that after a failed RFC against similar sources another pops up. Seems like agenda driven basis to depreciate such sources at any cost. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1/2 per Nableezy and North8000. All sources on this topic are problematic and should be used with caution and this is somewhere below the strongest sources but nowhere near the worst usable sources, so I would treat it similarly to Palestine Chronicle (maybe a little better given it does more of its own reporting). Re the specific charges, "Hezbollah-run" is not that big a deal; the babies story is problematic but we don't know the full truth; the doll story shows reason for caution but was corrected; the deepfake story is trivial (several publications were similarly taken in and JP removed it). We need to be consistent in our treatment of I/P sources, and exercise skepticism and triangulation with all of them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say about "the doll story" that I think it shows more than just a reason to be cautious, as what they said about faulty sourcing for their reason for retracting does not stand up. The only source in the story was an unverified tweet claiming it was a doll. That to me shows a willingness to promote unverified material as propaganda. This was not the case of an actual source giving the JPost wrong information, this was them having such a low standard that some guy with 1100 twitter followers was treated as an authoritative source to make outlandish claims and present them as fact. Yes they took it down after it was widely mocked for putting out a false story, with proof of the lie having been offered by the photojournalist who had taken the photo. I simply do not trust them to have verified claims that other stronger sources have not, which is what pushes it in to option 2 territory for me. nableezy - 19:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 generally and 2 for AI/IP topic area there is a fair bit of nationalistic tub thumping/the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist for this source so the AI/IP stuff should be treated with some caution but otherwise I would give the benefit of the doubt.Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have sources to back up the claim that the Jerusalem Post promoted the idea that every single Palestinian is a terrorist? This is unsubstantiated at the moment. And why would publishing an opinion along those lines make the Jerusalem Post less reliable?

For context, the WP:GREL Al-Jazeera has published opinion pieces directly saying "All Zionist roads lead to genocide".[16] Should Al-Jazeera also be WP:MREL on Israel and Palestine?

Al-Jazeera's opinion editors have described Zionism, the belief that Israel should exist, as an inherently genocidal ideology. This is similar to describing the Palestinian identity as inherently terroristic.

From my understanding after I was shot down at the Mondoweiss RfC, extreme opinions aren't what makes a source unreliable. Mondoweiss being unable to separate advocacy from news is what contributed to its WP:MREL status. Likewise, Al-Jazeera is WP:GREL because it can separate advocacy pieces into an opinion section.

My understanding is that the Jerusalem Post would have to consistently perform advocacy in its actual news for its WP:POV to negatively affect its reliability. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see what AJ or Mondoweiss have to do with the JP. https://www.jpost.com/tags/palestinian-terrorism, horses mouth. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area.

Tagging articles as "Palestinian terrorism" is just pointing out that some acts of terrorism are committed by terrorism. I'm also unsure how an article tag would be cited beyond calling specific act of terrorism Palestinian. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declaring Israeli sources unreliable on Israel or Palestine based on standards Arab sources aren't held to will bias the topic area. Instead of repeating this as if that will somehow make the accusation more credible (it doesn't, its just annoying), make your case in an appropriate place (which isn't in this discussion).

When Israel was doing its nearly 2 year long so called operation breakwater, and arresting Palestinians in the WB every night, JP would report it next day as "x Palestinian terrorists arrested" whether they were or were not terrorists. Selfstudier (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any links to specific stories falsely claiming that a Palestinian is a terrorist. That was my original ask, and if you can't provide evidence there's no use pressing further.

Likewise, if you're not going to refute the double standard, I don't see the point of repeating myself. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeating yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth discouraging reproduction of JP's stylistic bias, particularly the labelling of people as terrorists, as a special consideration on its reliability. Unbandito (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. The term "terrorist" should be substantiated by other sources (as a general rule). Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 generally, 2 for AI/IP, same reasoning as SelfStudier honestly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, per Chess. To respond to Makeandtoss, being Jewish is not solely about religion, it’s just one aspect of Jewish identity, and most Jews are secular and see their Jewishness as ethnicity/nationality/culture. I also agree that there has been a recent surge in attempts to discredit Jewish sources without real evidence, which is really troubling. HaOfa (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 I tend to evaluate depending on what the edit is, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and think no evaluation without that can be really valid except Option 2 to say that you cannot skip the context of what article content is involved. I would lean strongly towards RS from the goodnesses of it being a well-established reputable outfit with local expertise and that they have made retractions and corrections when in error - and basically everyone makes an error sometime so the handling is important - and that WP has generally regarded it as a RS to use in prior RSN. I would tend to view it as RS with POV to use in the context of the current hot war, but then I think that *all* sources should be taken as POV in the context of the current hot war. (London Times, Sydney Morning Herald, The Globe and Mail ... *all* sources.) Sort of what SelfStudier said. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Andrevan and Chess. - GretLomborg (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - agree that all four are issues, but JPost is one of the oldest and largest Israeli newspapers, and we're lacking an argument for why this is qualitatively or quantitatively worse than incidents at any other major publication. The fake persona seems less severe than fake stories, which many reputable publications have had at some point - see e.g. Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke, Johann Hari. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1, though I could maybe be convinced toward 2 if a stronger case is presented. The decapitated babies story was a massive whiff, but I haven’t seen a pattern of outright falsified reporting otherwise. JPost certainly has a right-wing/nationalist perspective, which makes me rather uncomfortable, but as established in WP policy, bias is (unfortunately, in my view) not unreliability. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wholesale opposed to 3/4, however. In both this topic area and others, I’ve seen sources currently marked GREL/MREL get away with far worse than what the opener notes - unless a stronger case is made, deprecation is beyond extreme here. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important to note that unlike other news sources that reported on the decapitated babies claim, the Jerusalem Post was unique in saying that it had verified the evidence itself, so this is a major red flag and a different story. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, while awful, one severely problematic piece does not amount to the pattern of lies and/or inaccuracies required for outright GUNREL/deprecation - if it did, most of the sources we use on this site would be in that grouping. The rest of the case you’ve made effectively boils down to bias and/or items they ultimately retracted. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine, Option 1 in general. - As others have noted the Jerusalem Post is clearly biased, but I don't think that necessarily means it's unreliable. Outside of the Israel-Palestine area it may well be generally reliable. The problem is that it veers away from mere bias into making incredibly inflammatory false claims that are widely shared and never corrected. The case of "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" stands out in particular. They achieved almost 16 million views with this tweet and never retracted it. The article continues to be cited, sometimes by people with far-reaching influence. Detailed investigations by Haaretz, LeMonde and others continue to show that the claims the Jerusalem Post made were false, but as I write this JP has yet to retract or correct the story.

The other case was the claim about a Palestinian baby who was killed being a doll. An incredibly inflammatory claim, widespread reach, continuing to be repeated and adding to the Pallywood myth. The BBC and others showed this to be false. The JP did eventually retract the story, however the author of the piece Danielle Greyman-Kennard continues to work for them to this day as their "Breaking News Writer and Editor". The same is true of the "Photos..." piece, where the author continued to work for the JP for many months afterwards.

This is what makes the Jerusalem Post's coverage of Israel-Palestine stand apart from reliable sources in this topic area. Yes, they may also be biased (i.e. the Times of Israel) but they did not publish outright disinformation as verified reporting to millions of readers, then subsequently refuse to retract or correct it, let alone take action against the responsible author, when proven false by RS. Even when they do issue a retraction, the author in question remains an editor in good standing.

These are two especially high profile cases, but disinformation and outright falsehoods find their way into all of their output in this subject area. They wrote about Sinwar's wife having a 32,000 dollar Birkin bag - contrast this coverage with how Haaretz reported it, noting that many pointed out that the claim about the bag was in fact false (https://archive.ph/G3aAM)). This marks the difference between a reliable source in this topic area, and an unreliable tabloid outlet.

So, again, option 2/3 for Israel-Palestine. Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re the claim about the bag was in fact false, you linked to Haaretz, but they themselves don't really say it was false; they're just quoting speculation from random Twitter users. JPost is similarly quoting speculation in the other direction, reflecting their opposite biases. Ynetnews covers both sides with some non-Twitter sources, though those pointing out Hermes' relationship-driven sales model seem to ignore the second-hand market. Anyway JPost doesn't exactly take a view on the matter themselves, except in the WP:HEADLINE which we wouldn't use. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx JPost repeated the claim as fact in the headline and published POV as if it were fact in the article, it also published a piece the following day stating it as fact that she was "carrying a luxury Hermès Birkin handbag worth approximately $32,000". This is institutional for the JP, and it goes beyond mere bias that we see with other outlets. It's a systemic disregard for verifiable facts and accuracy in pursuit of political aims. They do this for everything in this topic area, from a handbag to "Photos of babies being burnt, decapitated confirmed" and "Al Jazeera posts blurred doll, claims it to be a dead Palestinian baby". As many have pointed out, even when shown to be platforming misinformation (with serious consequences!) they take no actions to prevent it and continue to employ and publish the people responsible. If the initial article about the handbag was similarly quoting speculation in the other direction, they almost immediately doubled down, so they appear to be perfectly willing to take speculation as verified fact. Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to have third party sources discussing the JPosts issues rather than trying to build a case yourself. The reason I think the babies story is so egregious is the shoddy sourcing policy at play and it was brought up by other sources as amplifying propaganda. For example in an article on false claims in the war the BBC singles out JPost among media organizations for amplifying such a false claim. Everything else it talks about is social media, and when a newspaper is being compared to twitter for spreading false information, that is something to take note of. nableezy - 13:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forward has investigated and published why JPost is unreliable. It's pretty clear that it's a pay-to-publish model and has been since 2004. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source points out the Post denied the allegations. And adds that: Its disclosure for paid articles comes in a brief italicized line at the bottom of these posts: “This article was written in a cooperation with” and the advertiser’s name. So unless you see something with "sponsored content," it isn't, so your statement as a broad generalization about JPost is inaccurate per your own given source (which is reliable) Andre🚐 19:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source points out the Post denied the allegations. WP:MANDY

The brief italicized line is not what I was referring, nor is it is enough for JPost to just do that and call it a day. There are examples in the article of how Haaretz and The Forward do sponsored content which clearly show JPost is relying on a dark pattern to fool the reader.

I was referring to Elli Wohlgelernter, who is the night editor, saying he was uncomfortable with the fact that such sponsored content was not always labeled to differentiate it for readers from journalism free of influence by advertisers. He is saying there is sponsored content that is not marked as sponsored at all. Wohlgelernter is a journalist with 50+ years of experience and has worked with Haaretz, the Times of Israel, and numerous US-based outlets and I encourage you to reflect on what it means when someone like that makes such a claim unequivocally of the outlet they have insider knowledge about. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an assumption not given in the voice of the Forward. They were concerned about sponsored content blending in, but it points out that all sponsored content is labeled as such, just might be hard to distinguish due to, everything else about these articles — the headlines, bylines, font and formatting — appears identical to articles on the website that are not advertisements, and nowhere does this disclaimer about “cooperation” refer to these sponsored posts as advertisements. These articles, many written by a reporter who also writes non-sponsored articles for the Post, are interspersed with normal news articles throughout its website. The former editor, Katz said: “In line with my journalistic values, ethics and principles all sponsored content was labeled as such during my tenure as editor in chief.” Andre🚐 20:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no assumption given I'm quoting exactly what is written. The section you're referring to is called Content ‘in collaboration’ with advertisers that comes 2 sections later. More simply:
The first section cites Wohlgelernter making a concrete claim that sponsored content is not always labelled.

The 3rd section refers to diluted labelling for the subset of cases when sponsored content is labelled.

Are you denying the first section where Wohlgelernter is making a concrete claim? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out that the part you quoted was after what "Wohlgelernter said," not in the Forward's factual voice. That isn't clear from your message, but is attributed to him. So yes, he did concretely state that, but the Forward didn't say that, so the assumption is that he is correct specifically versus what the publisher and editor claimed and what the Forward's reporter confirmed. It would be easy to see how the practice was problematic to him and also is the practice described in the section, since Ashkenazi, the publisher, denied the statement made by Wohlgelernter. The assumption is that Wohlgelernter saw something beyond what the Forward confirmed. The Forward describes the practice which I quoted previously, and it's clear how that could also be what Wohlgelernter was describing, and he just exaggerated slightly or was inexact in his phrasing, or the journalist overstated what he said or meant when transcribing the interview or editing the story. This happens commonly with journalists. I remember speaking once to a journalist years ago who transformed my term "basement" into "attic." A minor difference to the meaning of the story and I never corrected it - journalist is no longer with that outlet either - but basement and attic are obviously opposites. Andre🚐 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Forward, or any reputable news outlet for that matter, will use their own voice where they can directly confirm facts. When they work with sources making a claim that is insider information and cannot be directly verified, they will not use their own voice and will instead clearly attribute the claim to the source (after having vetted their source per their editorial standards of course).

In such cases, the reader must evaluate the claim being made by referencing against the biases and motivations of the source. In this case, the source is a journalist with half a century of experience and has a leadership position in JPost.

I think the chances of Wohlgelernter exaggerating slightly or Wohlgelernter being inexact in his phrasing is vanishingly tiny. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - especially about palestinians. ~~I view the Daily Telegraph as having an even worse bias on the war and it is a 1.~~ It really does need a check before accepting what it says as true rather than just passing it off as bias. NadVolum (talk) 12:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. The examples provided by u:Makeandtoss do not prove the lack of reliability. #3 and #4 have been retracted which is a positive sign. The characterisation as "Hezbollah-run" is a matter of judgement and degree, while Hezbollah doesn't have this portfolio it is a dominant force in Lebanese politics and the largest party in the ruling coalition. As to #2, a correction would probably be in order (infants were killed but not beheaded) but I don't think we should re-classify the source based on just this issue. Alaexis_¿question? 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. No real concerns. Strong editorial policy, paper of record, good reputation. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Chess, Alaexis, and others. I'm not seeing a sustained pattern of factual errors or falsehoods that would justify a downgrade. Astaire (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 for AI/IP and Option 3 in general. The examples highlighted by Makeandtoss as well as Smallangryplanet are damning evidence of the lack of editorial standards and a decision to unabashedly spread misinformation even when other reputable sources have published rebuttals and debunked false claims.

I reject the assertion that JP should be rated as a 1 because some other source is also rated as a 1. Can the proponents who make this argument point out the policy that says this is acceptable? From WP:REPUTABLE: Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. JP has demonstrated that it has parted ways with fact-checking and accuracy.

The Forward has published a detailed investigation into why JP's standards have plummeted. Summarizing:

The JP engages in pay-to-publish and has been doing so since 2004. The night editor, Wohlgelernter, has said that sponsored posts are not always marked as such and there's no way to tell what is independent reporting and what is a sponsored post.
The editor, Avi Mayer, resigned because the owner, Eli Azur, kept pressuring more sponsored content and practices that go against journalistic ethics.
What's even more horrifying is that Avi Mayer's background is of being a spokesperson for the IDF. He's an influencer for Israel and shares pro-Israel posts on social media. ... He retained a similar tone on social media while editor, using rhetoric unusual for the leader of a mainstream newspaper: “Good luck being unemployed,” he said to one university student who had blamed Israel for the Oct. 7 attack, while calling for another student to be fired. The demands of the JP's owners were so extreme that a pro-Israel military hawk with no background in journalism felt icky. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding publishing paid content as news pieces, they say later in the article in their own voice that it's hard to distinguish between news articles, rather than there being no distinction at all. I'm not sure what to make of it - maybe these are two separate issues, or maybe they are more sure in one than the other.
Btw they've appointed a new editor who is apparently an experienced journalist [17], hopefully this will improve the situation. Alaexis_¿question? 21:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw they've appointed a new editor ... hopefully this will improve the situation - Yes, I hope so too and look forward to a survey for updating their rating from 4 to 1 when we have evidence of that.
they say later in the article in their own voice that it's hard to distinguish between news articles, rather than there being no distinction at all - @Andrevan had this misunderstanding as well, so I'm copying my comment from that thread here:
The first section cites Wohlgelernter making a concrete claim that sponsored content is not always labelled.

The 3rd section refers to diluted labelling for the subset of cases when sponsored content is labelled.
Wohlgelernter is a journalist with 50+ years of experience and has worked with Haaretz, The Times of Israel, and various other US news organizations. I think we can safely accept that Wohlgelernter knows a thing or two about journalistic integrity and is not just a random commenter. You're right that the 3rd section is where The Forward is using their own voice, but that is simply because that part can be independently corroborated by them. Wohlgelernter's statement must be directly ascribed to him by The Forward since that's how reporting works.

Are you suggesting we discount Wohlgelernter's testimony altogether? CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misunderstand it, I would submit that you are somewhat misframing it. The 3rd section is what the Forward was able to confirm. The Forward doesn't corroborate the statement made by Wohlgelernter, so it is attributed to him, and not a flat fact. It could simply be a turn of phrase or an exaggeration of what he meant. Andre🚐 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Wohlgelernter is exaggerating is extraordinary and I don't see evidence to support that. He's a highly experienced journalist who's in a leadership position at JPost and is speaking to an external news organization. I think it's safe to assume that he has received media training and knows how to talk to journalists without putting his foot in his mouth. :) It's also a safe bet that he's interested in journalistic integrity and wants to improve the JPost.

Wohlgelernter's testimony as well as The Forward's section is evidence that JPost is firmly in the pay-to-publish side of the landscape. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. As the article explains, there are situations where there are labelled pay-to-publish sections. The Forward doesn't confirm any examples of pay-to-publish that wasn't labelled. Also, these are limited to the tenure of Meyer. Andre🚐 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, these are limited to the tenure of Meyer - How do you infer this? The article says clearly:

Those tensions boiled over Wednesday when Avi Mayer left as editor of the Post. Mayer, whose background was in public relations, had been hired in April, and several of the current and former employees say he struggled to lead the newsroom. But they say mounting commercial pressure from Azur and Ashkenazi put Mayer in an impossible position.

If anything, the situation is likely to be worse now. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you're making assumptions that are not in evidence. The article only details concerns under Meyer. Katz specifies that he did not have this issue. Andre🚐 22:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please back up your claim with evidence instead of just rephrasing it. CoolAndUniqueUsername (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already quoted the quote from Katz above. The article only details concerns under Mayer: Mayer, 39, was a controversial choice to lead the Post...criticized the quality of the Post’s journalism under Mayer... Mayer apologized.... Yaakov Katz, the editor before Mayer, frequently pushed back on management’s efforts to expand the amount of sponsored content in the Post and eliminate or obscure disclosures that they were advertisements. Andre🚐 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your second point (and by extension your third point about Mayer "feeling icky") is not supported by the article, which says It is unclear what may have precipitated Mayer’s departure this week. There is no proof that he "resigned because" of anything. Astaire (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPA, by the way. After reaching 500/30 the editor switched entirely to Israel-Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF and don't WP:BITE; Not even their last 50 contributions are exclusively I-P. There's nothing inherently unusual about wanting to get involved in one of the most important current events topics of the day once you earn the right to do so. You should focus on the well researched and reasoned arguments they presented here. Unbandito (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm avoiding tagging with Template:spa because more context is needed, but yes, all 50 of CoolAndUniqueUsername's recent contribs are about Israel and/or Palestine. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 04:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence free WP:ASPERSIONS, suggest they be struck. Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly false: [18] [19] [20] [21]. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Code Pink is pretty focused on I/P. Their homepage is currently focused on a I/P driven Netflix boycott, and their list of issues places "justice for Palestine" first. The first page of their blog lists 9 articles, and 7 of them are in the Palestine category. The article is XC-protected because of its relation to the topic area. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx Code Pink is an anti-war organization in general & with how Palestine has been in the public eye lately, they will inherently be writing more on the subject. The article also has several contentious topic warnings other then the Arab–Israeli conflict including post-1992 politics of the US, gender-related disputes, & Uyghurs/ Uyghur genocide.

So, as @CoolAndUniqueUsername's edits on the page were unrelated to Israel or Palestine, the accusation remains false. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a stretch... editing Code Pink does seem related. Andre🚐 03:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it's a stretch, but for arguments sake let's say their edits to Code Pink were related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

They haven't edited since the 4th, so you can see their latest 50 edits when the accusation was made. I don't think Criticism of Amazon's environmental impact or Haitian independence debt are at all related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

I hope we can now shelve this accusation as false & focus on the Jerusalem Post as the topic at hand. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 for Israel-Palestine I don't know about their coverage outside the conflict, but in their coverage of the war, they showed incompetance, publishing disinformation, most famously, those of baby decapitations. FunLater (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters published almost the same information on photos shown to Blinken. This is Reuters from 10/12, and this is the JPost from 10/12. Also ABC and many other outlets. The debunked story of 40 decapitated babies from Kfar Aza is a completely different issue from the photos shown to Blinked with murdered babies. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt anywhere close to the same. The Jerusalem Post said The Jerusalem Post can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct. No part of that was true, they did not verify any photos of any decapitated babies because there were none. There were a total of 2 babies that were killed on October 7 (TOI, Haaretz for example, with Haaretz saying Ten-month-old Mila Cohen was murdered in the massacre, along with the baby still in the womb of her mother who died after her mother was shot on the way to hospital. The police have no evidence showing that other babies were killed.). The Jerusalem Post claimed (and still claims!) to have verified something that does not exist. Reuters did not. nableezy - 17:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 for the Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly defined. It's clear from the above discussion and from JP's history of credulously publishing false information regarding the genocide in Palestine that it is inappropriate for use on that specific topic - it may be perfectly reliable outside the context of that conflict. However, considering the increasngly global character of the conflict, I'd think twice before using JP for pretty much any matter of international relations. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you vote "broadly defined" if your issues are specific to the genocide? Is the Jerusalem Post wholly unreliable for domestic politics? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should note that I was saying that, as the genocide has extended into a broadly international matter, that its coverage of foreign affairs was suspect - not domestic politics. Simonm223 (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote is Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, broadly defined, which means a total ban of the source on anything related to Israel or Palestine. If you write "broadly defined" that includes domestic politics. If you want to amend your !vote to refer to the "Israel-Palestine conflict broadly defined" that'd be another issue. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will make that change. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 with the exception of localized and mostly minor issues, there is no broad pattern of unreliability, and the JPost represents a significant center-right perspective in Israeli politics. The source is broadly respected and used by others, and despite being arguably worse than some other Israeli sources, I see no indication of anything other than general reliability in all topic areas. FortunateSons (talk) 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 for Israel/Palestine, Option 1 elsewhere. While it is mostly reliable, numerous errors made by the outlet in this war are of a more egregious nature (e.g. claiming to have seen footage of something that did not happen) and occur more frequently than other "involved" media outlets, which IMO merits some caution. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, otherwise a weak Option 1 - Besides incidents like calling a dead baby a doll & the 40 decapitated babies (of which there still remains an article saying they "can now confirm based on verified photos of the bodies that the reports of babies being burnt and decapitated in Hamas's assault on Kfar Aza are correct."). They are also willing to use the racist slur of "pallywood". Recently, they've also published an article citing a twitter account "OSINTdefender", known to spread false information. I don't think an organization like this should be considered much of a reliable source for contentious topics in general, but especially not for WP:PIA - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re OSINTdefender, pretty much all investigative journalists look at footage from social media. Some might summarize the footage in prose, or re-publish it without attribution, but ultimately it's still coming from random social media users. The more reliable orgs will geolocate or otherwise verify that the footage represents what was claimed. Do you have any evidence that such diligence was not done by JPost? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They shared the description & videos directly from a misinformation account with no caveats. The work that would be necessary to independently verify the information would require them to either track down where the unreliable account got their info from or to find a reliable source to corroborate, both options negate the need for quoting an unreliable source.

So no, there's no reason to believe they did their due-diligence here, otherwise they would've quoted a reliable source to begin with. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just how modern investigative journalism works. Take NBC's article about the same event for example, which is based on "footage circulating on social media". Everyone covering such conflicts is using social media footage, whether they clearly acknowledge it or not. There are varying levels of due diligence, but there's no evidence that due diligence was lacking in the JPost example. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that the article doesn’t cite osintdefender. It embeds a tweet from them, containing a video. This is a quite common practice now with several outlets, where opinionated or vivid tweets are embedded in otherwise reliable articles. We wouldn’t cite the tweet if we were citing the article, so it doesn’t strongly affect reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2/3, and IMO, not just for I-P but for everything. It seems since 2004, the JPost does not enjoy a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy:

2009: Kevin Jon Heller writes of a JPost editorial, "the editorial contains more basic factual errors than any editorial I have ever read" [22] and, later, "No Correction by the Jerusalem Post" [23]
2019: "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim on 'first complete cure for cancer', overstates research significance" according to WP:IFCN fact checker [24]
2020 COVID article found "misleading" also by WP:IFCN fact checker [25]
2020: "Jerusalem Post took government money to publish anti-BDS special", +972 [26]
2023: the Forward article about pay-to-play discussed by others above [27]

And that's without getting into the 2023-2024 decapitated babies stuff (also discussed by others above). It reminds me of the New York Post, just not "on the level," and there plenty of much better Israeli journalism to draw upon. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 is pretty far back, and it's also about an WP:RSEDITORIAL which we wouldn't use except with attribution anyway.

The cancer thing was JPost quoting a third party. Their "Jerusalem Post article makes premature claim" headline was misleading, JPost themselves made no such claim.

The government funding thing could be a bias concern (not clearly/directly related to reliability), though since it's +972 it's hard to trust them to relay facts plainly without a spin.

The Forward piece misleads by burying the fact that sponsored content is labeled as such by JPost. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1, maybe 2, but oppose 3/4: Yes, it is biased but sources can be both reliable and biased. I do not see any pattern in their reporting that indicates they repeatedly publish false information. Some stories mentioned above are certainly concerning, but I do not see any indication this is a common occurrence. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. For everyday matters, JP is reliable enough, but JP has several faults that demand caution. One (shared by most Israeli outlets) is that they often publish IDF claims uncritically as fact, contrary to their journalistic duty to attribute and investigate. Another fault is that they sometimes publish op-eds labeled as news when they are clearly opinion. We don't usually label individual journalists as unreliable, but if we were going to do that I'd specify a clear "option 4" for a few of JP's writers. Zero^talk 06:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1. Not sure whether to laugh or cry? Maybe both. There has been a steady campaign to remove every source that is remotely pro-Israel as a reliable one. If Wikipedia's neutrality and independence was at the heart of this, than Al Jazeera would be removed as a RS given the many concerns with it.MaskedSinger (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 for I-P conflict, Option 1 for non-controversial matters. I was appalled at what appears to be Jerusalem Post falsely accusing an author of inciting genocide. For the I-P conflict, I would apply the following test:
- is it being cited for non-exceptional, non-contentious content? If so, it can be cited without attribution.
- is it being cited for WP:EXCEPTIONAL or contentious content? If so, it should not be used at all. If we must use it, then we should use it with attribution. An example of this could be: a WP:GREL source makes a serious accusation against an Israeli official, and the official's rebuttal has not been quoted in any RS, then it would be appropriate to say "The Jerusalem Post reported that X was not...".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 23:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4. Biased sources can be reliable. Sources that spread disinformation cannot. This is the lowest possible bar of journalistic integrity - don't maliciously fabricate information. Combefere ★ Talk 02:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 for anything related to Israel-Palestine, Option 2 in general. The supposed verification of photos regarding the beheaded babies and the refusal to retract that story is pretty clear-cut for deprecation. I'm also shocked that the editor in charge of the story about a Palestinian baby being a doll is still working for them, and the point raised about the editorial and institutional nature of JP in this already cited article is the final nail in the coffin for me. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 12:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 as no strong evidence presented of systematic unreliability. - Amigao (talk) 13:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per nableezy and smallangryplanet. While in most situations they're a normal WP:NEWSORG, on the I/P conflict they are so biased that it starts to warp their factual reporting. Loki (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 As WP:BIASED as it might be, JP's reporting is no less reliable than other mainstream newspapers. They don't make up stories nor hide basic facts.מתיאל (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)מתיאל[reply]
Option 1. This is a well-established mainstream news organization that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy dating back to 1932, before the establishment of the modern State of Israel. The evidence presented against this in this thread is less-than convincing and appears to be special pleading rather than a view of the organization as a whole, and incorrectly asserts that a "root for the home-team" bias necessarily impugns reliability (in contrast to our guidance at WP:BIASED). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why their age is important, especially as they've had several ownership changes since their inception. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per User:Red-tailed hawk. Far more reliable than Al Jazeera, I might add. BePrepared1907 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A recent AJ RFC has been snow closed as reliable, that won't be happening here methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 as Amigao wrote, "no strong evidence presented of systematic unreliability" Alenoach (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 While politically skewed, not at all obviously unreliable in an actionable way. Roggenwolf (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 generally, Option 3 for Israel-Palestine, per Butterscotch Beluga and Levivich. Bitspectator ⛩️ 19:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question for others: is it too specific if I !vote Option 2/3 for just the Israel-Hamas war? Bitspectator ⛩️ 23:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say no, the I/P area is broad enough that one can make an argument about specific lack of reliability for certain parts of the conflict. In that case, it might be beneficial to make a clear argument about why you have made the distinction though. FortunateSons (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 Generally reliable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 The key consideration is whether using this source would lead to increased inaccuracy in articles.In this case, it has not beem shown. No reasonable editor would add that the Lebanese ministry of health is controlled by Hezbollah, based on a passing mention by a reporter. Also, commentary published in even the most reliable sources are not themselves deemed reliable. The final consideration is that when news media publish false stories, as they have in the current conflict, you must show that a publication is an outlier. If all major reliable news media publish the same false story, then we cannot use this to single out a specific publication. TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all major media published the same false story, and JPost was the only one to claim to have verified something we know never existed. They also never retracted that false claim. nableezy - 17:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Chess and Andrevan. I can see some concerns around IP topics which most sources in that area of the world would have. In those areas we really should treat all sources like an option 2. The idea that this should be deprecated... that seems to be very motivated thinking. Springee (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 for the Israel-Palestine conflict per Simonm223 and others. M.Bitton (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1, and subscribe to what Chess wrote as well. Reading through the RFCBEFORE, I'm surprised this was even taken here. Obvious that bias should be taken into consideration when using the source, especially for contentious claims, but that's no different to say, Al-Jazeera. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 generally, Option 3 Israel-Palestine conflict I find the arguments presented by @Makeandtoss, @CoolAndUniqueUsername and @Levivich to be compelling. Were there only isolated incidents of misreporting and bias, which were promptly and appropriately addressed, I would align with the view that such bias does not necessarily render a source unreliable. However, in this instance, as highlighted in the article from Forward, there exists a pervasive institutional issue that leads to routine publishing by the Jerusalem Post that mirrors the practices of outlets such as the Daily Mail or The Sun. A review of their daily output over time substantiates this observation. From sensationalized headlines to content that cites random tweets as primary sources and derives conclusions from viral social media discourse, the Jerusalem Post exhibits patterns of misreporting that have not been rectified in the manner expected from a reliable news source. Lf8u2 (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 per Chess.4meter4 (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 for issues around Israel/Palestine. It appears as if they are still attributing Annette de Graaf's footage of of Maccabi soccer fans violently attacking people and rampaging through Amsterdam (see second picture down) as Protesters running after Israeli soccer fans (see 7m 25s) (compare the yellow illuminations), this is from the same footage. Andromedean (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owen Jones's YouTube channel is not a reliable source.[28][29] Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess Honest Reporting is not a reliable source & the Algemeiner article is an opinion piece. However, Owen Jone's video is of an interview with Annette de Graaf, the person who took the footage in question. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed this claim of Maccabi fans being victims rather than the aggressors in this video had been thoroughly debunked across the MSM. As far as I know all responsible media have (albeit reluctantly) accepted they got it badly wrong, and either changed the interpretation, or at least pulled it, but not the JPost it seems. Perhaps it could be used as a sort of bellwether for reliability on this topic?

Here the Guardian at 3:10 confirm "This film taken near central station, was widely reported by numerous media organisations including the Guardian as Israeli fans getting attacked, when in fact it was Maccabi fans attacking Amsterdam citizens and starting a riot, as later claimed by the photographer who took the coverage." See also Fact check: Amsterdam video doesn't show attack on Israelis by Deutsche Welle and Viral Video falsely captioned as Muslims hunting Jews by France24. Andromedean (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
So, did the Guardian take down their original reporting? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 22:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Algemeiner article is junk comment, from a very biased source. Having watched the video in question, it actually specifically relates the contents of a video package using footage from the 7th October which the Israeli government edited for screening to opinion-formers. Jones relates that he found the footage shocking and described watching it one of the worst experiences of his life. He then relates what appears and does not appear in the video and compares this to what other commentators have said about the video. The video was released at a time when the mass killing of babies lie was still widely believed and he pointed out that the package did not contain any evidence for this, but that Israel had stated it had not included any footage of the killing of children for moral reasons. As we now know that 37 children died in the attacks, from a total of 1000 victims, the evidence for deliberate mass killing of children still does not exist. I would say that article does more to undermine Algemeiner's reliability than Jones'--Boynamedsue (talk) 07:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 for Israel-Palestine, otherwise a weak Option 1 There is quite strong evidence here of false reporting amounting to propaganda. I would not want claims about Palestinians, sourced solely to the JP to appear in our pages. However, it will on occasions be useful for providing insights on the thinking and comments of members of the Israeli establishment on Palestinians and the conflict and so I wouldn't suggest a blanket ban.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerusalem Post's subsidiary Walla's scandal

An important point in the RFC has been missed: Jerusalem Post apparently translates and publishes articles from its subsidiary website Walla, which was essentially exposed as a Netanyahu mouthpiece. The scandal broke out in Israel a few years ago when it was revealed that Walla's then owner had agreed to air positive coverage of the Israeli premier in exchange for regulatory benefits for his other company, which morphed into the corruption trial against Netanyahu who is expected to provide his testimony in the upcoming weeks. This connection was highlighted last year when a JP article faced backlash, and the then editor-in-chief Avi Mayer, an individual whose career involved working for several powerful lobbying groups such as AIPAC, stated that: "The article in question was produced by our Hebrew-language sister publication, Walla News, and was uploaded to our website using an automated translation mechanism." Walla's employees are witnesses to Netanyahu's corruption trial, one of whom told an Israeli court that: "Netanyahu had the greatest control over the Walla website, including what the headline would be, where it would be on the home page."

A quick look on Jerusalem Post's website shows that Walla's articles are still being extensively translated and published by the newspaper, including one just twelve hours ago: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. So are we really going to consider a publication known to propagate articles from a mouthpiece for a politician, who is on trial in Israel for corruption and about to be on trial in the ICC for war crimes, a reliable source on Wikipedia, especially for the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a couple of different issues here. Walla were accused of being a mouthpiece for Netanyahu under its previous ownership (Bezeq), 2012-20, not under JP’s ownership since 2020; (b) the scandalous recent article last November had nothing to do with the Netanyahu stuff, although speaks ill of JP if they have continued to publish automated translations from Walla without vetting them; (c) Avi Mayer’s 9 month tenure as editor in 2023 is a different issue again, which I think was discussed already in the survey above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC) (in other words, if Walla was unreliable pre-2020 this has no bearing on JP’s reliability then or now. If Walla is consistently unreliable now, then it does have bearing on JP’s reliability now. If Avi Mayer is biased, that speaks to bias in 2023 (already widely agreed in this discussion) but isn’t relevant to reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least we can agree that Walla and Jerusalem Post are unreliable for 2012-2020. But still change of ownership for Walla in 2020 from Bezeq to JP or change of the editor-in-chief for JP in 2023 is not a fundamental change (JP retains its same gambling tycoon owner Eli Azur since 2004). Newspapers are institutions with deeply rooted attitudes and editorial policies and staff. JP and Walla both were still implicated in another scandal 2022-2024 of running a paid pro-Russian propaganda campaign written as part of their journalistic materials as was reported by this esteemed Israeli investigative publication: [38] Clearly, in recent memory, JP doesn’t have a record of being a reliable publication, but rather a track record in disinformation. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No we don’t “agree that Walla and Jerusalem Post are unreliable for 2012-2020”. Walla was clearly unreliable for Israeli politics in that period, but that has no bearing on JP so irrelevant to the conversation here. As far as I can see, all the evidence presented here for JP unreliability relates to the Gaza/Lebanon war since October 2023. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has a bearing on JP's reliability because as demonstrated JP extensively uses Walla articles. As for the paid pro-Russian disinformation this dates to 2022-2024. In any case, the evidence presented shows how this institution has been void of journalistic standards for most of the past two decades. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contention is that JP publishes and translates Walla articles - are they identified in JP as coming from the subsidiary? Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as seen from the nine examples I referenced. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's simple. Walla articles transcluded to JP should not be treated as reliable. It has no bearing, positive or negative, n JP articles that did not originate in Walla. Simonm223 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that JP publishes Walla article is an indication of overall unreliability in my opinion; coupled with the other numerous evidence presented here of unreliable reporting; but of course, you have the right to your opinion. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a double standard here with this and Al Jazeera and whatever else. If editorial influence is the charge, then all those who fall foul of this should lose their status as a Reliable Source irrespective of one's personal preferences. To apply it selectively is intellectually dishonest. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/oct/27/us-asks-qatar-to-turn-down-the-volume-of-al-jazeera-news-coverage MaskedSinger (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article you cited does not say AJ complied and relates to Arabic not English AJ, so no there is no analogy here. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MakeandtossYou're far better than arguing semantics.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-hamas-propaganda-war MaskedSinger (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something in that link that is supposed to tell us something about the al-Jazeera, much less the Jerusalem Post? Is there a reason people are bringing up another source we have discussed extensively and have a recent consensus on? nableezy - 16:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy yes. very much so. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is? nableezy - 18:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger Could you then specify what that is then? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch Beluga Yes of course. Thank you for asking. The fact that there is consensus doesn't make it factually correct. Let me give you an example.

Someone says "a lion has 4 legs. So if a zebra has 4 legs, it must be a lion". There is a RFC about this - there are lot of votes supporting the motion confirming that a zebra has four legs. There are sources saying a zebra has 4 legs and then there is consensus that this is actually the case - a zebra is a lion. Is a zebra now a lion because the RFC said so? In the Wikipedia universe, the answer is yes. But Wikipedia should reflect the world we live in accurately and independently regardless what various discussions decide. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should specify, do you have a policy based reason for this tangent on Al Jazeera? Currently it seems you are trying to relitigate the Al Jazeera RFC, rather then focusing on the current RFC. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm tempted to collapse this digression under WP:NOTFORUM. It is not relevant to the relationship between Jerusalem Post and Walla or how that relationship should be treated as affecting the reliability of Jerusalem Post. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check Your Fact

RFC OPENED

Closing discussion as #RfC: Check Your Fact has been opened. CNC (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Check Your Fact (CYF) is a "for-profit subsidiary" of The Daily Caller, the latter being depcrecated source due to the 2019 RfC. This fact-checking website was briefly discussed last month, where there appears to be lack of consensus over it's reliability.

As requested by Animalparty, here is an example of CYF as a source being removed from an article based exclusively on the unreliability of WP:DAILYCALLER (see diff). This is where the issue lies: The RfC failed to question CYF; from searching through the discussion, no-one argued that it was unreliable. I otherwise only found one noticeboard discussion (post-RFC) referenced above that was inconclusive.

Currently the CYF url is categorised as deprecated based on WP:RSPUSES, as this was added by David Gerard in February 2024 (see diff) based on this discussion at RSP (rather than RSN notably). So is it correct that Check Your Fact is deprecated, because of the 2019 RfC? Ie was the RfC about The Daily Caller (the website), or the entity The Daily Caller, Inc. that owns Check Your Fact?

To me it looks like it was specifically about the website, hence there was no discussion over it's subsidiaries. Overall it seems like incorrect "book keeping" to include this url as deprecated when it wasn't discussed here, but maybe I'm mistaken or misunderstood something?

And finally the usual question: Should Check Your Fact be considered generally reliable source for use in articles?

What this discussion isn't, for those quick to jump to conclusions or misinterpret: 1. This isn't about changing an RSP listing, this is about the interpretation of the 2019 RfC. 2. This isn't about the article referenced as a diff, this only serves as an example. Thanks! CNC (talk) 13:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, based on deprecated sources archives, I discovered that CYF is in fact not deprecated, so will boldly remove from RSPUSES for now on that very basis. Whether it should be deprecated is another discussion. CNC (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of Daily Caller and as factual. Why would it get an exemption? - David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I digree that this wasn't deprecated, it was created as just another URL for Daily Caller content and the source is deprecated not a particular URL it happens to be using. As a general principle going over the same ground because a bad sources find a new outlet would be a waste of time.

Remembering my comment from the last time this came up, at least at first this was no different than the Daily Caller. With it being run by the same staff and using more or less the same content. Over time it appears to have become a bit more separate from its parent organisation, and I could see an argument that it should be now have an exception from the deprecation of the Daily Caller.

As a separate comment 'fact checking' sites are poor sources in general, and I would suggest their use is always attributed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

should be deprecated if its part of daily caller Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reversed the removal of the link from RSP - the Daily Caller is presently deprecated whatever URL its content is being served from. If you want to partially reverse this, you'll need an RFC showing consensus to do so (and it's not clear you have the momentum as yet) - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if that's how others see it also, I won't stand in the way of consensus if there are no issues. This discussion has certainly gone a different direction than the previous, but if that's the outcome then so be it. CNC (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to partially reverse this, you'll need an RFC showing consensus to do so would imply that the deprecation RfC treated The Daily Caller as a publisher rather than as a publication. But my reading of the discussion is that it treats it as a publication—one does not need an RfC to remove a sloppily inserted link from RSP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD, one does not. However given it's been almost 9 months since it's deprecation it's far to assume that WP:STATUSQUO now applies. As well as that BRD won't bring about any consensus here. CNC (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat my argument from the prevous stale conversation, and assert that there is no good reason besides "I don't like the parent company" to deprecate Checkyourfact.com. Per WP:NEWSORG, Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest. Checkyourfact.com is a fact-checking source, attested to by the IFCN certification. Its Corrections policy is here. It clearly discloses its ownership (potential conflict of interest) on its About us page. Its Methodology is here. Its staff and editorial board is here. Check Your Fact was awarded a grant in June of this year from the Poynter Institute's IFCN. From casual googling it appears to regularly align with fact-checks by USA Today Politifact and Reuters, [39][40][41][42]. It is true that perhaps Checkyourfact might not fact check every claim Wikipedians might wish it to, but guess what, that same logic applies to Politifact, Reuters, Snopes, and every other fact-checking outlet that has ever existed (check your own biases!). There very well may be few cases where citing Checkyourfact is even warranted (especially if there are a dozen other fact-checking sites that Wikipedians don't hate saying the same thing), but nobody has submitted a lick of hard of evidence for why Checkyourfact should be considered unreliable or deprecated beyond "vibes" and guilt by association. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by guilt by association you mean acknowledging the existence of WP:SOURCEDEF and the fact that the publisher is a factor determining reliability, then sure, let's go with that. On the other hand, is there any actual point to this discussion (i.e., any disputed claim people actually want to use the source in question to support)? I really don't see the point in having a discussion for the sake of discussion (and faffing about RSP listings is essentially that without any actual usage). Like, I know nobody actually reads the instructions, but there's no reason to be so blatant about it. I would oppose the use of either this or the previous discussion (or any discussion not also about an actual issue)) to support any change anywhere, because people should take the effort to point out, with examples, the actual issue if they want substantive discussion over it instead of endless windmilling. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"any disputed claim people actually want to use the source" It's being used in Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season and Jackson Hinkle at present, it's not needed at the latter but looks useful at the former. In the same light of not faffing around, either these references should be removed or CYF be re-considered as marginally reliable at least. Given the content in question, it can't be considered uncontroversial and therefore an unreliable source shouldn't there. CNC (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could either sloppily lop together with all operations of one firm with total ignorance to how this source is structured, or we could attempt to independently assess this source. And, upon looking a bit deeper into this source, it is a certified by the International Fact-Checking Network, which we consider to be generally reliable for the exact purpose of evaluating the reliability of fact-checking websites. The most recent assessment, conducted in March 2024, is quite detailed. I would encourage all of you to take a read through it; the random sample testing for criteria 5.3 - 5.5 do seem to provide a reasonable degree of independent assurance as to the quality of the organization's checks.

I strongly disagree with lumping this in the The Daily Caller's RSP entry, as the organizations seem to operate with some degree of independence and this was not actually discussed in the deprecation RfC. I agree with CNC that it seems like incorrect book keeping, and I do think there is persuasive evidence from how third parties have evaluated and use CYF that the source is actually WP:GREL.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not convinced an RfC close would determine that the source is generally reliable, I also find it unlikely there would be consensus for it to be generally unreliable or deprecated either based on opposing viewpoints so far. Unless there are other comments in the coming days, I'll start an RfC below so we can re-determine the reliability of this source. I don't see any benefit of attempting BRD to remove the source from RSP at this point, ie reverting a bold edit from months ago that has become defacto status quo. There are clearly a few editors who support this edit, against a few of others that don't including myself. This now requires further input from the community. CNC (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So be it, CommunityNotesContributor. I've started one below. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC: Check Your Fact

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Which of the following describes the reliability of Check Your Fact?

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

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: Check Your Fact

Option 1. Check Your Fact is a certified member of the International Fact-Checking Network (see WP:IFCN for more information) and has been a fact-checking partner of Facebook for quite a while now. The most recent assessment by the International Fact-Checking Network indicates that this is a fact-checking operation with eight dedicated staff. Per the review, which conducted independent sample testing of the fact checks produced by Check Your Fact, this is a fact-checker that uses the best available primary sources where available (to avoid games of telephone; see criteria 3.2), uses multiple sources of evidence where available (see criteria 3.3), makes public a clear structure for editorial control with three dedicated editors (see criteria 4.3-4.4), lists a public methodology (see criteria 4.5-5.1), provides relevant evidence to support or undermine claims when applicable (see criteria 5.3), applies its methodology consistently regardless of who is making the claim (see criteria 5.4), attempts to seek comment from individuals who made claims, when possible (see criteria 5.5), has a published corrections policy, and publishes corrections when applicable (see criteria 6.3), among other items. Funding for the project comes from Facebook (via its fact-checking contracts) and The Daily Caller (via advertising revenue and its general budget). Since at least 2019, Check Your Fact has been editorially independent of The Daily Caller's newsroom, though it is owned by The Daily Caller.
Based on the independence of the newsroom for Check Your Fact, and the WP:IFCN's certification of the source as a fact-checker, I do think that this is a generally reliable fact checker. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2/3 While I am receptive to the relatively positive report at the International Fact-Checking network I have some concerns about the methodology. Particularly 1.5 ignores corporate ownership as a potential source of bias. 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review. 5.1 only states that a methodology exists but the link to the actual posted methodology [43] is absurdly vague. 6.2 points to a corrections page but articles to do with hot-button social issues such as abortion access / planned parenthood on the corrections page contain no information beyond that the article was taken down for not meeting editorial standards. So not exactly a correction so much as a redaction. 6.5 assumes that the parent company "has and adheres to an open and honest corrections policy" which I don't believe to be the case notwithstanding the certification of IFCN. Furthermore the IFCN rubrick does not sufficiently address the ways in which the selection decisions of what facts to check can necessarily impact the metanarrative of a fact-checking website. Because of this I find the IFCN certification not entirely persuasive. However it is persuasive enough that I wouldn't go straight to option 4. Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, I would contrast 2.1 allows the fact-checking agency to self-select the facts it checked for review with the random sampling enforced in 1.4, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. And while 2.1 (The applicant fact-checks using the same high standards of evidence and judgement for equivalent claims regardless of who made the claim) is a self-attestation, 5.4 requires a random sample to be tested to check the same thing (The applicant in its fact checks assesses the merits of the evidence found using the same high standards applied to evidence on equivalent claims, regardless of who made the claim). So the alleged flaw in criteria 2.1 (that there is no independent checking here) is illusory due to the testing in 5.4.

If you don't like the methodology of the IFCN, that is one thing, but the resounding RSN consensus is that it is generally reliable for this exact purpose. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you but I think that irregularity is part of what makes the IFCN methodology questionable. That being said my big two concerns with the IFCN methodology, as I said below in the discussion area, are 5.1, 6.2 and 6.5. Simonm223 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that irregularity? Do you mean that the certification requires both self-attestation and independent assurance? Because that sort of thing is extremely standard in industry. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happier if there were no self-selection criteria and if the certifying body was fully controlling what is selected. But, again, this is not my main point of contention. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 Although CYF started as little more than a new URL for the Daily Caller it now has a separate editorial staff and writers. However I don't think fact checking sites are good sources in general, better sources should be found with fact checkers only used sparingly and with care. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 until such time as unreliable factual reporting is identified. The perennial sources list is intended for sources that we've repeatedly identified actual problems with, and despite their concerning ownership (classification as generally reliable doesn't preclude WP:WEIGHT) the discussion to classify them here feels preemptive. I think we should wait until someone spots an incorrect or heavily biased fact check being used in the encyclopedia, and at that point Check Your Fact could be brought to RSN. The main header of this very page states fairly clearly that "RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed": this is preemptive and out-of-policy.
For what it's worth on the source itself, I agree with ActivelyDisinterested regarding fact checking sites in general; however, I don't see a reason to consider them anything less than reliable. As a disclaimer, I am the editor who initially included Check Your Fact at Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, noted above by CommunityNotesContributor. This was the best source I could find for the claim, as the staff claim to have done due diligence trying to find evidence for the false rumor. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 01:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: struck my criticism of the RfC after reading the previous discussions and realize this may actually be necessary. I still think it should be considered generally reliable, but with an RS:P notice addressing both the concepts of fact checking ("Since it often covers fringe material, parity of sources may be relevant." from WP:SNOPES, "Check Your Fact is often a tertiary source. Editors prefer reliable secondary sources over Check Your Fact when available." adapted from WP:BRITANNICA) as well as a note about its ownership ("It is a subsidiary of The Daily Caller, a deprecated source, and there is no consensus on whether/a consensus that it is independent of its parent." adapted from the Deseret News entry). Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 02:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Premature/Unclear (which I guess would fall under option 2 by the definitions of the categories). I don't see the reason why we should have a whole ass RFC on a source that is used on Wikipedia all of two times, and for which both previous discussions were heavily focused on some vague abstract notion of reliability rather than any challenges to use in context, as is more typically appropriate for this noticeboard. I would oppose making any changes to RSP based on such abstract and meta discussions in general. As for the specifics, I don't think a single affiliation is sufficient to establish a reputation, and it seems to early to call the organisation well-established, so I cannot endorse a classification as generally reliable. For its use on the hurricane article specifically, the primary issue I see here is not reliability, but that neither source actually directly supports the text in question, which is also rather weaselly (some have claimed, really?). Being threatened with arrests or execution is not the same as actually being arrested or executed, as I'm sure nobody actually executed will dispute, so rumours of actual vs threatened action should ideally not be equated either. The best source in the world still shouldn't be used to support a claim it doesn't actually make. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to #Discussion: Check Your Fact

Option 1 Red-tailed hawk made a good case. Even attempting to self-impose such methodological strictures justifies assuming reliability for the time being. Roggenwolf (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk. Nemov (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 per Red-tailed hawk and WP:IFCN, which says There is consensus that [IFCN] is generally reliable for determining the reliability of fact-checking organizations. No evidence of inaccurate reporting has been presented here. I've looked through the articles on the front page and they seem even-handed and well-researched. Most of them are focused on debunking false claims on social media, so editors should consider WP:DUE when deciding if the content is worth including. Astaire (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Check Your Fact

Aside from my comments above in the survey section, I would note that I do take objection lumping this source in with The Daily Caller on RSP without prior RSN discussion; it is extraordinarily sloppy to do that when it's got an independent newsroom and it wasn't discussed prior. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I've attempted to address this at WP:CHECKYOURFACT until the RfC closes. Note this does not mean that CYF is no longer deprecated (it's still listed as such), only that there lacks consensus over categorisation. CNC (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned that decisions about CYF should not just be derived from the IFCN page which has methodological faults. Particularly their treatment of the corrections policy of the parent company and the handling of corrections surrounding Planned Parenthood by CYF are concerning. However we have a lot of garbage sources that aren't deprecated. I don't think this is a good source of information. But it's probably not as bad as Daily Caller unfiltered. Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that when CYF was first setup it was just the editor of the Daily Caller posting content very similar to what was on the Daily Caller. If they setup a new site tomorrow called the Caily Daller that simply duplicate the content of the Daily Caller, then it would be silly to say it required a new RFC because it was using a different url.

Saying that the CYF now has a separate editorial staff and writers, it's just that hasn't always been the case. So there was nothing sloppy about initially including it in the DC RSP entry. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it was added to RSP in 2024, despite no discussion on it and despite prior public reporting that the newsroom had been independent... 5 years before that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC, that happened 5 and half years ago. As per my comment in the survey section, I think things have changed. But it had little separation at that point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It would have been included in the Daily Caller RFC" It wasn't. CNC (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a unreliable source starts publishing at a new URL that URL is still unreliable, the idea that a new RFC is required when that happens is just bureaucracy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from #RfC: Check Your Fact

"I don't see the reason why we should have a whole ass RFC on a source that is used on Wikipedia all of two times" Because RfCs are for dispute resolution and there is a clear dispute over this source. Unless you can identify the consensus in the above discussion for us to save us all time and effort? It otherwise doesn't matter if it's only used twice, an RfC can even be for source usage in a single article if there is a dispute regarding it's usage. There is also no obligation to engage in this (even if it is a "request"); so if it seems like a waste of time for you, then might be worth considering not engaging to avoid time wasting. CNC (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would "save us all time and effort" is for people to read the part of the editnotice where it says the article it is used in, and the claim it supports and not create discussions where no real dispute in articlespace actually exists. Yes, technically there have been (multiple!) previous discussions on this source (one of them in this very section, even!), but starting discussions and RFCs that, intentionally or not, exclude the context surrounding the source gives the appearance of trying to bypass WP:RSCONTEXT, which is highly inappropriate and detrimental to evaluating the quality of a source in the places and situations it is likely to be used on Wikipedia. My objection on the RFC is thus on both procedural and substantive grounds. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Procedurally, this is premature because there is virtually no use, no dispute affecting actual article content, and neither of the two previous discussions are valid. It is unclear because I have no idea how people use it, other than that they don't actually appear to do so. Substantively I don't think it's appropriate to call a newsroom that's existed all of 5 years well-established as per NEWSORG, and unclear because I am not in the habit of taking a single source as gospel, no matter how good it is.) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?

Previous discussions as per Wikipedia:RFCBEFORE. [44][45]. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is an overview of a report by market research firm technavio RS for claims on dark chocolate?

Dark Chocolate Market Analysis Europe, North America, APAC, South America, Middle East and Africa - US, Germany, Belgium, France, UK - Size and Forecast 2024-2028

Sourcing multiple sentences, for instance: "As of 2024, Europe was one of the largest producers and the market had grown by over 8 percent since the previous year. About a third of sales were from organic chocolate. The market was influenced by the volatile cost of cocoa beans."

Technavio's market research on dark chocolate has been covered by ConfectioneryNews repeatedly over many years [46]. They have reported specifically on their dark chocolate market research [47]. ConfectioneryNews has an editorial board, on which at least one SME expert, Kristy Leissle serves. Leissle is an academic who publishes on chocolate [48][49] and is the author of Cocoa (book). ConfectioneryNews clearly distinguishes promotional and non-promotional content.

Some concerns regarding the reliability for statements has been raised at Talk:Dark chocolate#Variants section. It's best to read that discussion, but I'll try to sum up the concerns. Zefr will be able to articulate them better.

Discusses trends using "marketing language" (i.e. gluten free chocolate, gourmet chocolate markets).
The source is "promotional, commercial (crazy expensive), and not WP:RS"
Text attributed to technavio, "growing in popularity" is "subjective, non-WP:NPOV, and not sourced to RS."
The source discusses what ingredients are commonly used to make gourmet chocolate, but does not explain why, which is necessary.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably reliable, but is WP:PRIMARY. In text attribution might be required.

Although a source might use promotional language doesn't mean Wikipedia should. Any source should be summarised in an appropriate tone.
Promotional or commercial reports can be used, but they should be used with caution. Wikipedia isn't the place to repeat advertising. How expensive a source is doesn't matter, see WP:SOURCEACCESS.
As per my previous comment the language used and it's time needs to be appropriate, but whether it should be included or not is an NPOV matter not a reliability one. It should be discussed on the articles talk page.
Context is required, otherwise it would be a bit indiscriminate, but that again is about inclusion (NPOV) rather than reliability.

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ActivelyDisinterested Thankyou Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Vision Music

Indie Vision Music has been used as a reliable source for Christian music articles since at least 2013 ~~(that's the furthest back I can trace its usage, and~~ it's a revision by me when several editors including myself were overhauling WP:CM/S. We were double-checking each other's work, and discussed many of the sources, but we didn't feel the need to exhaustively discuss every source.)EDIT: see this talk discussion --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC) At the time, Indie Vision Music had a Wikipedia article, which then was later deleted - something I supported, but in that discussion I mentioned that I deemed it reliable, just not notable. For a lot of Christian music, it is an invaluable source as often, especially in the indie and metal genres. There's scant coverage in more generalist publications outside of the CCM/Christian rock/Christian metal niche, so it's often one of 3 or 4 sources in which one can find accessible coverage. Graywalls asked me to bring this here because they are unsure of the reliability of the site. It certainly has a reputation for reliability, as it is referenced/utilized by reliable sources such as Cross Rhythms (this - 2015, this - 2018, and this - 2018 as examples; this from 2016 is about the record label operated by the media outlet, but it explicitly calls the site "well regarded"), The Phantom Tollbooth - 2005, Manteca Bulletin (here, 2010), Arrow Lords of Metal - 2022, referencing a 2013 interview article and HM (here in 2013, here in 2013, here in 2022). I've excluded reprints of press releases for these examples. Cross Rhythms and HM are among the most reputable and well-known sources for Christian music, the latter being the prime journalism outlet regarding Christian hard rock and metal music.[reply]

The site founder, Brandon Jones, and another writer, Lloyd Harp, both also write for HM as well (Jones since 2017 and Harp since at least ~~2009~~ 2007) and thus have credentials outside IVM. There are multiple writers for the site besides those two individuals, which I believe satisfies the having a writing and editorial staff. The concern from Graywalls is, I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) the professionalism of the team and if the site owner practices actual editorial oversight over his writers (to quote them, "If you and I were both auto enthusiasts who track race together and we buddy up with you being the writer and me being the editor, that's not sufficient to make our web zine as a WP:RS with editorial oversight "). Though there are multiple staff writers, especially over the past two decades, Brandon lists himself for contact and doesn't list the writers. So I can understand part of the concern. I will note that there is one writer who is also a member of several bands (they might also be a Wikipedia editor and thus at this juncture I won't name them so they're not outed - it was actually that COI that prompted Graywalls to bring up the issue of if IVM is reliable), and thus of course would be unreliable for coverage of those bands, same as Doug Van Pelt, the founder of HM, is unreliable for coverage of Lust Control (because he's a member of it), except for as statements from the band themselves. Given the above reputation, I don't personally see warrant for this suspicion. IVM functions the same as other online metal sources deemed RS, such as No Clean Singing (which is predominantly a team of three) and MetalSucks. The blog format is how most of these sites function now, including HM. Indeed, Brandon Jones mentions in his site bio that the site wasn't always a blog format and they adopted that structure for the site because that was what became practical in the mid-2000s. The site also operated/s a record label, but that I'm considering separate issue as that doesn't establish reliability. I'd also stress that any artist published via the Indie Vision Label would thus present a COI with IVM news/review coverage of that artist and should not be used other than for statements about the artist themselves.

The TL;DR - Indie Vision Music has been used on Wikipedia for over a decade, has multiple writers under a site owner, has been used by other, more mainstream sources as a source, even called by one of them "well regarded", and both the owner and another writer write for a magazine that is a prime source for the subject niche. However, another writer has a COI with some artists, the website operated/s a music label which could have some COI issues with specific artists, and an editor has questioned, due to the one COI issue and the blog structure of the site, whether actual editorial oversight is practiced.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real question comes to is the editorial process compared to that of the Time Magazine, or is it more along that of two well known and popular, but generally unusable Forbes Contributors and Huffington Post contributors sources?

Many of the writers in IVM articles are band members, rather than professionally trained journalists.

Things to be addressed here are:

What sort of things can it be relied on for factual accuracy?

Is it of any use at all for establishing notability and if so, for what?

3family6 said it's reliable because it's in the Christian Metal list, but they did acknowledge they are more or less the lone curator of that list, so that list should perhaps be seen similarly as a blog or a personal website. Graywalls (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, currently I'm essentially the sole contributor, that was not the case 10 years ago when the list was created. And I last found the discussion, see below

Ah- I found the talk page discussion where this source along with a lot of others were added. multiple editors were involved and approved that listing--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the site's staff page looked like when it was added to WP:CM/S. I'm pinging editors who were either involved in the discussion of adding the sources (which included IVM) or who have otherwise been - or are now active 11 years later - in WikiProject Christian music (and who are still active - sadly, a couple accounts got banned for socking unrelated to this issue): TenPoundHammer, Toa Nidhiki05, Royalbroil, TARDIS, The Cross Bearer. I'm also going to reach out to Brandon Jones about the editorial policy (without mentioning this discussion), and see what he says.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, The RS/N specializes in evaluating sources. I don't know why you've pinged five users you hand picked. It's kind of WP:CANVASSish in a recruiting kind of way especially when you hold one particular position on the matter on hand. Graywalls (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained why I pinged these editors. Most of them were involved with curating the sources list, which included IVM. I don't know what their opinions on this issue are. It's not Canvassing.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, Going off a bit on a tangent, but it seems to me sockpuppetry seems rather prevalent among music focused editors. Sometimes, it's necessary to go back and discount inputs from sock form consensus. Graywalls (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is in a large part precisely WHY I tagged editors who were involved in that discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Invisiboy42293, Booyahhayoob, and TrulyShruti as they are also currently active and are part of the Christian music WikiProject. I also will post a notice of this discussion there so other active editors I have missed might still be notified.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting people enthusiastic, probably part of a somewhat cohesive group who share common views may foster more groupthink. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People in the subject area are informed. Per WP:CANVASS "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." It's ridiculous to say that people who are interested in the topic and edit it should be precluded from important discussions about what constitutes reliable sources regarding that subject. Especially given the import that the outcome has, one way or the other.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's like notifying hand picked known railfanning people from WikiProject Trains and asking whether certain railfanning websites are reliable and expert sources. You chose an area of your enthusiasm and you handpicked a set of people from (relatively niche) Wikiproject group, as opposed to general music. I'm not surprised the responses so far have been from people you have hand notified, and of predictable input. Graywalls (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also posted in WikiProject Albums, I'll ping some editors from there in a day or two if they haven't responded. The niche is why I notified editors from that project, as they're familiar with the sources. I'll post a notice to the general music WikiProject as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and I posted to Projects Journalism, and Magazines. Graywalls (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yeah, I was trying to think of relevant projects, especially since this hasn't gotten any eyes apart from the users I tagged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also notified WikiProject Albums.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important clarification: The band member mentioned by me and Graywalls above no longer writes for the site (not naming them because they might be a Wikipedia editor and I don't want to out them).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the caveats 3family6 provided here are broadly acceptable. Obviously a subject isn't reliable when discussing itself or connected topics, but HM and IVM broadly are excellent source - HM in particular, which is without a doubt an absolutely indispensable resource for Christian rock and metal. So I think, with those specific caveats, it's an acceptable resource. Toa Nidhiki05 18:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to 3family6's ping: Truthfully I haven't been active on Christian music Wikipedia in quite some time (personal reasons plus my interests drifted elsewhere). That said, I am familiar with Indie Vision Music, both as an editor and just casually, and in my experience they're pretty solidly journalistic when it comes to Christian music. I don't know of any reason not to use them as a source in this field. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging these editors from a related discussion to see what they think: Saqib, Axad12. The COI editing from User:Metalworker14 included this source (IVM), as well as HM. The latter has no association with the issue, whereas one former IVM author, who hasn't written for the site since 2017, since 2018 has a COI with some bands and their work was used by the paid editing for Metalworker14. Does this taint the entire source, or would the source be unreliable even if this specific issue hadn't occurred?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like any other dime-a-dozen unreliable music site, self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism, no editorial policies, and only known by other niche or local outlets. I see no reason why we'd give their viewpoints any weight, either for reviews or for consideration of notability. I'll also note that I wasn't canvassed here. Woodroar (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Harp has a decade of experience or so at HM it seems to have come on to IVM more recently. Regarding the other authors I don't know of previous work. Brandon Jones founded IVM and only more recently has joined HM.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, you've mentioned sharing of writers as an indicator of reliability, but I am not sure if that's true. Writers don't write whatever they want and they are expected to write certain things to the publication's standards.

Although it says to evaluate case-by-case, we're generally discouraged from using contributor articles on Forbes. Such freelance writer sharing isn't uncommon but doesn't turn the source into reliable category. One example article https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryanrolli/2019/10/17/metallica-scores-biggest-global-rock-event-cinema-release-with-sm/ their profile says I am a music and entertainment reporter who specializes in pop, hip-hop and heavy metal. I cover numerous festivals, interview local and national touring musicians, and examine how artists' personal brands and social media antics affect their art and their earnings. My work has appeared in Billboard, Paste, Consequence of Sound, Noisey and the Daily Dot but just because that person wrote it doesn't mean it can be treated as an equivalent of a Billboard or Daily Dot article.

Another source, such as HubPages and their now defunct sister projects like Delishably and ReelRundown did have editorial oversight and editorial policy but with specific purposes and they're rated based on AI evaluation, moderator reviews and "search traffic" over a long term. Those are MONETIZED articles and the purpose is to drive traffic so that hosting service can maximize ad revenue. The simple presence of editorial oversight doesn't make it reliable. So, what remains to be determined is the editorial process of IVM. Is it more like Forbes contributors, Hub Pages and like or comparable to Billboard, Consequence of Sound or National Geograpics? Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the context, Graywalls. I was responding to this statement self-published by amateurs with no apparent training or background in music criticism,. For one of the writers, this is not true, as he has an extensive background with a reputable magazine. You already brought up your point about Forbes contributors, you don't need to do so again.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was providing an actual piece written by someone with respectable experience so there's a specific example. It's not just a simply rephrased version of the same thing I said which appears to be what you may have been implying. Graywalls (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, I appreciate that these are much more fleshed out example. But that's not the point of this particular part of the discussion. What was in discussion here is the professionalism of the writing staff, particularly prior experience. And it's a mixed bag. To your point, yes, just because they're a professional writer doesn't mean that they aren't essentially self-published in some cases. Still, the professionalism of the writers is a useful tool for determining reliability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the recent discussion at COIN (here [50]), which ultimately resulted in Metalworker14 being blocked as a primarily promo account, indicates the problems that can be encountered in small scenes (whether they be music scenes or other relatively small groups of enthusiasts).

When a user who has a range of potential COIs starts to edit Wikipedia under a pseudonym, evidently the undisclosed nature of what they are doing will create issues. However, whether that necessarily casts a cloud over their work off-wiki is a different question.

My feeling is that material created within small scenes is primarily for the benefit of fans - who are probably aware of the possibility of some form of COI existing (whether that be direct financial COI or individuals reviewing the work of their friends, etc.). Fans are, I'd suggest, untroubled by such issues and are grateful for the fact that dedicated coverage exists at all, created by individuals who are also enthusiasts. Whether the material is of a nature that an encyclopaedia ought to be depending on, however, I am inclined to doubt.

Really we are probably in the realms of fanzines, i.e. where editors are likely grateful that material has been submitted at all and significant editorial oversight is potentially lacking. Axad12 (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment here rather than at the notice at RS/N, and this extensive discussion has suggested my priors on this issue are still the case: this is a standard mid-level independent source on a specialized musical topic, and 3family6's comments indicate that its writers have the level of musical expertise and training that any other music rag would have. They are not investigative journalists, but rather critics evaluating based on a background in an understanding of musical style and history - which is what you get from most staff who write for e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic, Popmatters, or Dusted. I don't think the use of the source by one troublesome editor casts doubt on the source generally, and I'm inclined to buy the argument that the writers IVM carries that also write for HM has some weight (since HM is reliable). We'd want to exercise COI caution for any artist directly associated with Indie Vision's label or a musical release from a staff member, but that's not a cause for general concern about the source. Chubbles (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting to hear back from the website/Brandon Jones about the policy, but, I was able to determine that they do issue corrections and edits: [51], [52], [53], [54]. So that's a good sign of editorial oversight and ensuring accuracy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to post this here, not the WP Music, but posted there by mistake. Looking at https://www.indievisionmusic.com/author/brandon-j/ it sure seems like a self published source. My personal take on it is that it can't be used to support notability. These small time bands are not competing against each other but rather supporting each other. The blogosphere of these band blogs is an echo chamber of like minded bands boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves. It's like friends and family writing references for each other. If they offer correction notices, it's better than not doing that, but people do that even on Wikipedia pages with strike out. It's not a one man show, but still a blog. Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me address the part about "like-minded bands": Indie Vision Music isn't a band, it's a website, and for awhile was also a record label. So far, it's been shown that one author was in some bands. Authors are allowed to also be musicians, there's nothing wrong with that. And that writer has not written for the site since 2017. "boosting and praising each other publicly to collectively raise themselves." - that's not correct, as the site will give out negative reviews (this one, for example). "Editorial process that only consists of fixing grammar/spelling and suppressing contents of liability concerns prior to publishing isn't really much of editorial oversight." What are you referring to here? Hypotheticals aren't useful. Please substantiate them. The correction examples I found and listed above are more than that. Does the review process involve more than that? Maybe yes, maybe no. You are speculating here that they don't actually fact-check. This could be a group blog, which, yes, is an example of a self-published source. Or, this could be a site with an editorial process. We know it has a reputation and is used by others. The question is about the editorial process, since that isn't public knowledge.

Now, as to Brandon Jones and self-published sources, Brandon Jones is the publisher but also writes for the site. Other writers for the site, it's not an issue - they're the writers, he's the publisher, so they aren't self-published. But, are articles by Brandon Jones self-published? I think I asked about cases where a publication owner and publisher writes material for that publication years ago, I think in reference to Doug Van Pelt of HM or John DiBiase of Jesus Freak Hideout. I couldn't find that discussion, and so I brought this to the WP:V talk page. As I asked there, Like, for example, if Ian Danzig writes an article for Exclaim! (which he owns and publishes), or HM's founder and publisher Doug Van Pelt or Jesus Freak Hideout's owner and publisher John DiBiase write articles for their respective websites, or A. G. Sulzberger writes a story for The New York Times, are those articles self-published sources only or are they considered reliable, independent published sources? And basically, it depends. There's actually two current, very active discussions on basically this and more broadly related questions about orgs where the publishing process is internal to the organization (as opposed to an external entity, for example, Blabbermouth.net being hosted by Roadrunner Records). And there doesn't seem to be a consensus. I think a lot of it depends on the editorial process. On that point, with Indie Vision Music, I think there's two distinct eras to that site on this issue. From 2006 to 2020, the site had a managing editor, Josh Murphy. That adds a layer of editorial process, both for the site and for Brandon Jones. But, conversely, how much is that editorial control independent when it comes to Brandon's writings, as Brandon will be the one publishing them? That still seems to be a pretty close relation. I don't know if there's an answer here. I think that having a managing editor does indicate an actual editorial process from 2006 to 2020 at least. I still haven't heard back yet what the policy is at present. I don't know if I will get a response (which I don't think proves things one way or the other, it just leaves that question unanswered). I'm wondering if perhaps Brandon's writings from 2017 onward (that year being the year he was hired by HM) are self-published material from a reliable expert in the field, whereas the other writers are not self-published.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, RSN discussions tend to find that anything written by the site runner would be considered self-published. For example, see the WP:RSP entry for Quackwatch. The editor, Stephen Barrett, is an expert on quackery but because he basically runs the site, we often can't use his pieces per WP:BLPSPS. That's not a problem with other authors at the site, because their work would proceed through the normal editorial process (i.e., Barrett). Woodroar (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's what I was thinking. Thank you.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating the presence/absence of editors is easy enough, but evaluating their effectiveness and reliability is the tricky one. They could just be a website with contributors and editors from various bands each given various titles. As another editor mentioned, we have to differentiate professional editors vs a group of volunteer band members with no formal training in journalism running a glorified blog. Graywalls (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that metric, then, Indie Vision Music is reliable. Volunteer professional staff is expressly allowed. The site publisher has been operating the site since 2000, and since 2017 is a professional writer for HM. A current writer has written for HM since 2009. The only band member I'm aware of is one, now former writer. And band members are allowed to also write music journalism, there's no wiki-guideline prohobiting this. So, how do we evaluate the effectiveness of the source? This is where WP:USEBYOTHERS comes into play - we can check if it has a good reputation. And, as I demonstrated above, the copy of IVM is referenced or republished by other established reliable sources, and a reliable source calls IVM "well-regarded".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chubbles, what do you think in light of the question that Graywalls raises here and that I've tried to address. Do you think the site is still reliable, in light of this?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do, but I'm not the one you need to convince - he is. Chubbles (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what your reasoning is here and why this is more than just a group blog.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Graywalls is setting an unnecessarily high bar and making unnecessary presumptions about the nature and motives of music criticism and journalism (here specifically, but also generally). Most music publications would fail under his definition of an independent source - which is precisely his point; I believe he is convinced that the vast majority of popular music coverage on the site isn't worthy of the site, and this is one step in that effort. I'm confident that, say, Pitchfork, Popmatters, Stereogum, or Brooklyn Vegan would also fail his criteria; they are also "group blogs" in exactly the same way he means. If the standard of a reliable source for popular music is the journalistic equivalent of The New York Times, we will have precious little music to write about on Wikipedia. Chubbles (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here but also generally, Chubbles and I rarely see eye-to-eye on things though but most of our disagreements are over the notability of record labels. I firmly believe they're companies and are not expressly exempt under music related SNG, therefore should be held to NCORP, but they believe record labels articles should be permitted to remain with unnecessarily low bar. Yes absolutely, journalistic equivalent of NYT is expected for record labels, like any other articles subject to NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about record labels. You are correct that NCORP applies, but that's not relevant here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Al-Manar

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Media, the arts, and architecture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

What is the reliability of Al-Manar?

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

- Amigao (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion, per WP:RFCBEFORE. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinkSearch results Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey (Al-Manar)

Option 3, per comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread. It seems to be a comparable propaganda/disinfo outlet to Al Mayadeen, which we deprecated several months ago, but with a handful of instances (i.e. the soccer player info brought up by Chess, or WP:ABOUTSELF reasons) where it may be somewhat appropriate to use. The Kip ^(contribs) 03:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If and only if this ends up option 2, which would be problematic in itself, the RSP entry should make a clear distinction between justified usage (ex. non-controversial events in Lebanese life and society) and problematic usage (ex. conflicts that Hezbollah is a direct party to (Arab-Israeli, Syrian civil war), etc). That should be the absolute baseline, considering newer precedents set with the Jewish Chronicle and other sources that have some valid uses but are systemically unreliable with regards to the conflict. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the comments from Amigao, Alaexis, and BobFromBrockley in the prior thread have been rebutted as misrepresenting Al-Manar. I encourage users to click through the links and see for themselves.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having clicked through the links, I continue to endorse my position and disagree with the rebuttals' rationale. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would also like to emphasize the verbatim re-reporting of articles from RT and TASS, both GUNREL/deprecated sources, that's been pointed out below. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per The Kip. ~ HAL333 05:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. I'd pick 3 for pretty much anything relating to conflicts in the Middle East or other contentious issues. But things happen in Lebanon other than war. Al-Manar's Arabic section has a decent amount of information on uncontroversial aspects of Lebanese society. I would like to see more evidence about how Al-Manar is used to support false claims onwiki before a full GUNREL !vote. Right now, GUNREL means blanket removal for a lot of people. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - it's very blatant propaganda. The English content is also just quite sloppy and amateurish. Just glancing at a few front page articles,

[55] the Hitler of our time, Benjamin Netanyahu
[56] the Zionist invaders are incapable of facing men of God directly (in their own voice, not marked as opinion or anything)
[57] Israeli police will question Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff over blackmailing of an Israeli occupation officer - implies wrongdoing (maybe unintentional from a bad translation?), never mentioning that this was ruled out by a police investigation
Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies with no details, e.g. this vague accusation of a "fabricated report" by Maariv.

There's just a complete lack of professionalism; RT is better in many ways. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[75] no comment (I don't want to violate BLP).

[76] nothing wrong with an opinion that is shared by hundreds of millions. Yes, in their own voice (it's not Wikipedia).

[77] the usual news reporting (nothing wrong with that either).

Regularly accuses "Zionist media" of lies So? it's not like the Zionists don't have a very long history of lying. M.Bitton (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such statements of fact in their own voice demonstrate zero regard for journalistic objectivity.
Reliable sources will not imply wrongdoing based on allegations (again it might be a sloppy translation, but either is bad), and will correct false accusations when someone is cleared by an investigation.
"the Zionists" is not an entity; Maariv is an entity and a fairly reputable newspaper. But the point is that reliable sources will offer some kind of substantiation when making serious accusations. Here it's not even clear what exactly they're claiming is fabrication.

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be pretend to be objective when describing those who are exterminating their people (with the help of those who pretend to be neutral).

So called reliable sources such as the NYT, literally fabricated a story to help Israel. By you standard, we should deprecate NYT. M.Bitton (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx, The Times of Israel frequently calls Hamas members as "terrorists"[58], a subjective term, so I'm not sure why its unprofessional for Al-Manar to refer to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as "Zionist invaders"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was more getting at incapable of facing men of God directly. Professional news orgs will have at least some modicum of journalistic objectivity and would never write such things in their own voice. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 per Chess. Obviously should not be used anywhere near I/P, but may be marginally reliable for things in Lebanon outside of that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. I believe they are generally unreliable, due to multiple examples of disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Comparable sources might be as The Cradle, al-Mayadeen and IRNA, all of which I believe are designated gunrel. Option 2 might be worth considering, if phrased stringently, as the source might be usable for some uncontroversial facts about e.g. Lebanese sport or the statements of Hezbollah and Hezbollah-aligned politicians, but presumably (a) those could be sourced from better places (Lebanon has some decent free press) and (b) might be permissable uses of an unreliable source anyway. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per Chess. I don't see anything that would justify option 3 (if the word "generally" has changed meaning recently, then we need discuss the so called "reliable sources" that have been caught misrepresenting the events, or worse, fabricated stories, such as the NYT). M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to point out that, with the exception of Al-Jazeera, pretty much every source listed at WP:RSP from the Arab world and Muslim world is listed as GUNREL or MREL. We really need to check our WP:Systematic bias.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is more to it than systematic bias. M.Bitton (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of RSPN means we're much more likely to discuss crap sources than good ones. And given many if not most governments in the Arab/Muslim world are not fond of freedom of the press, it should be no surprise that most entries here lean on the unreliable side. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right? Mada Masr? Lebanon Daily Star? L'Orient-Le Jour? The New Arab/Al-Araby Al-Jadeed? The National (Abu Dhabi)? Asharq al-Awsat? BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are on RSP, which is what VR said. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a point against systematic bias against A/M reliable sources. RSP is a bunch of planes with holes in them, some of which made it out to be considered reliable for another day. If A/M sources were being regularly, unfairly challenged, there would be more green entries. Safrolic (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree in that I think it says something that every time we have brought a non-Israeli middle eastern source to RSP it has been declared MREL or GUNREL, except Al Jazeera, which had an extremely large contingent of editors wanting to declare them GUNREL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misread. My point is several Arab sources which are heavily used on Wikipedia have not been designated unreliable, undermining the argument for systematic bias. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These all appear to be Western-aligned and/or liberal newspapers, some with serious financial COIs. I do agree that it's a bit imprecise to say Wikipedia's systemic bias is against Arab/Muslim sources as a whole, but the fact that many of the Arab/Muslim sources considered reliable are funded by and/or supportive of Western aligned MENA oil and real estate interests is illustrative of exactly the systemic bias problem that @Vice regent points out. The systematic downgrading of sources critical of Western and Western-aligned perspectives makes Wikipedia more biased and unreliable, and less legitimate to a non-Western audience. Even if the camp of pro-Western sources is broadly more reliable than Russian or Chinese or Iran-aligned sources, excluding the reporting and viewpoint of those sources extensively makes Wikipedia blind when pro-Western sources lie or make an error, which they often do because all media does. Unbandito (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 per above. Despite people throwing links in the section below it hard to find evidence of systematic disinformation in the past 20 years. Reporting that Putin said X (in quotes) doesn't constitute disinformation. Being biased against certain Lebanese politicians (most RS have a certain partisan bias) doesn't make it unreliable. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per BobFromBrockley pretty much word-for-word. That is, some form of option 2 could be viable if very stringent, but the list of topics for which this source is generally unreliable would probably be too long to be manageable. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Idk what number it would be, but I would only use it for something internal Lebanese and non-controversial or for attributed views to Hezbollah's media outlet. Either 2 or 3, whichever fits that statement best. nableezy - 23:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 based on the comments from BobFromBrockley and Amigao. There appear to be many instances of sharing disinformation, including from clearly unreliable sources like RT. Plus the fact that it is banned in many countries. Alenoach (talk) 09:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Jazeera is also banned in many countries. Politicians shouldn't get to decide what is or is not reliable.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 per Bobfromblockley Andre🚐 00:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 4 I don't see how this is better than Al Mayadeen or RT. Bitspectator ⛩️ 01:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2, where the "additional considerations" include not presenting its assertions related to the conflict as factual in wikivoice. Zero^talk 04:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2-3 based on Chess and others. Should not be used around I/P topic area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 (4 for I/P and Jews only) based on the arguments presented, specifically regarding the spread of misinformation/disinformation and hateful conspiracy theories. I think some use as aboutself/for national politics per Chess and co may be a reasonable exception. Use in regards to Israel and Jews (very broadly construed) should be completely avoided. FortunateSons (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3, per above. --NAADAAN (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Al-Manar)

almanar.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
Comment: Bias and inflamed rhetoric against Israel is NOT a valid reason for !voting options 3/4. Reporting that Israelis evacuated the Twin Towers on 9/11 IS a good reason for !voting options 3/4. I'll post some other examples of misinformation and unreliability here later, in addition to the ones in the discussion further up this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC) Here's an example:[reply]
- Schafer, Bret (30 May 2024). "The Russian Propaganda Nesting Doll: How RT is Layered Into the Digital Information Environment". GMFUS. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: we discovered RT content on Al Manar TV, a site owned and operated by Hezbollah. Though not technically a state-backed media outlet, Al Manar is a mouthpiece for a major political and geopolitical player in the Middle East, and thus exists as a politically backed, if not state-backed, channel... We found eight occurrences of RT content reposed to Al Manar, but a manual review of content tagged with “Russia” or “Ukraine” on Al Manar’s website revealed that those articles are sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from RT, Sputnik News, and Tass, all of which are Russian state-controlled outlets. Oddly, many other articles were attributed to “Agencies”, though those too appeared to be sourced from Tass. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Are you suggesting we treat a claim from a US based source as a fact? M.Bitton (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It depends on what the content they reposted from RT was. Did Al-Manar quote the RT (or Sputnik) for uncontroversial sports news? Or for official statements of Putin? I don't see that as much of a problem.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The source says at least some of the content is about Ukraine, so I think that counts as controversial. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That claim was made by Al-Manar some 20 years ago (shortly after 9/11). Do you have more recent examples of disinformation? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A UK-based source, also a partisan thinktank so pinch of salt, but a highly respected thinktank:

"If You Can't Make It, Fake It: The Age of Invented News". Royal United Services Institute. 4 September 2012. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: Al-Alam and Al-Manar, two Arabic-language television channels owned by Iran and its regional allies, frequently lead with stories which have never happened. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A partisan source (in the middle of ongoing war) means propaganda (that they are welcome to feed to their kids). M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer any concrete evidence that the statement above by the Royal United Services Institute was factually inaccurate? - Amigao (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming it, I don't see any concrete evidence in the article itself to support the claim. Do you? It appears the author is relying on the reader's implicit bias that "inventing news is the norm rather than the exception" in Arabic language media and guilt by association with Iran as evidence of the claim. I don't see any examples of debunked or falsified stories. Unbandito (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RUSI's statement was a fair one. A more recent example would be Al-Manar's story stating that the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine "officially tops efficacy and safety" standards without anything else backing it up. - Amigao (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Manar's story ... That's a factually incorrect claim! It's not their story, it's clearly attributed to Sputnik. M.Bitton (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So they are re-publishing COVID-19 disinformation from an unreliable and deprecated source like WP:SPUTNIK. That does not exactly help the reliability of Al-Manar, at least for the purposes of an RfC. Also, here is a March 2022 Al-Manar article that spreads a version of the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory with bat coronavirus thrown into the mix. - Amigao (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First things first: you misrepresented a source.

Second, they can re-publish anything they want, and so long as they attribute it to the original source, it has zero (as in none whatsoever) effect on their reliability.

Third, you're doing it again: the above source is attributed to the chief spokesman for the The Russian Defense Ministry.

I have no idea why you're doing this, but it certainly doesn't look good (to be honest, it' quite worrying). M.Bitton (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-publishing known vaccine disinformation narratives from WP:DEPRECATED sources has quite a lot to do with a source's editorial judgment and overall reliability for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting the sources, like you keep doing, is what makes a source unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily unusual or a sign of poor editorial judgment for a source to cite a deprecated source. Just this morning, I read this article from the FT, which says: Separately his deputy, Brigadier General Ali Fadavi, told Al Mayadeen, a Lebanese television channel close to Iran, that a response would be “inevitable”. In more than 40 years, “we have not left any aggression without a response”, he said. Reliable sources often need to cover what biased or unreliable sources are saying in order to tell the full story. The fact that this guilt by association tactic of "citing an unreliable source = unreliable", which has been used on the RSN to knock sources down like dominoes, isn't even accepted as an actual journalistic standard shows that it's just silly politicking. Unbandito (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a quote from deprecated source, as the FT example does, is quite different from directly re-publishing a deprecated source article verbatim, as Al-Manar frequently does. - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV), so do yourself a big favour and give this a break. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an even more recent 2023 Al-Manar article that directly re-publishes the same WP:SPUTNIK piece. - Amigao (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and attributes it to them. I'm starting to question your motives. M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-publishing unreliable sources that the community has long WP:DEPRECATED with attribution does not somehow make a source more reliable for the purposes of an RfC. - Amigao (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe that the real world cares about some irrelevant WP RfC or the "community" (a handful of editors)? You seem to have forgotten one very important rule: we don't lead, we follow. M.Bitton (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today Al-Manar has an article on Ukraine verbatim directly copied (with attribution at the bottom) from Tass, a red flag source for us. BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good you can read Amigao’s mind to understand the motivation for his arguments here. But Amigao is correct that translating and reposting an article (as Jerusalem Post does of Walla, as noted in the discussion above, or as Al-Manar) is completely different than citing an article and attributing a claim to it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness. 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) M.Bitton (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point that quoting and republishing a source are two different things. However, I would still question why we should take republishing another source as an indication of one source's reliability. We wouldn't typically use republished content on Wikipedia, except perhaps in the case of a paywall on the original source, so it seems unnecessary to me to judge source reliability based on their republications. And we wouldn't make this judgment in the other direction, for example if Al-Manar republished a story from the AP, we wouldn't take that as an indication that they are reliable. If Al-Manar is merely a content aggregator then I suppose we shouldn't use it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

What evidence do we have of the reliability or unreliability of Al-Manar's original reporting? Unbandito (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, here is a prime example of misrepresentation of sourcing by Al-Manar: Al-Manar claims this article was sourced from Reuters but the article was actually sourced from this one at WP:RT.COM, another deprecated source. - Amigao (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your hard work in continuing to analyze the source and build a stronger critique of it. I can't find the Reuters article that Al-Manar claims to have sourced that content from (not to say it doesn't exist, I just can't find it) so that's concerning. However, the Al-Manar article has more material than the RT article, which means at least some of the material must come from a different source. I can't read Arabic outside of the use of translation tools so it's possible that I am missing some nuance here, but the overlapping aspects of the article such as Lukashenko's statement in an interview with Sky News Arabia are not identically phrased (except for the quote itself) as one might expect if the material were republished from RT. So while the Reuters article in question appears to be missing right now, I find the evidence that the article was in fact republished from RT to be insufficient. Even if it were, it's not clear that the information published by RT and allegedly republished by Al-Manar in this case is unreliable, and the material that might be republished is just a quote from a Sky News Arabia interview, so hardly a reflection on either of the sources' reliability. Unbandito (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Manar's article does not have more text in the body than the WP:RT.COM article. They are the same, but Al-Manar claims that it sourced the content from Reuters, which is clearly not the case. Here is the Al-Manar version and the RT version via Internet Archive links for ease of comparison. (Interestingly, Al-Manar does not appear to source other articles from Reuters.) - Amigao (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my bad, you're right that the articles are the same, except that the syntax of the line about the quote from the Sky News interview appears to be slightly altered. The "read more" box inside the RT article interfered with my efforts to translate and threw me off.

That being said, I don't see how this is evidence of systematic unreliability on the part of Al-Manar. If you could demonstrate a pattern of passing off the original reporting of unreliable sources as if they came from reliable sources like Reuters, I would find that more convincing. Unbandito (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French-based Reporters Without Borders criticised its terrorist designation in 2004, but noted its antisemitism.

"Dangerous precedent seen in decision to put Al-Manar on list of terror organisations". RSF. 20 December 2004. Retrieved 15 November 2024. "Some of the anti-Semitic statements broadcast on Al-Manar are inexcusable but putting this TV station in the same category as terrorist groups worries us and does not strike us as the best solution" BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it unreliable. M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, more than 20 years ago. Also see weaponization of antisemitism.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing RWB of weaponising antisemitism? Why would they want to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EUvsDisinfo has cited Al-Manar at least 14 times (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) for spreading disinformation. Some are re-publications of articles from deprecated sources such as WP:SPUTNIK and WP:RT.COM, and include claims such as conspiracy theories about the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine leading to Alzheimer's disease. - Amigao (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A pro NATO source criticising Russia and anyone who doesn't consider NATO's word as the absolute truth. What a surprise. M.Bitton (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some (not all) of the links. Every single one is simply reporting what Russian or Syrian officials said, and attributing it directly to them. It is the job of journalists to quote officials' statement no matter how unsavory they may be (and many of these statements are quoted in Western RS themselves).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: while this discussion is talking place, Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find to the "Al-Manar" article. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very offensive to call another editors’ edits “garbage”. I would be grateful if other people could look at these edits too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what you've been collecting and adding while the discussion is taking place. That's not something I would expect from an experienced editor, least of all when another discussion involving sources misrepresentation is also taking place on the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton I must reiterate: The Kip ^(contribs) 00:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Al-Manar article (sourced from WP:SPUTNIK and WP:DAILYMAIL, another deprecated source) that speaks about the COVID-19 lab leak theory as if it is a fact without any balance or qualification. Source: EUvsDisinfo - Amigao (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mintz, John (22 December 2004). "U.S. Bans Al-Manar, Says TV Network Backs Terror". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: French officials prohibited the network from broadcasting in France, citing what it called al-Manar's anti-Semitic content and appeals to violence. French officials cited al-Manar programs reporting that Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long (under the protection of the so-called freedom of speech and bla bla bla), and believe me when I say that they do (they will even honour you for doing so), but the moment your criticize Israel, you get accused of being antisemitic. M.Bitton (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Jews spread AIDS around the world and that they seek children's blood to bake into Passover matzoh" is NOT a "criticism of Israel". BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to clear theme (when citing the opinions of their enemies who are known for their double standard). In France, you can say about the Arabs and the Muslims and that's fine given that Arab and Muslim bashing is literally a sport. M.Bitton (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic. That doesn't make it "reliable" to accuse the Jews of the blood libel. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the French state is deeply racist and Islamophobic so why are paying attention to what it says? M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am paying attention to what the French Jewish community said. There are other sources for this too in the Al-Manar article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the CRIF? M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley can you find Al-Manar articles in the past 20 years that say Jews use blood in Passover? That's clearly antisemitic, but please actually find such articles.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a TV series made by a Syrian company, which they screened. So not as straightforward as if they were claiming that in their own content (as they did with Israelis having foreknowledge of 9/11) but it shows you their editorial standards are incompatible with a reliable status. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They screened a Syrian TV series that some pro-Israel sources don't like. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again, it is not “pro-Israel” to say the blood libel and the protocols of the elders of Zion are not the content carried by a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Syrian TV series that they screened, it's their right to do so. What's that got to do with their reliability as a source? M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Yes it’s their right to screen something based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but nonetheless the Protocols were a forgery so doing so indicates unreliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a baseless claim that nobody can substantiate. What does a TV series (produced in Syria) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m confused. It’s widely agreed that the Protocols were a forgery. Numerous RSs say two different series screened on Al-Manar in the 2000s (one Syrian, one Egyptian) were based on the Protocols. So maybe this isn’t a dealbreaker in terms of reliability; it seems that they did subsequently apologise after France banned the station. But I think it’s obvious that it is a data point in the unreliability column. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about the protocol and whether it is a forgery or a fact? It's a flipping TV series.

it is a data point in the unreliability column that's another baseless claim that nobody can substantiate.

I repeat the question that you ignored: what does a TV series (produced in Syria to boot) have to do with al-Manar's reliability? M.Bitton (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was this TV Syrian TV series a drama or presented as factual? If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability. Propaganda of this nature is a strong indicator of extreme antisemitic conspiracist views which may also be present in its factual output, even though no unreliable claim has technically been made. However, if it has broadcast a syndicated program presenting this as factual information then it becomes immediately unreliable for our purposes. If we aren't using the Daily Fail, and we can in good faith argue about the Telegraph's reliability based on them publishing a true story that was somewhat litter-tray adjacent, then there's no way we should be using a source that parrots blood libel.--Boynamedsue (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put, and good question, which the sources are vague about. It appears to be a docudrama, but Al-Manar initially seemed to think it was factual: Al-Manar’s program director, Nasser Akhdar, stressed that the series was “purely historical” and that it was based on some 250 sources written by Jews. The program covers the history of the Jews and the Zionists between 1812 and 1948, he said, and underlines the Jewish emigration to Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, and the European policies regarding this issue during that period. “It offers a clear image of what the Zionists have committed in the social, political, and ideological fields,” Akhdar said. “It is a voice against all those who wish to hide the truth.” He said US complaints were an attempt to “misguide public opinion,” adding that this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.”[59] It might be a point in Al-Manar's favour that they later removed the show from their archive and said they erred in showing it and that they never saw it before they broadcast it (although I am not sure that's been reported by anyone other than Counterpunch, an unreliable source). BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this was part of the US strategy of hegemony over the media to “cancel other people’s opinions.” it certainly looks that way.

When the US complained to Lebanon over the series, Lebanese officials refused to interfere and one of them said:

"The United States has a strange conception of freedom of expression... What would they say if we tried to interfere with the way Fox News portrays Arabs, Muslims or Palestinians?"
— Lebanese official
M.Bitton (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a channel has broadcast a syndicated drama which contains blood libel and the allegation around AIDS, I feel all of its output needs to be looked at carefully in terms of reliability I see, so channels in the west can distort history and portray the Muslims and Arabs as terrorists in their dramas, while hiding behind the cherished freedom of speech, but the rest of the word has to abide by some fictitious standard that only the west has the key to. Fascinating. M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We deem Western sources that repeat racist conspiracy theories unreliable too (Boynamedsue mentioned the Daily Mail; we also rate the Lebanese minister's example, Fox News, as an unreliable source). I think there's a difference, though, between perpetrating stereotypes that are deep in a culture (as the majority of Western AND non-Western sources do) and repeating actual conspiracy theories such as Jews deliberately spread AIDS or Jews kill Christian children to harvest their blood for ritual purposes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we certainly don't judge the reliability of western sources based on the TV series and movies that they screen. M.Bitton (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an Arab drama series portrayed a group of Israelis, or even Jews, as nefarious villains sabotaging a society, I agree that would be a pretty perfect analogy to what Western media does to Arabs, and I wouldn't say it had any effect on how we should evaluate news output. However, if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said, say, Arab Muslims worship Baphomet and train children to suicide bomb Jews as they believe (and the following is a deliberately offensive example) their inherent, irrational and motiveless antisemitism is more important than the lives of their children, then we would have a more precise analogy to the question of blood libel.

I am a strong opponent of Israel's aggression against Palestine and Lebanon, and I am disgusted by the despicable attempts by various ghouls to suggest that any mention of the IDF and West Bank Settlers' mass murder of children is equivalent to blood libel. However, blood libel is an incredibly serious thing. It is not hard to find out that Jews absolutely do not mix blood with flour to make special biscuits, or that this belief has had terrible consequences in the past. Anybody not prepared to make that little bit of effort will have, in my view, question marks over their reliability..Boynamedsue (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if a Western channel broadcast a drama that said... Have you ever noticed that the TV series "Homeland" (based on an Israeli television drama) that was being screened all over the place is actually Islamophobic and Arabophobic? That's just an example; in fact, Islamophobia and Arabophobia have become so common in the western media (especially, in the last two decades) that one doesn't even notice them, i.e., they've become the acceptable norm.

What we have here is a clear case of double standard, where freedom of expression seems to only be acceptable when it comes from the west. Franky, it beggars belief that a country such as the US (the "champion of free speech") would try to censor a TV series in another country. M.Bitton (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen Homeland, so I don't know whether its level of Islamophobia would be equivalent to blood libel. But it is made by Fox 21, whose sister news network we DON'T USE for politics or science.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who made it, it was screened everywhere and it received many awards. Like I said, that was just an example amongst the many. This all comes down to one thing and one simple choice: one either supports freedom of expression or one doesn't. M.Bitton (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'll make this crystal clear. I absolutely do not support freedom of expression. I have used physical violence in the past to prevent nazis from freely expressing their views, and would do so again. However, even if I believed in freedom of expression, freedom to express your views is not freedom to be accepted as a reliable source on wikipedia. Have a look at WP:RS for the criteria which apply.--Boynamedsue (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will make this crystal clear: the reliability of a source doesn't depend on what TV series it screens (WP:RS doesn't say otherwise). M.Bitton (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current relevance of this sort of content comes through when you look at how they report Israeli "organ harvesting", mixing reliable and unreliable sources and misrepresenting both to shape a narrative echoing the Protocols, or how they describe settlers engaged in "Talmudic rituals" at al-Aqsa to describe something that isn't actually Talmudic but again fits an antisemitic narrative (in contrast, e.g., to Al-Jazeera who use quote marks when reporting this). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"LEBANON: Did Tunisia's tyrant buy off Hezbollah TV?". Los Angeles Times. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 15 November 2024. Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television was allegedly paid $100,000 to polish up the image of deposed Tunisian dictator Zine el Abidine ben Ali... The newspaper said Al-Manar, which used to receive $150,000 a year to support the Ben Ali regime, asked for an extra $50,000 annually if ACTE wished to raise the profile of the ruler, who now resides in Jeddah with his wife. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
allegedly no need to read further than this. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cochrane, Paul (7 March 2007). "Bombs and broadcasts: Al Manar's battle to stay on air". Arab Media & Society. Retrieved 15 November 2024.: France banned the channel following complaints by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France to the French Higher Audio Visual Council (CSA) that scenes in a 30 part Syrian-made series, Al-Shatat (The Diaspora), aired during Ramadan 2003, were anti-Semitic. The show, which claimed to depict the history of the Zionist movement, stoked widespread condemnation by portraying the killing of a Christian child by Jews to use the victim's blood to make matzoh bread. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already told you: unbelievable as it sounds, in France, you can bash the Arabs and the Muslims all day long and make up any story about them (under the protection of the so-called "freedom of speech"), but the moment you say anything that is related to Israel, then your freedom of speech ceases to exist. M.Bitton (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the show, Al-Shatat, did not portray Jews as child-killers, and that the French Jews are making this up? Because otherwise French racism and free speech ideas are not relevant to determining this Lebanese source's reliability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is? They are free to show whatever they want. Arabs and Muslims are often portrayed as terrorists (when they're not portrayed as something worse) in the western media, and their history often falsified, yet, you don't see them crying and whinging about it. M.Bitton (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton your tone throughout this discussion is verging heavily on WP:NOTFORUM/WP:BATTLEGROUND, I heavily encourage you to slow down a bit. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: Your targetted comment is verging on aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: our article on this series, Ash-Shatat, has been nominated for deletion, in case editors are interested in that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's always heat in discussions of contentious topics, but even given that this sections is starting to go off topic. Discussions should be about the source in relation to policies and guidelines, how the source is described by other reliable sources, or matters relating to the handling of the RFC. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kampala Dispatch

Kampala Dispatch. Is this independent reporting? Would this count as an independent reliable source? At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bash Luks the legitimacy of this source came into question. I read the articles cited and concluded they were promotional placements and not independent. Another editor says they "have an editorial staff and a staff of independent journalists" and "the articles are indeed independent given they have by-lined authors and they are local media with staffed editors and journalists." Following is some quotes from the cited articles, all bylined to the same author, Michael Wandati.

[60] "Since signing with Lot Fire Records a year and a half ago, Off Ryine has embarked on an extraordinary journey in the music industry. His exceptional songwriting skills have propelled him to become one of Uganda’s most promising songwriters." "This milestone is a testament to his dedication and talent, inspiring aspiring musicians and solidifying his place in the music industry." [61] " Notably, this record label boasts a roster of esteemed artists, including Bash Luks, who is both a member and the visionary founder of the entertainment company." "The partnership between Jim Siizer and Lot Fire Records is poised to set new standards in the industry, ushering in a promising era of musical excellence." [62] "As Bash Luks embarks on this new chapter, he remains committed to empowering artists and delivering exceptional music to audiences worldwide." "Through perseverance and a renewed sense of purpose, Bash Luks is on a path to making a significant impact on the music industry once again." [63] interview - "Join us as we embark on this melodic odyssey with Bash Luks and uncover the passion, dedication, and creativity that propel this remarkable artist forward." " Bash Luks takes us on a journey through the intricate layers of his creative process. Get ready to immerse yourself in the unique blend of sounds that shape his artistry." [64] "The composition not only highlights the duo’s musical prowess but also showcases their artistic vision, appealing to both their established fan base and new audiences seeking innovative sounds. The song serves as a testament to Bash Luks and Off Ryine’s steadfast commitment to their craft, setting a commendable standard for their forthcoming releases." "“Masannyalaze” gears up to become the next big sensation in the industry! Get ready to groove along and explore the rich musical tapestry created by Bash Luks and Off Ryine."

Then there was This in another article dated September 2024 [65] "Looking to the future, Big Size Entertainment shows no signs of slowing down. With its forward-thinking approach and dedication to fostering the next generation of Ugandan musical talent, the label is poised to continue making an impact, both in Uganda and on the global stage. It stands as a testament to the enduring power of African creativity and innovation in the music world." Except Big Size had shut down 6 years beforehand.
A search of their site found no sign of their "editorial staff" nor of a "staff of independent journalists", in fact every single article I saw on the site seemed to be by-lined to that one same writer. Comments? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting scam adverts statingy mobile device is out of memory when I try to access the site, which is definitely negative. Looking at the links from the Bash Luks article, the references appear to be either promotional or an interview (not independent). I suggest that editors only access them with care due to the scam advert issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Military Watch Magazine

This source should be deprecated for consistently echoing Russian propaganda and their articles are almost always in line with the Russian government narrative. Furthermore, the site has little to no transparency regarding their origins and authors. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the internet militarywatchmagazine.com is written by Abraham Ait-Tahar [66]. Some of the articles appear to be republished on strangemilitarystories.com. The site has been called out for spreading misinformation.

militarywatchmagazine.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

strangemilitarystories.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

Polygnotus (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve7c8: Do you want to get rid of this unreliable source? I may be able to help. Polygnotus (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be appreciated. Steve7c8 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we make this source deprecated or blacklisted to prevent their future additions? Steve7c8 (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve7c8: See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Polygnotus (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much which would suggest notability and a lot which goes the other way (they do seem to republish a lot of sketchy stuff)... Barring any signficant change I would say generally unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Asianet News (asianetnews.com) a reliable source?

I would like input from the community on whether Asianet News (available at asianetnews.com) is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia.

Background: Asianet News is an Indian Malayalam-language news channel operated by the Asianet News Network, a subsidiary of Jupiter Entertainment Ventures. Based in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, it was launched on September 30, 1995, and is one of the oldest television news channels in India, with a strong team of experienced journalists.

Context: Asianet News is frequently cited in various Wikipedia articles, particularly those related to Malayalam cinema.

Questions:

Is Asianet News trustworthy for celebrity news and entertainment updates?
Can its box-office figures be considered credible enough to cite on Wikipedia?
How dependable is Asianet News for reporting on general issues in Kerala and other parts of South India?
Does its coverage extend beyond Kerala, and is it reliable for reporting on Kannada or other Indian news?
Are there any limitations to using Asianet News, particularly for sensitive topics or commercial content?
Are there any significant issues related to editorial oversight, accuracy, or sensationalism?
Is there any notable history of misinformation or bias associated with this source?

Your feedback will help clarify the use of this source in relevant Wikipedia articles. Anoop Bhatia (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their article Asianet Suvarna News points to sources highlighting some issues. I would suggest avoiding it for contentious issue or political issues. It should still be usable for box office figures or celebrity news. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are any or all of these metal-oriented music journalism sites reliable? No Clean Singing, Teeth of the Divine, Metal Underground, The Metal Onslaught?

Rather than open a bunch of separate discussions, I thought I'd get all of these out of the way with one large discussion. Specifically, the question is which, if any, of the following sources are generally reliable as sources for music journalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Clean Singing

Home - About page - Contact page

I was actually surprised that this one wasn't already listed at the albums sources list. I wasn't sure of its years ago, but since then it's become a well-used source on here, including on articles that have passed FA review. And I believe this is because of the reputation of the site, which I'll get into below. I almost was bold and went ahead and added it to the list, but I figured I should make sure a discussion takes place as there has never been a formal discussion regarding this source apart from a brief mention 14 years ago.

- It has an (albeit small) editorial and writing staff: Islander, Alexis, and IntoTheDarkness

- It has a good reputation, which indicates fact-checking and accuracy: this minor mention by MetalSucks, ~~an interview by The Guardian~~, a listing as one of the Top 10 metal music resources by LA Weekly, and an inclusion in a book (page 24) jointly published by A-R Editions and the Music Library Association.

My personal verdict is ~~Y Yes, ~~with flying colors,~~ it is reliable for music journalism~~ Edit: N it is potentially reliable for self-published expert opinion, but not for BLP purposes--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But, what you call "by The Guardian" is the blog section of the publication where they invited people to submit their blog to them to be considered for an interview, kind of like cute pets thing local media and papers do and if chosen, those pets get featured. It does clarify that it's a blog Graywalls (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, it's not the same as a fully independent news report.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I don't see it. The MetalSucks and LA Weekly listings are nice, but I think that's about all you've got, and it's not much to go on. The about page never uses the word "edit", and makes no apparent mention of an editorial policy. None of the (current or former) writing staff beyond Andy Synn use a recognizable name so it's hard to search for them, but nothing about the descriptions of them suggests they have any significant qualifications beyond this site, and my search for Synn showed that he likely doesn't. The about page does include them self-referencing as a blog founded by a group of friends, which can be something that turns into a professional publication, but that isn't a guarantee, and I don't see anything here that suggests it happened here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check for this initially, but they do issue corrections, even though yes, the policy isn't stated: [67], [68], [69] (not an exhaustive list)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't address the editorial and credential concerns, and not as strong as the LA Weekly listing, but: it is referenced in this academic book for a (salty) opinion on djent; is mentioned on page 4 of this journal article, along with some other blog sources - but as some (Angry Metal Guy, Grizzly Butts) I think are still unreliable for music journalism purposes on Wikipedia, I'm not sure that this means much; and this magazine entry (pg. 83) mentions the site helping a song to popularity - not really helpful for reliability, but perhaps notability (which is irrelevant to this noticeboard). I'm not sure this helps at all toward reliability, but I figured I'd at least document it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the discussions I've had about publishers writing in their own publications, and the small team involved here, it's basically a group blog or, even if not, otherwise essentially self-published material. This isn't necessarily always unreliable for secondary coverage music journalism, but at minimum should never be used for BLP statements.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed No Clean Singing to be a blog which I would never use as a reliable source for notability and any original news published would have to be corroborated by a reliable source and cited to that source. As QuietHere points out, the lack of a visible editorial structure is telling. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teeth of the Divine

Home - Staff - About

I'd always assumed that this one was unreliable, even though there's no discussions saying so and it isn't included on the Unreliable sources list at WP:A/S.

- It has a professional editorial and writing staff, some with impressive credentials. The site claims Metal Maniacs, Decibel, Resound, Metal Edge, Hails & Horns, Unrestrained!, Exclaim!, Outburn, Blistering, DigitalMetal and MetalReview. I can't confirm all of those, especially since they don't clearly indicate who wrote for those publications (a knock against the source, imo), and some aren't necessarily reliable, but some of those are significant publications (a big positive to the source, imo). I could confirm that the site founder, Eric Thomas, worked for Metal Maniacs and now for Hails & Horns.

- It does have some usage by other sources, an indicator toward a good reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Some interviews from the site had excerpts re-published at Blabbermouth.net - here and here. Presuming that No Clean Signing is reliable, which imo seems very likely given the positive coverage of it, NCS calling it "one of the Internet’s leading metal e-zines" I think indicates a very positive reputation.

My personal verdict is Y Yes, it is reliable for music journalism.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Underground

Home - Staff - About

This is another one that I've long presumed was not reliable. There are no discussions of it that I can find, and it's not mentioned one way or the other at all at WP:ALBUMS/S.

- It does have a professional editorial and writing staff

- There are some mentions of it in established RS that can indicate a reputation for reliability: MetalSucks: [70], [71], [72]; Metal Injection: [73]; Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles [74]. Again, presuming NCS is reliable, NCS mentions how the site put together a tribute compilation: [75]. However, I don't think the NCS coverage here or there, as it doesn't really get the content of the site, unlike those other examples.

My personal verdict is - I don't know. Maybe someone more familiar with it can weigh in.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's also listed in the Metaldata book on page 24.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Metal Onslaught

Home - About - Staff

This one I only discovered recently, although it's been used on here for at least ten years - but in a questionable way. It mostly was used by an editor who was just blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Some of the articles it was used on are closely affiliated with the source, as a band member was a writer and site manager for the online publication. I don't know if that automatically precludes reliability, but it raises a question.

- They have an editorial staff.

I cannot find any citations of it in other RSes

My personal verdict is N No, it is not reliable as a secondary independent source for music journalism--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to mention another possible source for heavy metal - Heavy Blog has a clearly disclosed editorial board, and is independent of any given band or publisher. Simonm223 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I've encountered that one.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"this website has always been and likely will be for the foreseeable future a volunteer enthusiast-run website." In other words, fanzine with the apparent interest of causing the purchase of merch to occur from its contents. Obviously, there's a difference between Wine & Food magazine with a board of professional trained critics vs a weekend gathering of local farmers who do tasting contest of local farmers/each others' produce and commenting on them even if they both have a name list. Graywalls (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it has been added 100+ times, but rarely added by anyone but Metalworker14. They have been chronically introducing this source into numerous articles from 2017 to 2021. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/themetalonslaught.com Graywalls (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fansided / Beyond the Flag

Pings to relevant editors: @Atlantic306, Piotrus, Someguy1221, Spinixster, Scu ba, and ActivelyDisinterested: editors who've discussed (or attempted to discuss) Fansided at RS/N who are still active,

I'm wondering if we can get some kind of consensus on Fansided. In my opinion, it is nothing more than a blog which accepts user-generated content with limited editorial oversite. However, it is still frequently cited in articles, mostly by SPAs who edit various sports topics, but also by more generally-experienced editors as well. Clearly, by the amount of times it has been brought up here in the recent past, I'm not alone in this thinking. I'm wondering if an RfC is the best way forward here to get Fansided and its many various websites listed at RS/PS.

To satisfy the yellow box that's been shown to me, this post was spurned specifically by the addition of a Fansided blog, Beyond the Flag, at 2025 IndyCar Series, that was used to support a claim of entrant numbers for team entries which don't have official confirmation in the usual RSs used in the topic area.[76] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like Fansided has somehow straddled the middle ground between a blog and a actual sports news site, namely because although they allow almost anyone to become a writer, there is still an editorial staff, at least according to their about page. I personally don't have enough experience with this site to cast judgement either way but the way they let basically anyone write for them doesn't do them any good in beating the WP:SPS allegations. Scuba 14:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fansided blogs are self-published. Yes Fansided have some central staff, but having a few editors to covers 300 odd blogs is not editorial control. Most of the people listed on the about us page are contributors or site leaders, these are independent contractors[77] who are compensated based on the views their articles recieve.

Articles that are written by expert who have been previously published by other independent reliable sources (WP:SPS), or blogs that are regularly cited by other reliable sources (WP:USEBYOTHERS), will be reliable. Otherwise the best idea is to find a better source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated translations in multiple articles - topostext.org

Editor @Michael Aurel: has flagged up the use of https://topostext.org that is being used in multiple locations in at least 175 articles at the WP:AINB with @Chaotic Enby:. These are translations of the source text by a chat-gtp style product. For example, in Daphne there is at least 9 links in various urls and reference uses. The core of it whether the foundation is valid and whether the translations themselves are accurate. The underlying text hasn't been translated into English by anybody, so they purely machine translated. You would assume they would have been checked though woudn't you, if the foundation is genuine? scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Link to preceding discussion) To clarify a little, I don't have any issues with https://topostext.org itself, as most of the translations on the website are copies of reliable translations published elsewhere by scholars, and these other translations are linked quite widely in articles on Greek mythology. My only issue was with this translation (which, from what I can tell, is the only AI-generated translation on the site). As noted at the head of that page, the text was translated by CHATGPT 4.0 with more speed than accuracy, with prompts and work-arounds by Bruce Hartzler and a few manual improvements (?) by Brady Kiesling. In the preceding discussion, I was under the assumption that we didn't use such sources, in the same way we wouldn't use a translation from someone who isn't a qualified scholar of Greek mythology, but I would be interested to hear the opinions of others. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this an external link issue rather than a reliability one? As far as I can tell no-one is questioning the reliability of the original source, just the translation. Using links in a reference is a courtesy to aid verification. A courtesy link to what could be an AI hallucination does not appear that useful, linking the untranslated text would be a better option. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Times

This is another questionable source with highly sensationalized headlines, lack of disclosed ownership information, inconsistent sourcing, and failed fact checks. Issues noted here. Should be deprecated or blacklisted. Steve7c8 (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be one dude in Canada (Nitin J Ticku) and a few in India.[78] Partly WP:USERGENERATED EurAsian Times also provides a platform for people to report their news online, besides serving as consumer complaints portal so that their story does not go unnoticed, and reaches millions of people and relevant authorities.[79] Polygnotus (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Support under no circumstances should Eurasian times be cited in any wikipedia article. Scuba 15:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about blacklisting but I don't think that its reliable, I believe the technical term for what they do is churnalism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: used 632 times in article space at the moment. Most of those (at a quick look) don't appear to be too problematic, but I agree it should probably be deprecated. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politico status update

(non-admin closure) apparently WP:1AM situation spilling onto RSN… boldly closing Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Politico is listed as a generally reliable source despite creating a "Biden laptop is a Russian disinfo" hoax. I propose to downgrade its status to generally unreliable because that source purposely spread misinformation to change people's perception about a political event.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

WP:WAPO says https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/hunter-biden-laptop-claims-russian-disinfo/

The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
That’s what Biden referred to in the presidential debate and on “60 Minutes” — though his wording was much stronger than the letter’s. Biden said the letter said the laptop story was a “Russian plan,” “a bunch of garbage,” “disinformation from the Russians” and “a smear campaign.”
The letter artfully does not say any of those things.
In fact, it does not even say what the Politico headline claimed — though that headline likely shaped perceptions of the letter that continue to this day. The article itself does not say the letter made a disinformation claim

“There was message distortion,” former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. told The Fact Checker in a telephone interview. “All we were doing was raising a yellow flag that this could be Russian disinformation. Politico deliberately distorted what we said. It was clear in paragraph five.” He said he was unaware of how Biden described the letter during the debate. Отец Никифор (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were going to do cool nerdy stuff instead of wasting your time trying to right great wrongs in a fight you can't win. Look around brother. There is no way you can win the gender debate or the political debate. But you can have fun writing useful bots and scripts. Polygnotus (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is it connected? I just checked the sources and found one that spreads fake information. I wrote about it on the appropriate page. Отец Никифор (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what the heck? Is it a bad faith accusation? Отец Никифор (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSN is only for discussing the reliability of sources, try to keep your comments to the source not other editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And no, we don't downgrade sources because one guy said another guy said one guy distorted information. People make all kinds of claims about people they dislike. Polygnotus (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not one guy. It's a reliable source that provided proof. Отец Никифор (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEADLINES are not reliable sources, only the content on the articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear although the Politico headline states "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say", the first paragraph correctly quotes the letter "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation."[80] The lack of context and sensationalism is exactly what WP:HEADLINES warns of. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Thanks for the detailed answer! Отец Никифор (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we beating this long dead horse? Politico is reliable as is Politico Europe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the WP:HEADLINES bit, one inaccurate/wrong story does not make a source generally unreliable - there must be a pattern of issues. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collider

This is one of the few Valnet-owned sites that haven't been assessed yet, so I figured I'd bring it up for discussion now to work out what its status is. I've used Collider in several articles before, and it's currently used on several thousand articles site-wide. Their content output and article quality is comparable to TheGamer, another Valnet-owned source currently considered reliable post August 2020, though Collider's own output mostly ramped up (From what I can tell) after its Valnet buyout.

I've used them for several things before, such as for their opinion pieces (Which tend to be pretty in-depth like this one), reviews, (Which in my experience have been of similar quality to reviews from most other sources) and feature pieces (Like this one that covers a lot of information in a relatively in-depth manner). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one is questioning it, then it doesn't need to be discussed. The vast majority of reliable sources will never be discussed, because no-one has thought to question them. Also the idea of pre-approving sources doesn't work, as anyone who might object to there inclusion couldn't know to object until the source is used in an article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's quality in Collider.com's output, especially considering their coverage of superhero films. here's a few interviews they did with producers and directors of the film Across the Spider-Verse, just to give a taste of their output. [81] [82] [83] These articles are of journalistic quality.

I see no concerns about Collider's output, nor nothing questionable concerning the fact that they are Valnet-owned. Collider conducts plenty of helpful, informative interviews with important people, and, well, they also publish exclusive reports. I wouldn't call them an industry trade, but they are a cut of nice journalism. Barnt Toust 22:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Research: Climate

Is this journal considered a reliable source for the issue of whether climate change has made Atlantic hurricanes more severe? I ask because I frequently read someone saying that hurricane severity and frequency cannot be attributed to climate change or global warming, so I I would like to know if D.M. Gilford, J. Giguere and A.J. Pershing. Human-caused ocean warming has intensified recent hurricanes. Environmental Research: Climate. Published online November 20, 2024. is from a reliable source. Edison (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who? Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a preprint but the lead author has published articles in journals about climatology and oceanography, so the paper should be reliable. As far as I'm aware the prevailing view is that climate change is increasing hurricane severity and frequency, it would appear to be a logical effect of a warmer atmosphere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zsa Zsa Gabor and Kemal Ataturk

This has been discussed at length in the past, most recently at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mustafa_Kemal_Ataturk,_Zsa_Zsa_Gabor. Is the autobiography of Zsa Zsa Gabor a reliable source to report that she had an affair with Kemal Ataturk? More specifically:

1. Is it sufficient to report it in the article about Zsa Zsa Gabor? If so, should it be attributed to Gabor?
2. Is it sufficient to report it in the article about Kemal Ataturk? If so, should it be attributed to Gabor?

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have secondary sources said anything about the claim? It seems a bit self serving on Gabor's part if there isn't any meaningful corroboration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She certainly isn't a reliable source for anything other than the claim, whether or not that claim has due weight to be included in the article on Ataturk is a question for NPOVN, not RSN. But is her tell all a reliable source about third parties? Of course not. nableezy - 20:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not, unless the claim is explicitly attributed to Gabor. Agree with Nableezy that this is more a question of WP:DUE, though. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worthwhile looking at what others sources say. For instance Andrew Mango mentions that Ataturk had an affair which could have been with Zsa Zsa Gabor, but that second part is only in a footnote[84]. I suggest the involved editors look for other sources to back up, or refute, the claim. Rather than just relying on Zsa Zsa Gabors autobiography. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your questions are backwards. The first thing to resolve at RSN is whether the source is reliable enough to make the claim in Wikivoice. That's an obvious no. The second question is whether or not the claim is WP:DUE. That's not an RSN question.

Obviously, the autobiography isn't sufficient on its own, but the underlying dispute has other reliable secondary sources that are commenting on the claim. That's what makes it a difficult dispute. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually two autobiographies, Zsa Zsa Gabor: My Story (1960) and One Lifetime Is Not Enough (1991). The purported love affair with Ataturk received plenty of coverage during the promotional rounds for both books. As far as I can tell, nobody "in the know" has ever come out and publicly disputed the claim. PromQueenCarrie (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using birth certificate as source for someone's middle name

The article Robert Stewart (entrepreneur) claims that Robert Stewart's middle name is "La Rue", which cites GMA Network's website. But according to his birth certificate, birth record index, and supplementary report of birth on FamilySearch (registration required to view), his middle name is "Clarence". I know that FamilySearch isn't a reliable source, but I presume that birth certificates are more reliable than a corporate "About Us" web page. At the same time, I wasn't sure if I am allowed to use the birth certificate as a source. EJPPhilippines (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he was still alive, or had recently passed away, WP:BLPPRIMARY would be appropriate. However as he died in 2006 so this isn't a BLP matter.

I would expect GMA to know what they're talking about, seeing as Stewart founded the network. I was worried this could be citogenesis, but I found a report from 1962 that uses 'La Rue' as his middle name[85]. For whatever reason he used 'La Rue' and GMA are reliable for that fact. Whether he just didn't like his original middle name, or changed it latter in life I can't be sure. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junk source like WP:FAMILYSEARCH isn't allowed because they contain user generated contents. Such as amateur published research connecting birth/death index of a John John Smith of California USA as the John John Smith the herder of flamingos even though the record chosen could have been the blacksmith John John Smith. It's a secondary source, because some internet amateur genealogy enthusiast published their own research of various primary sources. However, if a wiki editor went to the birth certificate identified within FamilySearch, it's not reliable, because that identification is based on amateur research. If a wiki editor did their own search of primary sources, then drew their own conclusion, that's original research which is not allowed. Graywalls (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AcademiaLab

Its name sounds like a reliable site, but found [[86]] which is literally the Acre with confirmed errors + no attribution to Wikipedia. I am new here on this page, so I though I should put it here. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a community and collaborative project. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 16:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikipedia mirror with user generated content thrown in, unusable WP:CIRCULAR and unreliable WP:UGC. Mirrors can be listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks if you're interested, it also has advice on dealing with lack of attribution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tangle of a Seattle P-I reprint of a Motley Fool article on an FDA food safety law

Background on RS dispute here.

The tangle occurs from a current article on the frozen desserts company, Breyers, where sources are from a) the US FDA Code of Federal Regulations on safe amounts of an ingredient used in manufactured foods, b) The Motley Fool, c) the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (SPI), and d) the use of which reference is RS for the Breyers article.

Chronology:

1. in 1982, the FDA issued a law (current as of August 2024) on the safe limits for using propylene glycol in food manufacturing.

2. in 2014, The Motley Fool published an article about propylene glycol (author Rich Duprey, redated link to 2018) with the provocative title implying that "antifreeze" (propylene glycol) used in various manufactured foods is a significant health concern. The article includes an added red marking on the food label for a Breyers frozen dessert product to highlight the presence of propylene glycol on the ingredients list.

3. on the same day in 2014, the SPI reposts the Motley Fool article.

4. on 27 October 2024, an editor adds the SPI reprint of the Motley Fool article to the Breyers page, to raise the criticism that Breyers uses antifreeze in its products, which was disputed and removed, then added back yesterday in this edit.

5. disputes ensue on the Breyers article and talk page, with specific talk page discussion on what is a RS for propylene glycol used by Breyers in manufacturing frozen desserts 10+ years ago here. As of 2024, there is no evidence that Breyers product ingredients include propylene glycol.

The RS issues to consider may simplify to:

1. is the Motley Fool article a RS for the FDA position on propylene glycol?

2. is the SPI repost of the Motley Fool article a correct RS to use, as supported by two editors on the talk page?

3. is either a 2014 Motley Fool opinion article, or SPI as a republisher, an acceptable RS for use of propylene glycol (or any ingredient) in food manufacturing?

This RS issue has a more general application seen commonly (mostly by novice editors) on Wikipedia: which "source" gets attribution? The original author, the original publisher, or the more recent reprint version?

In science publishing, attribution goes to the original author(s) ("Smith et al. reported..."), not the journal (incorrect to say "the Journal of X said...), or to the US National Library of Medicine for a PubMed search retrieval, or to the university where the scientist-author works.

But in the case of this RS topic, the author of the Motley Fool article mentioning an FDA rule on a food additive is given attribution, but the Motley Fool is not. Rather, the SPI which reposted the original article is now in the Breyers article and posited on the talk page as a "reliable source".

This topic may be useful as a WP:REDFLAG example for opinions in non-expert publications on product manufacturing issues where laws exist. Zefr (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through everything but there is no SPI article, it is simply the Motley Fool article at a different URL. You can see in the byline of the article [87]. This is the same as when MSN or Yahoo repost news articles from other sources, the reliability depends on the original source. So the only question is whether The Motley Fool article is a reliable source or not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and agree, although because SPI reprinted the MF article, other editors appear to claim the reputation of Seattle Post-Intelligencer (founded 1863) makes the SPI repost the RS source. Zefr (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If SPI had written a story citing MF then that would be different, but they just reposted the MF article so it's reliability depends on MF not SPI. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2014 MF piece on propylene glycol led me to question: how often have MF sources been used in Wikipedia articles outside the MF expertise of analyzing stocks?

As of today, there are 941 Wikipedia articles where a MF source is used. I browsed through them to see if an MF article or opinion essay - without specific financial analysis of a company or its stock performance (their expertise) - had been used on issues of government regulations for manufacturing foods, drugs, medical devices, etc.

The answer is that the propylene glycol source used in the Breyers article (incorrectly attributed to SPI) is the lone exception, i.e., an outlier, indicating that MF is not likely a RS for the content. Zefr (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could also be a case like WP:HUFFPOCON where each individual source should be evaluated individually. Wouldn't being chosen to be re-posted in SPI mean a thing or two? They'd rather not trash under their own domain. Zefr has complained about in the Breyer article about sources that are not WP:BMI, but I don't think that's really applicable in an ice cream article... And also, their addition of all the primary source .GOV sources seem to be POV pushing. We shouldn't be downplaying or drumming up the concerns by citing various primary sources no matter how reliable they are per NPOV. Graywalls (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely to me that this would be WP:DUE even if the article is a reliable source. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the edit that added it a few days ago is obviously a massive undue weight situation, with a strong WP:RGW vibe in the edit summary. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973

On Phoenix Program we read "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented." There was a talk page discussion over this and I feel one editor is WP:STONEWALLING and not being elaborate on why he seeks to keep this source. The citation is in wikivoice and attributed to Mark Woodruff in his book Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, 1961-1973. However, on page 64 of his book, he writes that "This American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix," so that wikivoice citation in the article of him is obviously inaccurate. Also, the title ("Unheralded Victory: The Defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army") alone of the indicates the source is biased as it tries to claim that the U.S. actually won the Vietnam War were it not for political opposition to the war (see: Vietnam stab-in-the-back myth).

According to Woodruff's publisher, he "enlisted in the Marine Corps in July 1967, serving in Vietnam with Foxtrot Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment from December 1967 to December 1968. After leaving the Marine Corps, he received his B.A. and M.A. in psychology from Pepperdine University in California. He is now a lieutenant commander in the Royal Australian Navy and a psychologist with the Vietnam Veterans Counseling Service in Perth, Australia." So he's a Vietnam veteran who later worked as a psychologist. It seems like his only notability on the topic is that he's a WP:PRIMARY source, being a Vietnam vet, and it doesn't appear that he has any credentials in writing about history.

Corroborating that Woodruff is an unreliable source, actual historians have been critical of Woodruff. For example, James H. Willbanks wrote that Woodruff's book "Seeks to provide a revisionist military history of the war and to demonstrate in his opinion that the war was won militarily before the United States unilaterally withdrew from the conflict. The author does not sufficiently address why the United States became involved in Southeast Asia in the first place." While, historian Christopher Levesque wrote in his doctoral dissertation that Woodruff made erroneous claims (p. 25) and "ignores the individual experiences of the majority of the soldiers who voluntarily spoke to reporters, participated in ad hoc war crimes hearings, or contacted their congressmen" (p. 26). In sum, I think it's quite obvious that Woodruff is clearly an unreliable source and should not be cited on Wikipedia, especially not in wikivoice but I would like to formalize this by establishing a consensus. Skornezy (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear this source shouldn't be cited. Remsense ‥ 论 06:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the bad faith accusations of me WP:STONEWALLING and the general non-neutral wording of this request. I'll address the salient issues. Woodruff is the author of 2 books about the Vietnam War, the fact that he doesn't have a degree in military history or claim to be a military historian is no more relevant than for any other author of a military book. Rather we need to look at the quality of the source itself and what reviews it has received. Willbanks says it "Seeks to provide a revisionist military history of the war and to demonstrate in his opinion that the war was won militarily before the United States unilaterally withdrew from the conflict." that is absolutely true and reflects a commonly heard view that the US won the war militarily but lost politically. The critique that "The author does not sufficiently address why the United States became involved in Southeast Asia in the first place" is fair but irrelevant, the focus Woodruff chose for the book is the military defeat of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army, not why the US became involved in Indochina, a huge topic addressed in numerous other books. Christopher J. Levesque has a Doctorate in History, but does not appear to be a published author and works as a university librarian, so is he a "historian"? Levesque's criticism of Woodruff's book centers around war crimes (the topic of Levesque's dissertation: NOT JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS: AVOIDING AND REPORTING ATROCITIES DURING THE VIETNAM WAR). Woodruff argues that US atrocities were not widespread in Vietnam, Levesque argues otherwise quoting sources like Nick Turse. This is a topic where a wide range of views exist. There were only a few proven massacres committed by the US, but plenty of accusations of other US massacres and war crimes. So Levesque's criticism of the book simply reflects that debate and is not sufficient to undermine the reliability of the entire book. FWIW the book has 4.5 stars from 52 reviews on Amazon. Perhaps historian @Ed Moise has a view? Mztourist (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why is the fact that a book exists a testament of its reliability? Remsense ‥ 论 08:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Again"? When have I ever made that assertion? Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense is right, both here and his inputs on the Phoenix Program talk page. Mztourist has not adequately explained why Woodruff should be considered a reliable source, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Just because Woodruff authored two books doesn't make him notable, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, especially for people without zero relevant credentials like Woodruff. That actual historians consider his book "revisionist military history" (WP:FRINGE) that makes erroneous claims and ignores testimony that conflicts with his arguments confirms that he's not a reliable source. Levesque is a PhD and an adjunct instructor of history at Pensacola State College and the University of Charleston, yes, he's a historian, has been published in reliable sources on topics related to the U.S. military, and is infinitely more qualified to write on this topic than Woodruff. The fact that you have to resort to Amazon reviews of all things to try to assert that Woodruff is reliable, when he clearly isn't, just proves that you're grasping for straws (for the record, there are books that promote the Flat Earth conspiracy theory with 4.8 stars on Amazon). This shouldn't even have to be explained to you, you've been editing this website for nearly 15 years. You should have the WP:COMPETENCE to know when sources are reliable and unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that someone is a reliable source for historical claims by virtue of having written a history book, so I cannot come to any other conclusion. Remsense ‥ 论 09:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of my argument is incorrect. Meanwhile you haven't provided any cogent argument to support your assertion that "It's clear this source shouldn't be cited." Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy 5 star Amazon reviews. You can also buy 1 star Amazon reviews to send to the competition. Polygnotus (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Amazon reviews are not reliable sources and should never be used to assess sources. Skornezy (talk) 09:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said "FWIW". You should have the WP:COMPETENCE to understand that. Mztourist (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skornezy addressing your comments above about Woodruff, I have never claimed that he is notable. You say that he has "zero relevant credentials". Have you ever heard of Mark Bowden? He doesn't have a degree in history, nor claim to be a historian. So does that make Black Hawk Down (book) and his book about the Battle of Huế not reliable? That is your (and Remsense's) argument. Levesque hasn't written any books, he has 9 publications to his credit (4 book reviews and 5 articles) of which 3 book reviews and 2 articles relate to military issues, so hardly a heavyweight military historian. Meanwhile Willbanks describing his book as "revisionist military history" is not the same as it being WP:FRINGE as you assert. Mztourist (talk) 09:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I have never claimed that he is notable."

All the reason to not cite him.

"Have you ever heard of Mark Bowden?"

Bowden is a journalist, Woodruff is a random soldier that engages in erroneous claims and revisionism.

"Levesque hasn't written any books, he has 9 publications to his credit (4 book reviews and 5 articles) of which 3 book reviews and 2 articles relate to military issues, so hardly a heavyweight military historian."

So? He is still infinitely more qualified for his views on Vietnam than Woodruff.

"Meanwhile Willbanks describing his book as "revisionist military history" is not the same as it being WP:FRINGE as you assert."

Being revisionist means being in opposition to the consensus historiography. Coupled with the fact that Woodruff has zero qualifications, has been criticized by people with actual credentials, yes, he's WP:FRINGE and unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 10:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not sure how the "FWIW" qualifier makes any difference since Amazon reviews are completely unreliable. Skornezy (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus Can I get your input on whether you think Woodruff is a reliable source? Skornezy (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I am not very bright. Polygnotus (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put one sentence in about Amazon reviews and look at how much of your "rebuttal" focussed on that. An author doesn't need to be personally notable for their book to be reliable! Yes you just keep making the same assertions that Woodruff is an unqualified nobody. Revisionist is not the same as Fringe, you need to learn the difference. Meanwhile the foreword was written by General James L. Jones. Dale Dye wrote "Mark Woodruff's book is an inspired - and long overdue - re-examination..." Joseph L. Galloway wrote "Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory is a refreshing look at America's experience in Vietnam." Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three other figures with no relevant credentials as historians! Galloway comes the closest as a professional journalist, but it's pretty clear to me that Woodruff's work is not taken seriously by professional historians. Remsense ‥ 论 10:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woodruff is not a notable author on Vietnam as he has zero qualifications; we don't just include the writings of random non-experts because WP:DUE. You're ignoring that and WP:STONEWALLING as you always do.

"Revisionist is not the same as Fringe, you need to learn the difference."

It has been explained to you many times why he is: the theories he promotes; his selective use of testimony; and the erroneous claims he makes.

"Meanwhile the foreword was written by General James L. Jones. Dale Dye wrote "Mark Woodruff's book is an inspired - and long overdue - re-examination..." Joseph L. Galloway wrote "Mark Woodruff's Unheralded Victory is a refreshing look at America's experience in Vietnam."

As Remsense has pointed out, none of those people have relevant credentials as historians. Jones is a U.S. military general who most recently served as President Obama's National Security Advisor; Dye is a military officer who advises Hollywood; and Galloway was a war correspondent during the Vietnam War. Skornezy (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What it's worth is nothing at all. Remsense ‥ 论 10:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So a 4 star Marine general, a Vietnam veteran and widely known expert on military matters (Dye) and the author of We Were Soldiers Once… and Young are each worthless compared to the views of the author of 3 book reviews and 2 articles related to military issues? Right. Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, yes. I'm glad we're starting to understand each other. Remsense ‥ 论 10:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously no. Meanwhile Skornezy I suggest you actually read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because it doesn't say what you clearly think it says. Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. The actual policy is WP:DUE. I corrected my mistake. Skornezy (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you were so certain of it...Mztourist (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I can say you're being certain about of a lot of incorrect things. Your quibbling is silly. Skornezy (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also its not appropriate to correct your comment after someone has responded to it, you should have struck out ~~WP:INDISCRIMINATE~~ and replaced it with WP:DUE. But it obviously wasn't a simple mistake, you clearly thought that it said something different. Adopting DUE it is appropriate to keep Woodruff.Mztourist (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But it obviously wasn't a simple mistake, you clearly thought that it said something different."

You're not a mind reader.

You said it repeatedly, may I remind you of WP:COMPETENCE which you love throwing at me. Mztourist (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I incorrectly cited it one time when I meant to cite WP:DUE. My other citation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE is completely correct; we shouldn't include Woodruff just because he has written 2 books on the topic.

Why are you quibbling? Skornezy (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Adopting DUE it is appropriate to keep Woodruff."

No, it isn't. Not for the historical assertions he makes. Skornezy (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is it just has to say "according to Mark Woodruff" Mztourist (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we say "according to" even for established academics when it comes to certain analyses, which Mark Woodruff is certainly not. Woodruff is unreliable for facts on Vietnam, attributed or not. We can use him for his attributed opinions, not for the facts he states. Skornezy (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because he's not a reliable source for claims of historical fact. An attributed statement of fact is not magically laundered into mere opinion. The standard for subject experts we would attribute specific claims to is greater, not less, because we have to be really sure we care about what they think to be the case. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As detailed below, it can be used for attributed opinion, so a statement that "according to Mark Woodruff" or "Mark Woodruff opines that..." Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woodruff's book is reliable for Woodruff's opinions, not Woodruff's historical assertions. The citation of Woodruff on Phoenix Program to state "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented" is not reliable, even if we add attribution because this is Woodruff making a historical assertion, not merely stating his opinion. Skornezy (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you've ploughed ahead with the same fallacy I just outlined. Here are three examples.

Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This is a statement of fact. It is either true, or it is not.
Mark Woodruff opines that Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This, however, is nonsense. That's not his opinion, or any higher analysis on Woodruff's part.
According to Mark Woodruff, Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented. This is once more unambiguously a statement of fact, we're just attributing it to a particular source. They would need to be a particularly reliable source for this to make sense to do in context.

How is it reasonable to conclude someone isn't a reliable source for historical claims, but think citing their "opinion" that does nothing but draw factual conclusions about history is solving the problem? Remsense ‥ 论 15:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense Skornezy originally posted at 06:35 and you said at 06:39 that "It's clear this source shouldn't be cited". What research did you undertake in those 4 minutes that informed that view? Mztourist (talk) 12:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted the Delphi oracle. Quit flailing, it's unbecoming. Remsense ‥ 论 12:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flailing? You clearly just read the original post and agreed with it, nothing else. Mztourist (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was I supposed to agree with you instead? They wrote it rather clearly so it was easy to parse, verify, and sign off on, imagine that. Remsense ‥ 论 13:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine doing some independent research. How can you claim to have verified it inside 4 minutes? Mztourist (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to drop my previous snark and try to state plainly that there was no need to, as the the facts presented were sufficient for me to make up my mind. As you haven't disputed their veracity and have only made counterarguments I find categorically uncompelling, it seems my judgment was alright. Remsense ‥ 论 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made up your mind in 4 minutes with no research; you were never going to be open to counterarguments. Other users here haven't adopted the same absolutist position that as Woodruff isn't a historian the book has no merit. Mztourist (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else that has stated an opinion has concurred that you clearly can't use this book to cite statements of fact. Remsense ‥ 论 15:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cite this book for facts. Mottezen (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maybe chill out a bit and wait for outsiders (not me) to form an opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. This back and forth is going nowhere. Skornezy (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts in no particular order, as unpicking the thread is a chore.
The views of historians in matters of history are more useful than those of military veterans. This is in part because the views of military veterans will be primary sources and historians are trained in interpreting such sources (secondary sources are preferred).
A work having been criticised by experts does count against it's reliability. Amazon reviews do not add to a sources reliability in anyway. That Woodruff has been previously published in the area does add to the work reliability, but it's one factor among many.
That something is a commonly held view is only important if it's a commonly held view by experts in the specific area (historians in this case). That an opposing view is held by others might be worth discussion in the appropriate article (Vietnam War#War crimes for instance), if it is attested in other reliable sources, but it might not be due inclusion in every article. Minority views should be included, but only if they do not give undue weight (but that's NPOV not reliability).
The work is reliable for the attributed opinion of Woodruff but I don't believe it should be used to state contentious facts in wikivoice, especially if those facts are in opposition to other scholarly works. Inclusion of Woodruff's opinion are a matter of NPOV and should be discussed on the articles talk page. Just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be included, rather verifiability is required of included content. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. So from my understanding, Woodruff's book is unreliable for contentious historical assertions, but it is reliable to document what his opinions are. Is that correct? That makes sense to me and it's sort of what I've been trying to articulate on the talk page, but the talk page hasn't gone anywhere which is why I've taken it here. I can't edit that page for now, but it seems to me that the wikivoice citation of Woodruff should 100% be removed. Skornezy (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @ActivelyDisinterested Skornezy (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input ActivelyDisinterested. I have now consulted my copy of the book, it has 291 pages of body text, 29 pages of endnotes and an 8 page bibliography. Mztourist (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what has that got to do with anything? It could have a zillion pages, 400 pages of endnotes, 40 bibliography pages, and it wouldn't change anything. Numbers in no way effect the reliability of a source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skornezy That would be my take on it, whether his opinion should be included is a NPOV matter, see WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:BALASP, etc. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A key question on the suitability of a revisionist work is whether its arguments are accepted by subsequent works. My initial impression is that the scholarly community hasn't taken much notice of it. The Journal of Military History didn't review it; it did list it (with dozens of other works) in its "Books received" section in its April 2000 issue. The editor included this note: "Attempts to debunk myths created by propaganda about American involvement in Vietnam by analyzing American military successes."^[1] The book is 25 years old now. If the scholarly consensus hasn't moved toward it since then, it's probably not usable for anything other than attributed opinion. Mackensen (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Can you please advise exactly how "Osborne served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented." should be rewritten as an attributed opinion of Woodruff's as Skornezy and Remsense are unlikely to agree anything that I write. Mztourist (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, because that's not an opinion and cannot be laundered into one. It is still an unambiguous statement of fact. It is not my opinion that the Louvre is a museum in Paris. Remsense ‥ 论 15:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense That wikivoice citation of Woodruff isn't even accurate because on page 64 of his book Woodruff writes that "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, "Phoenix," which is completely in line with Osborn's Vietnam military service. According to historian Alfred W. McCoy, in page 98 of his book Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation: To discredit such damaging testimony, the U.S. Army Intelligence Command conducted a thorough investigation of Osborn’s charges. The results were released in a declassified summary by William Colby during his 1973 confirmation hearings for the post of CIA director. Although the Army’s classified report nitpicked many of his secondary details, it did not challenge Osborn’s overall sense of Phoenix’s systematic brutality—an assessment confirmed by both eye-witness accounts and official studies.

Similarly, historian Jeremy Kuzmarov wrote on page 257 in a book called Decolonization and Conflict: Colonial Comparisons and Legacies edited by fellow academics Gareth Curless and Martin Thomas: during testimony to the U.S. Congress, "CIA director William Colby conceded that much of what Osborn said was likely to be true," despite "attempts by conservatives to discredit Osborn’s character." McCoy also quotes Colby (who headed Phoenix) as saying "various of the things that Mr. Osborn alleges might have happened". (p. 99)

Both of these PhD historians directly conflict with Woodruff; if Woodruff really said that "Osborne [sic] served with the United States Marine Corps in I Corps in 1967–1968 before the Phoenix Program was implemented," then how was this missed by these PhD historians, by CIA director Colby, and by the U.S. Army investigation that was seeking to discredit Osborn? This is just further confirmation that Woodruff is an unreliable source for historical assertions! Skornezy (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Turner, Blair P. (2000). "Books Received". The Journal of Military History. 64 (2): 615–622. JSTOR 120327.

Remsense and Skornezy you have already made your views on Woodruff abundantly clear. The question was for Mackensen, not you. Mztourist (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this is a statement of opinion? Woodruff doesn't say it's his opinion, he states it as fact! You would be putting words in his mouth, you realize. I don't think you should jump to any other topic requiring the time of others to reply before you answer this question directly and explain what you think the distinction could actually be.Remsense ‥ 论 07:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I really want to touch on the reliability of the book, but reading the paragraph as it stands currently, I have to question why a statement about that would belong on an article that, as far as I can tell, is not about Osborn. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because Osborn makes some shocking and graphic claims about war crimes that are included on Phoenix Program, but his credibility has been questioned. regards Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I don't think very loudly implying that someone's credibility is questionable is something we should be engaging in on what is nominally supposed to be an encyclopedia article instead of, I don't know, maybe the talk page or something. If it's explicitly stated in a reliable source, then maybe there's a case to include it in the article, but implying it seems like an attempt to get around the policy on original research, whether or not that's actually the case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woodruff basically says that Osborn lied about abuses he says he witnessed as part of the Phoenix Program when he testified to Congress, pretty much accusing him of perjury. I think the section is undue because there were others who testified to these abuses as well, not just Osborn. Skornezy (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really sounds like we should just be citing secondary sources that do the picking of the primary sources for us then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's really what this RSN is about. Is Woodruff a reliable source for when Osborn served in Vietnam and so what Osborn claimed to have seen. We have other RS that question Osborn's credibility. Mztourist (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN is on whether Woodruff, a non-expert, arguably WP:PRIMARY source who has been criticized for revisionism, making erroneous claims, and ignoring conflicting testimony is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards or not. Skornezy (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we have a reliable source for time of service is not something I would consider relevant unless a source also explicitly uses that to make some secondary claim related to, specifically, the Phoenix Program, and said other source is reliable for that secondary claim. What would be even better, and what I would probably encourage if acceptable to people who actually want to edit the article, is to refocus on secondary sources that provide a synthesis of multiple primary sources rather than focusing on quotes from one or two specific people. Which are the best sources out of those secondary sources?

If that question cannot be determined, I feel that would be a better use of this board's time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfamiliar with the topic area, so let me ask a brief ground-clearing question. As I read the article, K. Barton Osborne claims to have witnessed torture under the auspices of the Phoenix Program. Is the purpose of the citation to Woodruff to undercut Osborne by placing his service in South Vietnam prior to the implementation of the Phoenix Program? Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much; he's basically accusing Osborn of lying. But elsewhere Woodruff says "American contribution to the Phung Hoang Program was officially born on December 20, 1967, under the operation name, 'Phoenix'" which is perfectly in line with Osborn's military service so I'm not even sure if Woodruff is even being cited correctly in the section. Skornezy (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen that is correct and Woodruff is not the only source that questions Orborne's credibility. Mztourist (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use images of a building to describe the form of architecture?

User:Saccharinesilk says that[[88] and [89] can be used as sources.

WP:OR is policy. Polygnotus (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Marble House is Beaux-Arts architecture according to a reliable source: nps.gov. Polygnotus (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Winchester Mystery House is Late-Victorian according to a reliable source: nps.gov. Polygnotus (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images can only be used to verify obvious facts that can be seen in the picture. I don't believe that would extent to architecture form, which is a matter of opinion (there can disagreement of the exact form used). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my claim about marble house was that the front portico is not a porte cochere, which IS an obvious fact that can be seen in the linked picture. a porte cochere by definition must extend over the drive, and one can see in that image that it does not. Saccharinesilk (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim about Marble House was about the comparison of the portico to that of the White House, neither the article nor your edit summary said anything about a porte-cochere. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i'll be honest, i dont remember that being the case, and the source for the comparison to the white house DOES falsely claim that marble house's portico is a porte cochere, so unless someone changed the edit history, i'm at a loss for what's happened here, perhaps my memory is faulty given it has been months since i made that edit. while i dont think marble house's portico is reminiscent of the white house's, i agree that's a matter of opinion, and if anything i would suggest it shouldn't be part of the article for that reason Saccharinesilk (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahada News Agency

I recently created the Wikipedia article for the Shahada News Agency and while I was looking to unorphan the article I saw that the news website was used as a reference (https://shahadanews.com/?p=5863) in the article Murder of Giulio Regeni, and I was going to delete but I wanted to reach consensus of the reliability of Shahada News Agency. The main factor that I believe this news agency is unreliable is due to the fact of its association with the Somali militant terrorist organization Al-Shabaab. The article itself seems biased against the supposed involvement by Egyptian authorities, blaming them. RowanJ LP (talk) 11:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly unreliable. Deleted. Polygnotus (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the person that cited it probably didn't know the background of the agency. RowanJ LP (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikizilla

[90]. Currently used in ~10 articles. It's Wiki, so UGC, no editorial board, no oversight particularly, and fan-based. It makes no guarantees of accuracy and states that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

Suggest removal on sight, except in the rare moments where it references itself (in none of which its current uses is the cases). SerialNumber54129 13:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep standard user generated content. We could use an edit filter for such sites, so editors are warned. Similar to deprecated sources but with an appropriate message for UGC sites. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Although the site is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0, it is a standard Wiki website and should be treated as such. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SurnameDB

Is Surnamedb.com a reliable website for the origins of surnames? It is used in several articles on Wikipedia. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:D010:EC5C:4731:FF29 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are a family run web site, that has built up a database of surname origins over the last 20 years. The research was started by the founder of "Name Origin Research" Michael Brook and the requests for surname researches came in via mail order and off the page advertising. The business grew to a team of 5 researchers based in the Republic of Ireland, and ran for many years before the mail order market became much tougher and business became unprofitable.

Why would it be? Remsense ‥ 论 14:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have thought so. It has some very limited use by others, but nothing I can find in high quality sources. It currently has 750 odd uses[91] in main space, and even a template {{Cite surname db}} (that thankfully seems rarely used).

If we decide to deprecate the website, then the template must be sent to AfD. --Altenmann >talk 21:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a notification at WikiProject Anthroponymy[92]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this website is that for articles there are no names of authors nor sources of information. Quite recently it popped up in search when I was writing some surname article, but after looking there I refrained from using it. There is a similar website, "forebears.io", which I and some other people are actively removing from Wikipedia (see eg Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257), but it is still all over the place. --Altenmann >talk 21:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSN discussions have no effect on a sources usage. That requires that editors go and replace it remove the source themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no explanation about the existence of the template, but the presence of template isn't a doorway to use poor quality sources. See Wikipedia:RSPFINDAGRAVE and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Template:Find_a_Grave as well. Find a Grave is a poor quality source that should rarely be used. Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGI Global

IGI Global is known for "write-only publishing" and has been described as an academic vanity press. In a relatively short time, well over 100 citations to IGI publications have been added, many of them to https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/ - this appears to be, primarily, a vehicle to advertise IGI books. It looks like a bad idea to make such widespread use of a thoroughly dodgy publisher. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGI Global was recently discussed on RSN here. - Amigao (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who brought it up last time, people keep using it. Unsure of solutions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently came across IGI Global publications in academic work for my field and was generally unimpressed by its quality. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that matter was settled the last time it was brought up, this is more a "how do we stop people from using it" question now. It is used on many pages and people keep adding it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's being used for spam probably spam blacklist? Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there is an option to BLACKLIST the website. --Altenmann >talk 21:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031 @Altenmann People aren't citing the website nearly as much as they're citing books they've published. We can't blacklist that, to my knowledge, unless they link it, which they usually don't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be possible to do some sort of edit filter for books if people are including the ISBN, but my suggestion to blacklist mostly arises from Guy's mention that links to the dictionary are somewhat, well, spammy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care either way. I don't think that is possible with ISBNs, as they don't work like DOIs in that the prefix has no association with the publisher. I could be wrong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the International ISBN Agency, IGI Global has been assigned the following ISBN prefixes:

978-1-4666, 978-1-5225, 978-1-59140, 978-1-59904, 978-1-60566, 978-1-60960, 978-1-61350, 978-1-61520, 978-1-61692, 978-1-6684, 978-1-68318, 978-1-7998, 978-1-878289, 978-1-930708, 978-1-931777, 979-8-3693. Alpha3031 (t • c) 23:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I was wrong. I've never seen us blacklist a source by ISBN, though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pollstar

Would Pollstar be considered a reliable source for tour boxscores? I searched recent tours like The Chromatica Ball and Renaissance World Tour and they are using it, but since those are not GAs I thought I would ask here to make sure. Apologies if the answer is really obvious.--N Ø 19:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trade magazines are not always the most independent of sources but I don't see why it shouldn't be reliable for those details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc Can three chinese agency: TDM (Macau), The Paper (newspaper) and Xinhua News Agency as RS in this case?

I have citted one news from three chinese agency but some other editors insist to remove these reource with the reason "Not RS because of not independence / state media". I have pulished one Rfc on the talk page. Thank you in advance. MINQI (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Sources for 15.ai

I removed these sources[93][94][95][96] from the article 15.ai that were being used to support statements about 15.ai because they are blog content that seemed like an advertisements. I remain unsure of their suitability as sources because they are essentially advertisements for products which could be considered competitors of 15.ai (though 15.ai is now defunct). The sources have been reinserted since they are relevant figures in the Speech AI scene and have been argued counts as WP:EXPERTSPS. I was hoping to get broader opinion on its suitability considering they are advertorial in nature. The sources are currently being used to verify a wide variety of claims about 15.ai throughout the article. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't see any prior publications for Weitzman (the second link here), and they're the only easily identifiable author as far as I can tell. I also struggle to think of any situation that we'd consider spammy blogs a good source even if there were no dispute to factual accuracy, not having a source is almost preferable. An initial review indicates that most of the statements they're used for are already WP:CITEKILLed, so I really see no reason why they might be considered appropriate to add. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The play.ht one is especially bad. It is simply an ad for their services. Polygnotus (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are okay as long the information sourced from it are non-advertorial. All of the links above discuss 15.ai before going onto advertise other services (to mention, Elevlabs, Speechify and Resemble are notable enough to warrant their own articles) so as long as the advertisement parts are ignored, it’s citable.

It’s not any different from a New York Times article having an ad for a New York Times subscription in it. 172.56.77.163 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference, is that the New York Times is not self-published and their publication process has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy among other reliable sources. Even then, we still wouldn't consider the contents of an ad for the NYT published on the NYT or elsewhere reliable for anything other than what the NYT wants to say about itself. Ads receive far less editorial oversight (i.e., essentially none) than even op-eds and editorials, which we already don't consider reliable even if they're published in a much better source. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but these sources are not advertising 15.ai, which makes it valid. In fact, they talk about 15.ai from a neutral stance and its impact on the voice space before transitioning into an advertisement for their own service. For that reason I believe the New York Times analogy is apt. 172.56.73.59 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ads on the NYT are reliable for limited content in line with ABOUTSELF for the NYT, they are not reliable for statements about third parties. Alpha3031 (t • c) 21:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, an advertisement is not a reliable source for claims about the advertiser's competition. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the compass

See [97] - not only is the source unreliable, when it was used by a blocked editor (the IP may be evading the block) they wrote: ""Where is the passage through this sea? We must be shown the right path. He said to him, With iron from the water" - is that a compass? I don't think it is. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A poor secondary source that doesn't mention the quote, and a primary source for a quote that unclear about it's subject. I've reverted the edit, it requires better sources. Events that happened 3000 year ago should be covered by academic sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Turner, Blair P. (2000). "Books Received". The Journal of Military History. 64 (2): 615–622. JSTOR 120327.

[1]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards